Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 122

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 115

←

Archive 120

GK goals conceded in infobox?

I'm sure this has already been discussed, but is there any specific reason to why we don't add the goals a goalkeeper has conceded in his infobox? The Italian wiki already does this (e.g. Rogério Ceni) and I think it would be a good addition to the article. What do you think?

Also, slightly related to this, in case we don't know the appearances or goals scored (conceded in the GK's case) what should be put? A "–", "?" or just leave it blank? Nehme1499 (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope and leave it blank. Kante4 (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Because stats aren't readily available. Leave it as 'goals scored' like all outfield players. Giant Snowman 19:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with GS. Stats aren't generally available for this, so would lead to lots of original research. Also, these lot would end up with pretty cluttered infoboxes. Regarding the other question, yes, leave them blank. Nzd (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Also, if we know that a player has played/scored AT LEAST a certain amount should we add a "+"? E.g. we know that a player has scored at least 19 goals for team X, should I put 19+? Nehme1499 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I do that sometimes, yes. Giant Snowman 08:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The other issue is that some keepers (including Rogério Ceni) have scored goals as well, so it might become a bit cluttered to include both goals conceded and goals scored, so I agree it's probably best to leave goals at 0 for keepers (unless they have scored goals in league matches). I think many Italian users have a lot of stats from Panini books or football trading cards/stickers, etc. Best, Messirulez (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Any admins about for a well deserved block or protect?

It's not football related but I know this is a busier project. Please check out the recent history of the Limmy article, the same annoying IP (from 2 locations) keeps adding the same. I'm far beyond 3RR but not sure if that applies if it's nothing but vandalism? Doesn't look like they are going away. Crowsus (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Check out WP:ANI, you probably want the edit warring section. SportingFlyer T·C 00:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

MLS & UAE Pro-League squad templates

Hi, is there any reason as to why all the teams playing in the UAE Pro-League (such as Al-Nasr, Sharjah, Al Jazira etc...) have that template? I tried changing a team's template (Dibba Al-Fujairah) to the one all teams use but I've been reverted. Nehme1499 (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I have wondered this as well as I have noticed that MLS teams squad templates are the same. I am not sure if there is a consensus or rule on this matter. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

True, maybe someone who has some experience on MLS teams can help us out? Nehme1499 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Andorra national football team

Andorra 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. AIRcorn (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Junior Mondal

Soccerway has him coming on as a sub on 19 January - but the BBC disagrees, and Soccerbase (which is not that great for minor players) has 0 appearances. I can't find anything on his club's site to verify. Any idea if he's played yet? Giant Snowman 12:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sky Sports says he hasn't made an appearance too https://www.skysports.com/forest-green-rovers-squad Jopal22 (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Club site match report says he did. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that the BBC report shows the player coming on as Lewis Scoble, but gives his shirt number as 25, which is Mondal's number...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Confirmation here and here. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks all - article moved to main space accordingly. Giant Snowman 13:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Might want to check his history - he moved to Spennymoor Town F.C. after leaving Middlesbrough. He signed dual registration with Whitby in November 2017, but Spennymoor were the higher club (and he represented them in the FA Trophy in February 2018 per Soccerway). He didn't sign exclusively for Whitby until summer 2018.

I'm on with slight expansion, cheers. Giant Snowman 13:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

BBC Said check back in four hours and said they would fix the error. Govvy (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

BBC still says Scoble... Giant Snowman 21:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, BBC haven't fixed that, but they are contradicting themselves, look at the feed and it says Mondal came on in the 87th minute. Govvy (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

More honours (and then some)...

consensus is for 100 goal milestone award from the Premier League, people do not add it to honours list (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Point is getting to be somewhat moot (maybe there'll never be a consensus), but here's another "go"...

Nicolás Otamendi (the lastly added stuff, the last user after me): seriously, is that an honour? A milestone yes, but an honour...

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It's fine noting it in prose, but it's not an honour. I don't know why it's listed in the honours, I've tried to remove them before. Govvy (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Not an honour, cna be used in prose (would have been nice to know before clicking what was it all about ;)). Kante4 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

And @Rupert1904: notifying the editor who wants it included. Kante4 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It is now an official honour bestowed by the Premier League (please go on their official website or the source I used on his page to confirm the veracity of this) and has been added to every Premier League players wikipedia page that has received it. It's not just Otamendi and it's not that I want it to be included per se. But if this is now an official individual honour given out by the league then Wikipedia guidelines suggest it should be included. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It is still a milestone and not an honour, simple as that. Fine for the prose of course when he reached the milestone. Kante4 (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I've got plenty of shields and trinkets like this from my own non-league days. Premier League call it a milestone, they haven't called it an honour!! Govvy (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You're noteworthy of having a wikipedia page though.Rupert1904 (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Based on this comment and your edit history, I’m not sure you understand Wikipedia policies. – Pee Jay 22:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss all of my edit history. Go ahead... But back to the discussion at hand, it is an official award started in 2017 that is given to players who achieve 100, 200, 300 appearances and so on and 50, 100, 150, 200 goals and so on. There is a ceremony and medal awarded. You may check the official Premier League website and the source I used for Otamendi's page. Why should these not be included but similar and small individual awards like Goal of the Month, Player of the Month, Manager of the Month, are included. Further, why is Otamendi the only player not allowed to have his milestone awarded in his individual honours section? This is mind boggling that I am accused of vandalism and being a bad editor (thanks PeeJay - that is a really encouraging environment to create for other editors) yet you all cannot agree on a simple policy or guideline.Rupert1904 (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Goal of the Month, Player of the Month, Manager of the Month are not milestones!! Govvy (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

And reaching 100/200/300 games is not an honour. Sure, you have to be a decent player to achieve that sort of longevity, but you don't have to play especially well. They haven't won anything, they've just stuck around long enough to play a certain number of games. – Pee Jay 23:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Before the league started giving out the award, I would agree with you that it is just a milestone and should not be included in an honours section but the Premier League has decided otherwise. It's not about our opinions or us making that decision. In the Otamendi section, another editor argued that De Gea is about to get 100 clean sheets but that should not be included in his honours section. But when De Gea does get to 100 clean sheets and IF the league decides to honour him with a medal then it should be included in his individual honours section. Why is this any different than putting in "just a milsetone" in honours sections like goals of the month, players of the month, man of the match in major tournaments and cup finals, top scorers in leagues and tournaments, top scorers for clubs all time, record club and national team appearances, goal of the tournament, goal of the season, club player of the season, young player of the season, team of the season? Why do you all think a man of the match or a goal of the season is an honour that should be recorded in individual honours section? By your argument then, What did that player "win"? This should not be about our opinions but a decision made by a governing body to award an achievement. You all have even agreed with me and the league in calling the medal they receive from the league a trophy. A trophy is defined as "a cup or other decorative object awarded as a prize for a victory or success." The league now has a ceremony to award this "trophy" to the winners of it, much like they do for player of the month, goal of the month, and manager of the month. Before the league started giving out this trophy I was on your side. But since the league is giving out an award/trophy/plaque then we as wiki editors should include that in players honours sections. This isn't about name calling, who is right or wrong, or our opinions, but of fact and what the league has instituted. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

As you can see all editors disagree with you here. I repeat; Not an honour, no matter how the PL calls it. Kante4 (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

And I repeat, use facts and information to support your argument. Don't just disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing and then say you won and I lost. Please actually use reason and have a constructive argument. This is now becoming a wider disagreement about the status of information on wikipedia in general. Wikipedia was created to be a source of verified information, a free encyclopedia, where people could access facts and info whether about history, notable events, countries, food, movie stars, athletes, etc. The league decided that it's an honour to be rewarded with a trophy. To ignore that is ignoring facts and to just blow that off is muddying the waters on having factual content on wikipedia. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You haven't presented anything beyond the fact that the league gives a presentation box. That doesn't make it an "honour" in the strictest sense of the term, i.e. the player has performed exceptionally well and been given a "Player of the Month" or "Goal of the Season" award. Appearing a certain number of times is not an honour. – Pee Jay 21:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

If we are being strict then, a goal of the season or a goal of the month is not performing exceptionally well. It is often an arbitrary decision made by a small group of people (in terms of the Premier League - the same group of people that give out the Milestones Award). It is one kick of the ball over the course of an entire month or season! If this much rigour is going into discrediting the Premier League for handing out a trophy to milestone appearances and goals, then why are we not dissecting every trophy and award they give out? By your argument, we shouldn't include a team of a season inclusion in an honour section since that is a player only playing well over one season and they didn't "win" anything but play well over a certain period of time. Also, why should record goals and record appearances be included in individual honours section? That doesn't mean the player was exceptional or won an award - it just means they had a long career. This shouldn't be subjective because you don't like the idea of it being included in the honours section and just want it in the prose. Either all awards that the Premier League gives out (and can be sourced properly) should be in the honours section or none at all. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you just create an "Awards" section split in two, one with "Major Honours" (with actual major leagues/cups won), and one with "Other Awards" which has all the various milestone/minor award type things--Jopal22 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

That is a great idea. I'm fine with that method. I'm fine with really any method that actually has a structure and consensus to it based on fact and reliable sources and not based on subjective opinions of what wiki editors think is a more important honour/award/trophy than another. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

And I just want to be extremely clear that just like we don't put our opinions into prose of articles then we should not put our opinions into an honours section. The league has deemed these milestones noteworthy of a trophy and a presentation. It should either be decided that all milestones (goals of the month, players of the month, players of the season, team of the season, manager of the season, goals and appearance milestones) handed out by the Premier League and other governing bodies in football should either be included or none at all. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Again and again, you've missed the point of what an award is. Goal of the Month, people vote for that, it's selected by an organisation. Like the others, like the Oscars. If you can't tell the difference then you're simply wasting your time. Govvy (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to ask, what encyclopedic purpose is served by including all these so called awards? Just because something happens, even if it is backed up by reliable sources, it does not mean we need to include it here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: Generally we don't list Man of the Match awards or milestones in honours, but for some reason there are editors out there that seem to add them even know it goes against generally what is accepted. As far as I can see Rupert1904 is just being disruptive in reverting what was removed and none of the admins here have bothered to punish him for it which seems weak to me. Govvy (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: That is exactly my point. I believe that they should either all be included or none of them should be included at all. @Govvy: it's clear that our difference of opinion really irks you and you have it out for me. Please don't make this about us. I am not sure why this debate has gotten so sensitive to you. In any event, this is not the forum to discuss your personal feelings so please refrain from that. Back to the issue at hand, and as we have already agreed upon above, the organisation in question (the Premier League) has indicated that this is a milestone/achievement they deem valuable and worthy of honoring. So as you say "it's selected be an organisation." I can see the difference between voting and not voting on and if you even bothered to really read any of my posts you would have noticed that I agreed with you until the PL started rewaring players for these individual achievements. And while you bring up the Oscars, they do have an award called the "Academy Honorary Award" or "Lifetime Achievement Award" that is not voted on by the Academy but is given out for individuals who have had legendary careers. I do not edit film articles so don't know the proper edit guidelines/rules but does not voting for that award make it any less memorable? Rupert1904 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: Also, I'd just like to reiterate, that top goal scorers and most clean sheets are awards that are not voted on but based on stats and facts. These are milestones/achievements included in wikipedia honours sections for players in the Premier League and every league for that matter. La Liga even has fancy names for these trophies and awards like the Zamora Trophy (clean sheets/least goals to games award), Pichichi Trophy (given to the top goalscorer), and the Zarra Trophy (given to the Spanish player with the most goals), while the Serie A has the Capocannoniere, the Bundesliga has the "kicker Torjägerkanone", and so on and so on. This is all to say that an individual honour does not have to be voted on like you suggested. The Premier League is one of the best, if not the best, football leagues in the world and the Premier League decided that a 100 appearance milestone is worthy of a trophy, just like they determined top scorer and most clean sheets is worthy of a trophy. People had no issue before including top scorer and most clean sheet awards. If we are going to make wikipedia pages and include encyclopedic content on them, why not strive to have pages as accurate and reflective of this information as they can be? Rupert1904 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Are these milestone awards reported by any reliable, secondary sources (I wouldn't include club websites in this)? If not, then I don't think they are notable enough to put on a player's Honours sections; things like Goal of the Season / Top Scorer are widely reported by multiple sources, so are notable awards. I did a google search for "premier league milestone award" and of the first 4 pages the vast majority were from the premier league website, with a number of the rest being club websites. Spike 'em (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The point of top scorer awards is that they are only given to one person per season, the person who scored the most goals; same with Goal of the Month/Season, they're given to the person who was the best in a given time period. Giving an "award" to someone for reaching 100 appearances is like receiving a telegram from the Queen on your 100th birthday; everyone who reaches that milestone gets one, but you don't have to do anything special to do it, just exist... – Pee Jay 10:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Consensus

