Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 125

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

Archive 120

←

Archive 123

→

DBU links

The Danish Football Federation has a very good website on international players (both youth and senior), but they have unhelpfully recently changed link style from eg https://www.dbu.dk/landshold/Landsholdsdatabasen/LBasePlayerInfo.aspx?playerId=7831 to https://www.dbu.dk/landshold/landsholdsdatabasen/PlayerInfo/7831. I can run a simple AWB changing 'dbu.dk/landshold/Landsholdsdatabasen/LBasePlayerInfo.aspx?playerId=' to 'dbu.dk/landshold/landsholdsdatabasen/PlayerInfo/' (given the number hasn't changed) to fix the broken links, but does anybody have any idea how I find the links in the first place? Or do I just go through every article in Category:Danish footballers? Giant Snowman 09:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This search gets 169 articles. Jts1882 | talk 09:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I got 891 results from this search. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If memory serves, AWB will generate a list for you from the category or a search or any of a dozen different ways. Haven't looked at it in years but pretty sure you can just run it through the entire category and it will just do nothing if the string doesn't exist. ClubOranje^T 09:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Though more articles than just the members of Category:Danish footballers use this URL scheme, here's the list. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I was going to ask if there is a way to save these results to use in AWB, but I see that the insource search works there too (using Wiki source (text)) . Thanks, I will probably use this sometime to remove WP:LINKSPAM. It seems the 2 of you differ in the leading "/" taking it out (or escaping with "\") finds 893 in the first search. Spike 'em (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I used regex which is case sensitive whereas the url isn't. Your "escaping" the initial removed the regex delimiter. The standard search ignores punctuation characters. I tend to use regex as the standard search often includes extra stuff, but that was a bad idea in this case. Jts1882 | talk 10:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

ClubOranje - yep that's exactly what I intend to do.

S.A. Julio - thanks, I'll figure out a way to import that into AWB... Giant Snowman 10:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Here's the list in plaintext. S.A. Julio (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Done - thanks to everyone for their input & assistance. Giant Snowman 18:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible creation of #wpfootball on Discord

So I was thinking if their was any support for people who might be on Discord to have an #wpfootball channel created on the server. HawkAussie (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally I don't even know what Discord is. Is it something the young people use? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

So, Discord is pretty much like a 2010s forum messaging board. I don't really use mine, but might take a look if it existed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

For social it may be good to create a Discord server. However, any discussion regarding the editing of wikipedia should be documented here (user talk, article talk page, wikipedia talk page, or other relevant namespace), unless sensitive information, such as revdel request would go to IRC. Matthew hk (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Just in case anyone wants to know, the server is here if you haven't joined already. HawkAussie (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I already had an account, but never really used it. Could be good for relations though. Might be worth creating a channel on there to see how it gets on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo

One user has nominated the article to try and promote this to be a good article. Two of the concerns of that is that the article is too long to read comfortably and the article has been repeatedly on the list of exceeded template include size which as a result does not display the templates at the bottom. The talk page shows how large each section is in bytes.

A large article does not always mean it is of good quality, particularly the latter concern above. One suggestion is to have this article peer reviewed before a good article reviewer starts working on it otherwise as it looks right now with ref scanning and reading the whole article, it may take a lot of time to finalise the process. It could end up as a speedy fail as what happened in previous nominations. Iggy (Swan) 18:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The nomination has already been taken down by another user. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed that, thanks. Iggy (Swan) 18:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

X at world cup cats

Hi,

Recently seen a lot of categories pop up similar to Category:Hungary at the FIFA World Cup are these suitable categories? Should we really be linking the main world cup articles to all of these categories, simply because a team played in the world cup? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is needed. Giant Snowman 08:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I am the same here as I personally don't think these are really required. In terms of filling it, I would suggest maybe having it be Category:FIFA World Cup knockout stage. HawkAussie (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Yugoslavia squad UEFA Euro 1992

Is Template:Yugoslavia squad UEFA Euro 1992 really necessary? The Yugoslav team was banned prior to the final tournament and replaced by Denmark, this seems misleading to have a squad template. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, TFD it. Giant Snowman 18:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, as the squad was selected for the tournament, only disqualified ten days before it started, and the template notes that - it's not as if it was theoretical. No qualms with taking it to TFD though, would appreciate a ping if you do. SportingFlyer T·C 03:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it absolutely necessary? No. Is there a valid reason for retaining it? Yes. The squad was picked and that is verifiable. For the players picked, being picked and then prevented from taking part in the tournament would have been a significant event in their careers, so worthy of mention, and it seems appropriate to list with other squads for international tournaments they were picked for. Is it any less notable than all the third goalkeepers who never play either? Jts1882 | talk 07:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is necessary. Another instance of deleting pages regarding our football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.225.128 (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest to remove the template, but instead add the whole squad to UEFA Euro 1992 squads with the adequate notes regarding team suspension. It would follow the logic of whenever a player withdraws from the squad a few days before the start of the tournament due to injury, he is removed from the template but we still mention him in the squads page. --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Bhutan national football team

Hi, an IP is adding the national flag to the article at Bhutan national football team. I'm not sure on the copyright status of these but I have seen them on lots of other articles.

Currently, there a few bots that are reverting this change, and it's been going on for a couple days. Anyone know what the status of this image should be. We are in a weird Mexican stand off between IP and bot. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean edits like this adding the FA/national team crest? Yes they should be included but not if the image is copyvio/not properly attributed. Giant Snowman 14:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly right. I did look at the image, and I couldn't see exactly what was wrong with it. Is it simply because it's being used on two pages, rather than one? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The image just needed a rationale for its use on the national team page. I just added it, so there shouldn't be any more problems with the bot. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it was something small. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok the rationale was removed as this case has already been discussed here. This would also potentially affect all other national teams. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Use of crests in national teams’ articles has been discussed more recently.T v x1 18:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Yes it has been discussed, but a consensus what never reached that changed the way the policy us currently being applied; moreover, that discussion wasn't really about any one particular file and one particular use, but rather a more general discussion as to how one part of WP:NFCC is being applied or interpreted. That also wasn't the only previous discussion about UUI#17; there are more to be found in the WT:NFCC archives as well. None of them, however, seem to have led to a consensus being reached. Now, as I posted on your user talk, if you (or anyone) wants to pick up the baton and restart the discussion, then feel free to do so. At the same time, if you're only interested in having further discussion about the close of the WP:NFCR discussion related to the use of this particualar non-free file, then follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and do so as well. Just for reference, there have been quite a number of NFCR and WP:FFD discussions related to this non-free use over the years and all that I can remember seeing have been closed in the same way; different administrators working with files and non-free content issues have been fairly consistent in applying the NFCC the same way to this type of non-free use to not only sports team logos, but also other types of logos and branding. It might be a time for a re-consideration of this, but the consensus established over the years through discussions about this type of non-free use has been that it doesn't comply with relevant policy. It's probably going to take a fairly well participated WP:RFC to develop a consensus which can be generally applied in principle to this type of non-free use or change how relevant policy has been applied up to now, but even then some might not agree. Regardless, it's not something which can be decided on the talk page of one particular WikiProject since it deals with how a community-wide policy is applied. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

There was a broad agreement that national football teams are not child entities as defined in WP:NFC#UUI#17.T v x1 08:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

There was movement in that direction, but no formal consensus was established to overturn previous discussions about this kind of non-free use at NFCR and FFD. So, once again if you want to re-start the general discussion, then go ahead. If you want the NFCR close related to this file’s non-free use reconsidered, then follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

There was more than enough support. There was really little opposition remaining against using these crest for premier national teams. I can't see why Bhutan needs to be singled out as an article where it isn't allowed while all the others allow it per the discussion I linked too. Even you agreed with using them for premier national teams. You appear to object now solely because that discussion was not formally closed by an administrator. That isn't a necessity for a discussion to have a usable consensus. Wikipedia operates on rough consensus, not perfect consensus. Given that you actually agreed with using these crests in these cases, your continuous edit-warring amounts to WP:POINT.T v x1 09:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Bhutan is not being singled out. There have been quite a number of files removed over the years for similar reasons from similar articles by different administrators applying the NFCCP in a similar way, not just from articles related to sports teams but from articles about TV stations, radio stations, companies, and other organizations, etc. Administrators working with non-free files have been pretty consistent in applying the NFCCP this way, so it's going to take something more than an archived discussion (not even an RFC) that was never formally closed to start rolling all of those back. Also, I disagree with your reading of that WT:NFCC discussion as being a clear close in favor of allowing this type of non-free use; there was movement in that direction, but there were still things not sorted out and no real final agreement had yet been reached. Regardless, this particular file was removed by an administrator who closed the NFCR discussion about its non-free use; if you feel things have changed since then, follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and explain your position to the closing admin. At the same time, if you feel that the WT:NFCC discussion should be reopened or that an RFC is needed, then go ahead and do so at WT:NFCC. There's nothing pointy about removing a file which had been removed by an administrator as a result of an NFCR/FFD discussion as a violation of the NFCC; it's even considered an exception to 3RR. So, until that particular discussion about the non-free use of that particular file in that particular article (not a general broader discussion about a particular type of non-free content use) is revised or cancelled out by a WP:DRV, etc., the consensus established by that NFCR discussion stands and the file shouldn't be used in the article until such a time that new consensus for the non-free use of that particular non-free file is established. However, you should discuss things with the closing admin first as a courtesy if that's what you intend to try and do.

The Bhutan team article was protected by an administrator (who, by the way, was also a participant in the WT:NFCC discussion you're citing in support of re-adding the image). That administrator has been one of the main contributors to the Bhutan team article over the years; if the WT:NFCC discussion clearly established a new consensus in favor of the file's use in the article as you're claiming, he (or the other admin participating in the same discussion) would've re-added not only this file, but also others which had been removed for the same reason quite some time ago. Instead, he removed the file before protecting the article and left an edit summary which said take it to the NFCC forum or article talk; you, however, didn't really heed that advice, but instead went and restored a non-free use rationale to the file's page for a particular use which was deemed to be a NFCC policy violation by another administrator. In addition, you don't appear to have edited the Bhutan article at all until the other day when you re-added the file, which is almost three years after the WT:NFCC discussion you're referencing was archived. So, it's not clear why you're suddenly worried about Bhutan being singled out or finally trying to apply this "consensus" you claim was established. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic comments

Please do not engage in personal attacks here

Marchjuly's behaviour regarding this issue points to a monomania, and (as can be seen from the wall of text above) he is something of a 'time burglar'. While you are very obviously correct, Tvx1, please be aware that dozens – if not hundreds – of us have been down this path, only to drop the stick rather than make it our life's work. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bring back Daz Sampson: This is the second time, you've made a personal accusation against me here on this talk page; the other being here about a month ago, where you also made a personal attack against another editor named Number 57. You were asked by me back then to provide diffs in support here and by Number 57 to strike the attack here, but ended up doing neither. Explicit, the administrator who removed the file which was the subject of that previous discussion, even commented here in support of what I posted in that thread, which you apparently didn't notice or felt OK to ignore when making your accusations.

You were indefinitely were blocked for things you did, not for things myself or any other editors did. You were unblocked because the community felt you deserved a second chance and because posted that you intended to be on your best behavior. Is casting aspersions and making unsupported personal attacks really one's "best behavior"? If you've got a problem with my behavior, please bring it up for discussion at WP:ANI; if, as you claim, that dozens -if not hundreds - of us have been down the path, only to drop the stick rather than make it our life's work, then there should be no problem gathering diffs and even less of a problem making your case that some kind of sanction be enacted. Otherwise, stop making the attacks and strike out the one above. At the same time, if you've got a problem with files which may have been removed per some FFD discussion, then discuss things with whichever administrator closed the discussion; if the close or interpretation of consensus is/was so clearly flawed, then you should have no problem getting the administrator or some other administrator to reconsider it. I think STICK (particularly points 2 and 3) seems to actually be more applicable to what you're trying to do in these two discussions than anything I've posted; so, I'm asking you once again to move forward and not try and re-hash old disputes which weren't resolved the way you hoped they would be; otherwise, I will start a discussion at ANI and ask the community to consider your behavior. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is, you're just making your personal analysis of what the the discussion yielded (or rather didn't) and enforcing that as the only possible factual situation. The facts are though that there were plenty of people who where in support of allowing NFC crest for premier nation football teams (including even you). Your sole objection now on following this discussion now appears that wasn't finalized through perfect procedure. However the latter is not a mandatory requirement. Read WP:NOTBURO. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Regardless, I have posted a request to formally close the contended discussion. Let's see what that produces, but I'm still curious as to what the other WP:FOOTY members think of that discussion.T v x1 10:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The logo is under copyright. The fair use policy allows its use on the page of the Bhutan Football Federation but not on pages of child entities of that organisation. This means that it can't be used for the Bhutan national football team page as discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_55#File:Bhutan_FA.png. It's unfortunate, but until WP:NFC#UUI §17 is overturned that is Wikipedia policy. This applies to all national teams where we would like to display a copyrighted logo. Jts1882 | talk 10:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: First, I appreciate you collapsing the above posts. Thank you for doing that.

Next, you seem to be making this out to me trying to apply my own personal interpretation to things, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. If the close was a clear as you say it was, then an administrator (who actually was a participant in both the WT:NFCC discussion and the NFCR discussion which originally led to the file's removal) would probably not have done this, and another administrator (who is quite experienced in non-free content use and closes quite a number of FFD discussions) most likely wouldn't have done this. I'm assuming these two administrators checked each page's history before reverting and saw the edit summaries you left, and yet both still decided to revert you. The first administrator who reverted you is one of the article's main contributors to the Bhutan article and he probably would've re-added the file soon after the WT:NFCC discussion was archived or re-added it after one of the times it was removed if he thought the NFCR close had been overturned. So, if the discussion was closed as you're claiming, it would've certainly not taken almost three years to implement; moreover, it would've probably led to re-adding all non-free files removed for UUI#17 reasons, not just one file used in one particular article. I myself would've most likely re-added many of the removed files myself if I truly believed a new formal consensus had been established: a consensus that specifically stated that it applied to and over turned all prior NFCR/FFD discussions related to this type of non-free content use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Jts1882, it's simply not that black and white. The whole discussion I linked too deals with what WP:NFC#UUI §17. I does not need to be overturned for the files to be allowable for national football teams' articles. That was the whole point of that discussion. The vast majority of the participants agreed that premier national football team's are not child entities as dealt with by WP:NFC#UUI §17. The only reason why that agreement cannot be put in to practice is one use who objects on the grounds that the mentioned discussion wasn't properly finished and assessed (despite actually agreeing with the majority stance). I have now finally initiated that process and I think we should respect that and see what the outcome is. As for the administrators mentioned by that user, as far as I can see they are simply not aware of the mentioned discussion, while one them actually merely reverted to the pre edit-war version per the guidelines. They most importantly did not make a judgement on the content as administrators simply do not do that.T v x1 13:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Claiming that the admins who reverted your edits were not aware of the discussion seems a bit of a stretch and sort of implies that they just reverted without giving things much thought. One of the admins was Fenix down and he was one of the participants in the discussion you keep referencing and also one of the participants in the NFCR which led originally led to the file's removal; it's not unreasonable to assume that he saw the links you included in your edit summaries when you re-added the file to the article's infobox. The other admin was JJMC89 and he left an edit summary which clearly stated that the file shouldn't be re-added to the article until the NFCR discussion has been overturned; it's also not unreasonable to assume that he too saw the links you added to your edit summaries when you re-added the non-free use rationale for the team article to the file's page. FWIW, I notified all of the participants of the WT:NFCC discussion with a {{Please see}} to this page a few days ago. I also notified the admin who closed the NFCR discussion which led to this files removal as well as the editors participating in that NFCR, and also placed notifications at WP:MCQ and WT:NFCC. You seem to be implying that I'm not interested in further discussion and only getting my way, but I have repeatedly said that I have no problem with further discussion; I just don't agree with your interpretation of an almost three-year old archived discussion that nobody tried to apply as a new consensus until you decided to do so quite recently. I think the way forward here is quite simple; the discussion is re-opened at WT:NFCC perhaps as a formal RFC and then people build on what was previously discussed (most of which I did agree with) and try and figure out how tweak or revise the way the NFCCP is applied to this particular type non-free content use; the scope of the discussion probably shouldn't just be limited to national soccer teams, but that's one of the things which can be sorted out. Finally, you've made some comments about me in some of your posts here, at ANRFC and in some of your edit summaries which weren't really necessary, but I've tried to keep my comments focused on what's being discussed without commenting on you at all. So, I wish you'd stop doing that and strike some of the accusations you made at ANRFC. If you believe the things you're accusing me of are true, then you can always discuss them at ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yet at the same time you are clearly trying to enforce your interpretation of said discussion as if it were the only correct one and based on that are giving orders to other users on what you think they can and cannot do as if you have some authority over us. Your actions at WP:AN/RFC also demonstrate that you are not very keen on an outsider taking a look at and judging the aforementioned discussion. We've all clearly read by now what you think are the only courses of actions we can take, you don't need to repeat it over and over gain. So please stop trying to bludgeon through your interpretation and give other people the chance to weigh in. Process has been started now, so please show some patience now until the AN/RFC request is actioned and any of the actions you suggest might be taken afterwards.T v x1 11:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for Football season articles

Hi, lately I've been keeping List of Spanish football transfers summer 2019 up to date and I thought: What if there were to be a small section in league season articles (big leagues at least) dedicated to their "top" transfers? It does not seem like a terrible idea to me, regarding how far apart these two sets of articles tend to be. Take hat-tricks as an example, the List of Premier League hat-tricks article would certainly not grab as much attention as it does at the moment if it weren't for the little "main article" detours placed in Premier League seasons' articles. These transfer articles are really not getting as much notice as they are meant to get in my opinion, and I am sure that a little "main article" redirect can lead many more readers to these sorts of pages.

