Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 105

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 100

←

Archive 103

→

Career stats

Can somebody with more patience please explain to @Wshjackson: why having first-team stats in the career table, to match the infobox, even if there were 0 appearances, is what we do (page in question = Alex Kiwomya but wider application). Giant Snowman 18:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that @GiantSnowman: does not understand the concept of a reserve player/academy player is not automatically a first-team player of the parent-team after going on loan. In the case of Alex Kiwomya, he has never been promoted to first-team stats even though he has gone on loan multiple times. User:Wshjackson User talk:Wshjackson 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the point is that the reader doesn't know that Mr Kiwomya hasn't appeared for Chelsea's first team, and we should be showing them. After all, when he wasn't out on loan, he was available for selection... The infobox shows the reader that he hasn't played league football for Chelsea, but including zeroes (or dashes, where there were no matches of that type for the player to play in) in the stats table is how we illustrate he hasn't played in any other competitions either. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he was at a) at Chelsea for those seasons and b) made 0 appearances for Chelsea, so the stats box should reflect both of those facts.--Echetus Xe 19:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

If I could just make my case. For the readers (if they did look/read his page), would notice that he was never promoted to first team stats while there is a line about how he was in the U18, U21, etc. squads. Whenever a player is promoted from academy to first-team, there is always some type of mentioning. Even in his citation for the career stats does not recognize him as a Chelsea first-team player. The infobox only recognizes that Chelsea in his senior career because of the loans he had as an academy. Any academy players is "available for selection" for the first-team, but I believe unless they were selected, it would be confused, pointless, and just cluttering the page. I could list many academy players that were "available for selection", but later went on loan much like Alex Kiwomya and their stat section reflects the same style as how Alex Kiwomya's page is set up. If you guys are thinking about the reader's best interest, I would suggest to keep the page as it is currently, and without the Chelsea stats.Wshjackson (talk) (01:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC))

But if somebody was looking at the career stats table, who is he on loan from? Giant Snowman 06:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you're making assumptions that aren't always warranted. The stats table is supposed to be an illustration for reference of the player's appearances (or lack of); it shouldn't require well-developed, up-to-date, prose that the reader has a) read; and b) drawn all the correct inferences from, before they can understand it. We're writing for the intelligent general reader, but one who isn't necessarily well up on the ways of the big English football clubs, or English football in general, or soccer at all. Leaving Chelsea out begs two questions: as GS mentions above, who was he on loan from? and if he's a Chelsea player, why doesn't it show how many times he's played for them? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

So it seems that you guys want the Career statistics to be a source for people to tell where the loan are from. But why would that even be necessary for readers if the infobox and the first line of each page states where the player plays and from which team they are on loan from. I honestly believe that it is just pointless clutter by stating seasons where even the official team does not recognize the player in the squad. My view on this subject would be different if Alex was at least on bench for a single game of those seasons, but he wasn't. If you guys would like to change the stats to include their parent team as well, feel free. But do expect a list of every player on loan that is on the same/similar boat as Alex, and I expect that all of them would be adjusted as well. Wshjackson (talk) (14:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC))

Sigh, he's still at it. Can an uninvolved admin please review his edits and enforce the clear consensus here. Giant Snowman 20:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

While I understand both side (Wshjackson & GiantSnowman), in his stats, it should only reflect where he was at in the first-team. He was clearly no included as a first-team player before leaving on loan. There should not be a 2016/17 season line for Chelsea in his career stats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseafc1129 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Wshjackson: are you going to admit that this new account (contributing here with only its third edit!) is you or are we going to have to go through the ballache of a SPI? Giant Snowman 20:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I disagree. If the first line in a table starts with him being on loan, that's incredibly confusing, IMO. He's clearly a first team player now, albeit not at his parent club, so having a line for his parent club in the stats table just for this season makes sense to me. – Pee Jay 21:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@User:GiantSnowman Huh? No? I gave up, it can stay the way it is. I have only been updating the page of today's game. Wshjackson (talk) (21:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC))

I agree with PeeJay. It would seem confusing to list them both when he was obviously playing only at one team. Examples at Sebastian Giovinco, Claudio Marchisio and Alessandro Matri. When updating career stats boxes I only list the club which he is loaned to for that season. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: I suggest you re-read PeeJay's comments - "having a line for his parent club in the stats table just for this season makes sense to me." Giant Snowman 06:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Well, to me, I don't really see the need as for most loan players, they are only playing at that club for the season and not for the team that is loaning him out. I don't know if this player's situation is different in that he possibly could have played, but most don't, which is why I haven't seen the practice you are mentioning very frequently. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 11:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Take Oliver Norwood as an example. He never played for Manchester United's first team, but played on loan for three clubs before a permanent move elsewhere. Why shouldn't he have lines for Manchester United for each season he was on loan somewhere else? After all, he had to be on loan from somewhere; you can't be on loan to another club without a parent club. – Pee Jay 11:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia football news article

Has anyone seen this story? Whether you can trust what The Sentinel reports is another matter...--Echetus Xe 15:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and while you're at it try and beat my score of 86.--Echetus Xe 15:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