Well maybe we can put this to bed with a simple consensus.
For 100 goal milestone award from the Premier League, do people want it added to honours list or not?
(For — Against — Abstain)

Against Listing this award in honours. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Against - it's a milestone, worthy of mentioning in the prose - but not an 'honour' and not included in any 'Honours' section. Giant Snowman 12:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Against - Per GiantSnowman. This isn't something the player has actually won, it's just a quirk of keeping on playing. What makes 100 any more special than 76 or 143? – Pee Jay 12:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Against - No sign that these are seen as notable honours by other media organisations. Spike 'em (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Against - Partly because it would encourage the attempted addition of equivalent milestones in honours for players in other leagues where such an achievement isn't even remarked upon. It would be simpler and neater to include in the prose with a standard sentence and ref, which I don't see anyone having an issue with. Crowsus (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Against - As explained above. Kante4 (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Against – For all the reasons outlined above. Eagleash (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Against - No significant notability of the award, relatively routine achievement, not mentioned on most reliable websites as an honour any more than we would list "1 England Cap" (which has a similar ceremony). The source provided is unclear as to how often this will be awarded, and if it is awarded within a season, what the criteria for inclusion is. It ranks alongside "man of the match" which is something relatively common, rather than "player of the season". Koncorde (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Against – Per reasons listed above. Jaellee (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Against – it is not an actual honour and can be clearly deduced from statistics. SportingFlyer T·C 03:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

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

FCSB v Steaua București again

Just asking, how to proper pipe the name in the infobox for the two clubs now, since there was disruptive editing by SPAs that erase the history of Steaua from the article FCSB and incoming link, but article such as Marius Lăcătuș, the two piped Steaua in the infobox, actually can't tell it was FCSB, or the new CSA Steaua , or the old CSA Steaua that became FC Steaua . Should we use full name in this case? i.e., FC Steaua București for mentioning the club for events prior 2017. Matthew hk (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a note beside the teams to indicate which is which? This would only be needed in the small amount of articles where someone has a connection both to historic Steaua and 2017 CSA Steaua. As far as I know, Lacatus is the most prominent. Informally, I've been referring to the new team as CSA Steaua and for practical reasons it would be useful to pipe the name as such, but technically it is unfair to include the prefix as the common name is just Steaua, and the army-era team (when Lacatus played for them) was also CSA Steaua before becoming FC Steaua (when he managed them) and now FCSB, all considered legally to be the same, so it doesn't really help in the distinguishing them historically. Crowsus (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wealdstone F.C.‎

I updated the squad list to match the official website but got reverted [1], the IP is claiming to be the club researcher for Football Manager! (per what was posted on my talk page). I really don't get that, does this mean there is a conflict of interest from this IP? Is the IP claiming WP:OWN over the article? Govvy (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's a conflict of interest per se, as FM researchers at club level are not paid. No comment on WP:OWNership. Gricehead (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I am assuming he means he works for the football game Football Manager? Then that really isn't working for the football club then? Govvy (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There may not be a conflict of interests, but the IP definitely has some WP:OR issues going on. If they can't back up their edits with published sources, they should steer clear of editing here. – Pee Jay 15:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hervé Renard

Numerous IPs/new editors are adding that he has left Morocco/joined Iran - but I can't find sources for either. Is anybody able to verify this? Giant Snowman 10:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

For what I can see on social media, there seems to be a bit of speculation on him becoming the Iran manager. It's only speculation though, as I can't seem to find any source confirming the move (either in English, Arabic or Farsi). Nehme1499 (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't find anything definitive in Morocco-based, French-language sources. A move could be impending, but I doubt anything is official. Jogurney (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Association footballers not categorized by position

Polite reminder that we still have over 21,000 entries in Category:Association footballers not categorized by position... Giant Snowman 15:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Should anything be done where it is not possible to find out about a player's position, particularly where the person concerned was notable for something other than football? I followed the link and was surprised to see Clement Atlee there. In his article there is single sentence saying he played for a minor non-league team in his youth. I feel inclined to just remove the category, but would that be against the spirit of things? Spike 'em (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOLD applies. I'm sure lots and lots of people notable for other things played football as youths... Giant Snowman 09:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Ryan Tierney

I can't find any sources saying Ryan Tierney has left Hamilton, but he wasn't in their squad numbers list at the start of the season. Any idea what he's up to these days? Giant Snowman 11:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

He scored, unless there's another Tierney, for Hamilton Reserves against Celtic Reserves earlier this season, so absent anything else the reasonable assumption is he's still there. OZOO (t) (c) 11:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

He was still there in December 2018 (see this tweet from the club) but there is this Tweet from a fan account which indicates he had left by 1 January, but it's non-RS... Giant Snowman 11:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah can't add any more than the above, was definitely involved with the reserves without a senior squad number, he might be have gone now but official word seems to be lacking, they might be waiting til he signs for someone else to add it all in a message, had a decent reputation so surely will get something. Will update his page if I see anything reliable. Crowsus (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Accies announced recent player departures today - but no mention of Tierney, nor of Ján Mucha (who has also left per this)... Giant Snowman 16:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonathan Castro Otto

Lead says commonly known as Jonny, however as far as I can see all the news services call him Jonny Otto, also in the article, it runs like a Portuguese name using his first name in formal. But the guy is Spanish so shouldn't the formality of the article be written with his Surname of Otto instead of Jonny? Govvy (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Same as in your talkpage: player is to be addressed as "Jonny" i do believe, "Jonny Otto" is a name/nickname compound. It would be the same as saying "Kaká Leite", "Ronaldinho Assis", "Edson Pelé", "Manuel Chuli", and many more from Brazil, Portugal and Spain. I'd suggest the page being moved (two months ago, for the same reasons as i convey here, i moved "Diogo Jota" to Jota (footballer, born 1996)).

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonny is too common a name, probably why English media is using Jonny Otto. Govvy (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

They seem to do the same with Luis Nani too. I think the English media just struggles with mononymous people. – Pee Jay 22:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Quite A Character: I don't see anything on Otto's talk page for a move. Do you suggest a move to Jonny Otto? Jonny seems to already have been used for a stub article showing the commonality of the nickname. Also Wolves own website list him as Jonny Otto. Govvy (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I only said "I'd suggest..." as in "If it were me...", not that i actually tagged anything at the proper places. Of course the majority and consensus win (or should win) at this encyclopedia of ours, but i'd never go for such a move. I'd leave it as it is (and then address the subject as "Otto" in the storyline even though i fail to realise where's the harm in doing so with "Jonny"), or move to "Jonny (footballer)".

Back in the day, i remember the idiotic sportscasters in my country (over)using stuff like "Pedro Pauleta", "Pedro Mantorras", "Nuno Capucho", you name it. The last few years, my ears have bled everytime i hear "Isco Alarcón".

Returning to JCO, this Google search yields tons of results addressing him mononymously (please see here https://www.google.com/search?ei=bXpTXJzSA4W2a7qSmoAN&q=jonny+celta+defensa&oq=jonny+celta+defensa&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30.84563.89299..89426...0.0..0.98.1340.19......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j0j0i67j0i10j0i22i30j0i22i10i30.TQlKl9DRlww). I guess :@PeeJay2K3: made a good point above (the British struggles). --Quite A Character (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

He called himself Jonny Otto when he first joined Twitter two years ago, when he was still at Celta. Don't see the ignorant English can be blamed for that. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Ronaldinho Assis is sometimes used, as well as Ronaldinho is between a formal given name (in diminutive form) to nickname. Also Robbie Keane use the name Robbie Keane. Ricky Kaka is sometimes used in the media but certainly it is wrong, as Kaka is not a surname. There is no right or wrong for a variation of given name + surname. If it was used widely in the media as well as the subject call himself as such, then it is the common name and one of the official name. I started a RM for artist Sam Hui, even the artist had admitted his baptized /anglicized name was actually Samuel. Matthew hk (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yemeni footballers

There are a bunch of Yemeni footballer stubs over at AfC such as Draft:Salem_Al-Harsh sourced only to soccerway and the-afc.com - are these articles enough to move to mainspace? They in theory pass WP:NFOOTY (assuming they appeared for Yemen) but need a lot of work, and I want to make sure they wouldn't be AfD'd quickly if I move them over. SportingFlyer T·C 00:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: I'd suggest you double check the list at NFT (perhaps the best source for international players?) If they have a FIFA game then they're notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. Mr Al-Harsh passes. Giant Snowman 10:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Individual records

Hi, I was wondering: if a player completes a certain record (for example, he becomes the youngest player to score in a certain league) but another player breaks it, should the record be removed from the first player's "Honours and achievements" section? Nehme1499 (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

No; simply add a note stating that the record was beaten, and the dates when it was held. Giant Snowman 16:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I concur. The player held the record, therefore it should be noted. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok that's what I was thinking. Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Staying on the same subject, if a player is the youngest to score in the league in an "absolute" meaning (he is born in 2001 and everyone else who has ever scored in the league is currently older than him) but not in "relative" terms (he scored aged 17, but someone else scored aged 15 before him who is born in 1999), how do I phrase that? For example, looking at Messi it says "Youngest player to score for Argentina in a FIFA World Cup: 18 years, 357 days in 2006". For this player, would "Youngest player to score in the X League: born on 1 January 2001" make sense? Nehme1499 (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't sound hugely notable to me, but if it is: how do the sources describe it? I've heard mention of someone being the first person born this century to play / score a goal, which is easy enough to phrase. Spike 'em (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the only way you could word that would be "most-recently born player to do XYZ", but as Spike says, that doesn't really sound notable..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The source says (in French) "Ayant à peine soufflé sa 17e bougie (il est né le 2 février 2001), Hajj junior est devenu le plus jeune « goléador » (buteur) du championnat de première division en inscrivant le deuxième but de son équipe à la 22e minute de jeu. Ironie de l’histoire : Ali efface ainsi des tablettes son frère Youssef, qui était jusque-là le détenteur de ce titre honorifique.", which translated means "Having barely reached his 17th birthday (he was born on February 2, 2001), Hajj junior became the youngest "goléador" (scorer) of the first division championship by scoring the second goal of his team in the 22nd minute of play. Ironically, Ali breaks the record set by his brother Youssef, who was previously the holder of this honorary title." After doing some research, I found that Youssef (born in 1999) scored at the age of 15 while Ali (born in 2001) at the age of 17. This would make Ali the first person "born in this century" to score a goal, as there isn't any player born between 1999 and 2001 to have broken the record. Would "First player born in the 21st century to score in the Lebanese Football League" work? Nehme1499 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

That phrasing would work, but unless you can find a source stating it, it sounds like WP:OR to me. Spike 'em (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If it's the first person born in the 21st century to score, that's probably a notable achievement assuming there's sourcing. If the player was simply at some point the most recently born to have scored (but not the youngest - i.e. they were 17 and someone previously scored when they were 15) to me that's not notable even if covered in sources as there would just be so many players to have had that "honor" at some point. But being the first player born in the 21st century to score is a distinction only one player is ever going to have, and probably would get more coverage as well. Smartyllama (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

2013–14 Segunda División de Fútbol Salvadoreño

I was about to convert this table, but noticed that there some disagreement in the tables over if C.D. Guadalupano or C.D. Vista Hermosa participated in the group. @BKReruns: does anyone have a secondary source for the tables and match results? the positioning of the team in the home/away table suggests that it is C.D. Vista Hermosa, but the results in the aggregate tables suggest it was C.D. Guadalupano. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes: I've just tried to source this, but these sorts of tables are notoriously difficult to track down. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, thanks for trying. I am still hopeful that BKReruns can help, since BKReruns generated the tables in the first place :) Frietjes (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm hopeful too! Interestingly, when I need information about lower league Central American football, I've had the best success with twitter. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It's explained and sourced in the club articles. C.D. Guadalupano bought the spot of C.D. Vista Hermosa for the 2013/2014 and will play in the Salvadoran Second Division. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

thank you! I updated the tables and added a note indicating this replacement. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Nico Yennaris/Li Ke name change