Here is my model, I took 2018–19 La Liga as an example:

(header)Top transfers(header)

Rank	Date	Name	Moving from	Moving to	Initial Fee	Ref
1	10 July 2018	Cristiano Ronaldo	Real Madrid	Juventus	€100M	Ref
2	8 August 2018	Kepa Arrizabalaga	Athletic Bilbao	Chelsea	€80M	Ref
3	30 July 2018	Thomas Lemar	Monaco	Atlético Madrid	€70M	Ref
4	12 July 2018	Vinícius Júnior	Flamengo	Real Madrid	€45M	Ref
5	4 January 2019	Paulinho	Barcelona	Guangzhou Evergrande	€42M	Ref
6	24 July 2018	Malcom	Bordeaux	Barcelona	€41M	Ref
7	27 June 2018	João Cancelo	Valencia	Juventus	€40.4M	Ref
8	27 August 2018	Gonçalo Guedes	Paris Saint-Germain	Valencia	€40M	Ref
9	8 August 2018	Thibaut Courtois	Chelsea	Real Madrid	€35M	Ref
9	12 July 2018	Clément Lenglet	Sevilla	Barcelona	€35M	Ref

Quick Note: I didn't include references so I can avoid messing up this talk page, but all the transfers annotated in these tables will obviously have to include a reliable reference. Also, additional notes can be applied to some specific transfers such as Paulinho's 2018 loan converting into a permanent transfer after the buyout clause was triggered, and Kepa paying his own release clause and THEN joining Chelsea.

Personally, I think this would be a great addition and a breath of fresh air to many football season pages, let me know what you guys think, Thank you. TheSoccerBoy (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

My first thought is that this is could be incredibly tricky. Most transfer fees are not disclosed by either club, with discrepancies existing between fees reported by the press, as well as difficulties with whether to include add-ons or other options. Perhaps something like a 'club player of the year' table may genuinely add to the pages, and transfer fee / transferred from / transfer date columns in that table could be fitting. Domeditrix (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:Domeditrix, this seems like a very problematic suggestion. Can I ask, though, why List of Spanish football transfers summer 2019 follows such a ridiculous format? Transfers between Spanish clubs end up getting listed twice, and loan returns and releases aren't actually transfers per se. I suggest TheSoccerBoy takes a look at List of English football transfers summer 2019 for a slightly more useful model. – Pee Jay 15:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Stars in logos

Hi, quick question: why do we remove stars from club logos (such as Juventus, Milan and Bayern) but keep them in national team logos (Italy, England and Spain)? Thanks Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realise they were being actively removed from club logos, but in my opinion, they shouldn't be included for national teams either, as I don't believe they're actually part of the logo. – Pee Jay 14:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

What do other people think? Should we start removing the stars from national team logos? We could go two ways with this: each national team/club keeps its own individual stars, while the affiliated club (such as Juventus Women or Italy women's national team) has their own number of stars; or, all stars (used to represent titles) from logos are removed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Tom Hadler height

We have two editors at Tom Hadler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) who claim to be the subject and his brother, changing the height (despite it being sourced to multiple reliable sources). Myself and another Admin (@ChrisTheDude:) have tried to discuss with them, including pointing them in the direction of OTRS, but to no avail. Raising here for further input; will also cross-post at WP:BLPN. Giant Snowman 10:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Surely if the guy is directly linked to the club he could get the club website to fix the height if he is so worried about that? Govvy (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

His contract isn't being renewed this summer, so his profile will probably disappear from the Gills' website shortly anyway. It will be interesting to see what height his next club lists for him......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The Gillingham's two giant goalkeepers narrative doesn't work well if Hadler is 6'2". The Sky Sports video tends to confirm that he is taller than listed, but unfortunately only Tomas Holy's height is stated. Unfortunately, the Gillingham FC profile doesn't look like it has been updated for some time and I suspect this is the source used by the other sources. So it looks like Wikipedia rules prevent us from correcting what is probably outdated information. Jts1882 | talk 15:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible that this all derives from a typo (someone putting 6 ft 2 instead of 6 ft 2)? Of course. But in the absence of reliable sources - WP:VERIFIABILITYNOTTRUTH. Giant Snowman 15:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

RE: Nationality of Ashley Barnes on Burnley F.C

It has been confirmed on many external sources^[1]^[2]^[3] that Ashley Barnes cannot, and is ineligible to represent Austria internationally under FIFA eligibility rules. The source^[4] from Burnley FC's website is therefore incorrect when it says Barnes is an Austrian international. Unless additional sources are provided showing that he can represent Austria in international football, please refrain from repeatedly changing his nationality to Austrian on the Burnley FC page.

Multiple senior users such as "Mattythewhite" and "Iggy the Swan" have accused me of 'edit warring' and/or have been constantly reverting my correct edits; which I believe is an abuse of power. "Mattythewhite" has also threatened me with a potential user account block.

Swazzer30 ^{(talk • contribs)}00:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a similar situation to Aaron Wildig who represented Wales at one youth level until it was discovered he wasn't actually eligible. Since then, he has been listed as English throughout his career on Wiki. This is obviously doing the opposite. Kosack (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you have a point about the other 2 editors: the Burnley site is a primary source, WP policy is to prefer reliable secondary sources. (Though you are probably in breach of 3RR). Spike 'em (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

References

^ "Ashley Barnes Austrian call up denied". Sky Sports. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
^ "Ashley Barnes Austrian dream over". 101greatgoals via Austrian Council Minister for Sport. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
^ "Ministry of the Interior decides: Barnes does not become an Austrian". Tiroler Tageszeitung via Austrian Ministry of the Interior. Retrieved 7 June 2019.
^ "First team". Burnley F.C. Retrieved 15 May 2019.

On the subject of reverts, this one by Matty is utterly inappropriate. The edit summary is utterly ignorant, nevermind being factually incorrect. I'd expect significantly better from him. I know he does a lot of busy work, but blanket reverting and effectively piling on is the same issue GS got partly pulled up about a few months back. You need to check the reverts and your summaries Matty.

The removal of sources provided by Swazzer to try and prevent continued reverts is also completely stupid. We have had this with Dan Potts and many other players in the past and it has always come down to an official sanctioned competitive match being the deciding factor - not playing in a friendly for which the entrance criteria are basically non-existent. Koncorde (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

That's the sort of reaction I'd expect had I cursed or been similarly disrespectful. All I did was express an opinion, whether you agree with it or not doesn't justify you describing my actions as "inappropriate" or "utterly ignorant". And could you *explain* where I am guilty of "blanket reverting and effectively piling on"? Accusations like that need substance, I wouldn't dream of doing the same to you without backing it up. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Then you should realise how inappropriate your revert and summary was. There's a series of edits, reverts and counter reverts between users and IP's. You did not seek to resolve the issue, you blanket reverted with an inaccurate and incorrect "opinion",

and then later still pushed it to WP:FOOT after you again reverted not only the removal of sources, but also reinstated the wrong nationality. You need to check what you are reverting. Declaring an "edit war" while contributing to it isn't appropriate either. Koncorde (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

He should be listed as English. Giant Snowman 09:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Why? His most recent international representation is for Austria. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Technically anyone can play a friendly for any nation, and in today's game numerous players switch allegiance and / or represent more than 1 nation in some fashion. Using it as the criteria for establishing a players nationality is liable to come unstuck. It also would raise obvious spectres for players who, perhaps, last played for the British Olympic team (such as James Tomkins) or similar countries that do not hold official FIFA representation and so allow dual representative players (such as Aritz Aduriz) and I am sure there are other instances.

This again comes back to WP:FOOT's stance regarding nationalities Vs representative nationalities in general which causes 90% of the issues because of the common mismatches. Koncorde (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree he should be listed as English, as he does not have any Austrian nationality, in spite of his U-20 friendly appearance. SportingFlyer T·C 19:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, yes the player's article does say about the part where Barnes has one Austrian grandparent however, at the end of the same section, he is not eligible for Austria when confirmed on February 2019. At least in this case the closest generation of the descent nation is only the grandparent compared with Aaron Wildig which is too far away. What I've also seen on Soccerbase is the Austrian flag but the match between Austria and Switzerland is not included. Iggy (Swan) 06:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Coach performance timeline

Do you think this is overkill (even if sourced)? I have removed Jorge Jesus' performance timeline. SLBedit (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the "Managerial record" section is more than enough. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Overkill, way too much information. The managerial record section is enough. Kante4 (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Giant Snowman 08:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Should that be the same with Jürgen Klopp which also has the exact same structure as the mentioned article above... Iggy (Swan) 06:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

2020–21 UEFA Champions League : too soon?

I redirected this earlier to the main article on the grounds that there is very little useful information available yet. We don't even have a host city or any dates. However an ip has asked me about it so I'm coming here for guidance. When would we usually create this article? I'm willing to self-revert if it's round about now, but I don't see huge value in having the article yet. Valenciano (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Create it at the end of the 2019–20 season, when there will be some concrete info on it. Giant Snowman 18:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The 2019–20 page was created in May 2018, but there were at least concrete dates at that point. SportingFlyer T·C 19:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Some of the leagues which Champions League qualification is to be determined finish in October/November due to the cold winters the countries have. The question is that would there be enough certain information to re-activate the article from the redirect position or wait until more nations finish their top divisions the following Spring... Iggy (Swan) 06:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think late October would be fine, the decision on the host city will be made late September and the first qualifiers will be known then so it can be created then. In the meantime would be good if people had a look, there are ips appearing restoring the article without discussion. Valenciano (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits in Footy

86.146.28.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Marc-André ter Stegen and Matthijs de Ligt:. This IP address has removed a content on ter Stegen's article without explaining why even though they were warned not to do so a few times. Reporting at WP:AIV resulted in @Dlohcierekim: suggesting that we seek dispute resolution. That was attempted on Talk:Marc-André ter Stegen#RfC on lede but the anon did not participate, so what is expected this time that wasn't achieved last? Meanwhile @GARY 809: has taken me to WP:AN3 and placed warnings on my talk page. Any assistance from an informed admin would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Anon has earned a short block. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Watford F.C.

I've asked for a reassessment, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Watford F.C./1, I hope I done it all okay. Not sure if I need to post about it anywhere else. Govvy (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WPF listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPF. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

DeKalb County United

Nothing wrong with having an article on the team but much of the article feels like it violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and maybe WP:OR given the level the league is at, such as the fixture lists/results. Wanted a second or third opinion on what to do here before I take out the editing hatchet. SportingFlyer T·C 05:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup, the fixture lists/results definitely is more than needed on the page. Don't think it's original research (as long as it's referenced), but it's place is in a season article if the club is notable enough (which I don't think is the case in this case), but for sure not on the club page. --SuperJew (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I've removed. Giant Snowman 09:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! SportingFlyer T·C 15:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Review of contribution for User:139.47.3.236

Hello footballers,

I need someone more knowledgeable than I to review the contributions of this IP account that I recently blocked for vandalism. They have modified a lot of kits for various Spanish football teams that I have no idea are accurate or not. As an example, this diff appears to match up correctly for Concil CF's new home kit, but I cannot verify the accuracy of the other changes. Hope someone can help out. Sasquatch t|c 19:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Team of the Season honour

Hi. In Lebanon, the Al-Manar Football Festival is the award ceremony where players are awarded certain awards such as "Lebanese Football League Best Player" or "Lebanese Football League Best Goal". The ceremony also includes the Team of the Season, with a specific formation (e.g. a 4-1-2-3, with specific roles such as left-back and defensive midfielder). The players in the TOTS are not only included in the formation but are also handed an award, for example, for "Lebanese Football League Best Striker" or "Lebanese Football League Best Right-back". My question is: in the honours section of the players' articles, is it enough to write "Lebanese Football League Team of the Season: 2018-19" or should "Lebanese Football League Best Striker" also be included? Thanks, sorry for the unnecessarily long post. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Watford / West Herts / Watford Rovers

There's a slight disagreement at Watford F.C. about the foundation date, but that's not really why I'm here. Upon reading the article, it appears that a team known as 'West Herts' (and previously known as 'Watford Rovers') amalgamated with another (Watford St Mary's) in 1898 to found the present club we all know and love. However, West Herts seemingly appeared in the FA Cup in the 1880s. Shouldn't we have a separate article about the older, different club as it appears to be independently notable? That is established precedent when clubs merge. Giant Snowman 09:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

FCHD entires on Watford Rovers and West Herts. FA Cup was qualifying only, so not notable - but they played in the Southern League... Giant Snowman 09:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"FA Cup was qualifying only, so not notable" - when did we decide that.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Aaaages ago, I thought? I thought a club had to play in FA Cup proper to be notable (if not by some other way)? Giant Snowman 10:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm aware. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Qualifying rounds has always been the case – see e.g. this 2011 AfD or this 2013 one, in which GS himself notes that playing in the qualifying rounds is generally considered notable :P . Number 5 7 12:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, I know in some instances it's not and in some instances it is - I think the distinction was between preliminary rounds and qualifying rounds? - but it doesn't matter as long as the club passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Preliminary round are part of the qualifying rounds in England, and they are treated the same. Number 5 7 16:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

My poor memory :( Giant Snowman 20:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Right now we've resolved the issue with the FA Cup / my memory, can we please discuss the merits of a separate article? Giant Snowman 20:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it is related to the foundation date question. If the founding date for Watford F.C. is taken as 1898, then it is a considered a new club and the predecessor clubs should be topics of seperate articles (if notable). If Watford Rovers, West Herts and Watford FC are considered the same club (founded in 1881) in different guises then a single article is more appropriate. Jts1882 | talk 06:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

But like we have articles on Dagenham F.C., Redbridge F.C. and Dagenham & Redbridge F.C.... Giant Snowman 08:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

My rule of thumb (albeit for non-league articles) has been that if both predecessor clubs are notable, then to have separate articles for each. If only one is notable, then to just include it in the history of the current one (as usually in such scenarios the 'new' club is more of a continuation of one than the other).

The Dagenham example fits the first case. An example of the second might be Felixstowe & Walton United. However, if a decent standalone article can be written on Watford Rovers/West Herts then I would be averse to a separate article – if it's only going to be a permastub, then I'm not sure there's a huge benefit. Number 5 7 11:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Watford St. Mary's played in the qualifying rounds of the 1897/98 FA Cup as well: 25 September 1897 they beat Aylesbury United away, These fixtures are not on the FCHD site. I have no problem with a separate page, but I won't create one myself, it's not something I would put much effort in. Cattivi (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Table templates/Module:Sports table

Could an editor who is familiar with sports table templates/Module:Sports table help me out?

I've already created the table template for the Argentine Primera División standings (here) that is used for showing tables in a seasons article, but I am having difficulty in creating one for the relegation/average points table that Argentine football uses (here). I'm inexperienced when it comes to these type of templates so haven't a clue how to create one/if one exists; I don't see a relegation table listed at Module:Sports table so assume it doesn't. Any help would be much appreciated. R96Skinner (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Merge request

Can one of the admin, please merge the Wakirya AC and Wakriya AC articles? The correct spelling is Wakriya (http://www.wakriya.com). TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

For the record, this was done earlier today. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Nlu removing nationality categories

@Nlu: has been mass removing valid nationality categories. I have reverted a bunch and told them why. Further eyes/input would be welcome in case they insist on keeping up with their disruption... Giant Snowman 14:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

When is a league notable?

Hi, what qualifies a league as notable? Thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As with everything else, WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing that both Lebanese Fourth Division and Lebanese Fifth Division aren't considered notable then, right? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably not, and probably worth a redirect/merge to Lebanese football league system. Giant Snowman 15:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's long past time that we looked at some of the more lowly English leagues. I find it hard to believe that the Great Yarmouth and District Football League, for example, is any more notable than the leagues discussed above..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Notable footballers?