2015 League of Ireland Premier Division

I have never seen a section for the results in European Competitions in a domestic league articles before. Please take a look at 2015 League of Ireland Premier Division. When I removed that section I was told you vandalised article by removing the section about Europe which is totally relevant and I was reverted with edit summary reverted bad editing by QED327. The same editor delibirately removed module sports table and replaced it with the depreciated template form (first modifying Template:2015 League of Ireland Premier Division table and now just inserting template form directly in article. Could someone please take a look. Qed237 (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As to the European results, it's not something I'd previously considered, but I don't actually see why they shouldn't be there. Qualification for continental competition is obviously so important that it needs parameters in the infobox and a great wide (mostly empty) column and colour coding in the league table, so it does seem a little inconsistent if we can't mention how they got on when they actually played in it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not. The article is on a specific league and performance within that, European competition is a completely separate tournament. I don't for example, see national cup results in there, and obviously not for the reason that it is only a tangentially related tournament. I think Struway's comment is misguided, the reason for the european competition in the info box is because the right to compete in Europe the following season is a reward for performance in the league. I mean, can you imagine what a premier league season article would look like with every teams CL and UEFA Cup matches, group tables, etc, recorded? Fenix down (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You're assuming I'd want endless tables, footballboxes and the like. I wouldn't. What I'm saying is that I don't see why such an article shouldn't mention how its teams got on in European competition. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of it like that. I can agree that a quick paragraph of prose would be useful. Fenix down (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

National cup competitions have their own separate seasonal articles. Plus unlike EPL, La Liga clubs, LOI clubs have historically only ever played a handful of European games perseason. It's hardly an imposition. Djln Djln (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

So what, the results relate to a completely different competition. Similar to my comments in the thread above, rather than fill up the article with tempaltes and stats, a simple couple of sentences of sourced prose would be preferable and take up a lot less space, particularly given, and I'm sure you must have noticed this, it is not conventional to do this in any other season article. Fenix down (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I have recently been tidying up articles on League of Ireland seasons. While doing this I found several versions of league tables and I simply chose the one that I found the easiest to follow - fb style template. I believe it has the advantage of actually looking like a league table when you go to edit it. In the edit section I found the module sports table version difficult to follow and over complicated. It also looks nothing like a league table in edit section. I believe Wiki should make it as simple as possible to edit. When I edited the 2015 LoI Premier Division template, Qed237 fired off a ridiculous accusation of vandalism and declared he would have me blocked. A total overreaction if ever and not particularly helpful. Qed237 then started an edit war by removing a perfectly legitimate section on Europe. This is vandalism clear and simple. Similar sections have been included in other LOI season articles without issue. Djln Djln (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that it exists somewhere else doesn't necessarily make it correct, so an assessment of it is still legitimate. Personally I think it isn't correct to include Europe matches in any league season pages as the league season page pertains to information about that league in that season. The performance of the teams (who happen to also play in the league) in a European competition has no direct bearing on the league, but they should definitely be included in the European championship page and in the club's season page. I understand that if it is the first time you come across the module it might seem harder to understand than the fb style template, but if you try it out a bit (I'd suggest in the sandbox), I'm sure you'll find it's simple to use and actually find that it's even easier to edit with it. --SuperJew (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

While I respect your opinion, I disagree on both counts. I do regard it to be appropriate to include a limited amount of European fixtures on some seasonal article. I found the module sports table to be a nightmare to edit and follow. Have already tried using it before. Djln Djln (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Season articles are about the... Season, yes. Nothing more. No cup, Supercup, league cup, Europe or whatever. Include those matches in a 2015 Irish football article. Kante4 (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

DjlnDjln, could you please expand why you think it is appropriate to include a limited amount of European fixtures on some seasonal articles? What is the limit? On which seasonal articles is it appropriate and on which not?

As mentioned above LOI clubs have only ever played a handful games in Europe per season. So I think it ok to include them. LOI clubs don't have as many individual club season articles either. However English, Spanish, German, French clubs play many more games. It would excessive to include all their games.

Also, could you point out what specifically you feel makes it hard to edit and follow the module? Perhaps it can be improved, and from my experience users such as Qed237 are happy to help and improve the module. --SuperJew (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I just find the whole module is overcomplicated. Minor tampering won't solve issue. The fb template is so much clearer and easier to follow. Djln Djln (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is about the League of Ireland, results in other competitions shouldn't belong here. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the comment above. The season article is about the domestic league and what teams do on other tournament belong on their individual article or the season article for the nation (such as 2015–16 in English football but for Ireland). Qed237 (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. The European results of Irish clubs could be included in 2015 in Republic of Ireland football. And as far as league tables go, the old style is depreciated for a reason. Using the module with Lua has numerous advantages, and it is fairly easy to understand if you take a few minutes to get acquainted. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