Over on Nico Yennaris’/Li Ke’s talk page a few of us are debating whether the articles (Hou Yongyong being concerned too) should stick with their native names or their naturalised Chinese names. Personally, I’d prefer to see the articles be given their native names, per WP:COMMONNAME. If anyone could add any input so that a conclusion can be reached that’d be great. JSWHU (Talk page) 16:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I have undone the two moves - undiscussed and clearly very controversial. This should be discussed at WP:RM. Giant Snowman 16:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Pay to view sources

This is probably a more general question than WP:FOOTY only, but as I mostly edit in this field, I'm gonna go ahead and ask here. Is there a problem with using pay-to-view sources to reference? And if there's an alternative is there a preference to use the free one? I saw recently Dave logic switch some pay-to-view sources with a non-independent source, and was wondering what is preferred. Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL - nothing wrong with using 'pay for' sources. In those situations I'd say you simply use both sources - the independent paid, and the non-independent free. The more sources the merrier. Giant Snowman 13:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

A book is technically "pay to view" as are most newspapers, journals etc which are our most common reliable sources. It just happens that in the world of the internet a lot of them freely publish online for the advertising revenue. As such they are fundamentally the same, and of equal value. However for verification of the sources etc it helps to provide multiple sources and a free one is great as it means anyone can reverify the content. Koncorde (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The requirement is that information is verifiable, not that it is one link away. It is still verifiable if a trip to a library is necessary. The {{cite web}}) template, as with the other citation templates, has a parameter that can be set to indicate access restrictions: |url-access=free for free access (

), |url-access=registration for registration (

), and |url-access=subscription for pay subscriptions (

). See Template:Cite_web#Subscription_or_registration_required for description. They are not used very often, but they can warn the reader about paywalls. Jts1882 | talk 17:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I would add two sources if possible. Sometimes book (offline one especially in some field) are way better than online source, but it was difficult to access (at least not every town have a library to have that copy; weird to find Italian language book in Australian uni, and that book not even in the National Library of Australia). So providing both: a more easily accessible source , but "inferior" / primary source, can balance the thing out. I don't like the idea of deleting citation unless they are telling exactly the same detail and function exactly the same. Matthew hk (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Criteria for addition to "list of association footballers who died during their careers"

Hi there, done a lot of work on this page in recent weeks, and it is explicitly stated by a previous editor that no footballers who passed away while playing or in training should be included. However I don't think this should be the case - see this list on the Spanish wiki, which includes all cases in a comprehensive list. This ideally should be a cover-all list in my opinion, with "List of footballers who died while playing" behaving as a companion list. Any thoughts on this? Additionally, if anybody is willing to help with adding sources or uncovered cases, feel free to do so. Thanks, Mrsmiis (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

India Women intl stats

Anyone know of a decent ref for these? I was trying to verify this change on the Aditi Chauhan article and noticed that the squad list actually has one more. Can't find anything on the AIFF site and the AFC profile doesn't have appearance data. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed after having words with the edito. But if anybody knows more about the above issue please do reply. Thank you Dey subrata (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Peru national football team

Hi, can anyone tell me why Peru national football team doesn't have the standard 12 months history of results and next 12 month's fixtures. My understanding was it was standard, certainly all other conmebol articles have them, so seems odd this one does not. A couple of editors including myself have been adding them but they are being removed. Would appreciate some guidance from the wider community. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fenix down: The reason is Peru national football team article is a WP:FA, a FEATURED article of wikipedia, so you cannot add any kind of changeable datas in this article, the article has all kind of reference pages with every section so that one who wants to know about the team can visit those reference pages along with Peru national football team results where all last fixtures are in details. A national team article to be a summarised piece, only add those things which are in words rather than tables or any changeable columns, thats why its removed. Other football team articles are not a featured one, except, Scottland national team, Belgium national team. Thank you Dey subrata (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure I understand What you are saying. Being a featured article doesn't mean no more editing and it doesn't mean no more changes, that's why we have former featured articles. Currently all conmebol teams have these sections and most other national teams do, can you point to any kind of consensus which says they shouldn't. I understand that there are lists for complete records and that is fine, but the 12 months forward, 12 months back view provides a decent summary of recent events, hence why it is so widely used. Fenix down (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article criteria (emphasis added):

“

stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

”

The guidance is not to add material to a Featured Article that is perishable, ie that changes significantly over time. As to your comment on the usefulness of the information that the IP added on 25th January, see Peru national football team results, which has a wikilink in the section you wished to expand. The IP simply cut this and pasted it into an FA article. Yes an FA article can still be edited but editors will remove content that detracts from it's status. W C M_email 11:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Well my interpretation of that is that the nature of the content doesn't really change and certainly doesn't change day to day. The content is always 12 months forward and 12 months back, so whilst data may change, what should be reported doesn't and it is clear toceditors what should and shouldn't be included. You're point also doesn't really make sense when compared to the rest of the article. We have both a current squad and recent call ups section. These both contravene what has been quoted above, especially the recent call ups section. I'm quite confused as to what you are trying to say. Are we saying it is ok to list recent call ups but not recent fixtures. That doesn't make any sense to me. I agree that it could be said that it is in contravention of the FA criteria, but so are other sections currently in the article. Additionally, it is also completely at odds with the structure of a large number of articles, yes there are links to wider lists, but it is always more helpful to the reader to provide a summary of what is at that link in the main article. Fenix down (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Only three featured articles currently exist for national football teams discussed at present, and with two active editors who led those articles to FA status:

• Belgium national football team (Kareldorado) • Peru national football team (myself) • Scotland national football team

The FA articles set the bar (standards) for what all other articles should aim to become. While certainly each FA article differs from each other, depending primarily on available information, the differences are not significant. In my talk page, Fenix insults me (see [2]) by claiming that I am being "owny" because I mentioned that I led the article through the FA process. I mention my role in the article because, as anyone who has gone through the FA or GA process knows, it takes a considerable amount of effort not just in research time, but also in evaluating multiple articles of the same subject in order to reach a conclusion on what should be the optimal article format. Much time is also devoted to understanding WP policy, in this case the logic of the article's current format supported by WP:SIZE, WP:SUMMARY, WP:RECENTISM the basic MOS framework for this matter Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams, and even the suggestion at WP:LISTDD .

Moreover, as WCM accurately indicates, FA articles are first and foremost meant to be stable versions of the article. The "future and past games" chart being inserted into the FA article does not provide stability to the article and, on the contrary, promotes unnecessary instability both on a technical and an informational level. On the latter, adding "future" games for football teams is borderline with the policy on Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. On the former, anyone who has been long enough in Wikipedia knows that charts are a nightmare in disguise that most users don't know how to operate.

I am not arguing that these charts should be removed from all articles. They merit inclusion, I think, from stubs up to maybe B-class articles. However, once content is already taking a more formal approach with adequate citations and a better use of Wikilinks, then these charts are not longer necessary. In Peru's case, for example, an entire list-class article is already available for the same information (see Peru national football team results).--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

but you're not really answering my question. Why would a simple summary as is common across almost every other article not be appropriate? If it is because the article should be stable, why do you include a current squad and recent call ups section, these are not stable either. In fact the recent call ups section is the players version of the recent fixtures. I presume you would have issue if I went and removed these (Not that I'm going to, I believe they are relevant, just as recent fixtures are relevant). This is why I warned you against being owny, you led an article through FA, but won't entertain the addition of content almost universally applied elsewhere, with the sole reason given being contradicted by significant content in the very version you want to protect. The idea that there is some sort of Crystal violation is easily solved by ensuring fixtures are referenced, and the argument of difficulty also holds no water either as there are plenty of templates in the article involving mark up editors may not be inherently familiar with.

I really need you explain your logic, particularly with regards to the contradictory logic of including some inherently unstable sections but excluding others. It would be particularly useful if you could show me where in the FA process the recent fixtures discussion was held. If it was discussed and deemed unnecessary, that is fine and I am happy for it to be left out. If it was not, then I still don't see why we can't align to the much wider consensus that they are useful summaries. Fenix down (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Three people have answered you quoting relevant policy, however, it seems you simply don't like the answer. I think it's time to drop the WP:STICK, you are also in danger of verging on WP:BLUDGEON. W C M_email 17:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

What's wrong with adding this info? Perhaps instead of including "the last 12 months and the next 12 months" we should just include fixtures and results for the current qualification cycle (and the friendlies in between). That way we avoid having to change the article every single time a result drops out of the "last 12 months" category. Not too much info about goalscorers etc, though, just the results. – Pee Jay 17:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see the reasoning against the inclusion. Given that it takes a considerable amount of effort not just in research time, but also in evaluating multiple articles of the same subject in order to reach a conclusion on what should be the optimal article format it seems strange to settle on a format that differs from most articles on the subject that have been part of the evaluation. The structure of the article is not being changed, just the content of a section on games is being updated according to the agreed structure. If the material is not suitable for a feature article, I don't see how it is suitable for the other articles where the edit summary "cluttering it with irrelevant information" must be equally valid. Jts1882 | talk 17:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

As I've already indicated, an article already exists for Peru's match results at Peru national football team results. In fact, there's an entire category on the subject for multiple football teams at Category:National association football team results ([3]). Relevant policies/guidelines that align with the status quo include WP:SIZE, WP:SPINOFF, WP:SUMMARY, and even WP:SAL. I would highly advise participants of this discussion to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages. WCM is the voice of reason: it's time to drop the WP:STICK. Thank you.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 18:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Peru national football team results is for more than just the most recent results though. There shouldn't be any issue with adding the most recent/soon-to-come matches to the Peru national football team article. – Pee Jay 18:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a concern with using an article like Peru national football team results to detail future results though. These kinds of articles are primarily used to record historical results i.e. matches that have already been played. Anyone who looks at other non-FA national team articles will be expecting upcoming matches. It's not clear from the featured article that the results article would contain upcoming matches. Surely there is some change that could be made to the Team records and results section to make this more apparent. Jay eyem (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jay eyem: Please let me know if this is what you had in mind (see [4]). Thanks!--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 18:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@MarshalN20: that is approximately what I had in mind, yes. I'm still not super experienced with editing, so I wasn't sure how to make such a change properly. Hopefully that helps clear up some confusion. Thanks! Jay eyem (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Bernardo Tavares

Hi. :-) For anyone who loves to clean up articles (@Mattythewhite:?): it looks like Bernardo Tavares is in dire need of some work. Portuguese-speaking editors might also be particularly interested: @SLBedit:, @MYS77:. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look at him later, mate. Cheerio, MYS 77 ^✉ 13:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay! Good job, @Govvy: and @SLBedit:. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Club naming RM

Some more input would be welcome at this RM, which has started to descent into the usual argument about consistency vs common name. Cheers, Number 5 7 09:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW anyone remember the name of the user/sockmaster that create non-notable (or even hoax) Nigerian footballer article? I think i caught a sock suspect in the article of the football club. Matthew hk (talk)

@Matthew hk:, i think you are thinking about User:Zombie433. --Quite A Character (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a more recent one. They /he open one account for one or two subject at a time. Matthew hk (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Player Honours: Supercups in Trophy Counts?

Hi, everyone. I had a query over a recurring issue in Wikipedia pages to which I was hoping to find a solution. The issue is whether players should be credited with Supercup titles or Cup titles in which they did not appear, even if a reliable source credits them with this title. The problem is that in different countries there seem to be different regulations regarding which players receive winners' medals, and there doesn't seem to be a way to resolve this.

Obviously I know that in English football regulations are very strict on which players receive winners' medals for domestic titles: usually they need to have made 10+ league appearances for a Premier League medal, and they need to have appeared in the domestic cups or supercups, or they need to have been called up for the final in order to receive a cup medal as well, I believe (although I also saw recently that on the FA Cup website, under rules and regulations, unlike previous seasons where 30 medals were awarded to be distributed among players, staff, and officials of both clubs in the FA Cup Final, now "...The Association shall present 40 medals to playing staff and officials of both Clubs in the Final.". In European football, this is also the case, as players need to be included in the 25-player UEFA list in order to be eligible for a medal.