Hi, just over from CRIC! I'm currently working my way through notable people to have played minor counties cricket for Northumberland. I'm wondering if someone could tell me if these two guys had notable football careers: Larry Liddell (Leeds) and Billy Milne (Newcastle). I don't write football articles so don't pay for access to the English National Football Archive, so can't check out if they appeared in any cup/league fixtures for them. Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: Can't find anything for Liddell: he doesn't appear here, which should be comprehensive. If Milne is this chap, then six Second Division matches would make him notable as a footballer. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Greetings! Liddell never played for Leeds per this; Milne made 6 apps for Newcastle between 1894 and 1897 per this. Giant Snowman 18:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! I'll make a start on Milne. Cheers! StickyWicket (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Nav templates

Can I get some help please, Frietjes has been removing the Spurs navigation templates from the bottom of all the Tottenham season articles, I am finding it even worse to navigate between the articles I want now and have found the removal extremely inconvenient. It's made it really bad and I tried to restore the nav template only for Frietjes to removal them all again. I am shocked at this poor editing and wish for some help from someone to restored all the nav templates to the Tottenham season pages, cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Frietjes' removal of {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C.}} from season articles where the far more appropriate {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C. seasons}} is already present. Giant Snowman 14:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep agree with Giant here. Both shouldn't be on the same page and per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. -DJSasso (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

So for someone that wants to navigate to the statistics page, youth team page, honours, or one of the other pages? For comparatives you want to deny a reader this navigation? Very strange editors you people are... Govvy (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I also don't see an issue. Although I've never seen why we don't have these as one template with an expandable option for the seasons... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I most of read through WP:BIDIRECTIONAL five times now, I still don't get were it says removal a nav template. Govvy (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. which means that every navbox on a page should include that page as a link. The main spurs navbox does not include the individual seasons. Spike 'em (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C.}} and {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C. seasons}} templates provide links to different information. If WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is strictly adhered to a lot of navigation templates would be up for deletion. I note it says "should normally" so is not absolute. The {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C.}} is a directory for other related articles, which I find useful. Perhaps the {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C. seasons}} template should be embedded in it to provide bidirectionality. Jts1882 | talk 16:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I would be supportive of football season navboxes being subsections (potentially collapsed) of the general navbox. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand, they are already collapsed, she is still removing all the templates, there is no direct policy to removal the template she is removing, and now she is removing saying consensus was to remove the template when no consensus has been had!! I still regard this as highly disruptive editing. Govvy (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with those removals. There is the extra "season" template which will still be there. Kante4 (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Extra template? Govvy (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think there is general consensus on WP to remove navboxes that fail BIDIRECTIONAL. Local WP:FOOTY consensus is not needed if this is the case. Spike 'em (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

And I'd just like to add that I have always found Frietjes very helpful. Spike 'em (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is the direct guideline for it. The whole point of it is to remove clutter of navboxes and only have the most specific navboxes on a given page so that links are not just spammed on the bottom of the page. The intended way of navigation for the things in the template that was removed is to use the category system since the links in the other template would not have been bidirectional, it removes the purpose of the navboxes which was to enhance categories by having bidirectional navigation. That is its intended purpose. Since that template wasn't bidirectional, it was redundant to the category system. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Three nav boxes is not clutter, they are collapsed to begin with, I really do not see how you call a perfectly good template spam, and the nav box in question is directly linked to the club. I still don't get it, it's like listening to everyone contradict themselves. Player articles have multiple templates, you going to delete all of them as well? This is all highly illogical. Govvy (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem with removing these navboxes per WP rules, but a sensible solution would be to merge the seasons template in with the club template. SportingFlyer T·C 18:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No, we should keep them separate, due to size - see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Disadvantages numbers 4 & 8 (amongst others). Giant Snowman 18:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain why a football player like Lionel Messi is allowed all those navboxes? Why all the Man U seasons are allowed to use {{Manchester United F.C.}} why, Man City season articles, the same, Arsenal, all other clubs have the same setup as what Spurs had, yet you're just removing the template from the Tottenham season articles and none of the others, fucking strange situation if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Because Messi is linked in all of those infoboxes. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

And what about the cross-links? Pfft, I might as well retire from this stupid project and wikipedia if you are all going to be this dogmatic over stupid wikipedia polices, so many stupid pathetic policies that are not helpful to the wikipedia project. Fucking disruptive editing. Govvy (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to quote another stupid WP policy at you : WP:AGF. Your tone and language is disgraceful. Spike 'em (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The Manchester United articles don’t all have the {{Manchester United F.C.}} navbox on them though. The most recent ones might because the current season is linked from that template and no one remembered to remove it, but that’s an error on our part, not tacit approval for you to add {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C.}} to all their season articles. It’s not appropriate, and I endorse their removal. – Pee Jay 07:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to apologies to Friejtes now that she has gone and removed the navboxes from all the other teams seasons you mentioned? Spike 'em (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not apologising, it has even affected the kids at the charity I work at who have learning disabilities, taking away their ease of navigation, o well, no foresight here what so ever. Just another 9042 articles she missed! :/ Govvy (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Vanuatu vs Fiji

Is anyone able to find out the teams and substitutes for the fixture from June 10th? Cheers - J man708 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

National Football Teams should post the fixture in the following days. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The most information I can find right now is this release by Fiji FA. Soccerway has only listed the venue and score. WorldFootball don't have a page for the match yet, but I reckon they'll get one in the next few days. --SuperJew (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Still no info. What do we do when nothing is available? - J man708 (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised National Football Teams hasn't posted anything yet. Usually they post both official and unofficial matches. Maybe another week? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by IP user

Hi, this IP user (185.103.20.250) keeps making disruptive edits on Nejmeh SC, removing certain players and changing other's names. This has been going on for more than a month. Can someone help me out? Thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Revert, warn (an important step!), and then report to WP:AIV. Giant Snowman 21:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know IP users had talk pages. Thanks for taking care of it for me, I'll keep it in mind for next time. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It can be frustrating since anonymous users can hop between IP addresses and may never see your message, but yes, they do have talk pages. – Pee Jay 05:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute

I am currently in a dispute with another editor on the article Bristol City F.C., the other user adds in record transfers on the article with the Transfermarkt source but I have removed that information, on the knowledge of the source not being reliable. I believe that I've done the right thing to remove that information on WP:RS but I should open up this discussion so that I won't go into a 3RR violation. Iggy (Swan) 14:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it's usergenerated. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links lists as unreliable. If the information has another source, it's fine though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Based on that, I've removed the content which was backed up by the source to be avoided. I have not yet found a reliable source which earths the same facts. Iggy (Swan) 14:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. Giant Snowman 15:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I see the user who violates WP:RS has been warned in a 3-revert-rule message from CFred, hopefully this would stop. Iggy (Swan) 16:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Famous fans

I'm sure this has been discussed in the past, but surely sections in club articles like this detailing famous fans aren't notable? I would say that that they are trivial, unencyclopedic, and plays up to the celebrity culture that society is becoming ever indulged in. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Last month, no less... They weren't notable then, either. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The majority of club articles that I've viewed does not have a famous fans section so whether the club article stated in the permalink is sourced, that has no relation to the actual article itself. I've also spotted an article on a list of famous fans of a football club as well which is close to it's 11 year anniverary. Iggy (Swan) 17:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, no need. Giant Snowman 18:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Get rid. Unless a famous person has actively contributed to a club's history (eg Elton John) it is of no significance to the club that a famous person supports them (allegedly - celebrities are notorious for claiming to support multiple clubs). It's also interesting to note, of course, that no article with such a section ever seems to list famous fans from before 2000 - did no celebrities watch football back then? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Fernando Torres retirement

Sources specifically stating it will be in the (near) future, not yet (press conference in 2 days to confirm). Please see discussion on talk page given some editors don't understand that. Giant Snowman 14:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

BBC Sports women

Hello, I was categorizing football pictures in Commons, and I drew a blank about these women [1], [2]. Perhaps they are former football players ? --Rashinseita (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The first is Alex Scott. --Rashinseita (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Is the other, Karthi Gnanasegaram? BTW her article looks like her biggest fan wrote it!--Egghead06 (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That's her, thanks ! --Rashinseita (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Club season article MoS

To follow on from a couple of previous discussions, I just wanted to know if there was a consensus as to whether we keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons as it is regarding results lists or if we change it (For background, I reverted edits on 1874–75 Dumbarton F.C. season and 1874–75 Dumbarton F.C. season before starting a discussion here which moved here. Tagging participants: @Aitkegs and Crowsus:).

As far as I can see, there has been no consensus to change from a table of results to a list of collapsed footballbox templates but there are several pages which use this style so I want to establish which should be in the Manual of Style. The collapsed footballbox template contravenes WP:ACCESSIBILITY because it defaults to hiding information. It also means that there are sometimes 60+ footballbox templates per page depending on how successful a team has been in a given season compared to just three or four tables. I don't think a list of footballbox templates works with MOS:LIST but the table of results does work with MOS:LIST and MOS:TABLE. Both the football box templates and the table of results meet MOS:COLOUR.

There have also been discussions which argue that the table restricts the amount of information which can be included as it doesn't mention opposition scorers (which I would argue are irrelevant on a given team's season article - important goals against can be included in prose) or referees whereas the football box template allows you to include this. Should the consensus be to keep the table format, I'd propose we update it to include a referee column (as I believe has been done on some pages). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

the main problem with the footballbox template is the propensity to have references which are not in a reference format. this leads to linkrot. it does allow for the key information to be displayed but also to include other information which may be of interest but doesn't otherwise clutter the article. in short both approaches have their benefits but no-one has ever been able to get a consensus about what the MOS should contain. most of these articles actually violate WP:NOTSTATSBOOK because the authors are only interested in the stats.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

As the previous user has indicated the main issue at hand is that those authors involved in such pages are only interested in the stats - or data - provided. The footballbox style allows for a mass of information - not just opposing scorers and referees - which cannot be stored under the MOS version. MOS served its purpose when authors started off creating club season data - as did I - but it seems strange to fiddle about with the MOS to get it up to speed when there is already the footballbox style available - which most authors are already using Aitkegs (talk)

I'm a wee bit confused. The *only* thing the table doesn't include that footballbox does is the referee and opposition scorers. Also, I don't know if I'm picking you up right but you seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia should be a stats book. The reason we have policies, guidelines and style guides is to ensure articles contain the relevant information, that they remain consistent and avoid confusion, that's why I want to update the club season style to represent what the consensus is, ie- keep it as is but with an extra column or change it to the footballbox.

Also, can you please sign your posts on talk pages? (See WP:SIGN). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The MoS has not been overhauled in a long time and desperately needs it (good luck if you want to try). on top of that there is an issue with having large tables and the readability issues it presents with reading articles on mobile devices. the footballbox does tend to overcome this. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

In what way does the footballbox overcome accessibility issues? If anything, a table is better because the data is all contained in appropriately labelled columns, not to mention the fact that the footballbox contains unnecessary info for a club season article (e.g. the opposition scorers) and people tend to misuse it by adding cards etc. – Pee Jay 17:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

So, I take it then that there is no consensus to change from the table (but perhaps to add a referee column) to the footballbox and therefore club season articles should follow the style laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons for the reasons laid out above. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Second-place finishes in club football

Is it preferable to list second-place finishes in "Honours" sections? As per Google Dictionary, honour is "a thing conferred as a distinction, especially an official award for ... achievement", and Merriam-Webster defines honour as "an evidence or symbol of distinction: such as: an award in a contest or field of competition", while Cambridge Dictionary says it's "a reward, prize, or title that expresses admiration or respect". Now, take Maurizio Sarri's article for example. It lists "Serie B runner-up" and "EFL Cup runner-up" among his honours. The problem with this is that runners-up do not receive medals in Serie B. Moreover, according to the title of The Telegraph match report, "Manchester City took the 2018–19 EFL Cup honours". (Sarri managed Chelsea at the time.) If contributors were to list second-place finishes in lower divisions due to promotions, I believe they'd need to list sixth-place finishes from top leagues as well, as teams that finish in the top six (usually) qualify for group stages of different European competitions.

Suggested layout for footballer biographies doesn't include second-place finishes in its "Honours" section. Nor do articles Arsène Wenger (GA), Lionel Messi (GA), Arjen Robben (GA), Francesco Totti (GA), Bobby Robson (FA), Sigi Schmid (FA) et cetera. Counterarguments include Steve Bruce (FA), Gilberto Silva (FA), John Wark (FA), Alf Ramsey (FA) and others. Electronic data processor (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Most countries have four or five teams in UEFA competitions so sixth place rarely qualifies, let alone reaching the group stages. It's only the top few leagues which are the exception (because they want to keep all the money for themselves, but that's a different issue).

Being a runner-up in a notable competition (ie- WP:GNG) should be included in any article, whether it's in a list of honours is a tricky one. Certainly in a cup competition when you get a medal it should be included. For a league runner-up or play-off where you don't get a medal, probably don't include it in the honours section and just keep it as prose. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

One problem, I think, is that there simply isn't a hard and fast definition of what constitutes an "honour" in football. Some books will list EFL (pre-1992)/Premier League runners-up spots as "honours" for a club, others won't..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Best to get rid of all honours sections then, according to the slippery slope argument put forward 1st place finishes being listed as honours lead to 2nd place finishes being listed as honours which lead to sixth place finishes being listed as honours. We cannot include promotions as honours, without including qualification to competitions as honours. Apparently.--Echetus Xe 10:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally I would be more than happy to go with a simple rule of "winning a league/cup is an honour, everything else isn't", but I suspect others may disagree..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I would support that. Kante4 (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Differentiation required for Olympics, but otherwise this is how it should be anyway. Runners up in a cup competition or promotion may be the most significant "honour" for some teams which is where I might bend the rules a touch, but when counting or listing them they would need to be clearly differentiated and or not included in other master lists (which brings us back to the slipper slope). Koncorde (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a hard and fast rule is suitable here. One purpose of the honours section is to give a reflection of the players career. If the player is Messi, including all the runners-up achivements bloats the list and obscures the greater achievements. A short list with just trophy wins gives a better reflection of his career. However, for a player who has achieved relatively little, then a runners-up place becomes more important and helps put his career into perspective. Jts1882 | talk 14:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

But why should a second-place finish be acknowledged simply because the club or player hasn't won the competition yet? It's mildly patronising, in my book. It's like going up to them, patting them on the head and saying, "Hey, you may not have won this cup, but you came second back in 1976, and that's just as good! Remember, it's not the winning that matters, it's taking part!" I know we're not going to fall down the slippery slope and add every team/player's best ever finish in each competition, but like ChrisTheDude and Kante4, I simply don't recognise anything other than winning the competition as something that should be mentioned in an "Honours" section. – Pee Jay 14:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it patronising when a competition hands out runner-up medals to players? Which is what happens in the vast majority of competitions? We should seek to reflect reality with what we include, not to exclude notable content because of our own POV. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Matty that if a runner-up medal is awarded by the competition organisers, then we should include that as an honour in the relevant club/player article(s). Giant Snowman 14:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

And play-off wins too, I assume? Which would mean leaving out teams that finish in second place in the Championship, for example... – Pee Jay 14:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I know the second and third place finishes for Croatia in the World Cup are treated as very significant honours, so I disagree with going with an winners-as-honours rule. That being said, I'm not sure a runners-up rule is needed for the majority of competitions. I like the "if they handed out medals, then it's an honour" rule when in doubt. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Football in Asia

Is this draft article useful at all? At first glance, it reads like a grabbag of facts about specific countries, probably better covered in country articles. Should the article be accepted or declined? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I personally would decline as it's WP:SYNTH/WP:ESSAY, but also welcome other opinions. The article really needs to be about a history of football in Asia or an overview and not include the country-specific sections. It's ultiamtely going to be notable, we have Football in Africa, Football in South America, et cetera. Just not very good copy. SportingFlyer T·C 09:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Welsh Football League

Any suggestions on how to handle this situation. The old Welsh Football League Division One (step 2) was abolished at the end of the 18–19 season and was replaced by the FAW Championship South & Mid (also step 2).

The Welsh Football League Division Two (step 3) has been rebranded as Division One (also step 3).[3] This will be for the 19–20 season only as the FAW has confirmed from 20–21 season there will be 4 new regional FAW League One sections.[4]

The Welsh Football League Division Three (step 4) has been rebranded as Division Two. From 20–21 season leagues at step 4 will remain the responsibility of local league associations across Wales.

So - rename the articles for Division Two as Division One and Division Two as Division One would seem obvious - BUT then there is an existing Division One already which is now a defunct league etc...

Any suggestions how to proceed?