All articles must have a scope. It may not necessarily be defined as such. In this case, the scope is self-evident in the article title and information about matches played in European competition are therefore out of scope. On the other hand, 2015 in Republic of Ireland football may justifiably include European matches within its scope as the title infers that the article is about international football involving the Republic, and is not limited to a specific domestic competition as is 2015 League of Ireland Premier Division. All editors really should think about scope when writing or updating any article. If the scope is being widened or narrowed, then maybe the article title should be changed. BoJó | talk 18:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on the consensus here that European matches are outside the scope of a domestic league season article, I have removed them all. Fenix down (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fenix, that is so helpful. I am so glad the time I spent editing those articles was not wasted. It is always good to read the opinions of people you know absolutely nothing about the League of Ireland and then let them have their say. This article from RTE described last nights game between Dundalk and Legia Warsaw as "the biggest night in Dundalk and the League of Ireland’s history" yet in the same week Wiki decides we cannot mention it in the 2016 seasonal article. Fantastic decision. Wiki editors here have now demonstrated that they have as much common sense as an Olympic boxing judge. Djln Djln (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Spurs Hall of Fame template

I felt this is far too big a template, but I am not sure how to edit it down to make it a more manageable size. Maybe someone can have a look or a go at fixing it. Thanks. Govvy (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Why does it need to be done by year? Waste of space. Just order it alphabetically. Giant Snowman 20:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't create it, mind you, I didn't have a look who did, maybe I should of done and ask whoever did it. Govvy (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It was created by @Beatpoet:, who has created a whole heap of 'Hall of Fame' templates, including some of questionable notability... Giant Snowman 20:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of James Milner

James Milner, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Uruguay national under-21 football team

Is there no u21 team page? I was editing Alex Pritchard page and noticed the international section had a red link, I wasn't sure if I had the page title right, or if I missed something, or if there is no article for the under-21 team? Govvy (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct. There are articles to U17, U20 and U23 (Olympic) teams thiough. Kante4 (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

After re-reading, I changed it to under-20 Govvy (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

friendly would be a messy for matching which team, Uruguay could have age specific U21, U22 team as part of a youth ladder, but it may save to assume the same as England U20. Matthew_hk t c 23:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of United Kingdom national football team

United Kingdom national football team, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian articles

Could someone please take a look at FC Zirka Kropyvnytskyi, 2016–17 Ukrainian Premier League, Template:FC Zirka Kirovohrad managers, Template:Ukrainian Premier League managers and possibly something else I might have missed. An IP keeps on making unsourced edits despite several warnings (they just remove them). Qed237 (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please could someone block user Qed237 for the hidden vandalism and IP user abuse. In FC Zirka Kropyvnytskyi, he restored Ilya Blyznyuk as a main coach incorrecly (five times with edit war!) although Blyznyuk was a main coach for Zirka in 2012-13 only! Today the club have a new coach, Dario Hernan Drudi, the official site announced, another UKR sports media informed, and related changes in the aricles was made. There are no any problem with exception of Qed237' brains. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Qed237: The IP's changes appear to be correct – Drudi is the new manager of Zirka Kropyvnytskyi (I just googled it). Shouldn't you check before reverting dated information back into articles? Not everyone is familiar with how to source information – it would be far more helpful if you would add a reference yourself. Number 5 7 17:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I cant be expected to go around and look for sources for other editors. He was told several times to add source but ignored it and removed all messages at his talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Why on earth are you reverting changes if you haven't even bothered to check whether the information is true or not? Number 5 7 17:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced content. It is not my job to find source for other editors. Qed237 (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with unsourced content – not everything needs a reference. Reverting new information without even checking whether it is true is verging on disruptive behaviour (particularly given that you were restoring information that was several years out-of-date), so I would advise you to stop. Number 5 7 19:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

As I can see, it's a not the only revert of absolutely correct information made by Qed during the last day. The next correct edits were reverted by him in the same way (I check only a few last edits). [1] [2] [3] It's a pity but it's a very destructive behavior. Thank you, Number57, for help. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

And again, revert of the correct information (available on the club website). [4] 95.133.211.190 (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: And persistently adding unsourced content is not disruptive? Remomeber wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are based on facts. Qed237 (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Persistent, yes. But it only got to that stage because of your knee-jerk reverting. The whole dispute goes back to you not bothering to check whether the new information was true. Number 5 7 20:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Or is this edit wrong? Then a lot of experienced editors are in trouble as this happens all the times. Unsourced contents about BLPs can be removed. Qed237 (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that was wrong because you didn't bother checking whether it was actually true or not. You could have simply googled it and added a reference if you were being constructive. Number 5 7 20:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Apperently edits like this is disruptive. We cant remove unsourced content without User:Number 57 saying it is dirsuptive behaviour. Qed237 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Admit that you were wrong (A block was more than appropiate) and don't start acting like a kid. Because that's what it sounds like... Kante4 (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kante4: I am wrong when I removed unsourced content for a BLP? Good to know for future edits, now I never have to worry about sources, just add anything. Qed237 (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Like a kid, as i said. Does not show a high level of personality... Kante4 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what happened to WP:UNSOURCED? It says clearly that The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So it is not Qed237's duty to check if it is true. --Jaellee (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