Having said that, I also know that in Italian football, things are slightly different, and as can be seen for the awarding of medals for league titles or Cup or Supercup titles on youtube (for example this clip which shows all of the Juventus players receiving a medal at the 2018 scudetto trophy ceremony), all squad members receive a medal, regardless of whether they were called up or if they even appeared in the competition (now, moreover, squad sizes have been limited to 25 players, I believe, and I think 30 medals are issued to a winning team for players and coaching staff – as shown here in an official source regarding regulations for the 2008 Supercoppa Italiana).

Because of the strict regulations in English Football over which players qualify for a winners' medal, one user, Davefelmer, has also been removing sourced domestic honours from several players' pages, if they were not called up to a Supercup final or if they did not appear in a competition (sometimes even if they did not achieve 10 league appearances as well); I understand this user's concern over inaccuracies on wikipedia footballer pages (as sources such as Soccerway also list that players have won certain domestic honours in England even if they didn't receive a medal if they were part of the club that won that title at the time), and that they likely had the best intentions in mind when doing this, but the fact is that not all football competitions in other countries abide by the same regulations, so to remove certain honours would be unfair and inaccurate. I haven't disputed the domestic honours from other countries that have been removed to be honest, as I am not sure of the regulations and have not found much information on this, but I have disputed the removal of Italian football honours that they removed without knowledge of the league's regulations or the Italian language, as I know that the rules are different to those for domestic competitions in English football. Admittedly, I will go back on what I had previously said and will agree that if a player was not called up to the Supercoppa Italiana (at least prior to 2005 when the regulations were changed), that they should not receive a medal, so I will not dispute those honours being removed, but their Coppa Italia and Serie A titles should not be removed on the other hand.

I'm not sure what the regulations are in other countries to be completely honest; I don't know if it's fair to assume the regulations in these countries are similar to those in England, and therefore if honours for players that weren't called up to the finals or didn't appear in domestic cups or supercups should be removed, or if it would be better to assume that they resemble those in Italy (but I would be more inclinced to assume the latter, due to proximity, that many domestic football competitions mediterranean countries they would have similar regulations, and that players aren't required to make a minimum number of league or cup appearances to qualify for a medal). I know it's difficult to determine whether a player has won a title or not if they did not appear in the competition or were not called up for it, because different sources – such as Newspaper articles, or club profiles, or common sources such as Soccerway or Eurosport – often contradict one another and sometimes list a title as an honour on certain player profiles, mainly as they seem to take into account what a team won during that particular season and only if a player was a part of the team at the time, while others exclude them.

But regarding domestic competitions in Spain specifically, I know that @PeeJay2K3: and @Aavelarx: had discussed with @Paulinho28: and me on Messi's talk page that they felt the 2005 Supercopa de España should be removed from his list of honours (while we disagreed), as he was not called up for either leg of the final. However, [5]this official Barcelona source mentions that he and Andrés Iniesta are the players with the most honours at the club and lists them as both having won that title; his official club profile also lists this title under the honours section. PeeJay2K3 has argued that he wasn't even part of the club's "A" squad at the time, as according to this page and this report (I have commented that I'm not sure that these would be considered reliable sources on wikipedia), he wore number 30 at the start of the season and was re-registered as number 19 later on. He also added that players in Spanish clubs' "A" squads had to wear numbers between 1 and 25 at the time, which indicates that Messi was not part of the "A" squad at the start of the season, and that it would therefore be unfeasible to consider the player to have won an honour if they weren't part of the club's "A" squad at the time.

However, although I thought that he made a valid point and that this argument seemed reasonable, I didn't have any reliable sources which confirmed this. I tried looking for information on Spanish articles or official La Liga BBVA sources regarding squad numbers in Spanish football and their correlation with whether players were registered with the A or B team and found no such information (also, Damià Abella was on the bench for the first leg of the 2005 Supercopa de España, and he had the number 32 at the time, so this argument seems somewhat tenuous); I do know that the Messi wiki article cites a reliable source from a biography on the player by Balagué] and mentions that: "On 24 June 2005, his 18th birthday, Messi signed his first contract as a senior team player. It made him a Barcelona player until 2010, two years less than his previous contract, but his buyout clause increased to €150 million." This for me is proof that he was a first-team player at the time (especially as the Supercopa took place in August that year, and he made no appearances for the B team that season, while making 17 La Liga appearances and 25 in all competitions despite injury). I also remember that later in August, after the Supercopa, Fabio Capello wanted to sign him on loan after seeing his impressive performance when he started against Juventus in the Joan Gamper Trophy (which Hunter's book on Barcelona, which is cited in Messi's wiki article, also corroborates); moreoever, the Barca Wiki article for the 2005–06 season also lists Messi as being promoted to the first team.

If Barcelona have credited him with that title on their official club profile for Messi on their official website, even though he wasn't called up for that match, and listed him as the most decorated Barcelona player ever alongside Iniesta in 2017, and stated that they both won the same Spanish Supercups, then I would think that he must've been assigned that medal, but there doesn't seem to be a way to confirm this at the moment. I wanted to see if we could actually arrive at a consensus over which Supercups and other honours that players could be credited with so that we can finally resolve this problem and any future disputes over this. Should official club sources be taken into account for non-English domestic competitions? Or are sources such as Soccerway acceptable in the case that players did not appear in a particular competition or receive a call-up for a final? Or should they be removed altogether instead? I can see both sides of the argument, so I wanted input from more users. I hope that this post didn't become overly convoluted; please feel free to ask for clarification if you have any questions, and – to the users that I have tagged – please feel free to add any comments, information, or further clarification, so that hopefully we can vote on a mutual agreement, so that this issue can finally be resolved, regardless of our own personal preferences.

Thank you! Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

If a player is not called up to the squad at least, he should not be having this honour here on WP. Kante4 (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that it seems a stretch to give them an honour/medal if they aren't called up at all for a Supercup match, but what about cup competitions which are longer? If they are still listed in a squad for a game but do not appear, even if it wasn't a final? Also, what about the idea of needing a minimum of 10 league appearances to qualify for a league medal like in English Football? That seems to be a dangerous assumption for someone to make about regulations in other leagues. In Italy, every player in the squad is awarded a medal, as is shown by the trophy ceremony at the end of the season. Messirulez (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Giant Snowman 15:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read the second paragraph at least, @GiantSnowman:; I'm posting a lot of information because I want to be objective and show both sides of the argument, so if you could please actually try and take the time to skim read it or look it over quickly, I would be extremely grateful if you could please be of some use or offer some help if you can; if you don't have time to read it or offer a constructive point, then please don't comment, especially with such a flippant and brief comment like "TLDR". I have already apologised for the long post and said that if anything was convoluted to feel free to ask for further clarification, so you could at least show some common courtesy and ask me to summarise my query if you wanted me to do so, especially when I have always tried to be as polite as possible on here. Moreover, like you, I've been on here quite a long time, and have been also working hard to improve football articles and find sources for uncited material, and with this discussion I'm also hoping finally to resolve a recurring issue on football articles. Thank you. Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Ideally each competition should have a metric for who received a medal etc, however it is well known that leagues change their point of view and metrics from time to time. DaveFelmer is a known issue that I have worked with in the past, but this may need revisiting with him to make it clear the correct process for challenging honours.

For honours a club website, as a source of primary facts, is reasonable. However the primary source over time is liable to eliminate this data when players leave. Koncorde (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Koncorde:; thanks for your response. Personally, I've found that I haven't really got on with DaveFelmer on here because of our disagreements over this, and I feel like when we have tried to discuss this issue we haven't really gotten anywhere, so I don't know if it would be best for us to collaborate on this; maybe it would be preferable for someone else to do so. At first I thought that they were deleting titles from players' pages without doing any research as to what regulations were in other leagues, and I politely tried to inform them that regulations were different in Italy and attempted to initiate a discussion, but I did not receive a response from them initially and my messages were deleted, which I felt to be discourteous. Then later when I messaged them again, they responded, and I do understand that they had a valid point when they contested the official Lega source of the number of medals being awarded in the Supercoppa Italiana (and I think probably it would be best to remove those honours from players pages who were not called up for the competition those particular years, but the same should not apply for Serie A and Coppa Italia titles, as they clearly are awarded to all squad members), and that they were merely trying to ensure that everything was accurately sourced, which I appreciate, but I didn't personally find them to be extremely co-operative or understanding, although maybe this was just me and the fact that online discussions can seem quite abrupt and impersonal, and I don't know if it was the case with you or anyone else, so I wouldn't want to make false accusations here if ultimately this just happened to be a misunderstanding between the two of us; but hopefully we can ultimately set our differences aside once this has been sorted out and put the past behind us.

But I do think that for non UK domestic competitions, one should first confirm whether a players has appeared in earlier stages of the competition before removing the honour, as I would think that an appearance in said competition would suffice, as not all competitions abide by the same regulations as those in British Football Leagues, like those in Italy, for example, or Portugal, as @Quite A Character: has also noted. (And as I said, in Italy even players who didn't appear in a cup competition receive a medal; this can be seen in the medal ceremonies for the 2015–17 Coppa Italia titles on youtube, where Buffon received a winners' medal without even having appeared in those editions, as is shown here for the ceremony for the 2017 final, and it makes sense because he is still a team leader and the captain in the dressing room). I think one should even see whether they were called up as well or eligible to appear. I think that if a club source lists a player as having won an honour, then it would be acceptable as well, but I can see why others might disagree on this. The main reason why I want to come to a consensus is do avoid any future conflict between other users. Thanks. Best, Messirulez (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course the offical webiste credits them with the trophy (not objective), still stand by my point as there were lenghty discussions on the Bale and Ronaldo articles... Kante4 (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Kante4:, thanks for your response. Yes, I completely understand that. But the problem is, what about the issue where well-intentioned users like Davefelmer are removing non-UK league titles from the Wiki pages of players who have made fewer than 10 appearances in said competitions, or titles from players who didn't appear in or weren't called up to non-UK Cup finals, even if they appeared in or were called up to earlier stages of the competition? I understand their reasoning, and to be honest, I can't find information regarding the minimum number of appearances (if there even is one) required to obtain a winners' medal in other European Leagues outside the UK; I can't even find this information for Serie A, to be honest, but I do know that without a doubt, in Serie A, all squad members receive a medal, and if you look at the youtube clip I posted from Juventus's medal ceremony from last season, you will see all of the team's players picking up medals, even though who didn't appear, so it would be wrong to remove these honours from their pages. And this is also the case for the Coppa Italia as well. What model should be followed for domestic honours in other countries then? This becomes a bit of problem, because then it seems that some sources would be acceptable for some leagues (e.g. Serie A), but not for others (e.g. the Premier League), but then to exclude/remove the honours altogether from non-UK football leagues would also be inaccurate. Do you see my point? Thanks. Best, Messirulez (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It is near impossible to read that section and follow what you mean. You should try to break that paragraph up and possibly use some bullet points so people can see what you are actually saying. Spike 'em (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tried to do that now; hopefully it helps a bit. Sorry, I was writing it rather quickly. Best, Messirulez (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I understood the original format fine and didn't find it overly long. I completely agree with the problem, but don't have the solution. It becomes particularly difficult with so many competitions and countries involved with different rules, and the many editors in the project being from so many of these different places and insisting (innocently) on applying the conventions as they know them to articles originating from places with different rules, in some cases supported by reliable sources from Foo which contradict reliable sources on another equivalent player from Bah. Can't see an easy answer. Crowsus (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is that in countries/competitions where a squad has to be registered to participate, only those players should be considered to have "won" those competitions (as well as any B squad players who made enough appearances). In Spain, La Liga regulations state that "A" squads may be no more than 25 players and each player must have a squad number between 1 and 25. At the start of the 2005-06 season, when the Supercup was played, Messi's squad number was 30 (as this page indicates, he started the season as #30 and was then re-registered later as #19), which indicates that he was not part of the Barcelona "A" squad. He had also only played nine first-team matches at the time, none of them as a member of the starting line-up (see here). He was not involved in either leg of the 2005 Spanish Supercup (see here and here), so the only conclusion I can reach is that FC Barcelona is artificially inflating the number of trophies Messi has won. For what purpose, I don't know, but he is their golden boy, so I would imagine it is in their best interests to attribute to him every trophy they can possibly get away with. – Pee Jay 08:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree totally with that. Crowsus (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Crowsus:; I am not disputing at all what @PeeJay2K3: is arguing, and I think that they are making a fair point and I appreciate that they took the time to look for some sources; the only thing is that we cannot seem to find a reliable source which confirms that there are regulations which state that A team members in Spain were registered with squad numbers 1–25. Those sources firstly come from websites which wikipedia guidelines do not deem to be suitable, and secondly, they only mention Messi's shirt number. If there were an official source which stated this, then by all means I would gladly accept this. As can be seen below, PeeJay2K3 has kindly posted some sources that they found from worldfootball.net (thank you for this), which is a more reliable source than the others previously posted, of Barcelona match reports during the 2005–06 season which demonstrate that in a game against Celta Vigo on 20 December 2005, Messi was wearing #30 (see here), and then against Espanyol on 7 January 2006, that he was wearing #19 (see here). But although this is all very useful, and I do not dispute any of this as it is concrete evidence which cannot be disputed, all this shows is that his shirt number was changed throughout the course of the season (I know in French football this has happened at times purely for reasons such as players having a personal preference). I just ideally wanted some firm proof regarding the regulations over player registration in Spanish football and what shirt number they were required to have, especially given that Messi had signed a first team contract in June 2005 and was no longer playing with the B team during the 2005–06 season. Having said that, at this point I do think it might be better to remove the 2005 Supercup from Messi's page altogether if he was not called up to either leg of the final, and maybe it would be better to remove players who were not called up to at least one leg of those types of competitions in future, as I think it just becomes problematic do determine whether they "won" this title or not and a major headache, and this would hopefully avoid any future conflicts over such titles on here. I don't think the same should apply for non-UK domestic League and Cup titles, however. Does that seem fair? Thanks. Best, Messirulez (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. However, there is a wikipedia problem with handling it. The source may be inflating Messi's numbers (Barcelona are always making him bigger) but it is considered a reliable source. There needs to be a better source to contradict this. Jts1882 | talk 09:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that generally the Barcelona website can be considered reliable for factual matters, but I wouldn't rely on them too much, especially when they are basically acting as propagandists for themselves and their players. With the evidence above, I think I've cast enough doubt on the idea that Messi won the 2005 Spanish Supercup that we should just ignore it. – Pee Jay 10:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, Messirulez, here is the evidence that Messi's squad number changed during the 2005-06 season. In a game against Celta Vigo on 20 December 2005, he was wearing #30 (see here), and then against Espanyol on 7 January 2006, he was wearing #19 (see here). Worldfootball.net is a pretty reliable source, so hopefully that should be sufficient, but I'll try to find pictorial evidence too. – Pee Jay 10:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that 2005 Supercup should be included, since it is an official trophy and Messi was already in the team at the time, he was not a senior member, but still a member of the team (we do also count his first LaLiga title in 2005, which was also before he was a senior player). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintendonix (talk • contribs) 12:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The difference between the 2005 Spanish Supercup and the 2004-05 La Liga title is that Messi actually played in some of the matches during the 2004-05 season. He did not participate in any way, shape or form in the 2005 Spanish Supercup. – Pee Jay 12:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