Zanoni (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Rename the old Division One, maybe Welsh Football League Division One (1904–2019), and then move the current Division One to the old Division One page, I would assume. SportingFlyer T·C 08:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Football League First Division covers the whole of the period from 1888 to 2004, including when it was both the first and second levels of English football, so I would have thought we could just do the same for Wales..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thinking about it - its Div 3 that has been abolished so just change Div 1 to Tier 3 on the article and Div 2 to Tier 4. Zanoni (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

All updated, thanks for the comments Zanoni (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Full list of international FIFA matches

Hi, I think I have already asked this question but has anyone found a solution to FIFA removing their official national team fixture list (such as here) in favour of an ad for their app? I used to use the page as the primary source for Lebanon national football team results. I know elo rankings has a similar list but I know for a fact ELO considers certain matches FIFA doesn't and vice-versa. Any solution? Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sadly FIFA are like most other big organisations these days; they spend stupid amounts of money on web designers who are more interested in giving you something flashy with lots of moving shiny things rather than a simple functional easy to navigate website. Try RSSF ClubOranje^T 00:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

No idea why they went with this decision. The app is horrible and doesn't show even 10% of what the website used to show. I tried RSSSF but unfortunately I encountered discrepancies even there regarding official/unofficial FIFA matches. Thanks anyway. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

JP26235

Can somebody please review the edits of JP26235 (talk · contribs) who is adding unreferenced 'medals' to literally hundreds and hundreds of footballer infoboxes... Giant Snowman 11:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there any problem in adding useful information? All the players im adding are present in the squads lists here in wipedia. For example: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2009_UEFA_European_Under-21_Championship_squads JP26235 (talk)

JP26235 added bronze medals to the Welsh and German players from UEFA Euro 2016 but I was under the impression that no teams were adjudged to have finished third, so to speak, as there was no play-off? Kosack (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You have been told multiple times by a variety of editors to include sources. You have not. Your editing is disruptive. Giant Snowman 12:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of infobox honours, I've wondered for a while: why? We have dedicated sections in articles for honours, so why do we duplicate them in the infobox? Why do they tend to only be international honours and not club honours? And most importantly, perhaps, they're never sourced. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed there is no need to duplicate them, particularly given the issues raised. Giant Snowman 12:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia requires all information is verifiable by reliable sources. It doesn't have to be directly verifiable on the page, but Wikipedia guidelines suggest that material that is contentious, that is likely to be challenged, or that is challenged has inline citations. I wouldn't have thought these are particularly contentious as they are easily verifiable simply by clicking the link, which will take you to the page which shows who won the particular event. That page is clearly sourced, so it only remains to verify the particular player was a member of the team that verifiably won it, which is no doubt easily done simply by looking at the squad list page, which of course will be well referenced (or should be, so I have tagged the page above). By suggesting the player is listed there, JP26235 was more likely suggesting it was verifiable by the mechanism that made those pages verifiable, not using Wikipedia per se as the reference. I also wouldn't have thought this was material that was likely to be challenged, and the few I did look at now all seemed to be legitimate, so I personally wouldn't call this disruptive editing. However, now that the information has been challenged I guess JP26235 (talk · contribs) will happily step through the previous edits and copy/paste the references from the other Wikipedia pages to satisfy those concerned that Carvalho is listed as winning a medal without an inline citation for that. ClubOranje^T 13:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

And what about, as Kosack points out above, adding bronze medals for teams which didn't;t play in a third-place play-off? Giant Snowman 13:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I think calling it disruptive editing is a bit agressive, don´t you think? I may not have referenced it, but if you check all the players i´ve edited have actually won that particular honour. Most cases i used the wikipedia list of squads, which is per si referenced, so it would be a double reference, completely unecessary. In most famous players there isn´t a reference either. I was doing this because i was enjoying to add valuable information. For sure i was perhaps a bit ignorant about some rules, it did not occur to me that particular section needed references on every single honour. But being threatened to be blocked from posting and almost talked to like i was vandalising Wikipedia, i certainly won´t be continuing this work. I can only apologize to those that felt disrespected and you don´t have to worry about me doing this any longer. JP26235 (talk)

Just to finish, don´t you think it is kind of pointless reverting the edit in cases like this? (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Otman_Bakkal) In the players bio it is clearly reference he played that competition. But still it was just reverted like i was vandalising. JP26235 (talk)

And where is the reference saying he won a medal? Giant Snowman 13:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You´re right. Bakkal was the only player in history to have won a Euro Under 21 championship but not to be given a gold medal. JP26235 (talk)

No. Bakkal's article only says "Bakkal played at the 2007 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship". It does not say that the team won the tournament, or that Bakkal received a medal. And FYI not every player in the squad for every competition automatically gets a medal... Giant Snowman 13:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you really trying to argue this pointless and petty point? If you click in the competition´s link, available at the players bio, you can see The Netherlands won it. And like every single national team competition, every single player called up to the finals gets a medal. That´s a fact.JP26235 (talk)

I agree in some cases there is no reference, like Sérgio Leite´s page...i saw him play, i know he played, but i totally understand you reverting it due to the lack of references. But cases like Bakkal i find it just ridiculous, but hey, it is just my opinion. I think we should value the information. But like i said, no need to worry about this, i won´t be adding any more info in this department. I am not here to cause any troubles and be called a "vandaliser" or whatever you call it. JP26235 (talk)

User:ClubOranje makes the important distinction between verifiable and verified. It is easy to verify that Bakkal won a medal in the U21 tournament. Hence the information is verifiable. A challenge on the grounds that he might not have got a medal despite starting the final is pushing the likely to be challenged requirement to the limit. And as a winner of the competition, a medal shouldn't be a requirement to list it as an honour. Jts1882 | talk 14:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please correct uniforms in Gold Cup 2019 pages

Canada wore white kits and Cuba wore red kits in their group A match - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiqhJuWtg14/ http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2019_CONCACAF_Gold_Cup_Group_A Nicaragua wore white shorts against Bermuda in their group B match - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG9KgpEro5A http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2019_CONCACAF_Gold_Cup_Group_B — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariosbessa (talk • contribs) 15:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

On a side note, Cuba seems to have changed their logo, can someone update it? I can't find it online. The new logo can be seen in this video around 2:04. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"Betis" or "Real Betis" again

Looking at the discussion between @MYS77: and @TheSoccerBoy: at the 2019–20 La Liga article, I decided to start again this for having a new consensus.

I remembered I opened a section years ago (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 95#"Betis" or "Real Betis"?) and, despite I agreed with MYS77 for using the term "Betis", more of the users were for using "Real Betis". Personally, I am against using the term "Real" except for Real Madrid, Real Sociedad and Real Unión, as they are the only three teams more known here with the "Real" than without it. Asturkian (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I would personally go with Real Betis (the club also uses Real Betis in their website, not Betis, to refer to themselves). Betis sounds more like "Spurs" for Tottenham or "Juve" for Juventus. Though, I'm not a Spanish football expert... Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Problem is every team in Spain refers itself as "Real X": Real Sporting, Real Oviedo, Real Zaragoza, Real Valladolid, Real Murcia, Real Avilés, Real Titánico, Real Mallorca indeed… If we open the door to name "Real Betis", then we probably must open it to all these teams I mention. Asturkian (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Surely that's no different to having Lincoln City, Coventry City, Exeter City, Norwich City, Birmingham City, Stoke City, Swansea City, Cardiff City, Bradford City, Salford City and Leicester City in England? We use the full names for all those clubs in league tables, etc..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, I don't see the issue in keeping "Real". I would indeed "open the door" to all the previously mentioned teams. Again, I'm not an expert on Spanish football so I don't really know how common/uncommon the use of "Real" is. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What I mean is every club refers itself as Real, but out of it (newspapers, neutral websites, etc.), all of them except RM, RS and Real Unión are always mentioned without the royal term. Asturkian (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but the point is that we are on the English Wikipedia not Spanish. For example, Inter Milan is never called as such in Italy. Everyone (the club, newspapers, people ecc...) call the team "Inter". However, here we have to make some compromises as "Inter" is apparently less common than "Inter Milan" in English. I would assume the same to apply for "Real Betis" and "Betis". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It's really a case of necessity, Real Madrid is used to differentiate from Atletico, and 'Sociedad' and 'Unión' are common nouns and would look very strange in a sentence without the Real attached. The others are unique names, including Betis, so no great need to use the prefix although it is part of the name. The English teams are a fair comparison, though the City or United clubs would be a fairer comparison than Spurs or Juve. It's not exactly a nickname to call Newcastle United just Newcastle, but the official name includes the suffix. Same for Borussia Dortmund or Borussia Monchengladbach, nobody is going to be confused when only the name of the city is used but it would be better to include the Borussia. I feel Real Betis would be more appropriate for infobox etc, and first use in text sections, then simply 'Betis' could be used. Only exceptions I would suggest are Real Sporting de Gijón, Reial CD Espanyol de Barcelona, Real Club Celta de Vigo and Real Racing de Santander as they kinda already have a prefix and due to that, nobody uses the Real other than in the most official of contexts. Crowsus (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, if we consider the most common use of names, "Betis" is more used than "Real Betis", as you can see by doing two simple Google searches. In England, those "City"/"United" teams are more commonly called by their full names rather than their short ones. That's not what happens with Betis. Here in Brazil, for an example, people often know Betis as just "Betis" rather than "Real Betis" (some of them even get confused when the "Real" attached). I would go with just Betis, since that was the use in the past, and in the past discussion at FOOTY, the ones who were agreeing to "Real Betis" were English-based users with little knowledge of Spanish football overall. MYS 77 ^✉ 17:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I'd have to say that if those folk don't know that Betis and Real Betis are the same team, their knowledge of Spanish football isn't too great either... Crowsus (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Google search as an argument here, as all searches for "Real Betis" are obviously included in searches for "Betis". I'm sure that Betis is more used in Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries, but in English I see 10 instances of "Real Betis" being used in news articles for every use of "Betis". While admittedly my comparison with Juve or Spurs wasn't valid, the one with Inter (Milan) is. No one says "Inter Milan" in Italian, but (nearly) everybody does in English. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

MYS77's point is debatable, when people become familiarized with a club of course they can call it by a shortened name, for example: “Madrid” instead of Real Madrid, “Red Bulls” instead of New York Red Bulls, “Bayern” instead of Bayern Munich and “Betis” instead of Real Betis; I can go on and on forever. Regardless if the people choosing the addition of “Real” had low football knowledge or not, it is still a vote, you can not expect every user that reads a football article to be an expert in the sport, as wicked as it may sound, there are people in this world who do not know some top tier clubs, neither some players, if this logic were to be used for players, it would cause bedlam with Cristiano Ronaldo alone, if he's just referenced as “Ronaldo” it would confuse readers with many MANY other players out there that go by that same name, but we are talking clubs here aren’t we? So do it for those who are lesser-minded in football, and fulfill the purpose of Wikipedia's creation. My say would be to leave it “Real Betis” for infoboxes and statistical use to make it sound formal, and THEN “Betis” for casual references, for example: “He played for Betis, he scored for Betis, he managed Betis for a year.” This is the exact same thing Celta Vigo is going through, “Celta Vigo” is used on league season articles while “Celta” is used for casual references.TheSoccerBoy (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Based on my research, it appears English-language versions almost if not always refer to them as "Real Betis" (ESPN, The Guardian, Washington Post, et cetera) whereas Spanish language publications (El Mundo, El Pais) use Betis more than Real Betis. I would strongly prefer remaining consistent with how they're referred to in English. SportingFlyer T·C 20:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sepp van den Berg

Could an Admin please semi-protect Sepp van den Berg, also it needs a clean-up. JMHamo (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 11:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks GS and thanks for getting rid of those awful Twitter links too. JMHamo (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sol Tremelling

I've just created an article about this guy. Two queries following my research:

The Terry Frost book says he left Bradford City in 1915, but the Chesterfield link says he played for them as a war guest from Bradford City. Which is correct?
I presume he is related to Billy Tremelling and Dan Tremelling, but can't find any sources confirming...

Any help appreciated! Giant Snowman 18:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sol and Dan Tremelling are brothers (Mansfield Reporter 8 December 1922 page 6) Cattivi (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sol Tremelling (Bradford City) was a war guest for Notts County when the 1917/18 season started (Nottingham Evening Post 29 August 1917 page 3). Maybe he didn't play a lot between 1915-1919, just a few guest appearances, until he resumed his football career with Mansfield Town. I can't find proof he signed for Mansfield in 1915. Cattivi (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cattivi: which means he was also brother to Billy per this. I have updated the article on Sol, please can you confirm the article titles for the Mansfield Reporter / Nottingham Evening Post? I also agree that it is unlikely he left City in 1915 as Frost states. Giant Snowman 08:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

[5] article title: Footballing Family, Sports Argus 8 October 1949 page 4. This is much better, it mentions Solomon, Dan, Bill and another one, Jack, who played for Worksop. The other URL is [6] article title: New "hands" for Notts. Cattivi (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks - article updated! Giant Snowman 10:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The Mansfield Reporter article [7] was written by a reader, I'm not sure you should use it, but it mentions a fifth brother Joe and the father, Nicholas, both Gresley Rovers. Cattivi (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sol signed for Mansfield Town from Bradford City ahead of the 1919–20 season: [8] title: Mansfield Town. Mansfield Reporter 29 August 1919 p6. The Lincoln City archive shows Sol at Lincoln in Jan-Feb 1919, playing against Bradford City. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Amazing, thanks - article updated accordingly. Giant Snowman 11:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Football players born in 2000

A user recently created this category and began moving players from Category:2000 births into it. Isn't this an overkill? --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably. I notice that the 1990s births categories don't have any sub-cats, also 2000 births does also have a sub-cat for actors..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Just created by @Sapphia: - thoughts? I think we need to delete it. Giant Snowman 11:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Can somebody with twinkle or similar please mass revert these changes? Giant Snowman 11:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The category '2000 births' is extremely overcrowded and difficult to navigate. Moving pages into subcategories (the Football one will have over 100 anyway) makes it easier for users to navigate Wikipedia and find the information they are looking for. Sapphia (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sapphia: - you need to check the articles you are putting in the new category - Cameron Hawkes plays a completely different sport to Tyla Hanks, so they don't belong in the same sport-based category..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Any Australian Rules Football players will be removed from the subcategory. Sapphia (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sapphia: you should not add this category to any articles! Giant Snowman 15:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman I have suspended my activity regarding this category. However, I would like to know why this is an 'overkill'. -Sapphia (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Because it is not standard or appropriate to categories in that way. See WP:OVERCAT. Giant Snowman 15:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Carmarthenshire League

Can anyone help me out - I have tried looking - including a few searches within news-sites using advanced search function in Google - but struggling to find either a current list of clubs in the league or the final 2018-19 league table positions. League wise, this seems to be the nearest to an official site - but its pretty poor and doesn't help [9] - any suggestions? Zanoni (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This helps - [10] Zanoni (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

International players for North Macedonia

I noticed that despite North Macedonia national football team having played four fixtures as North Macedonia, many of their players (example: Goran Pandev) have the international side listed as 'Macedonia' in their infobox. Before making edits to a number of pages, I am seeking clarification as to what the standard practice is. Looking at the pages of former West German players Lothar Matthäus and Jürgen Klinsmann, two different stances have been taken. The page for Matthäus notes his entire international career as being for 'Germany', while Klinsmann's is divided between 'West Germany' (until 1990) and 'Germany' (following reunification). I fully understand that the name change from FYROM to North Macedonia isn't as seismic as German reuinification, but for the effects on the football team I think they are fairly similar (the West German team didn't cease to exist, they didn't cease to be a member of FIFA / UEFA – Germany is a continuation of West Germany).