He could use {{citation needed}} instead of removing the each IP user' edit. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

He could, but he doesn't have to. And by the way, why couldn't the IP be bothered to provide a source? --Jaellee (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

For example, see [5] the numbers of players in the infoboxes have no any sources (official club webpages used as source by default if I correct). And, note, in the edits like this [6] (his revert of my updates), user Qed237 replaced the new correct "unsourced" information by old incorrect "unsourced" information! 95.133.211.190 (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The burden lies on the editor who wants the change to prove it. And even if it is only a shirt number then it does not hurt to add a URL to the edit comment to make it clear that is is not just speculation, especially if the editor is an IP. I cannot count the times where IP's (or very new editors) have changed correct entries (without source) to false entries. If you look for example at the edit history of Julian Draxler, there was nothing but vandalism from IP's the last few days. I don't know how often he was already playing for Arsenal. Checking if any those edits is true is just wasted time. I do not want to spend my time for Wikipedia on checking edits that are 99% bogus. Give the other editors a chance to check your claims with minimal effort for them and I'm sure your edits will be accepted without problems. --Jaellee (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I understand you. Add a URL to the edit comment. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

At least I add those URLs if the the topic is not big enough to warrant an inline citation and normally that's okay (I have rarely reverts). --Jaellee (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jaellee: Thank you, I was just about to give up on wikipedia. Seems like editors can do whatever they want sometimes. User:Number 57 takes every chance he can to attack me (and has done in the past) without seeing the real issue. I guess questioning him as an admin would not be a good idea. Was I lazy? Yes, I was. Was I correct inm removing unsourced inforamtion? Yes, I was. @Kante4: Call it childish if you want, but it is an encyclopedia. I can not trust unsourced information, it might as well be incorrect. Qed237 (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57 and Kante4: The answers at ANI was also very clear. For example the closing statement Edits should always be Sourced with Reliable Sources as well as the other comments. To see an admin disregard this and attack the experienced editor is not good. Yes, I was lazy but that does not mean it is right to keep adding unsourced information. I have my doubts regarding Number 57 who has been attacking me in the past. I thought admins where more neutral and trying to solve issues instead. Qed237 (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Seems like more editors agree with me and removed the same content (diff). Qed237 (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be typical of recent User:Qed237's edits. I experienced similar issues with him last week. There is no reasoning with him. When I criticised his behaviour for reversing my edits, he tried to get me blocked. Djln Djln (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Djln: Stop kidding yourself and just WP:DROPTHESTICK. You edited directly against consensus before turning to personal attacks, not even clo9se to the same situation. If you keep on with this harassment, you may easily get blocked. Qed237 (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: I am not harassing you. I admit I perhaps crossed the line a little last week, but your behaviour was hardly exemplary either. I have a right to express an opinion about your edits, just like other editors have here, without been threatened by you. Situations are very similar. You removed edits you disagreed with and then accused other editors of being vandals. Pot calling kettle if ever. Are you going to have us all blocked ? I am guessing you still have no authority to block anybody. Djln Djln (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

MoS of club season

As club need to submit squad list to UEFA and their domestic FA respectively, with different cap/quota, It is reasonable to have two squad list in the season article (such as 2010–11 Juventus F.C. season) Is that the practice was removed from MoS, as a face no reason removal / vandal on my edit of adding two set of squad to the season article of 2016–17 U.S. Sassuolo Calcio season. Matthew_hk t c 23:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC) player can eligible to domestic but not UEFA (or vice versa). Matthew_hk t c 23:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I see it as unnecessary. User:Italia2006 is the user he's talking about..not a vandal. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Extra note. English Premier League also have a similar quota system with UEFA on homegrown player (for UEFA, 8 min. including 4 trained by club), foreigner (in UEFA, 17 max because 25 minus 8) and reserve (U21 players). Then is that excessive information state on footnote of one single squad list for the inclusion and exclusion? Players can under contract but unable to play neither domestic nor continental due to quota was reached. Matthew_hk t c 00:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

observed on 2016–17 Chelsea F.C. season. Matthew_hk t c 00:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

source on English homegrown player rule and "Regulations of the UEFA Europa League 2015-18 Cycle 2016/17 Season" (PDF). UEFA. 1 May 2016. Retrieved 28 July 2016.. Matthew_hk t c 00:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

also 2016–17 Real Madrid C.F. season observed extras footnote to explain La Liga non-EU quota on themselves. Matthew_hk t c 00:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No, just no. Italia2006 (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is a MoS discussion, as i observed the section existed in 2013–14 Chelsea F.C. season, just absent in 2014–15 season article. Matthew_hk t c 00:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

may be a bit original research to identify which one is home grown players (such as in Inter Milan case, it is obvious to spot but it sometimes announced by the club officially). It is a nice piece of information for home grown players as Serie A also had that rule ~~(but not capping the max. number of players in squad, need to dig out the original script)~~ source Matthew_hk t c 00:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to point out which quota each player meets, but I do wonder if it's worth adding notes to say "this player is in the club's Premier League squad" or "this player is in the club's Champions League squad". How they qualify isn't particularly encyclopaedic or verifiable, but whether they're included in one of those squads is an important fact. – Pee Jay 18:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