To start with, if you're going to talk about another user like Davefelmer you should at least have the courtesy to ping them so they can come and defend themselves. I think it's always best to stick to the obvious, if a player physically won a medal, runner up or winners medal that should be included in their honours list. There is a consensus that only competitive medals should be added and not to add medals won from friendly competitions. Receiving a medal for not evening playing, well that's a grey area and I wouldn't even bother putting it on the list. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. The trouble is, Barcelona are claiming that Messi did win the 2005 Spanish Supercup, but that flies in the face of all the evidence. – Pee Jay 15:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

So, from what I gather, do the majority of users agree that in order for a player to be credited with a Supercup title (be it the Supercoppa Italiana or the Supercopa de España), they must have at least been called up for one leg of the final, regardless of what club sources state. and that Messi's 2005 Spanish Supercup title should therefore be removed?

Moreoever, do we agree that for non-UK domestic cup and league titles (excluding Supercups), that if a player has made an appearance or been called up for a match in said competition, that they will still be credited with the title, even if they did not appear in the final, or in 10 or more league matches?

Finally, can we also agree that for Italian domestic honours, excluding the Supercoppa Italiana (i.e. Serie A and the Coppa Italia), that all first team members will be credited with title as medal ceremonies demonstrate (as shown here for the former and here for the latter on youtube) that all squad members receive a medal?

Thank you all for your contributions; I very much appreciate all of your help with this and am extremely grateful to you all! I know this hasn't been simple to resolve, as there isn't a lot of information, but I think this discussion has been extremely useful, and hopefully the outcome will help to deal with similar future issues rather quickly! Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think official club pages should be reliable regarding that ("peril of inflation"), but I definitely agree that if a player plays one cup round but not the final/is on the bench of (for instance) the Supercup he/she should get honour; additionally, I feel runner-up accolades should be included, especially when the given player has not won a lot of stuff.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, lastly, I just wanted to add that @Vaselineeeeeeee: did bring up one good point, which was that in the past I found a picture of Simone Inzaghi with a 2009 Supercoppa Italiana medal round his neck even though he wasn't in the squad for the final (as can be seen in the picture in this article here from a reliable source like Sky Sport Italia). I realise that although 30 medals are given out to winning club players and coaching staff, and that the Serie A squads are now limited to 25 players, that one still cannot confirm who exactly receive a medal if they weren't called up for the match, but I hope that for isolated cases like these, that it is acceptable to use photographic evidence to justify the inclusion of an honour on a player's page, and that users will be reasonable and accept this. Thanks! Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

For Italy at least, the source provided from the 2008 Supercoppa is pretty clear that there are 30 medals to go out to the club's players; what are they going to do, just throw the extras away? Reliable sources such as Soccerway show the titles being listed, but unless a league regulation is used as a counter I don't see how it can be shunned. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Messirulez: I read all of your points and I totally agree with you. You have my support. The case is, if Barca's official website states that Messi is the winner of 2005 Supercup, then he is a winner. The same applies with Ronaldo & Bale in 2016 Supercup (they weren't call up due to injury, but they still received a medal [Bale himself tweeted a photo of him with the medal]), and if a player receive a medal, then he is automatically a winner of the competition. The information of Wikipedia should be based in reliable source, and for this case (Messi), I cannot find more of a reliable source than Barcelona official website.Sadsadas (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

If you think Barcelona's official website is reliable, I will refer you to my comment above about the club basically being Messi's official propagandists. Of course they're going to say he won that competition; he's their poster boy and it makes sense for them to say he won as many competitions as they can get away with. But he wasn't in the first team at the time (see above evidence re: squad numbers); if they had named him in the matchday squad for either leg, you might have a case, but they didn't. Otherwise you could argue that Pitu (#27), Joan Verdú (#31) or Jordi Gómez (#33) all won the 2005 Supercopa too. The only player with a squad number higher than 25 who even comes close is Damià, and that's because he was on the bench for the first leg. As for your spurious argument about Bale and Ronaldo, how do you know Ronaldo got a medal for the 2016 UEFA Super Cup? At least Bale posted a picture of himself with his medal, but that's because he was included in the squad - this page even makes special mention of the fact that Ronaldo was not in the squad for that game, which is backed up by the fact that he didn't travel to Norway (neither did Bale, but he gets a medal because he was in the squad). If he wasn't in the squad, you can't say he won that competition. – Pee Jay 10:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree (with PJ): as per WP:RSPRIMARY we should be using mainly secondary sources, which the Barcelona website is not. WP:SELFSOURCE says we can use primary sources if it is not contentious or self-serving, both of which apply here. Spike 'em (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no secondary source to override the Barcelona website. A club website would be considered an acceptable sources for most purposes. Here we have established that Messi didn't play and shouldn't count the medal, but on what wikipedia basis can the one source be ignored, but only in this instance. If it is considered a self-serving site, then shouldn't that exclude its use for anything?

On the supercups, they should only count if the player played (or at least was on the bench) as they are one off games. Including other players can lead to the absurd situation where an uninvolved player at another club gets credit. Jts1882 | talk 10:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The guideline helps us decide whether to use a source talking about itself: there are 5 criteria that need to be met. 1 of them does not seem to be met in this case. Spike 'em (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, like I say, I don't have as much of a problem with attributing the honour to other members of Barcelona's 25-man La Liga squad who didn't appear in the Super Cup, e.g. Thiago Motta and Santiago Ezquerro. They were, after all, registered as part of Barcelona's senior cohort. But if you're not going to include those guys, you definitely can't include Messi. – Pee Jay 11:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree that Barcelona's website is not reliable for this information. However, LFP, the organizer of this cup, seems to recognize him to have won. Personally, I find it comical that players can be considered winners in these circumstances, but I don't know if it's okay to disregard LFP's official acknowledgment. — Anakimi_Holler 23:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's very interesting; thanks for posting that source, @Anakimi:. Although I was initially more in favour of removing that honour from Messi's page, I do think that it would be difficult to go against the LFP on this, even though it might seem unusual that he received a medal without being called up for either leg. But then again he was definitely a first team player at the time, so it is possible that they all received medals, although we can't know for sure, but this seems the closest we might get to an official source. I know that PeeJay2K3 said that Messi was registered with the youth team because of his shirt number which was initially 30 and which was later changed to 19, and they have posted two different match reports from the 2005–06 season to support this claim, which I do not dispute, but although his shirt number was changed, there isn't a source which any of us have found which corroborated that he was registered with the youth squad at the time, or which says that only players with shirt numbers 1–25 are registered with the A team in Spanish football, and he did sign an aforementioned contract with the club in June 2005.

But as for all the other cases, should we vote on this? Messirulez (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Support inclusion per La Liga source. Also support inclusion where league regulations can be found, such as Supercoppa Italiana, or where photographic evidence is found, such as in the instance of Inzaghi. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 04:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Photos would be Original Research unless there was also reliably sourced description of what the picture contained.

Unless there is a master list of medal winners provided by the club's, then people deciding that the club website is somehow unreliable for themselves are purposely excluding a primary source for no good reason. The argument of something being contentious is designed for instances for when an individual on Wikipedia uses a primary source for historical facts that are contradicted by secondary sources, such as claims in a diary about who was in a match day squad, what minute goals were scored etc. John Motsons match day logs for instance, if published, would be such an example of a primary source. The BBC then employs people to verify Motsons for secondary source publishing in their own media. This is not what is happening in this case.

1. A website is publishing its own player profiles including the winners. They hand out the medals. They apparently get to decide who is a winner.

2. We apparently have no alternative source or argument to disprove this.

3. ?

The only contentious element of this is people's opinions and approach to sourcing, and what their own subjective opinion of what should and shouldn't be included. We should be wary of discounting a primary source in the absence of any other alternative. Koncorde (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Photos reliably sourced like the one given by Messirulez [6]. We should not discredit the source from the competition organizers themselves. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it is WP:OR to state who is in that photo if it is not labelled by the publisher. Spike 'em (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe for someone who's turning his face or has his face covered, but not Inzaghi who's looking straight into the camera clear as day. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR states that it includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Your judgement on who is in a photo is analysis of the published material. Spike 'em (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Identifying the player is one thing. Identifying the medal, the ceremony, the date, the time etc is another. For instance this is Lebron James. As a primary source any subtitle could be inserted to suggest that this is the first time 14 WWE world champions assembled in one room. The problem with that is that;

1. I don't know who Lebron James is other than a great basketball player.

2. Counting the number of people is easy, but not all images are equal.

3. Whether that belt is legit or not is questionable, but it was given to him by The Rock (who may be an authority on the matter, maybe?).