Which should be followed when editing articles of players for the North Macedonia national team? I don't think it's controversial to say that players that have yet to play (or have never played) for 'North Macedonia' shouldn't have their pages changed, nor should youth international team names be changed if they appeared for those sides pre-name change. Domeditrix (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Players who have never played for the 'North Macedonia' team should have 'Macedonia' in their infobox; any players that have played for 'North Macedonia' should have 'North Macedonia' in their infobox. Giant Snowman 15:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Gotta love how GS just states what should be done with no support of why. Anyway, IMO we should have it with the whole career under one name, which will be the later one, since "North Macedonia" is a continuation of "Macedonia". I would suggest for players who've played matches under both names to add a note, as was done for many Melbourne City (formerly Melbourne Heart) players who played under both names (see Andrew Redmayne for example). --SuperJew (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SuperJew (talk · contribs) on this as the national team is still the same national team before the name change. Its not like Wimbledon changing to Milton Keynes Dons. Onshore (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I think GS has been understood, as he has said what SuperJew and Onshore have: Players who played for the country only when it was called Macedonia would have that listed in their infobox; players who have played since the rename would have North Macedonia (and no Macedonia). The Klinsmann article should be amended. Number 5 7 18:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep @SuperJew: unsure what the problem is - I expressed an opinion on how to settle this issue, which you agreed with. Why so arsey? Giant Snowman 18:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Only players playing as Northern Macedonia should be listed as such. Those who played only when it was Macedonia or a ridiculous acronym should be listed as such. The only question is when they played for both. I agree with GS that the latest name should be used but aggregating the statistics from games played under the predecessor names, i.e the Lothar Matthäus solution, rather than Jürgen Klinsmann solution. I don't have a strong objection to the split in the latter, but almost all sources dealing with football statistics would aggregate them (most appearances, most goals, etc). Jts1882 | talk 19:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not the same as West Germany/Germany, where there was a change in political entity. With Macedonia/North Macedonia the country has simply changed its name. Giant Snowman 19:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

There wasn't a change in political entity in the case of Germany - Klinsmann only ever played for the Federal Republic of Germany (which was always the formal name of the country). East Germany was the separate entity that was dissolved and merged into the Federal Republic. Number 5 7 21:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

How about we merge the stats for Klinsmann then? --BlameRuiner (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Did we do anything specifically for Eswatini players? I personally support changing Macedonia to North Macedonia in all instances. SportingFlyer T·C 22:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

A good example of what should be done here is for Besart Berisha. On the various seasons of the A-League, he is listed as Albanian up and until the time that he represented Kosovo in an international, and from that time onwards was listed under the Kosovo flag-icon. The article List of A-League hat-tricks lists him under both nationalities in the same table. I believe that this should be the same methodology applied here. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The Kosovo situation isn't the same as the name change from Macedonia to North Macedonia. While Albania still exists, Macedonia has simply been renamed into North Macedonia without the creation of other political entities. It is more similar to West Germany --> Germany as pointed out above. I agree with the numerous people who suggest keeping Macedonia for whoever ONLY played for the national team when that name was in use, and North Macedonia if he appeared at least once for the national team under the new name. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

(e/c) No we didn't. Players who played for a country under a certain name are listed as playing under that name. See e.g. Tubilandu Ndimbi (Zaire), Bobby Chalmers (Rhodesia), Mfana Futhi Bhembe (Swaziland), etc. Number 5 7 22:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense, thank you. Based on how we've done things in the past then, if you've appeared for Macedonia and North Macedonia, you should be listed under North Macedonia, otherwise you should be listed as the name of the country you represented at the time (obviously the "royal" you here.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks like something like Zaire / "DR Congo" or "FR Yugoslavia" / "Serbia and Montenegro". They were renaming of the country without actual change of the political border. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Background templates

Hey, is this Category:Fb bg templates really needed? Used here for example... Kante4 (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering about it too. Seems random colouring and prob doesn't fit MOS:ACCESS. --SuperJew (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyone else want to chip in? Kante4 (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree it is unnecessary, the colouring is not useful. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Arsenal W.F.C. (part 2)

This article has been the target of a significant number of reverts over the past couple of days with the club logo. From the page history, four people have been involved in it, two of them have been restoring the logo from Arsenal F.C. while the other two reverts the edits back to the logo with the word "ladies" underneath. This is starting to be serious when it comes to violations of the revert rule. The following edit summary points to a closed discussion as to why we can't include the men's logo in the women's variety and I was reverted from the Under 23's version for that same discussion. I have noticed the closed discussion on the notice board but edits are continuing to be made. Iggy (Swan) 12:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You can use the logo on more than one article, you just need to have seperate usage rationale each time, like has been done with Manchester United i.e File:Manchester_United_FC_crest.svg Jopal22 (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd go with the advice in the closing notice at WP:AN#User:Marchjuly on Arsenal W.F.C.: let the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 June 27#File:Arsenal FC.svg reach a conclusion (or help it do so, if you have the expertise: I haven't). And in the meantime, leave the article be. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I do believe that the logo with the word 'Ladies' underneath is now outdated since they've changed their name. Leaving the article as it is would be good until consensus is made. I've also asked a question on the Arsenal F.C. Under-23s and Academy club since on Google images, they are also shown using the same logo. Iggy (Swan) 17:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

# sign on International goals

Does anyone get why there is a pound sign column on Megan_Rapinoe#International_goals? NE Ent 22:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It explains if you expand the key (not that I agree with this being needed or what it gives). I'd also add that I think the assist column is pointless, as are the colours of the competitions (previously discussed here recently). Also the dates should be formated to be more readable. And I'd have the references in a separate column. --SuperJew (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(e/c) It seems like a very trivial statistic to have on the table, I would personally remove it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely pointless, can't see any reason for it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree. No need for Lineup, "#", Minute, pass/assist and all the colours. See here. Kante4 (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment I cannot see a pound sign on the article, looks like the column in question is the sign called a hashtag. Iggy (Swan) 12:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The number sign has many names. Hack (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I should not confuse what User:NE Ent said with the British currency that the UK uses. Iggy (Swan) 17:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Two month virtual editathon on Women in Sports

WikiProject Women in Red is devoting the next two months (July and August) to a virtual editathon on Women in Sports. Please take this opportunity to write more articles about women footballers who lag far behind men on Wikipedia's coverage of sports.--Ipigott (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

And don't forget to sign up at WP:WOSO :) Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Gothia Cup

Just came across this article Gothia Cup. It's in quite a state, and needs serious cleanup. I was planning on taking a look - it currently has FANCRUFT, wall of Blue, and External links in the text - but do we have any specific way to show these types of articles (such as the Norway Cup), for big sporting occasions in terms of a MoS? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Position column in competitive record table

Hi, in Belgium's article (FA) and Lebanon's article (GA) there is a "position" column in the competitive record tables (such as the World Cup table or the Euros table). While determining the team's position is fairly straightforward in most cases, there are a few situations that come to mind. Mainly: if the tournament involved only 4 teams, with no 3rd place match, what position should be listed for the two losing semi-finalists? 3rd for the team with the better goal-difference and 4th for the other team, 3rd to both, n/a? This is the case of Italy's women's team at the 1984 Euros. I have temporarily put n/a as putting "3rd of 4" or "4th of 4" seemed misleading. What are your opinions? Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

n/a is fine then. Also filling the position cell in the total row (with successful qualifications/all qualifications seems unintuitive. -Koppapa (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I would be specific and put "Semi-finals loss." SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

If there is not third place playoff, I'd suggest 3rd equal (3=), unless there is a predeclared tie-breaker. Jts1882 | talk 19:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you do, don't invent anything. Unless you've got a reliable source for the existence of a tie-breaker, don't use one. Personally, I'm not convinced of the need for a "finishing position" in a cup competition. Apparently Belgium finished 14th in the 2002 World Cup (appears to be unsourced, which isn't good for a featured article), but does that tell the reader anything meaningful that "round of 16" doesn't? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I would also be in favour of removing the position column altogether since, as you say, the round column is already informative enough. Most importantly, the position of a team in a competition is very rarely verifiable (other than 1st to 4th, or specific situations such as a "ranking of 3rd-placed teams" in the group stages). However, tournaments organized under a single group stage, with no knock-out stages, need a position parameter, as simply stating "Group stage" for all the teams is redundant. The best solution is to directly write, for example, "Sixth-place" under the round column, and remove the position column. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Players will not be released and leave their contract/clubs until 30 June 2019

Polite reminder - please do not update their 'current' club until that date, even if they have signed a new contract with a new club, as that won't come into effect until 1 July. Giant Snowman 14:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Not every club uses 30 June as an expiry date. Quite common (in Scotland at least) to either use 31 May or 10 June instead, presumably to save a few quid over the summer. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, should have clarified this is English Football League only. Giant Snowman 15:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Plus all major European leagues in Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Portugal and a whole bunch more: https://www.fifatms.com/itms/worldwide-transfer-windows-calendar/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robby.is.on (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say end of contract /off-season was an odd period in football. Negotiation of extension could last until August, while some players are confirmed to be release and/or not renewing the contract in this period. Technically they are free agent only after 1 July, but at the same time, without a crystal ball, some of them almost 100% confirm to leave the club (for example, signed a pre-contract with other club already), and some of the players that still negotiating the contract, listing they are free agent or current member of the team, may be they are both correct in a certain point of view. I would rather add citation to the main body to state the club position (e.g., released), but leaving my foot out of infobox for lame edit war. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

And Robby, your link was for international transfer window and nothing to do with the usual end date of the contract. Some countries, such as Italy, already had domestic football transfer in June. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The transfer window has something to do with the usual start date of a contract. That was GS's point above: a contract with a new club cannot come into effect before the transfer window opens. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Jamaica national football team

So I have updated the page to a good amount, but now I am trying to work out who would be the notable players that played for the national team and I am stumped on that section. HawkAussie (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Is that section necessary? Lebanon and Croatia, both GAs, don’t have it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Not needed. Create a separate page List of Jamaica international footballers and link there, but do not have a 'notable' list. Giant Snowman 07:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You beat me to the same reply by 10 seconds GS, haha. Crowsus (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Agreed, do not have it at all. You have the players with most caps and most goals. There aren't really any other possible inclusion criteria that I can think of that aren't either POV or OR or a combination of the two..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah it's not in the Good Article section but if (probably not) I want to go for FA then that question would come up again as all three of the notable pages have a notable players section. HawkAussie (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

To be fair Scotland and Belgium have a long footballing history. It would be fairly easy to add some information regarding their football culture and their main players in certain eras. For countries like Jamaica it's a much harder task, in my opinion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The player's which have played for Jamaica at a World Cup (e.g. 1998) immediately spring to my mind. That's a fairly notable tournament.T v x1 22:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Dab qualifier for multi-nationality players

Ben Davis (Australian footballer) just made his professional debut (article will be created soon), so Ben Davis (footballer) is now ambiguous, and should be moved. I was going to move him to Ben Davis (Singaporean footballer), but read that he's likely to not ever use his Singaporean nationality due to a military service dispute, and is playing for Fulham Academy as a British player (Welsh born father). To further complicate matters, his mother is Thai, and he was born in Thailand. Now, by WP:NFOOTBALL, he's not even notable, but I think from the "first Singaporean to sign with an EPL team" and the military service stories he meets WP:GNG, so I don't think it should be deleted. But should he be moved to Ben Davis (Singaporean footballer) despite that he might never play in Singapore and wasn't born there, Ben Davis (British footballer), Ben Davis (Fulham footballer), something else or should the ambiguity be kept and just hatnote it? The-Pope (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Are both born in the same date? If not, the standard practice is to disambiguate them by year of birth. See Hassan Chaito (footballer, born 1989) and Hassan Chaito (footballer, born 1991). If they're born in the same year, add the month. If in the same month, add the day. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly why we should avoid using nationality - especially as 'Australian footballer' is ambiguous with those who play AFL... Giant Snowman 21:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

He does play AFL though. Unless that becomes ambiguous, that is the preferred qualifier if (footballer) alone is not enough. I really dislike using year of birth unless absolutely necessary, as it isn't something that most people know, but I can see it's probably the best outcome here. They do generally know their nationality, with only a few problematic players like this. The-Pope (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought by "Australian footballer" you meant an association football player who is Australian, not an AFL player. At that point Ben Davis (footballer) should remain where he is. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems that there are two approaches for AFL players: (1) - John Brown (footballer, born 1962) (association football) and John Brown (footballer, born 1944) (AFL); (2) - James Brown (Australian soccer) and James Brown (footballer, born 1998). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll repeat - we should use YOB rather than nationality because the latter can be ambiguous and is liquid. Giant Snowman 08:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep the ambiguity and hat it. If he's an Australian rules football player, follow that sport's naming conventions, which explicitly take account of players of other codes already existing. WP:NCSP#Australian football step 2 would have you use (Australian footballer). Then leave Ben Davis (footballer) where he is, with a hatnote pointing to the AFL Davis. Or, if that offends WP:NOPRIMARY, use (Australian rules footballer) and (association footballer) for absolute clarity, and redirect (footballer) to the dab page, Ben Davis#Sports. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Watford F.C. directors

Rename to Watford F.C. chairman and directors ? Govvy (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"Directors and chairmen" seems to be the norm judging from Category:Directors of football clubs in England (which the Watford cat isn't in)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It is now... Giant Snowman 13:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

CONCACAF Gold Cup Final Rankings

In the Gold Cup 2019 article there are unsourced Final Rankings constantly added. We should have a eye on it.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A link would be helpful. But yes, I agree, there is an unhealthy obsession with providing a "final ranking" for knockout tournaments. Unless the organisers put out an official final ranking, they should be deleted on sight, especially if there's no source. – Pee Jay 16:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Estadio Francisco de la Hera article name change

Hi, Extremadura UD offcially changed their stadium name to Estadio Ciudad de Almendralejo, can someone change the name of the article to its new name to avoid future confusion? Sorry, I am really unfamiliar with the name change topic, just had to bring it up. Thank you. TheSoccerBoy (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Not yet. The club will make a referendum between all its members as it seems it was not a popular change (link). Asturkian (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Africa Cup of Nations

User:Mar400r has gone and changed the title of all the individual Africa Cup of Nations tournament pages from 2004 backwards to "Africa Cup of Nations" from "African Cup of Nations". The name of the competition until 2006 was "African Cup of Nations", only 2006 onwards did it become "Africa Cup of Nations" (without the n in African). Is there a way to set it back without having to go into every article and changing it? Also now the other articles for each edition aren't consistent, for example the squads and final for each competition have one name (African) and the tournament page itself has another (Africa). TonyStarks (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't even notice the name was changed in the first place. Even BBC makes the error still, see the headline [11] I support reverting to African Cup of Nations for editions before 2006, as that's what will appear in contemporaneous sources. SportingFlyer T·C 03:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Western Sydney Wanderers FC Reserves and Western Sydney Wanderers FC NPL

Western Sydney Wanderers FC NPL seems to be a content fork of Western Sydney Wanderers FC Reserves. Not familiar with Australia football scene so if someone can take a look and that will be great! Thanks --Xaiver0510 (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I've speedied it, good catch! SportingFlyer T·C 03:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Reserves shouldn't have a capital letter as it's not a proper noun. Hack (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

A quick check of some sources online shows reserves does get capitalised when it's part of a larger team name. SportingFlyer T·C 03:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps but this is a made-up name used only by Wikipedia. Hack (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE at an article covered by this project

Is it just me or does this article about a relatively obscure rating system contain way too much information which is INDISCRIMINATE if not WP:OR? Not only is it very large (150 kB) but there seems to be, apart from the trainload of primary, non-independent or unrelated sources, only one proper independent source dealing with the subject (i.e. this one). The whole seems to have been raised already a while ago on article talk, but no permanent remedy seems to have come, and given my latest attempts at dealing with WP:INDISCRIMINATE in sports articles, thought I'd get the input of a wee bit more people here? Should I try trimming it down, or should we just sent the whole thing to AfD for lacking notability (I've checked the references from the previous, they appear to be trivial mentions)? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The World Football Elo Ratings are covered in the press, see [12], [13], [14] (not necessarily sigcov, that search took me 20 seconds) and are generally regarded as more accurate than the FIFA rankings. I would expect pushback. SportingFlyer T·C 03:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The tidal margin for deletion is two significant mentions in two independent reliable sources. If there are then there is little chance it will be deleted (i.e. you could nominated it, there'd be alot of arguments and it won't get deleted). You could ask yourself, what harm does it do? Maybe better to concentrate on BLPs and quack psychology or something...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt the article will be deleted, but the vast majority of the content is way too esoteric. I've trimmed it down, but I don't expect my trimmings to remain on the cutting room floor for long. – Pee Jay 06:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It's been reverted almost immediately by @Afasmit: 107.190.33.254 (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I've restored PeeJay's edit. Giant Snowman 13:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I have a similar question about Unofficial Football World Championships, should this article be trimmed? I've done so in the past as I feel it's a little bit crufty, but always gets it's sections back. It is covered in secondary sources, but more like it exists rather than it's important.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

IP 2.28.14.210

This user, who has already been blocked under one IP, has an obsession with changing "F.C." to "FC" in various Kent-based articles, even after being repeatedly asked to stop. I know it's not a big deal, although the fact that it includes in some cases changing perfectly fine direct links to redirects is mildly irksome. Could I get a few more eyes on their contributions? Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Fernando Llorente

He is still at Tottenham and this is kind of first hand knowledge which isn't really released, he had a few training sessions with the reserves, yet people keep saying he left the club, from what I know he hasn't actually left the club, but he might be out of contract. I am not sure what to put down or do about his article. Govvy (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

No reason to change anything if no reliable sources have reported anything. SportingFlyer T·C 18:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

If nothing has officially changed since the Premier League's released list then he's a free agent, I'd say. A mention could be made that he still trained with the club after his release. R96Skinner (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

A referenced mention of course ;) --SuperJew (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, seeing him training is hardly a reference, they don't allow me to take pictures down there! Govvy (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

See this, the best I can find on the situation. He's in limbo. Giant Snowman 10:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The PL released list says Please note that players signified as a "free transfer" or released by a club on the expiry of their contract on 30 June 2019 could still remain there next season. So this list should not be seen as definitive for players leaving their club.. If the PL release is saying that it shouldn't be seen as evidence the player have left the club, we shouldn't be using it as a source for than fact. Jts1882 | talk 10:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't so keen on the prem league source either. I kept putting his release in a hidden comment marks on 2019–20 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season asking for another source, but it kept being taking out. Govvy (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Nakumatt F.C.

More eyes welcome at Talk:Nakumatt F.C.#Requested move 9 June 2019, where @Andrewa: has opposed my suggested page move despite the club changing their official name. Giant Snowman 10:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewa: is now claiming that Soccerway can't be considered as it's a primary source...?! Giant Snowman 10:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Is Soccerway a reliable secondary source for such information? Happy to be proven wrong. Note that a source can be primary for such matters and secondary for others, it depends on how they obtain and interpret their information. Please provide your evidence in the appropriate place. Andrewa (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Nakumatt F.C.#Discussion. The way now seems clear for the move. It could have been done a lot more quickly had the relevant evidence been provided more quickly. Have a look at WP:NHC and ask... how many of those !votes are discardable?

I also note that the Soccerway article was deleted. It can still be a reliable source, but probably some discussion of that is warranted since members of this Wikiproject seem to want to rely on it heavily. Has this taken place? Andrewa (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Soccerway etc

Note the subsequent discussion at Talk:Nakumatt F.C.. I'm sorry it got a bit personal. Wikipedia seems to have abandoned the original spirit of WP:NPA.