i just pissed off someone think the players were included or excluded in European squad was not important. Matthew_hk t c 04:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have one squad list which has a column or something to indicate which players are also in the cup squad.--Echetus Xe 08:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I also think about it. For Real Madrid the non-EU column was less verifiable , but a column for yes/no in European squad sound more reasonable and easy to verify by citation. Matthew_hk t c 15:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't even have to be a dedicated column. You could just add a superscript (e.g. ^CL for the Champions League squad) to indicate which players are in what squad. – Pee Jay 16:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. [7] Matthew_hk t c 03:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Help desk question

There is a football related question at the Help Desk here. The articles don't seem notable, if someone could help that would be appreciated. Joseph2302 17:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wait - I requested that help and am' willing to wait for the merger am' gonna perform! Varun FEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 17:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Squad templates turned into redirects

User:Secret Agent Julio is turning squad templates into redirects (for example: [8]) and removing them in articles. --Yoda1893 (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Lots of these lower division squad templates are outdated/not updated regularly and have few links, as most players are not notable, nor will they become unless the club is promoted. I am not sure what the "criteria" is, but most of these templates do not seem necessary. Although maybe the VfB Stuttgart II template is alright, it seemed better than most. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Secret Agent Julio: redirecting is not the correct way of dealing with them - that is WP:TFD. Giant Snowman 18:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I now realise that a TFD is a better option, initially I redirected thinking that maybe eventually there would be enough links, but for the time being some can probably be deleted. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Do we actually have a guideline about which teams should have squad templates or not? Is it based on how many blue-links? Team's professional level (pro, semi-pro, amateur)? Tier team plays in? --SuperJew (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's generally a bad idea below fully-pro level as otherwise it tempts people to create redlinks and articles on non-notable players. Number 5 7 20:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree, I would say that it should be aligned with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues as this also drives the notability of players. Many of the squad templates have been created when the club played in a fully professional league but subsequently relegated into a lower league. Kq-hit (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus, unless I am mistaken, is to decide the notability of squad templates on a case-by-case basis. A template that has a substantial number of blue links, despite the team not competing in a fully pro league, clearly has practical value, and should therefore be retained. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Matty, it's all to do with blue links (it's a navigation template, so you need to actually be able to navigate between articles!) - but that will obviously be rarer as you drop down the leagues. Giant Snowman 20:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I decided to compile a list of the lower division squad templates, opinions on what templates might still be uesful? All clubs are in the Regionalliga (4th tier), except for Tennis Borussia Berlin, who are in the Oberliga (5th tier). Numbers are from late July so they may be a bit off. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Club	Blue links	Total players	Percent
Alemannia Aachen	5	22	0.23
SV Babelsberg 03	3	20	0.15
Berliner AK 07	7	27	0.26
FC Viktoria 1889 Berlin	7	22	0.32
SV Wacker Burghausen	6	22	0.27
FC Energie Cottbus	5	21	0.24
Borussia Dortmund II	9	26	0.35
SV Elversberg	13	25	0.52
Rot-Weiss Essen	8	25	0.32
FC 08 Homburg	15	26	0.58
FC Carl Zeiss Jena	9	21	0.43
KSV Hessen Kassel	3	22	0.14
TuS Koblenz	8	19	0.42
FC Viktoria Köln	12	25	0.48
SV Waldhof Mannheim	10	27	0.37
FC Bayern Munich II	5	27	0.19
Rot-Weiß Oberhausen	5	25	0.2
Kickers Offenbach	5	23	0.22
1. FC Saarbrücken	11	24	0.46
Stuttgarter Kickers	9	24	0.38
VfB Stuttgart II	12	26	0.46
SV Eintracht Trier 05	6	27	0.22
SpVgg Unterhaching	11	34	0.32
Wormatia Worms	6	24	0.25
Wuppertaler SV	6	29	0.21
Tennis Borussia Berlin^Oberliga	2	24	0.08

Thank you, User:Secret Agent Julio for compiling these statistics! I have done some spot checks against the current squads in their main articles and found the figures to be accurate. Even clubs such as Stuttgarter Kickers, FC Energie Cottbus and VfB Stuttgart II that still played in the fully professional 3. Liga last season dropped quickly in their percentage of notable players due to the player fluctuation that comes along with the relegation. Are there any existing guidelines regarding what would be a required blue link ratio? One other problem I see with keeping lower league clubs can be seen with Template:Le Mans FC squad. It has 22/23 blue links but has not been updated since 8 July 2013. Could outdated current squads be automatically flagged for deletion? Kq-hit (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Honours (for the 1,00000000th time)

Taking the recent 2016 UEFA Super Cup as the latest example, it seems the Real Madrid official profile for players has listed the honour in Ronaldo, Pepe, Kroos, Bale, Coentrão and Navas. None of these guys made the squad of 18, in most cases due to injury, why should they get the accolade.