4. His fight against Hulk Hogan was one of the greatest prime time events ever broadcast in my head.

5. This is all subjective OR.

Even naming an individual can be questionable, there are a large number of mis-named images on the internet, particularly when people do google searches. Koncorde (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Only including medals for Supercups for players who were called up to a final; however, in players such as Messi's case, where the LFP have credited him with the title, I would be inclined to leave the 2005 title on his page. I also understand that certain photographs cannot be considered reliable sources according to wikipedia guidelines (but I was also wondering, what about videos of medal ceremonies on youtube?). However, when it comes to League and Domestic cups I think that any player in a non-UK league who was called up for a cup or league match in their team's victorious campaigns in one of those respective domestic competitions should be allowed to have said honour included on their wikipedia profile. Messirulez (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

What makes the medal video a reliable source? Is it in English? Does it have a narrator? Subtitles? How can we verify the subtitles? How can we tell 2018 from 2016? Is it an official channel? How can we tell? Etc. Primary sourcing for someone's opinion, or a historical document which is sourced elsewhere and being used for demonstration is one thing, but outright using it so you can say what is happening in it for the viewers at home is questionable at best. Koncorde (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Koncorde:; here is the ceremony for the 2017 Coppa Italia Final, and here is the ceremony for the 2016–17 Serie A title. Neither are from official club or league youtube channels, so I understand that because of this they probably won't be considered, and the commentary is in Italian, not English, but they do mention which title it was, and it shows the players receiving winners' medals. Best, Messirulez (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Messi. See if it was a DVD, or VHS tape, then you could reference timestamps, and the publisher of the medium (in the same way we reference movies / tv shows when discussing plots) as a Primary Source. You would really need the origin of the media to be clear (the TV Channel, the Show, the media company), the date of broadcast and all that other data to formulate a video as a reliable source. Third party publishing of ceremonies are going to struggle to hold that degree of fidelity (particularly on channels that may not exist tomorrow). Ideally a reliably published transcript would be better suited (or ultimately an actual reliable source from another media covering whatever we hope to demonstrate), or to find the original broadcast details. This would at least enable you to construct a reference for something that is accurate and can be verified by someone seeking to check the same information that you are claiming is represented. Part of the issue of using videos is that, if removed, or if a compilation, or already edited, and no duplicate can be freely found it is very hard to re-verify the claim and leaves it open to dispute. Koncorde (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying that, @Koncorde:. Yes, that makes sense, although it's a bit frustrating as well, because I watched the medal ceremonies on television, but obviously unless they were included in the club's or the league's official youtube channels, there's no way of verifying that with a tangible, original, and reliable source which is readily accessible. I would still say that every first squad member in Italian football clubs (and possibly those in other non-UK European football leagues), should receive an honour for winning the league or a domestic cup (e.g. Serie A and Coppa Italia titles in Italy), but as for the Supercup, only the players who are called up for the final should receive a medal. In Messi's case though, if LFP have credited him with the title then I would be more inclined to leave it on his page, but I'm interested to see what others have to say about that. Thanks for your help and input, it's much appreciated. Best, Messirulez (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Support I've already asserted my opinion on Messi's talk page while also providing what, in my opinion, are some fairly reliable sources (including the ones from LPF and FC Barcelona). Paulinho28 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Chelsea F.C. loans list

Can I ask, is all those loans correct? There is a hell of a lot. On Spurs page we only list the first team players on loan and all the youth loan players are listed on the academy page, shouldn't we have consistency? Govvy (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say it seem OR to determine who is an adult footballer, but not part of the first team or not, to put it in the first team article or the academy article. To avoid OR, put all to the first team article. Only put players that loan to other youth team in academy article. Matthew hk (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Redirects Prodded

Hi, there are a large number of US football team redirects that have been prodded today as shown in this category Category:Proposed deletion as of 4 February 2019. The redirects seem valid to me and some at least do go to articles that have info on the teams, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: feel free to de-prod and ask the nominator to take to WP:RFD for community discussion. Giant Snowman 08:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Continental record table

I just confused the table format, so I post here to request for comment: Format 1:

Season	Competition	Round	Club	Home	Away	Aggregate
2018	AFC Champions League	Preliminary round 1	Tampines Rovers	3–1
	AFC Champions League	Preliminary round 2	Chiangrai United	2–1 (a.e.t)
	AFC Cup	Group stage	Yangon United	1–3	3–2	4th
			Global Cebu	1–3	1–1
			FLC Thanh Hóa	3–1	0–0

Format 2:

Season	Competition	Round	Club	Home	Away	Aggregate
2018	AFC Champions League	Preliminary round 1	Tampines Rovers	3–1
	AFC Champions League	Preliminary round 2	Chiangrai United	2–1 (a.e.t)
	AFC Cup	Group stage	Yangon United	1–3	3–2	3–6
			Global Cebu	1–3	1–1	2–4
			FLC Thanh Hóa	3–1	0–0	3–1

Format 3:

Season	Competition	Round	Club	Home	Away	Aggregate
2018	AFC Champions League	Preliminary round 1	Tampines Rovers	3–1
	AFC Champions League	Preliminary round 2	Chiangrai United	1–2 (a.e.t)
	AFC Cup	Group stage	Yangon United	1–3	2–3	4th
			Global Cebu	1–3	1–1
			FLC Thanh Hóa	3–1	0–0

Format 4:

Season	Competition	Round	Club	Home	Away	Aggregate
2018	AFC Champions League	Preliminary round 1	Tampines Rovers	3–1
	AFC Champions League	Preliminary round 2	Chiangrai United	1–2 (a.e.t)
	AFC Cup	Group stage	Yangon United	1–3	2–3	3–6
			Global Cebu	1–3	1–1	2–4
			FLC Thanh Hóa	3–1	0–0	3–1

I do not know which table format is proper. So your comments are welcomed Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Extra questions:

a)Is color necessary?
b)Is bold necessary?Hhkohh (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Are the colours needed? I would remove them and go then with Format 1. Kante4 (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No colours and bold. Kante4 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't need the bolding, just say at the top of the table that Team X's score is listed first. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Vaselineeeeeeee, We plan to use it in club articles Hhkohh (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I would go for format 3 with no bolding and a note to say "Team X's score is listed first". I have no preference regarding colour, and would defer to someone better qualified to deal with accessibility issues. – Pee Jay 17:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I would agree to PeeJay2K3. And I'm not sure about the colour. Wira rhea (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Make the colour lighter like Juventus F.C. in European football. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That would be a good move. Probably something like #ddffdd and #ffdddd, rather than #ccffcc and #ffcccc. – Pee Jay 22:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

So, maybe like this:

Bali United's score is listed first

Season	Competition	Round	Club	Home	Away	Aggregate
2018	AFC Champions League	Preliminary round 1	Tampines Rovers	3–1
	AFC Champions League	Preliminary round 2	Chiangrai United	1–2 (a.e.t)
	AFC Cup	Group stage	Yangon United	1–3	2–3	4th
			Global Cebu	1–3	1–1
			FLC Thanh Hóa	3–1	0–0

Wira rhea (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Wira rhea, should aggregate column bold? Just confused. Hhkohh (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Repinging Wira rhea Hhkohh (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hhkohh, I also don't know. I just followed the table style in Juventus F.C. in European football. Wira rhea (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This has come up before, as based on input I received way back when, I made the Luxembourgian football clubs in European competitions based on the discussions back then. Looks to me like I went with your "Format 3" approach, with the score of the team in question always coming first. --Philk84

19:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI, although these cases are similar, that case has no group stage Hhkohh (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

At the time of the discussion, no. But since then, F91 Dudelange made the Group Stage of the Europa League this season, so there is now :) --Philk84

13:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see now, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Season	Competition	Round	Club	1st leg	Aggregate
2018	AFC Champions League	Preliminary round 1	Tampines Rovers	3–1 (H)
	AFC Champions League	Preliminary round 2	Chiangrai United	1–2 (A) (a.e.t)
	AFC Cup	Group stage	Yangon United	1–3 (H)	4th
			Global Cebu	1–1 (A)
			FLC Thanh Hóa	3–1 (H)
			FLC Thanh Hóa	0–0 (A)
			Yangon United	2–3 (A)
			Global Cebu	1–3 (H)

Maybe this is better? Hhkohh (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hhkohh if that's the case, wouldn't be better to remove the 1st and 2nd leg part? Just use score? Wira rhea (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Wira rhea, 1st leg and 2nd leg is reserved for two-legged matches in knockout stage. But Bali United has no two-legged matches. It seems okay to me but I am not very sure. So I am pending other editors comment Hhkohh (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:current sport

{{current sport}} Is it necessary to tag the template in 2018–19 Hong Kong Premier League? I saw many league season articles not tag it but 2018–19 Hong Kong Premier League... Hhkohh (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The template documentation states It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic, or for some team or league that is in season; if it were, thousands of articles would have this template, without informational consequence, so that would be a no from me. Spike 'em (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable for a tournament that last for a month or a week (e.g. 2018–19 Bangladesh Premier League (cricket)). However, Hong Kong Premier League last for few months. Matthew hk (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

An issue with templates and a suggestion

A significant issue with templates of things like league tables is that vandalism often goes unnoticed due to very few editors having them on their watchlists. For example, it seems that no-one spotted this vandalism (I only came across it when someone complained that one of the Eastern Counties League tables was wrong and I followed the editing trail of the IP). This has long been an issue for election articles (which I do a lot of work on).

A solution to the problem is not to use templates and to have the table hardcoded onto an article. It can then be transposed on another article using the {{#section-h:Target article|Target section}} function on the secondary articles (the results table on 2001 Singaporean general election is transposed onto 10th Parliament of Singapore by this method, with the addition of using the onlyinclude function to avoid the text being copied too). This means vandalism is much more likely to be spotted.

I'd humbly suggest we try and do this with league tables, rather than having thousands of standalone templates that few people watch. Cheers, Number 5 7 17:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, worth a try and easier to detece vandalism. And it brings the number of templates down. Kante4 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the concept, but with something like league tables I don't think it is wise. The league table template not only links into the league season article, but also every team's individual season article. I think the rule should be not to use templates if that template is only being used in one article. Jopal22 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jopal22: I think you may have missed the point. The table can be hardcoded onto a single article, then transcluded into others using the code above. Number 5 7 18:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, yep. I definitely missed the point! Your plan sounds good to me. Jopal22 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's actually more likely to spot vandalism on a stand-alone template page. The season page a lot more is going on than just the league table. --SuperJew (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@SuperJew: This is highly unlikely. Templates have barely any watchers compared to articles. I've seen countless examples of election result templates being vandalised and left for years because no-one noticed. Number 5 7 18:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57: From personal experience, I put both on my watchlist, and if I'm tight on time I usually check the ladder first. Anyways this is relating to sports and a league ladder, which is different IMO to elections. --SuperJew (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, i do not have one single league table template on my watchlist espite editing them. Not sure what the majority does, but putting it in the main season article would help in my opinion. Kante4 (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll give an example from myself: I have all of the squad templates of A-League clubs on my watchlist and try to keep them up-to-date. OTOH I don't have any of the club pages on my watchlist as I'm not interested in being pinged on all the IP fan edits about their club. --SuperJew (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@SuperJew: That you watch some templates is great, but please don't assume that everyone is like you – 2009–10 Premier League is watched by over 50 editors. {{2009–10 Premier League table}} has a single editor watching it, who possibly isn't even active given that they didn't notice the vandalism. It's clear there is a vast gulf in the number of eyes on articles versus templates. Number 5 7 21:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest adding a note a the top of the talk page of articles, asking users the add the templates used to their watchlist, and listing the templates for convenienceJopal22 (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Jopal22, unless the template is being transcluded to only 1 or 2 articles, I think having a dedicated template would still be beneficial. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

An option which could merge these two ways of editing (or ways of watchlisting) is if a template were changed it would ping on the watchlist of whoever is watching the template and whoever is watching any page the template is transcluded in. (this would need a request at wikimedia or wherever) --SuperJew (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the templates as they are far more flexible and easier to update. Would it be possible to automatically semi-protect templates for leagues which are finished? SportingFlyer T·C 20:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this is highly impractical and unlikely to happen. What's the issue with just hardcoding and transcluding? There is no reason a template is flexible or easier to update given that the code would be exactly the same. Number 5 7 21:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Would transcluding preserve the showteam feature (seen here: 2004–05_Birmingham_City_F.C._season#League_table?) SportingFlyer T·C 23:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering exactly the same. I can't get it to work in my sandbox. I can't figure out what is being called here so I'm unable check the documentation to see if there is a way to pass through the extra arguments. Spike 'em (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does, although you have to do it slightly differently. See here, which is transcluding the table from here, minus the headings etc. Number 5 7 00:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

That is no different to using a template. What you have done there is not using the #section-h that you have suggested, so is not a valid test. Spike 'em (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