My point is that A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement. [15] So it's not helpful to just say that Soccerway is not a primary source. The policy is a bit more complicated than that!

If (as I'm guessing from the tone of this discussion) this WikiProject relies heavily on Soccerway, some discussion of its reliability and relationship to the clubs should be on record, and may already be somewhere for all I know. The deletion of its article is not a show-stopper by any means, but another reason for this discussion. Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're upset about here. I think Soccerway can be both primary and secondary, depending on what you're using it for, but in this particular instance, we're using it as additional evidence to show the common name of the team has changed. SportingFlyer T·C 20:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. But that isn't evidence of usage by other people, because Soccerway are most likely to just automatically use the official name of the club. And if they do, that makes them a primary source... closely associated with the club.

If you do want to use Soccerway in this way, or still don't understand, I suggest you take it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. They are the experts. Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please note this contribution by Struway2 which details sound reasons for considering Soccerway a reliable secondary source for some things, but concludes that for the purpose of deciding the article name it is a primary source. (I hope I have that correct.)

Please compare this to [16] [17] and [18] by GiantSnowman. The second and third of these contain particularly silly statements, but they all miss the point.

But hopefully this was not a complete waste of time. The detailed analysis by Struway2 (diff above) can and should be cited whenever the question of the reliability and independence of Soccerway comes up. The need for secondary sources in an RM, and for giving your reasons for a move (whether as a supporter or proposer), will I hope be noted, as will other policies linked to in the RM in question. And we got there, and the move will improve Wikipedia. Best. Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Andrewa, you have repeatedly asserted, despite being told to the contrary, that Soccerway is a reliable secondary source. You have repeatedly said, with no evidence, that it "most likely" gets its information from press releases. You have been the only person to oppose an uncontroversial page move supported by multiple third-party sources. Your conduct has resulted in unnecessary drama and aggravation all around. Please just drop it and move on. Giant Snowman 07:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This is so muddled I do not know where to start. You seem to have some negatives confused, and if you wish to raise an issue of my behaviour, please do it on my talk page.

But the important point is, Soccerway is not a secondary source for club names, as you have now also been told by another editor.

At the time I !voted oppose, we had only your nomination to go on. We could not have closed it as move on that. It was not uncontroversial at that time, because you failed to provide the required rationale. It is now, thanks to the work of others who were prepared to read the policy. Andrewa (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't lecture me on policy. All you had to say was "oh, I'm not sure about the sources, do you have any more?", rather than making untrue and unfair assertions about both me and the matter at hand. I'll repeat - you have caused unnecessary work and delays for no good reason. Giant Snowman 13:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I could have done that. And had I done so, hopefully you would have provided the required sources, rather than arguing that they weren't necessary, as you did. We just didn't hit it off, and I regret that, and perhaps I should have done things differently. And perhaps so should you.

But it had been relisted once already, and I was the first to even comment. I wasn't unsure about the sources you cited in your nomination, they were both primary, a news article describing the name change and the club's own facebook page. And you still don't seem to see any problem with that, but hopefully others in the WikiProject will.

Because this was the primary cause of the delays. Had proper sources been provided in the first place, there would have been no need to even relist (and of course I did not do that), it could instead have been closed as move in the light of there being a valid rationale and no opposition. Had they been provided immediately after my !vote, there would have been little discussion required, and again it could have been closed far more quickly.

I have looked over my comments, and I see no untrue and unfair assertions. Andrewa (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

There's two things here I honestly don't understand - first, why you claim that capitalfm.co.ke news article was "primary" as it's clearly a secondary source, and second, why you're not dropping the stick here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not dropping the stick here because the issues are clearly still not understood, and I hope that by clarifying them here, we won't have more of the sort of needless delay and argy bargy that were so much a part of this RM. Or at least, perhaps not as much!

The article in question is https://www.capitalfm.co.ke/sports/2018/11/09/nakumatt-fc-renamed-to-mt-kenya-united/ I assume? The paper itself is a reliable secondary source for most of the information it contains (as is Soccerway). But that doesn't make every article in it a secondary source (or even every statement in articles which do contain secondary material, which is the problem with Soccerway), and that's a very important principle of the policy, and the key to this whole discussion.

So, good question.

The article does say Nakumatt FC finished 16th in the 2018 KPL season with 37 points, winning nine matches, drawing 10 and losing 15. That could be cited as a secondary source for those statistics.

But it also says “We promise to have a new beginning of vibrant competitive soccer during the new season that starts in December. Mt Kenya United ia s team to watch,” Mureithi, who contested for the Embakasi East parliamentary seat in the 2017 general elections, vowed. It's at least partly based on an interview with him, and is a classic example of a primary source so far as the club name goes.

Does that clarify things? Andrewa (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I certainly wish this would go away. But as it hasn't let me respond to you have repeatedly asserted, despite being told to the contrary, that Soccerway is a reliable secondary source. You have repeatedly said, with no evidence, that it "most likely" gets its information from press releases. You have been the only person to oppose an uncontroversial page move supported by multiple third-party sources. All of that is quite simply untrue.

I withdrew my oppose !vote as soon as the first secondary source was supplied. I changed it again to support as soon as the others were supplied. Check the page history, it's all there, or I'm happy to provide the diffs. That's simple.

More important, the statement that Soccerway is a reliable secondary source completely misses the point. Yes, that's been said over and over again. But the whole problem is, A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement. (WP:PSTS) That is the problem both with citing Soccerway as was done, and with the newspaper article cited in the original nomination. Andrewa (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This seems likely to be archived without further response, but again please read this contribution by Struway2. It shows understanding that a reliable secondary source for some material can contain other material for which it is a primary source. This is quite explicit in the policy, and a widespread and continuing failure to appreciate this point, both in the original RM proposal and in subsequent discussion both there and here, appears to me to be the main problem. And yes, I know some think the only problem is me, and that I'm giving a lecture on policy.

Compare that post to this one by SportingFlyer which assumes that I'm saying the whole article is a primary source. I'm not. I'm saying that on this one matter, this article is a primary source. (And I still do. And the only other source cited in the RM at the time I first !voted was the club's own website. Anyone who thinks the club's own website is a secondary source just hasn't read the policy.)

I am giving a lecture. It's needed. Please check my facts. Andrewa (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are you still posting on this? Let it go, let it be archived, move on. Jeez. Giant Snowman 12:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

David Nugent

Can someone knowledgeable on the topic please review recent changes to the article David Nugent (changes since June 16). I've undone some edits that look like vandalism to me, but I'm not sure about some of the other changes. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I restored the revision from 16 June and made changes to reflect his recent release by Derby. Should be fine now? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate articles - Garw Athletic and Garw SBGC

I've been doing some work to work on bringing up-to-date the Welsh Football pyramid and clubs. I came across the following two club articles - Garw S.B.G.C. and Garw Athletic F.C.. This suggests [19] that in 2008 Athletic changed its name to Garw SBGC. Suggestions on which article to use for the base for merged content and how to delete and redirect after those decisions made would be welcomed Zanoni (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Gary Bowyer

@AMB220579: claims to be a 'friend' of Mr Bowyer, and says that the DOB is wrong (although numerous sources support it, except Hugman) and that his stint at Carshalton is incorrect (again, despite numerous sources supporting it). Thoughts/eyes welcome, as ever. Giant Snowman 11:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Steve Whitney, Ultimate book of non-league players 1997-98 page 38. Gary Bowyer midfielder played for Crystal Palace (apprentice), joined Carshalton in 1986, other clubs: Whyteleafe, Bromley, returned to Carshalton, Kingstonian, rejoined Carshalton again October 1996. Gary Bowyer managed Carshalton, but it's probably this one. Also here [20]. Both DoB's can also be found in Rothmans Cattivi (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That non-league playing career does not tally with our Mr Bowyer's career, as he played for Hereford United, Nottingham Forest and Rotherham United... Giant Snowman 12:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

There are two Gary Bowyers, the one with an article here with a Football League career, and a different chap who was limited to non-League. It would appear that some of the details of the non-League Mr Bowyer, such as the DOB and Carshalton spells, have been incorrectly attributed to the FL Mr Bowyer. See this quote from the FL Mr Bowyer: "Contrary to what Wikipedia says, I have never managed Carshalton Athletic. I have no idea where that came from, but it gets published in programmes, on websites, all over the place. I've never even set foot in Carshalton and they've got my date of birth wrong!".

From a better source (the Lancashire Telegraph): "Contrary to reports, he did not have a spell managing non-league side Carshalton Athletic – that was a different Gary Bowyer". Mattythewhite (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Lovely, cheers! Giant Snowman 13:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I've left a note on the article talk page and will link here in due course. I suspect somebody many years ago got them confused on here, and lazy journalists have just copied it ever since... Giant Snowman 13:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe sending messages to someone calling them a vandal and doing disruptive editing is ok in your book GiantSnowman...it isn't in mine. Notice there's no apology from you for the messages you sent me. Cheers and have a good weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMB220579 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe don't disruptively repeatedly remove sourced content without providing a proper explanation why / without providing sources which show why the content is wrong. We (and by we I mean Mattythewhite) have been able to find sources justifying the changes. Before then your edits did just look like vandalism. Giant Snowman 14:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Gyasi Zardes

There has been fairly persistent disruptive editing on this page for some time, whether that it changing proper names incorrectly or changing dates in infoboxes against convention. If more people in the project would please watch the page, that would be appreciated. Jay eyem (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This is now spanning across multiple IPs, would someone with more knowledge on how to handle the situations please help to address it? I have already hit three edits for the day and requested semi-protection. Jay eyem (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Page has been protected (see WP:RFPP for info. on this) and at least one IP has been blocked. Eagleash (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

twitter accounts in info boxes

You know how we have websites in info boxes, I was wondering if it's a good idea to twitter account links as a footer in player and club info boxes or not. Govvy (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Twitter External Links are depreciated unless under certain circumstances. See WP:Twitter-EL Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely not. Giant Snowman 14:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not even sure we should put links to websites in infoboxes. That's what we have "External links" sections for. – Pee Jay 14:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fully supportive of removing the club website from the infobox. Never thought it was a worthy inclusion. Number 5 7 16:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any encyclopedic benefit in this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

k, fair enough, I was just thinking of connectivity, but you guys clearly don't like the idea. Govvy (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonia and Macedonia

Some of the footballers in the past have scored against the Macedonia national football team when the country was called Macedonia at the time. What I've noticed (and probably others too) is that when the Template:fb was updated to have the North Macedonia ... there, the result is the North Macedonia name has been displayed on the goal stats table when it wasn't known as that until somewhere in 2019. I see that David Beckham and Steven Gerrard have the name as it was at the time of scoring but some like Aaron Ramsey does not as he would know he scored against Macedonia in 2013 under that name. Iggy (Swan) 08:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Isn't there a |variant= parameter to handle this sort of thing? Although it is normally to display a different flag, I think there is name associated with it. I can't seem to track down the flag variant list. Jts1882 | talk 09:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The |name= would be correct and I think what I'm doing is right as it was known in the year of event from previous qualifying tournaments. Iggy (Swan) 10:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Why even use a variant or name, when you can just use {{fb|Macedonia}}, same as FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro. Displays old name, wikilinks to current name. --BlameRuiner (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Should it?

Should a fourth-placer written in Honours column, especially if the player/manager has never won the better achievement in the said competition? – Flix11 (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

No. It's not an honour to finish fourth in anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with TRM, fourth place can't be considered an honour. Kosack (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I also agree, there is no way that finishing fourth in any competition is an "honour".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

No: FIFA don't award a medal for it (the third-place play-off takes place to decide who gets bronze) so I'm not sure why we would see it as honour-worthy. Also, see this discussion from July last year, which established consensus that fourth place should not be included. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Lancaster Inferno (UWS)

Would some members from FOOTY mind taking a look at this article? I've tried to find and add citations whenever possible and do some other cleanup, but I think I've done about as much as I could. Most of the citations I found were to lancasteronline.com; that might be too local per WP:AUD, but then again maybe that's OK per WP:FOOTYN#Club notability. The Lancaster Online site lets you register for two free articles, but requires payment for any more than that; so, I set the |url-access= parameter for the citations to "registration". (FWIW, I was able to work around that by having Google translate the article into a language other than English and then click on the "original text" button). I added a {{COI}} template because someone claiming to be a co-owner of the team recently added quite a bit of updated content to the article, but perhaps that template could be removed if others feel there's no need for it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Just going to add that the defunct Lancaster Inferno (NPSL) is also completely unsourced, but maybe some of the sources I found for the women's team could be used there or perhaps there's more in Lancaster Online. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Frecheville Davys F.C.

Wanting a bit of advice here. Frecheville Community Association were formed in the 1950s and played in the FA Amateur Cup and FA Vase, so had a Wikipedia article.

Last year, they relocated to another home ground and renamed as Frecheville Davys. This summer (2019), a new Frecheville Community Association was formed back at the original venue.

The question is, which club should the Wikipedia article refer to? The old club that changed its name and location, or the new club that has taken the old name and ground? Kivo (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The original, which is the notable entity. Number 5 7 22:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitely the original. If the new club (ever) plays at a notable level, create a new article with a different title -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Black English sportspeople

We don't have Category:White English sportspeople so why should we have a Black English sportspeople one? I really don't think it's appropriate to have category segregation, kinda sick if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

We already have a catmain at Category:Black British people, and Category:Black English people. If you type in "Category:Black", there are a lot of categories like this, I don't think it's an issue self contained to sport. I'll abstain from this, as I know it's been talked about ad nauseam before this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Although, feel free to nominate at WP:CfD. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Because it's considered a defining characteristic, hence why we also have Category:White South African people but no Category:Black South African people. Giant Snowman 09:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that we have White South Africa, I am not a fan of this boundary categorisation, probably a much bigger issue than I realised. I personally prefer to put people into categories by what they do, not what they look like. Govvy (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a conversation for a different location really. We already have defining categories like this, though, think Category:Women's association football players, and Category:Sportswomen by sport. We don't have men, etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Scoresway / soccerway

It looks like Perform Group have dropped the Scoresway brand, and dropped it hard. From the links I've checked today, former working URLs to player, team and match pages on Scoresway just drop straight to a login page and (when cancelled) eventually redirect to the Soccerway home page via a splash "scoresway is now soccerway" kind of page.

I don't know how many links there are on wiki to Scoresway, but I'm guessing it approximates to a shit-ton.

The good news, is that because the player, team, match ids are consistent between the two, a bot should be able to sort them out. Hopefully some clever people are watching this page... Gricehead (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

If you tell me what the URL format have changed from we can probably do it via AWB, like I did when the DBU changed their website (but kept the player ID number - see this discussion). Giant Snowman 14:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This search picks up 1683 articles. Just changing the url doesn't seem to work, e.g. ^[1] to ^[2]. It goes to the page should ongoing games. Jts1882 | talk 14:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

References

^ "Copa America – Paraguay vs Colombia – Soccer – Scoresway – Results, fixtures, tables and statistics". Scoresway. 29 June 2007. Retrieved 14 June 2015.
^ "Copa America – Paraguay vs Colombia – Soccer – Scoresway – Results, fixtures, tables and statistics". Scoresway. 29 June 2007. Retrieved 14 June 2015.

Yeah, not going to be that simple:

Link type	example	Scoresway	Soccerway	Soccerway (short)
Player	Saïd Arab (Red Star)	http://uk.soccerway.com/?sport=soccer&page=player&id=604379	https://www.soccerway.com/players/said-arab/604379/	https://www.soccerway.com/players/-/604379/
Match	Coupe de France 7th round game	http://uk.scoresway.com/?sport=soccer&page=match&id=2931250	https://www.soccerway.com/matches/2018/11/18/france/coupe-de-france/st-orens/football-club-de-sete-34/2931250/	? (needs date) https://www.soccerway.com/matches/2018/11/18/-/-/-/-/2931250/
Squad list	Athlético Marseille	http://uk.scoresway.com/?sport=soccer&page=team&id=8884&view=squad	https://www.soccerway.com/teams/france/gs-consolat-marseille/8884/squad/	https://www.soccerway.com/teams/-/-/8884/squad/
Competition	18-19 Championnat National 2	http://www.scoresway.com/?sport=soccer&page=competition&id=354	https://www.soccerway.com/national/france/cfa/20182019/group-a/r49262/	? (needs league name and id) https://www.soccerway.com/national/-/-/-/-/r49262/

Soccerway inserts way more data (from the page) into the URL. The competition link on soccerway introduces more complexity for multi-group competitions, as it doesn't give an overall top scorer table, as Scoresway did. Gricehead (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Beyond my ability, sorry! Giant Snowman 15:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This is why templates are useful. They can be modified for such changes. I wonder if there is a two step solutuion. Convert the cite web sitations to a scoreway template using the same parameters. Then have the template wrap cite web with the appropriate template modifications for the url. Jts1882 | talk 15:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this is possible.