Should we follow the club's M.O. or could we go in a different direction? This makes absolutely no sense (to give honour to said players, that is). Inputs please. Attentively --Be Quiet AL (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This tweet (Hurrygane posted it first) just for some more info. I was surprised about that too. Kante4 (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I personally agree that it makes little sense to give them the honour if they didn't compete, but if a reliable source (such as their Real Madrid profile) includes it, then we should as well. If, however, a more neutral source (such as something directly from the UEFA Super Cup) indicated that these players did not receive the honour, then I would go with that instead. -Gopherbashi (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If the club paid for a medal for them, despite them not playing (Schwarzer's Premier League medal with Chelsea for example) then they obviously think the player did contribute, even if not directly by playing and we should include it too. --SuperJew (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Now, I can't explain why this is, but it seems that Bale may have got a medal because he was included in the official squad for the game (despite not travelling), as were Kroos and Navas. Ronaldo, Pepe and Coentrao, however, were omitted from that list. – Pee Jay 16:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Barça's website similarly credits Neymar with the 2015 Super Cup, even though he was sitting at home with the mumps. FWIW, I agree with BQAL. Wikipedia is not any club's mouthpiece; we are certainly not obligated to include something just because they do, or any source for that matter. I can accept that a squad player is capable of contributing to his team's win, even if he hasn't played a single minute, but a player who hasn't even made it to the bench for whatever reason has not won that trophy. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We should follow reliable, independent sources, and club websites are not the latter and arguably often not the former! I would be happy citing the medal to a news report with the teamsheets, but in this case I think we should at least restrict the honour to players in the squad on the day. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - official club profiles always need to be taken with a pinch of salt, especially of the club is trying to pander to a big player's ego. Giant Snowman 19:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

So, we should remove them? Kante4 (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I think a club's title should always be considered the whole squad's honour. What is the reliable, independent source that says that Pepe, Navas etc. didn't win this title as members of Real Madrid C.F.? Tkotw12 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You'll be lucky to find a source that proves a negative. The burden of proof is to say they definitely did "win" this competition. After all, while Navas was included in the squad for the Super Cup (see here), Pepe wasn't. Bale was too, but what about Ronaldo? – Pee Jay 17:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

And what excatly did Bale contribute that Ronaldo or Pepe didn't? Tkotw12 (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

And where is the reliable and independent source saying that only those players nominated for the match are considered winners of the title? Tkotw12 (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not contact UEFA officials, since they are shipping the medals to players who didn't travel. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestions from other editors? Kante4 (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It's going to be difficult this way. I mean, Messi's 2006 CL victory should also be deleted if that reasoning applies. Messi did not play a single second from the second leg of the round of 16 until and up to the final. Literally zero seconds. He wasn't even in the stadium. Don't come with "Messi played in the group stages and 'helped' them to qualify for the round of 16" because Ronaldo helped Real Madrid CF to qualify for the UEFA Supercup by converting the decisive penalty kick in the 2016 CL final. In the end, the question is, should Wiki decide who did or did not win something? No, not at all. UEFA provides 40 medals to the club and the club redistributes those medals in any way they like (https://twitter.com/TheCRonaldoFan/status/756938406895185921, scroll down a bit). The player's club profiles show who got and did not get a medal. So keep it simple. Add it. But I'll leave it at this lol. Wiki does not have authority over who does or does not get a medal. Clubs decide.Eren0127 (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, have a look at new evidence in support of Ronaldo having a medal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cristiano_Ronaldo, scroll to the bottom of that huge discussion). It basically proves that C.Ronaldo has a medal (article 9 of UEFA [9]). Furthermore, Ronaldo was active in that match according to UEFA as proved by this link [10]. So PeeJay and Kante4, I guess we should include it. Also, the list provided by PeeJay includes Jese who is a PSG player, LOL. Eren0127 (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Can someone impartial please comment on this? Personally, I still haven't seen any evidence from any independent sources to say that Ronaldo (or Fabio Coentrao or any of the others) is considered a winner of the 2016 Super Cup. The only source we have is Real Madrid's website, and that's hardly neutral on the subject. Any references to UEFA regulations saying the winning team gets 40 medals to distribute as they wish is spurious, since we have no idea exactly how Real Madrid distributed the medals. And furthermore, dismissing UEFA's official squad list just because Jese is still included is foolhardy at best. – Pee Jay 21:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

To reiterate the above, we need some impartial involvement on this issue. There are edit wars on the verge of starting at Neymar, Cristiano Ronaldo, Pepe (footballer, born 1983), Keylor Navas and Fábio Coentrão, and we need people to help form a consensus on the issue. How does a player qualify for an honour? Can Neymar be considered a winner of the 2016 Spanish Super Cup when he was playing at the Olympics at the time over Barcelona's victory? How about Bale and Ronaldo as winners of the UEFA Super Cup? This is not a simple issue and I doubt the fanboys on those pages will listen without some kind of outside comments. – Pee Jay 15:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Any help/comments are welcome. Kante4 (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