??? It's a method of taking a table from midway through an article and still using the showteam feature. It's not a test, it's a demonstration. The showteam function doesn't appear to be compatible with #section-h, so a different method of coding is required to achieve it, but it can be achieved (see below). Number 5 7 00:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you really want argue about the difference (or lack of) between testing and demonstrating your idea?Spike 'em (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Selective/labeled section transclusion does not allow passing template parameters, onlyinclude has to be used. Also, if a page has multiple tables, Module:Sports table allows for specific sections to be defined and called, for example see 2016 International Champions Cup#Tables and 2016–17 Borussia Dortmund season#Friendly matches. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

If further proof is required, I've hardcoded a league table onto 2018–19 Eastern Counties Football League and can use the showteam function as below. Number 5 7 00:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Pos	Team v t e	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
6	Hackney Wick	36	19	10	7	61	37	+24	67
7	Little Oakley	36	19	7	10	73	63	+10	64
8	May & Baker	36	18	4	14	70	64	+6	58
9	Frenford	36	16	8	12	73	57	+16	56
10	Wormley Rovers	36	15	7	14	70	50	+20	52

Source: FA Full-Time
Rules for classification: 1) Points; 2) Goal difference; 3) Number of goals scored; 4) Number of matches won; 5) Head-to-head results ^[1]

Separate to the main issue, but the VTE links on that table need to be changed, as they take you to the template for the table, not the article, as I got lost for 5 minutes by clicking on them.Spike 'em (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. What is the main issue though? Number 5 7 00:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I still see a template for the 2018-19 Eastern Counties league table. How is that different from what we currently have? SportingFlyer T·C 03:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: The mini table above is called from the 2018–19 Eastern Counties Football League article, not the template. You were asking whether this was possible, so I was showing that it is. Number 5 7 12:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57: I apologise, I was confused since when I looked at the code, I was looking at the wrong table in the article. I have no remaining problems with this, apart from what's noted below. SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57:I've had a look at the demonstration you have done, and after making a temporary edit to the the table (pretending that last night's postponed match involving May & Baker had been played), your demonstration above using showteam M&B immediately changed in line with my edit. All good so far. Separately, and elsewhere, I tried what you have done above, but without the showteam parameter. That worked well, too, showing the full amended league table. However, if all three league tables were to be hardcoded into the Eastern Counties article, is there a way that just one specific table can be called up. In a similar way, if teams in different tables which are hardcoded into one article both have the same abbreviation (one example is Brackley and Braintree in National League), would we have to change the abbreviations to ensure that they are all unique accross a league, or is there another way. (p.s. I've now reverted my temporary edit to the EC article, to avoid confusion elsewhere.) Drawoh46 (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Note my comment above regarding Module:Sports table, the parameters |section= (for the table itself) and |transcludesection= (for external calls) cover this. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: Thanks! Drawoh46 (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I've created an example of this in my sandbox. This uses 2 tables from User:Spike 'em/sandbox/table with the 2 BIRs showing different teams (I swapped the labels on the second one). Incidentally, I have done this using an obfuscating template that could look the same as the existing template usage, so we would not have to change lots of links on all the club season articles that use the existing templates, just copy the content into the PL season artilce and change the template to transclude the labelled table.

One thing that this does lose is the VTE links and the use of categories on the pages, I don't know how much effect this would have, or if there are ways to use the template page to do this whilst transcluding the table from the main article. Spike 'em (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not think we should move old-season league table to template space. Because it will in crease our Watchlist Hhkohh (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Also ping Frietjes Hhkohh (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: The suggestion here is to do the opposite – keep tables on articles, rather than separate templates. Number 5 7 21:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean that. Do you see not? Hhkohh (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

seems reasonable. it would be good to expand the 2018–19 Eastern Counties Football League with all three tables and the |section= / |transcludesection= parameters to show how it works with multiple tables on the same page. Frietjes (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd been looking at the equivalent NWC article yesterday, with the view of doing just that. For a trial period, 2018–19 North West Counties Football League now has all three tables templates hardcoded into the article, and includes |section= parameters, as appropriate. I've used corresponding |transcludesection= parameters in my sandbox, to confirm that appropriate calls from elsewhere work. Drawoh46 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Just noticed your edit to the Eastern Counties article. It overcomes my main reservation with the proposed system; I use the VTE links frequently. Corresponding change now made to the NWC article. Drawoh46 (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Drawoh46, since we are using a module directly, and the module knows the name of the first parent, it would be possible to make the VTE links automatically appear for all tables (or when a parameter is set). this would eliminate the need to change the |template_name= when the page is moved. Frietjes (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

References

^ "The FA Handbook Chapter 30 Standardised Rules (section 12.2)". The FA. Retrieved 17 July 2018.

CAF Confederation Cup

Someone has gone and merged CAF Cup with the CAF Confederation Cup article, except the CAF Confed Cup was started in 2004 and was never designated as the replacement for the CAF Cup. The article and stats should NOT have been combined. Cleaning it up will be messy so I was hoping the WP:Footy community can help out. One way is to revert to last proper version and update any changes since. TonyStarks (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it had to start a thread to undone the "consensus". The merge discussion never have the football tag and probably noone in this project had noticed . But it still a consensus of three people. So, it need to open a thread again to unmerge. Matthew hk (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

And here it is Talk:CAF Confederation Cup#unmerge CAF Confederation Cup and CAF Cup. Matthew hk (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who assisted with this. The winners/finals still has combined results, it should only include results from 2004 when the competitions started not since 1992. Is there an easy way to undo the change or does it have to be done manually? TonyStarks (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Aspire Academy categories

I noticed that there are footballers and football managers categories for Aspire Academy, and the articles include people who only played/managed at the school in Senegal, yet these categories are included in Category:Football clubs in Qatar, Category:Football managers in Qatar by club and Category:Footballers in Qatar by club. Should we sub-categorize into the schools in Qatar and Senegal? At a minimum, I would think the description of the category ought to provide more clear inclusion criteria. Alternatively, are these categories even useful/necessary as the Aspire Academy is just a youth football organization (with ownership/partnership with fully-pro clubs in various leagues of course)? Jogurney (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I think there should be new categories created for the Senegalese branch.Crowsus (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

There are numerous academy categories (which I am largely responsible for) - eg Category:Nike Academy players, Category:V9 Academy players, Category:Edusport Academy players. The thinking behind it - if the academy is notable enough for its own article, then like any other football club of any other level (including eg Category:Wallsend Boys Club players) it should have a player category

To go back to the original question - no, I don't think it should be split up into Senegal and Qatar. Giant Snowman 14:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Because...? My reasoning that there should be, is because the African players have likely never set foot in the Qatar facility, so it's misleading to categorise them the same as the Qatari graduates. Linking the article itself is OK in my opinion, because the text explains the different bases the company has. But the category shows the Africans players at a Qatari club. Manchester City owns New York City and Melbourne City, but they're different teams in different countries so have different categories. Crowsus (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I suppose if you had Category:Aspire Academy (Qatar) players, Category:Aspire Academy (Qatar) managers, Category:Aspire Academy (Senegal) players and Category:Aspire Academy (Senegal) managers, and then left Category:Aspire Academy players and Category:Aspire Academy managers as holding categories, it would work. Giant Snowman 16:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback - I agree that the categorization is useful since the organization has its own article. I think sub-categorizing into the different schools would be helpful too, as otherwise it suggests a graduate of the Senegal branch has spent time in Qatar - when they haven't. Jogurney (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

U.S. University league cups

Per a couple recent AfDs here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament (no consensus) and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament (redirect), @Jay eyem: has noted we should have a conversation on whether these amateur qualifying tournaments are inherently notable. I personally think it is clear these may but do not necessarily pass WP:GNG, as university sports in the U.S. are frequently only covered by the hosting league or the participating schools. Even the no consensus Big West tournament was not covered by the media until the final, but the final also serves as a qualifying match for the main U.S. university cup. (An analogy in the area of the project I'm working on improving would be the Croatian county cups which serves as a qualifier to the main national cup whose finals are also routinely covered by local media, but they clearly do not pass WP:GNG.) That being said, I want to have a discussion here before I start nominating other articles for redirects. SportingFlyer T·C 22:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not really a league cup, it's a college tournament. College athletics in general gets far more coverage in the U.S. than elsewhere. They're not comparable. Smartyllama (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I would think that true for a sport like gridiron or basketball, but not all of these tournaments receive independent secondary coverage, with the possible exception of the tournament final (since it's the main tournament qualifying game.) For instance, 2017 MAAC Women's Soccer Tournament or 2017 Summit League Men's Soccer Tournament seem ripe for an AfD (the latter is source-bombed, the only independent coverage of the entire tournament I have found is the article here: [7]. In fact, the only 2017 men's articles with any secondary coverage on the article page at the moment are the Big 10 league, the CAA and CUSA league (one very routine story which mentions both tournaments in the same article), Horizon (not actually about the tournament, but about the team that won the tournament's performance in the actual tournament), the Missouri Valley league (final match only), Patriot League (same as Horizon), Southern, and the WAC league (again only secondary coverage is about the main tournament.) Why are these presumptively notable? SportingFlyer T·C 23:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, the final is part of the tournament. It makes little sense to have an article just on the final rather than the whole tournament - coverage of the final is coverage of the tournament and enough to get the tournament past WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

No, they're not inherently notable. What need is there for separate season articles? Giant Snowman 14:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any tournament would become notable just because there is media coverage on the tournament's final match, university or otherwise. Match reports are considered WP:ROUTINE anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 19:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

So my understanding of the consensus on American college soccer is that individual team seasons for teams that make the NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Tournament are notable based on WP:NSEASONS, whereas these conference tournaments are usually redirected. By comparison, I know that we have a very low barrier for entry in regards to what makes players notable. I just kind of want to understand where the line gets drawn and why. I agree that most individual iterations of college soccer tournaments are not notable, but I would like clarification on what would qualify as notability for an individual iteration. Jay eyem (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

As a side note, there are also articles like 2015 Big Ten Conference men's soccer season which are about the regular season for college soccer conferences, as opposed to an end of season tournament. There haven't been a lot of these at AfDs, and I'm pretty sure they're usually redirected. I have the same concerns for this as well. Jay eyem (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jay eyem: WP:NSEASONS says For college sports teams, weigh both the season itself and the sport. If the team received secondary coverage over the course of the season and the article doesn't violate WP:NOTSTATS, I think WP:NSEASONS would be satisfied. However, WP:NSEASONS are for individual teams. Tournaments fall under WP:SPORTSEVENT, which implies they are not inherently notable, but doesn't otherwise help with notability. Looking then at WP:EVENT, there's not much there that's helpful either, so then to WP:GNG. It seems to me as if the majority of these tournaments only receive press for the final match of the tournament, since it is a qualifier for the bigger tournament, and even then the press can be largely routine (as noted above, the CAA leagues and CUSA leagues had their tournament finals mentioned in the same blurb.) It does not appear as if college soccer is widely covered in the press, even though it's easy to find primary information about the event. I'm just wondering if there's a better way to develop a notability marker than just relying on WP:GNG... SportingFlyer T·C 03:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact that many secondary and tertiary websites dedicate to the coverage to the sport exist, and do original reporting, recruiting profiles, and in-depth of analysis of the game, and often of specific tournaments, and context of the tournament should be more than enough to satisfy most editors, as it has shown in previous AfD arguments. Examples of this include TopDrawer Soccer, College Soccer News, Soccer America, SBI, Hero Sports, etc. If we're going to solely focus on the conference tournaments, we can talk about secondary programs such as ESPN, ESPN+, etc. going to the lengths broadcasting the tournament matches, lending a hand to the popularity of college sports in the United States. Cobyan02069 (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the nominators lack an understanding of college sports' general popularity in the United States. Traditionally, but not always, the premier athletes before they go pro play in college. That landscape is of course changing over the last decade with MLS clubs instiuting academies. Despite this college soccer, and college sports for that matter, enjoy reliable non-routine coverage, especially given context of certain players, and their path, if we want to go that route. A good example of this is college American football, and college basketball. Further, the same can be said about college baseball, college basketball, and college football (soccer). The main college tournament and respective college soccer conference tournaments/regular seasons receive plentiful secondary coverage, albeit its primairly fixed on American media, with the exception of the final rounds of the national tournament which receive more international coverage. A good litmus test is to compare coverage that say, the MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament receives with the MAAC Men's Basketball Tournament, as opposed to the U.S. Open Cup or the UEFA Champions League. By the logic several JNN voters put into their argument they seem to seek the same coverage the MAAC Tournament receives as the UEFA Champions League. Well by that logic of GNG, tournaments like the Europa League, and non-European champions leagues would fail notability guidelines. So that said, I believe that college soccer seasons, tournaments, and individual team season articles meet GNG. I feel that most of the nominations are not made out of concern of notability, because if the nominators had done their homework, they would see it meets GNG, and other COLLATH-related notability guidelines. Instead they slap a IDONTLIKEIT nomination with a JNN argument each and every time. Cobyan02069 (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cobyan02069: Tournaments like the Europa League or non-European Champions Leagues clearly pass WP:GNG. The problem with these cup tournaments is that many of them don't. This isn't a "I don't like college soccer" argument, but currently we have a number of articles on the site for tournaments whose only coverage comes from the league who puts the tournament on and the schools participating in the league, whether it's a student newspaper or the university athletics website, and we require secondary sources in order to source an article. Not every university sport receives the same level of coverage. It's really frustrating to me a number of users have failed to WP:AGF on this. SportingFlyer T·C 18:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: - I think you're missing the point. It's not about where UCL and UEL are relevant and meet GNG, it's that the standards that are being held to these tournaments is astronomically high, where editors only seem to want elaborate, quadruple page spreads on Sports Illustrated to cover each tournament. They often seem to want each of these tournaments to receive the same magnitude of coverage that say the Champions League would enjoy. It's preposterous, and tiring having to again and again show articles that meet GNG but because the article wasn't writen by their favorite beat journalist and doesn't have 15 paragraphs on the tournament in depth reeks of WP:SATISFY. Cobyan02069 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