Convert the {{cite web}} reference to {{scoresway}} using all the parameters unchanged. I assume this can be done with AWB or another tool.
Create a template {{scoresway}} that calls a module that grabs all the cite web parameters and passes them to {{cite web}} after modifying the url. I can do this if we can work out the changes used to the url (see next point)
Most of the elements in the soccerway are optional and can be replaced with dashes. See the modifications in the table above (new right hand column). This means the url for player and squad can be generated by parsing the old url. However, this might no be possible for matches and leagues, which require addition information: date for matches and the league name and identifier for leagues.

To get this to work the two things needed to resolve are the match url and automatically converting over 1200 templates. Any suggestions for the latter? Jts1882 | talk 17:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

In the mean time is it possible to get the search mentioned above outputted as a page with just a list of articles? I don't mind working through a few in my area of interest whilst I'm doing other things. Gricehead (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Not easily. A shame the search function doesn't have a simple list output. Jts1882 | talk 09:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I've created a template that converts the player url if you use {{scoresway}} instead of {{cite web}} (or {{cite news}}).

So if the citation is ...

{{Cite web|title=Profile of Carlos Vela at Scoresway|url=http://www.scoresway.com/?sport=soccer&page=person&id=3370|publisher=Scoresway|accessdate=28 November 2014}}

... replace "cite web" with "scoresway" like this ...

{{Scoresway|title=Profile of Carlos Vela at Scoresway|url=http://www.scoresway.com/?sport=soccer&page=person&id=3370|publisher=Scoresway|accessdate=28 November 2014}}

... and the scoresway url^[1] will be replaced with the soccerway one^[2].

This is only a prototype, but it suggests that the player and squad citations can be fixed by using this template instead of cite web. Jts1882 | talk 08:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

References

^ "Profile of Carlos Vela at Scoresway". Scoresway. Retrieved 28 November 2014.
^ "Profile of Carlos Vela at Soccerway". Soccerway. Retrieved 28 November 2014.

Johnson Hippolyte

Trying to work out what makes this chap notable? Giant Snowman 15:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparently I started to AfD the article in 2008, changed my mind immediately and added some refs "for notability". I don't remember that at all, but then I struggle to remember what I had for tea last night, let alone what I did 11 years ago......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox medals

Why do we include medaltemplates = as a parameter in our infobox? It can be cluttering and is often (well, always) unsourced. I think we should remove. Thoughts? Giant Snowman 14:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

So that the medals template can be included in the infobox instead of in two separate boxes. This is especially useful in shorter articles so that you don't stack two boxes on top of one another instead of just having a single box. -DJSasso (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Eh? Any honours should be explicitly referenced in a separate 'Honours' section, not plopped in the infobox. Giant Snowman 15:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with them. Kante4 (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm the opposite. I don't see the point in including this info in the infobox, especially when we clearly have to pick and choose what goes in there to begin with. We have enough issues with "Honours" sections as it is, but that should be enough for any page. – Pee Jay 15:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

They should be in both, the purpose of the infobox is to summarize the most important parts of the article, arguably the medals an athlete has won are some of the most important bits of information about them. In a long enough article then you would just put the medal templates in the honours section, but in short articles it causes the boxes to stack so that parameter is to combine the two boxes so they don't stack. -DJSasso (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was only for Olympic games medals. Govvy (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah its usually only used for Olympic or in other sports World Championships. Sometimes you see other events if they are highly notable events. -DJSasso (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be good if some clarification on that existed somewhere - as far as I can see neither the football biography infobox nor the medal template have anything in their documentation to say what events should theoretically be covered. I'm surprised nobody has ever attempted to add all 30+ of Ryan Giggs' medals to his infobox (unless maybe they have.......?) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have seen World Cup medals in that field, ye, what does the field criteria say? Govvy (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought the medals section was for international honours only. I've only ever seen it used for Olympics, Asian Games etc (see Aya Sameshima). Number 5 7 18:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This is one of the issues. We have no agreement on how/when/if it should be used. Giant Snowman 19:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree with removing them seen as they aren't being used, or at least only seems to be used for the Olympics.--Echetus Xe 23:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If they are to remain then surely it would be more appropriate to restrict them to the World Cup rather than the Olympics, as the World Cup is a million times more prestigious in football than the Olympics......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if needed or not. But I do think if stays it shouldn't be under medals (apart from Olympics), as that is not really a term of use in soccer. In Aussie football, for example the infobox has at the end highlights, and that would include awards like Player of the Season, MVP, top scorer, etc. --SuperJew (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah its usually only international medals. Usually in most sports it would be things like Olympics, World Championships which is sort of what the World Cup is etc. Some sports that have very high profile junior international events list them as well. But generally things on the level of Olympics and World Cup. -DJSasso (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Freestyle football

The article freestyle football has recently had a major rewrite (diff) from an anonymous edit. I don't think the edit was an improvement and I'm inclined to revert, but the previous versions of the article are in poor shape as well. Maybe someone can take a look to see which is better. Either way, the article could definitely use some attention from knowledgeable people from this WikiProject. Deli nk (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Girona FC

Wanted to double check, should it be Girona FC or at Girona F.C. for the Spanish club? Govvy (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

All Spanish clubs are named as FC, CD or similar without using points. Asturkian (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems like British clubs are the only ones who still use the dots... Perhaps it's time we did away with them altogether? – Pee Jay 18:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Italian clubs do as well. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Isherwood international youth career

Input welcome at the article talk page. Giant Snowman 07:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

2 questions about lists

So I was browsing through some lists, and had a couple of questions I'd like reminding about.

Looking at List of Australia international soccer players born outside Australia I see each section has the flagicon before the name of the country. Do we do this or to delete the flagicons per MOS:FLAGS?
Looking at Category:Career achievements of association football players, what is our criteria for having a page "List of international goals scored by X"? I remember talk about number of goals (100 and over maybe?) or top-scorer of a country ever (which means we'd delete a page if they're overtaken?), but don't remember what the consensus that resulted was.

Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. Seems relevant here, though most of the Croats should probably be under Yugoslavia. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I was also wondering why all those with brackets "(born in X)" aren't just under X. --SuperJew (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

top-scorer of a country ever (which means we'd delete a page if they're overtaken?) - no - such lists are deemed appropriate for any player who has been the record holder, even if they aren't any more. Deleting the article because the record was broken would be ridiculous -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Is that the consensus though ChrisTheDude, or is it a criteria like number of goals? --SuperJew (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Is globalsportsarchive.com reliable?

Hi, I was wondering whether or not globalsportsarchive.com were a reliable source for players' information (such as DoB, place of birth ecc...). Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

split template by gender too?

Hi, I have been working on this international results template after finding it was incomplete. I didn't realise quite how many were missing! It now needs split up, so my plan is to split the men's list into one for each confederation. But I'm wondering, do you think I should group the women's into those templates as well, dividing it as they have done in the original, or should I give the women their own template which would be divided into the confederations? I can see the arguments both ways (same governing bodies, but basically a different sport)...? Crowsus (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

{{International women's football}} is split from the men's equivalent (along with many other high-level templates), so I don't think there would be any problems with having two sets of templates for international results (and plenty of navboxes are also split at the confederation level). Sounder Bruce 00:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Notability question

Shouldn’t any player who has been selected to represent their country in a World Cup finals tournament be deemed inherently notable for GNG’s sake? To me it doesn’t make sense that a player who is brought on as a stoppage time substitute in one international friendly between two countries ranked outside the top 200 is classed as notable, however a player who has been selected to play in a FIFA World Cup isn’t. I’ve seen many AfDs pass/fail due to the sole reason of a player having “played in a fully professional league”, but evidently selection as a squad member in the FIFA World Cup itself isn’t deemed as “notable” enough for some?

Why can’t we deem that any player selected for the FIFA World Cup (or even Club World Cup) is automatically notable? I mean, isn’t that pretty notable within itself? - J man708 (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NFOOTBALL applies, and includes

"Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA,[6] in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA, or the Olympic Games. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria." Koncorde (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@J man708: Which article of someone who appeared in the FIFA World Cup has been deleted as being non-notable? SportingFlyer T·C 16:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the OP is suggesting this be extended to include any player selected for a world cup squad, even if they never play an tier 1 international. It's probably reasonable to say such a person will invariably meet GNG, more so than players who make one substitute appearance for an English league two club anyway 😏... — Amakuru (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Club World Cup is a bit of a can of worms given the status of the Oceania entrants – are New Caledonian club Hienghène Sport's players notable? Number 5 7 16:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Any player in this case, as mentioned by Amakuru, would probably pass GNG. A similar thing happened with Caoimhin Kelleher, who was on the bench for the 2019 UEFA Champions League final. R96Skinner (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand that it could be tricky for players from a club like Hienghène Sport or Hekari United to have a ton of information about them online, but I’ve seen tons of stub articles that contain literally “X is a footballer who plays for Y”. I know it’s rather OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I do see it as a valid point nonetheless.

The player who made me post this initially was Jim Milisavljevic, who was Australia’s 2nd choice keeper in 1974. I wanted learn about his career and subsequently had to look to other websites for this. He never played for Australia in an international match, but sat on the bench in quite a few and also played for Australia against touring club sides of the time. - J man708 (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say that even a non-starter would be notable on the basis that they likely would have been mentioned within the context of the matchday squad. However if he was the second keeper and never even a matchday squad then this becomes more wishy washy, and if his internationals are friendlies at a federation (local or national level) rather than confederation level it gets even more unclear where the boundary lies. Our boundary line for having made an appearance can be a bit merciless. Koncorde (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Merciless is an apt description. Surely being included in a World Cup is notable enough to pass GNG? - J man708 (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

He may well meet WP:GNG but there's not a lot of contemporary coverage online. Hack (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Mehdifootball1377 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can perhaps an admin from here look at the behaviour of the Mehdifootball1377 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I've reported them to AN/I here but I haven't received a response in three days and the issues are ongoing. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Vernon Lewis (footballer)

Hi all. Just over from WP:CRIC. I've created a stub on Vernon Lewis, who played minor counties cricket for Suffolk, but also played for and captained Ipswich in the early 1900s. Apart from that, there's not much I could find on him. So leaving him here if anyone fancies expanding the article. Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

There's a small profile at Pride of Anglia. Kosack (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: cheers :) StickyWicket (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

2019–20 Uganda Premier League

Could someone please move User:SportingFlyer/2019–20 Uganda Premier League to 2019–20 Uganda Premier League? I'd do it myself, but I get a warning the page has been salted/blacklisted, and the draft's ready to go. SportingFlyer T·C 06:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Never mind - copy and pasted and that worked just fine for some reason. SportingFlyer T·C 06:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Home ground v home stadium

@Jozamba: So now we have Jozamba replacing home ground (of) with home stadium (of) or simply home of because the user doesn't appreciate home ground and thinks that home stadium is "much better" (User talk:SLBedit#No home ground). SLBedit (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Football is played in the stadium not ground. Ground is a floor you step your foot on. Jozamba (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The ground which players step on is the field. SLBedit (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

To me "is the home ground of ..." sounds more normal than "is the home stadium of ..." I'm British, and this is the common usage here. For examples of sports venues with ground in the name see Baseball Ground and Old Trafford Cricket Ground. Spike 'em (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

And there's me thinking football was played on a pitch!!!--Egghead06 (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

As per Spike, I suspect this is an ENGVAR issue. "Ground" is very much used in the UK to describe venues. Number 5 7 11:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Traditionally it has always been the home ground, but stadium is beginning to be used more for the newer builds. I'm with Spike, home stadium sounds weird. Most traditional grounds wouldn't have been referred using stadium as part of the name, although Wembley is an exception (possibly as it was not built for football). Jts1882 | talk 11:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Depends on WP:ENGVAR. "Home ground" is never used in the United States. Smartyllama (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there a spanish Engvar, given the article that started this off was Coliseum Alfonso Pérez and it has nothing on talk page or article to state which version to use? Spike 'em (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR says "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another." So, if an article has no strong tie to a particular variant of English but one particular variant has been used up to this point, it should be retained. So if the article is demonstrably written in British English, it should remain so....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, this article has used "ground" since its first version and the only other contentious spelling I could spot was "honour", so I've reverted back to ground. There does seem to be a split in Spanish football venues between "home ground of" and "home stadium of", so maybe a sub-section of this project would like to suggest a standard? Spike 'em (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Home field is the US version of home ground (e.g. the DC United article). The Something Stadium is the home ground/field of That Club FC seems an appropriate form in both English variants. Alternatively, the club plays home games at the Something Stadium. A quick look at some MLS franchise articles find most use phrases close to those formats (only one used home stadium in the articles I checked). Jts1882 | talk 14:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Per JTS above. In addition, from English language POV, it's "Home Ground" because it's "Away Ground" and, more importantly, "neutral ground". Saying "neutral stadium" would be bizarre, just as using "Away Stadium" sounds utterly alien. The use of "ground" for sports dates back to pre-stadium times, when 'grounds' were just a communal space, or park area, leased by sporting clubs or committees for pastimes and leisure activities. Alternately they were private land used to the same effect. Obvious examples, in addition to those above are the "Boleyn Ground" vs the stadium that was in Upton Park. We also have several "fields" in the UK sporting parlance (not least, "Anfield", "Murrayfield", "Bloomfield" etc.) but we generally don't use "home field" as a term very much compared to ground. Koncorde (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Anfield is so called because it's in Anfield. It's nothing to do with "field" having any sort of sports-related meaning.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I never said it did? I commenting regarding JTS statement on the use of field and pointing out that many sports grounds are based in what was once rural areas with open spaces, y'know, "fields"/"grounds"/"park"/"meadow", as they were the most commonly available open areas for purchase and development (or bequeathed by the owner, or offered extended leasehold), but that we typically don't use the "field" term. Koncorde (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Clean sheets

Good Afternoon,

Big fan of your site great work. Just one suggestion when it comes to football/soccer for goalkeepers it would be better to show they're clean sheet record than goals scored as very rare a goalkeeper scores and isn't really what you look for in goal keepers

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.20.162 (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Stats for this are not always known, which is why they are not included. Giant Snowman 09:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree - this has been discussed many times before and the consensus every time has been that this information is available for such a small fraction of 'keepers that it would not be worth including. I'd love for someone to be able to quickly and easily tell me how many clean sheets Peter Shilton kept, but I don't think it's likely...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Match reports

I've been reading 1974 FA Cup Final and I see that the match report is sourced throughout to BBC and ITV highlights. Is that acceptable or should a written reliable source be used? Alternatively, is it like a book/film plot where the match itself is deemed to be its own source? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

TBH those YouTube links are both copyvios and shouldn't be in the article at all, let alone be used as references.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thought not. Okay, thanks, Chris. I'll remove them. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:EFL Championship players

Any reason why Category:EFL Championship players exists? Giant Snowman 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't think of any, the parent cat isn't exactly overflowing... Crowsus (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The cat had existed for a while, but may or may not worth to delete the EFL Championship players" cat. English Football League players had over 20,000 articles BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Inter Women

What's the right name? "Inter Women", "Inter Milan Women" or "F.C. Internazionale Milano Women"?--Dipralb (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I would ask what the club website says, but considering we didn't use the club website to name the article about the men's team, that might be a fool's errand. – Pee Jay 18:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you...--Dipralb (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Inter Women seems fine and matches most other big club sections of the Category:Women's_football_clubs_in_Italy. -Koppapa (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

For WP:Consistency may be Inter Milan Women, in par with Inter Milan Youth Sector. Matthew hk (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Marc Batchelor

Former player Marc Batchelor was murdered yesterday; a number of media reports say he was a South African national team player but I cannot find any of the usual sources which verify that. Any help appreciated! Giant Snowman 14:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi GS, it's incorrect reporting. He never played for the national team. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Liam E. Bekker:, I thought as much! Giant Snowman 07:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

World cup squads formations

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I'm asking for a bit of advice on improving the articles on FIFA World Cup groups which contain detailed statistical info about the match, football kits colours, etc. (for example 1978 FIFA World Cup Group 2). In order to make these articles more informative and precise I would like to arrange the starting elevens of the listed teams according to their positions on the pitch. It's not an easy task for earlier tournaments because most of the sources about FIFA World Cups before 1998 lack information on lineups and team formations. Still this data can be restored basing on different sources (FIFA technical reports, books, online articles) some of which are not regarded by Wikipedia as reliable (here I mean commentators' words and videos of the matches). However in most of the videos the defensive lines of each side can be seen clearly, and commentators often call the players' names alongside with their positions (e.g. right back, centre half, etc.) - I guess they take this info from the start list which each one of them gets before the match. But since we don't have this info in written form its truthfulness becomes doubtful. What can you advise to get perfectly legal and confirmed information of the teams formations? Algorus (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Jonathan Wilson's book, Inverting the Pyramid, has a lot of information about formations played by world cup teams. Jts1882 | talk 19:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Thanks for the idea! Unfortunately I wasn't able to find a decent version of the book online. There is a good series of Football Tactics Explained on YouTube but they speak mainly about WC winners and avoid minor football teams. Algorus (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Algorus: You can get some information using an Amazon preview [sorry I can't link it properly as Amazon is blacklisted]. This preview has sections (with formation diagrams) analyzing Italy v Austria in 1934 (p72) and Uruguay v Brazil in 1950 (p116), which gives a flavour of what is covered. If you are interested in the history of football formations, I can't recommend this book more highly. Jts1882 | talk 09:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the original broadcast of the match can be considered a viable source for formations, etc. The words of the commentator(s), while they are not always accurate due to the live nature of the broadcast, are at least better than looking at the match yourself and making your own judgements about the formations. That said, I would always prefer a diagrammatic representation of the team's starting formation to a rough description by the commentator. If all we've got to go on is a word-of-mouth description, I would probably avoid trying to shoehorn a formation into our articles and just go with general position groups instead of trying to be specific by saying "RB", "LM" or "CF". – Pee Jay 00:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Thanks. As far as I know most of the full match videos for WC 1966 & 1970 found online contain original English broadcast, for instance here. In 1966 matches starting line-ups are shown on the screen before the game begins. I think they can be regarded as officially affirmed formations though they are not 100% correct. Algorus (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Reginald Popham