David McMillan

I propose that the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David McMillan (footballer) be closed and the template at David McMillan (footballer) be removed. There is clear majority in favour of keeping article. Djln Djln (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The AfD is due to be closed tomorrow, there's no need to propose a closure here. Number 5 7 13:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sound Djln Djln (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Advice regarding splitting tournament across seasons

Bengaluru FC is participating in 2016 AFC Cup, which started in February 2016 and they'll be playing in quarter finals in September 2016. However their season (2015–16 Bengaluru FC season) ended in May 2016. So I am wondering how should this be covered? Should QF and further rounds be covered in 2016–17 Bengaluru FC season or 2015–16 Bengaluru FC season?

They'll mostly likely be playing in 2017 AFC Cup as well. If I choose to include in 2016–17 Bengaluru FC season, so should there be two entries for AFC cup in the same season? Coderzombie (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have said you should list that competition entirely in the article for the season in which it started. That way you don't run the risk of having two different instances of the same competition in the same article. – Pee Jay 20:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay2K3 and that's the consensus on Australian clubs' season pages (as seen with the WS Wanderers' winning campaign). --SuperJew (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks SuperJew and PeeJay2K3 for your inputs, it makes sense. I'll restrict it to one season. Coderzombie (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Is Dendy Sulistyawan notable?

Is Dendy Sulistyawan notable, on the Bahasa Indonesia language page it exists and it mentions that he has made top flight appearances, and these are sourced with statistics from the Indonesian language Goal.com page. However there are no sources at all in English that he appeared in a professional league, and his soccerway page turns up blank. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I might add that this is a common problem for Indonesian-related football articles since the Indonesia Super League folded in 2014.Inter&anthro (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Reto Ziegler

I wasn't sure but I thought there was a rule against use of flag icons in such a way as in the honours section on Ziegler's page. Govvy (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at MOS:FLAGS --SuperJew (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There is. I've reformatted the section. Thanks for pointing it out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Plymouth United F.C.

The article on Plymouth United F.C. is currently dominated by a Sunday League team of the same name, but which appears to have no relationship with the original Plymouth United. My attempts to remove the Sunday league team from the article were reverted without explanation, so I'd be interested in anyone else's opinion on whether the article should remain as it is, or needs to be pared down. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 21:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember the inclusion for modern teams, but to start with they should be at a certain non-league level and be an FA registered club for inclusion on wiki, so no Sunday league team should have any article. As for the actual article, it should only be about the team formed in 1944 and not the 2011 version. Govvy (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I decided to Prod it. Govvy (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Patrick McEleney and Ronan Finn

Articles on both players were recently deleted due to claims that neither of them passed the criteria for WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. While I accept that both these full-time professional players are not playing in a fully professional league (League of Ireland, I believe they both fulfil the WP:GNG requirements and have received significant coverage from both national and international media (I have listed some of the articles about McEleney in my comment here). Unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to participate in either article's deletion debate before they were deleted, but I feel many articles relating to each player were overlooked and I have significantly edited both articles in draft format (see Draft:Patrick McEleney and Draft:Ronan Finn) to include more of these references and demonstrate General Notability. I wanted to run it by the WikiProject Football first to make sure there's consensus that people are now happy with the articles. Many thanks, --IrishTennis (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@IrishTennis: In support of the above comments I believe Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues needs to be reviewed. It is my understanding that FIFA does not distinguish between "semi-professional" and "fully professional". A player is either a professional or an amateur. see page 10 So therefore the leagues listed cannot be described as "fully professional" because amateur players are not barred from playing in any of them. My suggestion is that the title should be changed to "top level and professional leagues" and/or that the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League and their equivalents in other confederations should be included. Currently articles on players who have played in the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League are been deemed not notable based on the fact that they have not played in a so called "fully professional league". How can a player such as Gareth Seddon, who spent the majority of his career in the lower levels of English football be deemed notable, while a player like David McMillan and the above two who have played in the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League be regarded as non-notable. Djln (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If a footballer has played in Champions League or Europa League are notable, however they must have played in the competition (group stage and onwards). Just playing in qualifying rounds against teams from small leagues like gibraltar does not make them notable. Qed237 (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not if that was his only game, but the above three have all played against teams from Poland and Belarus. Djln Djln (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You have to play in the competition, not qualification, no matter who you meet. Qed237 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Qualifying rounds are still part of competition Djln Djln (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the WP:NFOOTY guidelines can be perhaps overly stringent on players who are playing for professional clubs at the top level in their country if not all the other clubs in that league are also professional. I would argue that in many cases these players receive more national coverage in the media and have more notability than a player who has spent his entire career in, for example, the 4th tier on English football. I feel it may be too far to include all qualifying rounds of European competition given the sheer multitude of teams competing in the earlier qualifying rounds on the Europa League, some of whom receive little to no significant coverage even in their own country, but appearing in the group stage of either the Champions League or Europa League certainly confers notability in my opinion. Perhaps a balance can be struck? In this instance, Ronan Finn played in all but one of Shamrock Rovers' Europa League group games in 2011 (report from their game v Rubin Kazan here), and McEleney will appear for Dundalk at the same stage in the coming weeks having played in all of their Champions League qualifying games to this point.--IrishTennis (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Djln: So a player from Fiji playing a match against American Samoa in 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification has been a part of 2018 FIFA WOrld Cup? There is a difference between "qualification" and "competition proper". You have not played in Champions League unless you participated in group stage and qualified for main tournament. Qed237 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Going off on a tangent and talking about another competition is no help at all. Totally pointless and irrelevant to topic. Playing in Champions League qualification phase is considerably more notable than playing in World Cup qualification. Anybody with basic grasp of football history would know that. Djln Djln (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Well thats your opinion. The fact is that FIFA qualification is a internatiopnal tier 1 match and enough for notability. Champions League qualification is simply a minor qualification to a club tournament and not enough for notability. Qed237 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The UEFA Champions League is the undisputed premier club football competition in the world. At least on this planet. Not sure what planet your living on. And you are dismissing it's opening games as a "minor qualification to a club tournament", really ! My advice to you is, whatever you are smoking you should pack it in ASAP. Djln Djln (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Djln please be careful with your comments, you're straying into personal attacks. --SuperJew (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a personnel attack by any stretch, just some good life advice. Qed has been harassing/stalking me for several weeks after I disagreed with some edits he made. Maybe you should have a word with him. If he can't handle a bit of banter then tough. Djln Djln (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you feel Qed237 is harassing/stalking you because he seems to be everywhere, but I'm sure it's not personal as he is just very committed to the project. There is a current consensus at the project and that's what he's going by. Not saying that it shouldn't be changed, but that should come through civil discussion, not edit warring and/or personal attacks. --SuperJew (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem with editors been passionate but I will have to disagree with you about it not been personal. Everyone I go he follows. You need to be having conversation about civil discussion, not edit warring and/or personal attacks with him and not me. Djln Djln (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You're deflecting mate. In the current conversation you went into personal attack. If I'd see Qed237 doing personal attack, I'd remark about it to him too. From my previous experience with him though he engages in civil discussion, even when not in agreement, and is very helpful. --SuperJew (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but that is not my experience with my Qed237. Complete opposite to be honest. You should check your facts before defending him. Djln Djln (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have gone slightly off-topic. In relation to notability, @Qed237: made an important point earlier that "if a footballer has played in Champions League [group stages] or Europa League [group stages] [they] are notable." Can someone clarify that this is the case? --IrishTennis (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To be notable per WP:NFOOTBALL you have to play for a team from a WP:FPL against another team from a WP:FPL in a competitive match. Giant Snowman 14:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that there is no such thing as a fully professional league. Name me a league that amateur players are banned from. Djln Djln (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to be banned from something for it to not be a thing. Yes amateur players can play in leagues we class as WP:FPL - but they don't. There is significant media coverage of (and associated money in) these leagues which you simply don't get in Ireland. Giant Snowman 14:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: There is more media coverage and associated money in the Albanian second tier division than in the League of Ireland Premier Division? As an aside, I think any player who appears in the group stages of the Champions League or Europa League should be deemed notable. Such a tiny fraction of footballers in Europe are good enough to play in the premier club competitions in European football that it makes it an extremely significant achievement.--IrishTennis (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

LoI gets plenty of media coverage within Ireland, significantly more then Albania's second division. But I agree any player that plays in groups stages of UCL/UEL is notable as far as I concerned. Totally irrelevant what league he plays in. Djln Djln (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Group stages of the Champions League? You might have a case there. Europa League? No. Giant Snowman 16:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Why the distinction ? Europa League is second only to Champions League in club football competitions in the world. Djln Djln (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That's definitely disagreeable.. The competition is not what it used to be. I do think a Champions League group stage appearance makes a player notable, but as far as this season is concerned all of the clubs in the group stage are from a WP:FPL. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, one of the silliest things I've ever read on here! You don't work for UEFA's propaganda department do you Djln? Giant Snowman 17:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok then, after the Champions League which international club competition attracts the most money, draws the largest TV audience, attracts the most sponsorship ? The Europa League. You cannot seriously be claiming the Europa League is not notable, especially now that the winner qualifies for Champions League. Hope that wasn't a personal attack regarding working for UEFA ! Djln Djln (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If anything, hasn't the Europa League been getting bigger every year? [11] In the "case" you referred to earlier @GiantSnowman:, of a player playing in a partially professional league and also the Champions League, would it be under WP:GNG that you deem them notable?--IrishTennis (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Theo Hernández

Can some administrator move User:MYS77/Theo Hernández into Theo Hernández, please? The guy made his professional debut today. Thanks, MYS 77 ^✉ 16:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Can you do that, mate? MYS 77 ^✉ 18:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@MYS77:

Done Giant Snowman 19:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thank you very much! MYS 77 ^✉ 19:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)