Hi all. Would anyone be able to let me know how many games, if any, Reginald Popham played for Norwich? He gained three England amatuer caps eitherside of WWI. Cheers! StickyWicket (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: You'll be lucky to find statistical info about footballers from that era. Google has just one hit for him in connection with the Canaries but that only confirms his involvement in WWI, and you already have that from the Gazette. Interesting, that site calls him Reg while your cricket sites are more formal and call him Reginald. Difficult one, unless you can get hold of an NCFC book with full player stats in it. Good luck. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

He played 4 Southern League games in 1913-14 and one in 1919-20. Source Canary Citizens by John Eastwood & Mike Davage (1986) page 253 and 255. Cattivi (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks No Great Shaker and Cattivi, much appreciated. Perhaps football needs its own CricketArchive ;) StickyWicket (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox medal templates

Hi, GiantSnowman reverted about six of my edits where i placed a 3rd place medal on the honours template in some of the 1934 FIFA World Cup German team contestants. I am confused about this, his edit summary tells me to see this very talk page, I have gone through the discussion, but I see no accordance and/or agreement anywhere, just mixed opinions. The infobox is supposed to demonstrate the player's highlights throughout his career and I am positive that achieving a top finish in a World Cup and/or the Olympic Games is one big highlight for sure. TheSoccerBoy^{(𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕜)} 17:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Location of awards section for national team tournaments

For international tournaments, where should the awards section be located on the page? Should it be a sub-section under the statistics section (for example at 2018 FIFA World Cup, UEFA Euro 2016 and 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup), or as its own heading (for example at 2010 FIFA World Cup and 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup)? If the latter, should it be above or below the statistic section? It would be best to have a consistent style, so any input would be appreciated. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC

An RFC has been started which affects many football articles. You can leave your thoughts here.T v x1 17:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Belenenses SAD

Where should we put players that have only played for Belenenses SAD, under Category:C.F. Os Belenenses players or Category:Belenenses SAD players? SLBedit (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If it's a new, separate club then it should have a separate category. Giant Snowman 07:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I doubt it is a separate club. SAD is the legal form suffix. Just like Sporting CP, they incorporated a separate legal entity for the football section namely "Sporting Clube de Portugal - Futebol, SAD", but remained part of the sports club. Other example are "Futebol Clube do Porto - Futebol, SAD", "Sport Lisboa e Benfica - Futebol, SAD" and "Beşiktaş Futbol Yatırımları Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.". Matthew hk (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

That's how it started, @Matthew hk:. But it seems like it's a separate club now. See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Belenenses_SAD#History: "Thus was born Belenenses SAD as an autonomous football club, founded on 1 July 2018, after the secession of the SAD from the club.". Robby.is.on (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, i haven't read the article . After reading it, it seem a separate club (just like the case of FCSB). Now i wonder should we kept SAD in the WP:article title, as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) stated that legal suffix should be dropped. SAD may kept as disambiguator, but are there any better option? Matthew hk (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Keeping "SAD" makes sense here, in my opinion. Relevant parts of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies): "When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate" and "If the legal status is used to disambiguate, it should be included in the article title using the company's own preference for either the abbreviated or unabbreviated form". Robby.is.on (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean, what is the common name of the new club (that professional team in the Primeira Liga) in the media. SAD is a good disambiguator, but are there a better alternative. Matthew hk (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

United States v Iran (1998 FIFA World Cup)

Is this match really deemed to be notable as I feel like that it probably doesn't. HawkAussie (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see how a political issue grants notability to a non-political event. Are there any definite guidelines for notability of individual matches? No Great Shaker (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Just WP:GNG. Problem is, all world cup matches meet GNG. I think the deal is - was this match important outside of the tournament? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

There was a lot of hype in the media before the game, including press that would normally barely mention fooball. Note the tone of this match report in the Washington Post. It has a exhibit in the FIFA Museum (see blog). Jts1882 | talk 06:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

This match has received a lot of in-depth (and retrospective) coverage above and beyond what you would normally expect for a run-of-the-mill World Cup game, such as the Guardian piece cited in the article, particularly around the twentieth anniversary last year. There were also BBC radio and TV documentaries broadcast; unfortunately, the latter isn't currently available online, but covered the sporting and political context extensively. Jellyman (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Political issues absolutely can affect notability of individual events. See Miracle on Ice, Blood in the Water. Neither would have gotten nearly as much coverage, and consequently been nearly as notable, were it not for politics. Smartyllama (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree that context can affect the notability of even relatively routine matches—e.g. the eminently forgettable 2000 England v Germany football match was a routine qualifier, but got wildly disproportionate coverage owing to its being the last match played at the old Wembley, and consequently has a stand-alone article. If the outside world considers something important, than Wikipedia considers it important, even if it's something that we wouldn't ordinarily devote a stand-alone article to. ‑ Iridescent 17:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Luca Pellegrini (footballer, born 1999)

Is he not Lorenzo Pellegrini younger brother? Govvy (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems so, per Sportmediaset, Calcio Mercato and the Sardinia Post - though I'm not familiar with how reliable they are. R96Skinner (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Gazzetta dello Sport says explicitly "Non sono parenti" i.e. "they are not related". And I can't find anything in-depth about either player that mentions a brother. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting one, three sources say yes and one says no, although the one that says no doesn't translate very well in google translator. Govvy (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

From what I've seen on the AS Roma official website, the second point says they are not related to each other. The website has the text in English so there was no need to use google translate for this case. Iggy (Swan) 14:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Roma’s website is definitely the most reliable out of the ones mentioned. If the club officially states that the players are not related then they are not related. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Nice one Iggy, don't know why I didn't find that source. Kinda of puts this question to bed, I was thinking of noting that on the articles, but I am not sure it's needed. Govvy (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I would add it. I’m sure a lot of people are asking themselves whether or not the two are related. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

2017 International Champions Cup

Someone using the IP address 176.59.47.149 has made edits to FC Barcelona players adding the cup honour to their honours list. Because this was a friendly tournament based on European only teams in neutral venues, I am not certain that it counts as an honour for these players. Iggy (Swan) 20:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it does not as it is a friendly tournament. Kante4 (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Continuation of a club

If club B is considered the "continuation" of club A, should the article of club A be deleted and merged into the article of club B? Or should both remain as standalone articles? Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Case by case for me. Rangers are on the same article even technically they are two legal persons. People may argue club equal legal person or not. Also, so many Italian club and their successor are on the same article, just excluding some illegitimate club. Matthew hk (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

In 1960 Pagramian SC was shut down by the Lebanese government for political reasons. In 1969 Ararad SA "was founded in 1969. It is considered to be an extension of Paghramian sports association" (taken from the official website). I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to keep both articles or to merge them. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

May be keep both as they have different name, and a materialistic shut down. May be worth to mention the attribution of the new club to the old. Matthew hk (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that's what I thought of doing. Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Khuzestan Premier League season articles - Notable or not

I am just questioning if the seasons articles for the Khuzestan Premier League is notable as none of the teams in the leagues have pages that are linked. This is making me question if these pages are notable or not.

HawkAussie (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I saw the same and honestly have no idea, since I can't read Farsi. They could very well be locally notable. At worst, if someone could sandbox me the information so I can try to confirm via Google translate and then provide it to RSSSF, that'd be great. SportingFlyer T·C 02:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation uncertainty among those named Steve Smith, Steven Smith and Stephen Smith at the Steven Smith#Association football dab page

A discussion at Talk:Stephen Smith (cricketer, born 1822)#Requested move 18 July 2019 also concerns Stephen Smith (footballer, born 1986) and Steven Smith (footballer). Since the two are born only a year apart and each is uniquely named, should the main title header for Stephen Smith (footballer, born 1986) be indicated as simply Stephen Smith (footballer) or should the header for Steven Smith (footballer) be indicated as Steven Smith (footballer, born 1985), thus providing a form that is analogous to Stephen Smith (footballer, born 1986)?

A similarly-positioned uncertainty at the same discussion concerns four footballers named Steve Smith — Steve Smith (footballer, born 1874), Steve Smith (footballer, born 1946), Steve Smith (footballer, born 1957) and Steve Smith (Scottish footballer). Proposal 1 may leave all four unchanged. Proposal 2 may analogously disambiguate all four by birth year — Steve Smith (footballer, born 1874), Steve Smith (footballer, born 1946), Steve Smith (footballer, born 1957) and Steve Smith (footballer, born 1899). Proposal 3 may analogously disambiguate all four by nationality and birth year — Steve Smith (English footballer, born 1874), Steve Smith (English footballer, born 1946), Steve Smith (English footballer, born 1957) and Steve Smith (Scottish footballer, born 1899). Proposal 4 may analogously disambiguate all four by playing position — Steve Smith (outside left), Steve Smith (midfielder), Steve Smith (English goalkeeper) and Steve Smith (Scottish goalkeeper). Still other proposals from members of WikiProject Football may indicate specific disambiguation guidelines relevant to the situations in question. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's a lot here and I don't see anything that's ambiguous that needs changing at this time. Have I missed something? SportingFlyer T·C 05:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

To put it briefly, since Stephen Smith (footballer, born 1986) is the sole footballer named "Stephen Smith", why do we need "born 1986"?

Also, should Steve Smith (Scottish footballer) be indicated as Steve Smith (footballer, born 1899) in the same manner as Steve Smith (footballer, born 1874), Steve Smith (footballer, born 1946) and Steve Smith (footballer, born 1957)? —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 13:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:Overlink rules on season pages.

I've noticed a number of editors continue to add the same link back to the parent club of a season page, this is more about the use of the link in the season matches schedule. For example in 2019–20 Arsenal F.C. season#Matches. I am seeing a constant multiple link to Arsenal F.C. in the match list. The same with repeating the home venue for the Arsenal stadium, when really only the first instance should be linked. And the problem isn't just here it's on nearly every season page for every other club. I really feel I should remind editors to stop doing that. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

First thing to remember about MOS:OVERLINK is always These are two ends of a spectrum with a grey area between them, which varies by context; exercise common sense. :)

Personally when thinking about linking I ask myself the question "what will a user reading this page be likely to read?" So say for a player page, I would think most users won't necessarily read all of the club career section, but would look for only a section of time at one team, therefore I will link the first appearance of a club name in that sub-section (but not a second appearance in that club's sub-section). On the season page, I would think users will often look for information only about a specific match (usually the most recent or upcoming), so therefore it makes sense to me to link the club and venue every match. --SuperJew (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Govvy: there is no need to link back to the parent article 50+ times in the same article. The link to the club and ground are at the always at the top of the page. Also, it is really WP:DUPLINK rather than OVERLINK that is relevant here. Spike 'em (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

As it says in WP:DUPLINK if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. My point is it's more of a common sense question than a hard line policy. --SuperJew (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I generally agree with SuperJew here. The links are for convenience and having to search the page for a single occurence defeats the purpose. I note that WP:DUPLINK says the link can be repeated in tables, lists and glossaries. In the particular case, however, there is no need to link Arsenal and Holloway for every match as the link is available on the same screen and someone looking for an Arsenal fixture probably knows what Arsenal is. Jts1882 | talk 12:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You suppose to link to the first instance, so the first on the list is fine, why would you need to link to the rest, everyone can see that. Govvy (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This is another reason why the use of {{footballbox collapsible}} is inferior to using a simple wikitable. – Pee Jay 18:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Except the two club names are not hidden, just the game stats are hidden. Govvy (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Why inferior? If I'm looking only at one match I'd rather not see the details of the other matches so the match I'm looking at is at the fore of my attention. --SuperJew (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Except the table uses only one line to show about as much information as the template. You don't lose anything particularly important either. In an article about a specific club, the scorers of the other clubs are irrelevant in the table and can be noted in the prose of the article (which often goes neglected in these articles). The only thing missing from the table that I would consider adding would be the referee, but when I tried adding it to the Man Utd season article a couple of years ago, I was reverted. – Pee Jay 20:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Honours for Bench Warmers

Hi, after much uncertainty, I look for an end of this prolonged debate:

Should a player forming part of a title-winning squad include the title in question in their honours section without necessarily playing in the final and/or the game where the title has been achieved?

I would say yes, as long as the player forms part of the squad, no matter the contribution, UNLESS there is a specific requirement for a winner's medal imposed by the tournament organization, ex: the five required games to be awarded an Premier League medal. But I can't use only my opinion to justify this in case it gets reverted, that is why I ask for a consensus to be reached, what are you guys'/girls' thoughts on this? TheSoccerBoy^{(𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕜)} 07:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

That makes total sense to me. Unless the competition imposes some condition for receiving a winner's medal, all senior squad players – whether they played or not – should have the honour listed. No individual wins a team competition, the squad together wins it. The easiest and cleanest line to draw is 'was the player a member of the winning squad', without deciding on an arbitrary number of fixtures played, whether substitute appearances count, minutes played, whether they touched the ball after being substituted on in the final minute, whether they joined mid-season or other more difficult criteria. A single appearance criteria is attractive, but would exclude substitute goalkeepers, who are widely considered part of the winning squad (Pepe Reina at the 2010 World Cup comes to mind). Domeditrix (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

No, what makes sense is using reliable sources to verify the information, rather than assuming that every player gets the medal. For example, Stephy Mavididi did not get a winner's medal even though he was part of the Juventus squad when they won the Serie A title (confirmed by BBC piece). Giant Snowman 11:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem though IMO GiantSnowman is that the article is specifically about that player. Not every player will have such an article, and for those we need to make a decision based on more general info (like a PL medal requires 5 games or more, etc. ) --SuperJew (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that, in those situations, looking at tournament rules is needed. Some might have a limit on the number of medals given to a club, others might have minimum games. Giant Snowman 11:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Does the Premier League still have a rule about a minimum number of games? If not, I would say that it is logical to assign honours to any player who was registered in the 'A' squad for that competition. This is becoming far more prevalent now, so it's easier to identify players who are actually considered part of the squad. Obviously there are cases where certain players are not registered in the 'A' squad as they qualify for the 'B' squad (they're young enough or they've come through the club's academy) and it frees up a spot for a more senior, foreign player, but if those players have appeared in enough games, they would presumably get the honour too. Unlike Lionel Messi in the 2005 Spanish Supercup. – Pee Jay 13:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Navid Faridi

This was deleted three years ago but it looks like he appeared for Esteghlal, which is a major team in Iran, so I would be willing to accept Draft:Navid Faridi to mainspace except I am unfamiliar with Farsi and am unsure if he played a match or not. Can someone else please take a look at this? Article needs a copy edit before it's accepted regardless. SportingFlyer T·C 07:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

If the club is in a fully professional league, it shouldn't matter if he's played in a match, as he's also managed the club, no? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but there are no stats in the article, all the sources are (I assume) in Farsi, and the article's currently salted. But I concur with you. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Turns out he manages the youth team. Ignore me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

[Ashley_Barnes_does_not_hold_Austrian_passport-1] "Ashley Barnes Austrian call up denied". Sky Sports. Retrieved 4 April 2019.

[Ashley_Barnes_Austrian_Dream_Over-2] "Ashley Barnes Austrian dream over". 101greatgoals via Austrian Council Minister for Sport. Retrieved 4 April 2019.

[Ministry_of_the_Interior_decides:_Barnes_does_not_become_an_Austrian-3] "Ministry of the Interior decides: Barnes does not become an Austrian". Tiroler Tageszeitung via Austrian Ministry of the Interior. Retrieved 7 June 2019.

[Burnley_FC_Player_Profiles-4] "First team". Burnley F.C. Retrieved 15 May 2019.

[5] "Copa America – Paraguay vs Colombia – Soccer – Scoresway – Results, fixtures, tables and statistics". Scoresway. 29 June 2007. Retrieved 14 June 2015.

[6] "Copa America – Paraguay vs Colombia – Soccer – Scoresway – Results, fixtures, tables and statistics". Scoresway. 29 June 2007. Retrieved 14 June 2015.

[7] "Profile of Carlos Vela at Scoresway". Scoresway. Retrieved 28 November 2014.

[8] "Profile of Carlos Vela at Soccerway". Soccerway. Retrieved 28 November 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]