In my experience, its always one random tournament that gets slapped with an AfD. For example, the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament got an AfD, but the smaller 2018 Patriot League Men's Soccer Tournament got nothing. I think a major factor in the AfDs is the time/state the article is in when it is created. Many of these tournaments get created before they start so the page is quite blank and there is no coverage of the tournament. I think that might play into it. Another consideration is zero of the women's college soccer tournaments got AfD'ed this year (I created all but one or two of them) and they get far less coverage in the American media than the men's tournaments. I'm fairly new to the WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS stuff but it doesn't seem to be very clear on this. I think a good analogy would be college baseball. Those tournaments have a few games televised/covered by ESPN in the later stages, and all have articles. For example, the 2017 Atlantic Coast Conference Baseball Tournament only has sources from the ACC and didn't seem to have an issue. Not sure how many of those get AfDs, but all the tournaments have pages now. Hopefully those ramblings make some sense/are helpful! :)swimmer33 18:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Swimmer33: The Patriot League tournament looks ripe for deletion as well - looking at the 10 sources, two of them are the same source (the Patriot League website) and eight of them talk about how Colgate made a cup run in the national tournament. Just because other articles haven't been nominated for deletion yet doesn't mean they're okay. My question is, are there sources which satisfy WP:GNG we can use to add sources to these articles, and not just articles from the league website or from the team websites? Is there non-routine secondary media coverage of any of these events? SportingFlyer T·C 18:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: I'm sure we could find local papers that cover the teams in the tournament. However, that coverage is going to not really be related to the tournament as a whole, it will just say x team played in a game and won or lost. So I'm not sure how that plays into WP:GNG. If you delete things like the Patriot League, do you also delete the bigger tournaments like the Pac-12/ACC/SEC? It would be easier to find coverage of those in other media because they have better teams. swimmer33 18:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Also how does the NCAA play into this? They write articles about the results of the tourney ([8]) but usually only do so for the tournaments from the more notable conferences. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable letting big conferences get articles and not letting smaller ones have articles just because the NCAA official site managed to write a short blurb on the tournament or not. swimmer33 18:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the article you linked was actually written by Louisville and republished on the NCAA website, so it wouldn't count towards WP:GNG. That's the tension here - it's not that people "don't like" college soccer, it's that these articles specifically do not receive the secondary coverage required by WP:GNG. The women's tournament articles I looked through only cite WP:PRIMARY sources and also fail WP:GNG. Stories like this [9] are good for establishing tournament coverage, but they seem to be rare. SportingFlyer T·C 22:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I was just informed by @Cobyan02069: about this discussion. Frankly, it's embarrassing that there is a debate about whether or not these tournaments are notable or not, and if they meet GNG. Numerous times over the last two years, the number of reliable, non-routine secondary sources I've found have easily met WP:GNG criteria, only for some editor to whine that it doesn't satisfy their standards of relevancy. I know not every editor is out to kill college soccer, but about two years ago, a user nominated this article for deletion and their rationale was "the article fails WP:GNG as college soccer is not notable, and there are no third party sources used in the article unless doing WP:OR, which violated the rules. It looks like User:Quidster4040 is violating the rules and did original research and needs to be punished for making a useless article about a tournament that no one cares about." I seems that every nomination that now comes up to delete a college soccer article seems to be a lazy nomination loaded with JNN arguments, and any magnitude of reliable coverage related to the tournament magically never seems to be good enough. It's laughable at this point, almost as laughable as a nominator for the NCAA Championship Game article saying we should delete college soccer articles because "no one cares". Quidster4040 (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Quidster4040: In the AfD I created after this discussion was open for a week, you said my nomination was a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination, but I certainly understand where you're coming from now I read you were personally attacked in that bad faith, sock-created AfD. What's frustrating to me is that the recent nominations on my end haven't been lazy, nor am I trying to "destroy college soccer." As I've noted above, almost all of these articles only use WP:PRIMARY sources, or sources that are about the actual NCAA tournament, and the majority of them just don't get much secondary media coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 05:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: As it should be frustrating for you, because you're undertaking a task that is clearly not supported by the majority of editors as shown in this discussion. Quidster4040 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I think consideration here needs to be put towards other college sports in the USA. I edit lots of ACC college pages, and a number of these articles are created with zero or one sources, and never receive a nomination for deletion. For example, the 2017 Atlantic Coast Conference Baseball Tournament only uses WP:PRIMARY sources and has no evidence of an AfD. The same can be said of other smaller tournaments such as the Mid-American, Patriot, Horizon, etc. Additionally, pages such as 2018–19 Vermont Catamounts men's basketball team has one source, the team's schedule page and meets notability despite what WP:NSEASONS seems to claim. I guess I'm saying based on your argument of needing sources outside WP:PRIMARY sources, we should delete 90% of the college sports teams articles. If that's the case, then why aren't AfDs showing up on all those other articles, and just showing up on college soccer articles? Also, why aren't they showing up on women's soccer articles and just showing up on men's tournament pages? swimmer33 14:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The difference between the 2017 Atlantic Coast Baseball Tournament and the football tournaments is that I was able to find two secondary sources nearly immediately, including an AP wire story: [10] [11], one of which I added to that article. The standard is WP:NEXIST, which you can puncture by looking for sources and not finding any suitable ones. Also, just because an article hasn't been sent to AfD yet doesn't mean it's okay - the a couple women's tournaments at random have only about 10 pageviews in the last month, so they may be so out of the way no one has bothered yet. SportingFlyer T·C 20:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, the Vermont Catamounts article currently violates WP:NOTSTATS and possibly WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NSEASONS, but I don't see it getting deleted unfortunately - again, the article could be improved. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Who's to say these college soccer articles can't be improved? Several NCAA Soccer Championship games have enough information that can easily meet WP:GOOD. Twwalter (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This isn't about the NCAA Soccer Championship game, though, it's about the qualifying rounds. Qualifying round articles have been sent to AfD in the past and never get kept, since there's not enough coverage. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2012_Big_West_Conference_Men's_Soccer_Tournament, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2008_Missouri_Valley_Conference_Men's_Soccer_Tournament, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2011_America_East_Men's_Soccer_Tournament, and especially Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_America_East_Men's_Soccer_Tournament (which was analysed by a number of users who you don't typically see around Wikiproject Football.) I'm trying to figure out if there's a clear standard in terms of sending these to AfD or not, since some bigger tournaments may receive coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 22:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think there was enough of a discussion in some of the older AfDs, and in the newest one on the 2017 A-East Tournament, I don't believe there was actually a consensus there (if any consensus, maybe one to keep the article), despite an mod making an executive decision to redirect. Twwalter (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm late to the show here, but to save time and space, I think reasons provided by Quidster, Cobyan, Smartyllama, and Swimmer33 are valid to show that these articles about NCAA College Soccer team, season, and tournament articles meet GNG. To be blunt, I think they make a stronger case than those who support deleting the articles. Twwalter (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Why do we keep having this discussion??? While notability has repeatedly been found to exist, certain haters keep bringing up the question again and again... GWFrog (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Because notability hasn't been "repeatedly found to exist?" I'm having extreme difficulty sourcing these articles. SportingFlyer T·C 02:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is it that you seem to be the only one here having difficulty sourcing articles? Quidster4040 (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, I feel like SportingFlyer is the only one in this thread that does not feel that college soccer conference tournaments do not inherently meet GNG. As much as he does not want to admit it, it's very safe his argument is really WP:IDONTLIKEIT due to the magnitude of sources given throughout this discussion and previous AfDs. Every argument that has been brought up has been debunked and it's safe to say in my opinion, there is a consensus from other editors, particularly Twwalter, Cobyan, Smartyllama, Swimmer, and GWFrog that not only these articles should be kept, but that the meet GNG. If there isn't a motion to close the thread that college soccer conference tournaments meet GNG, I would like to make one now. Quidster4040 (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

There have been eight of these types of articles nominated at AfD going back for five years. None of them have been kept outright. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Tentative Support, but I do have some conditions we need to address, that I did bring up that we ought to address in this discussion before we draw lines on a final consensus. In my personal opinion I think college season and college tournament season articles meet GNG. My questions are

College newspapers – are college newspapers good enough of secondary source. Me and SportingFlyer had a discussion in an AfD about this. I don't want to speak over him, but I believe their concerns were that university newspapers may be too closely tied to the university where they become a primary source rather than a secondary source. My argument is that it is a secondary source that meets GNG because university newspapers, at least the one's in the AfD mentioned above are newspapers that involve a paid staff that are independent of the university, where their only connection necessarily to the newspaper is their namesake. I further believe in this regard that even if it has university-specific coverage it would be more akin to, say, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette with Arkansas and Little Rock-specific coverage, which still despite that can be a reliable secondary source. I think me and Sporting are at a stalemate where we can respect each other's opinions, but disagree. That said, I would like to see what other editors in WP:FOOTY and this thread feel about this.
NCAA tournament coverage referencing respective tournaments: it's been accepted by a sweeping consensus that the NCAA Tournament articles and finals easily meet GNG given their overwhelming secondary coverage. Because of that, each individual match enjoys reliable secondary coverage where often the context of team's path to the tournament includes in-depth reporting about the college soccer tournament they won. For instance, Rider winning the MAAC Tournament is discussed in depth when there are stories about their run in the NCAA Tournament. To you all, does this mean it can count as a reliable secondary source for the GNG of a college soccer tournament. I'm personally uncertain, but I am leaning to a weak yes.
Broadcasting: every single college soccer tournament (league cup) final is usually broadcasted on major cable and Internet providors (i.e. ESPNU, ESPN3, ESPN+, FS2, etc.) Does the fact that these networks bid to cover the tournaments signify a GNG for you all?
College soccer specific websites: I think there is a consensus that websites like TopDrawer Soccer, Soccer America, Hero Sports, SBI, and College Soccer News, although niche websites catered to covering the collegiate game are reliable secondary sources, pending their professional journalists are running their own stories that are not news wire stories. One of the issues is, is that sometimes it can be tough on these websites to differentiate what is original reporting and what is a news wire. Should it matter? Does it matter? Are these sites notable? I feel the sites are reliable, although sometimes articles are difficult to know if they are reliably secondary or not. My guess is if they are the articles hidden behind their paywalls, they can be.
Finally, how much secondary coverage does one article need to meet GNG? Are we looking for one source, two? Three? Ten? Is there a hard number? Is there a consensus of how many sources are necessary? Should there be? Twwalter (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure the best way to respond to your questions, so I'll leave something here.

On your first point, I agree. Local newspapers should count as secondary sources. If the newspaper has independent, paid employees it is separate from the university. University newspapers are commonly run by unpaid students, and I think there is a pretty clear line there.
On your third point, I would say network coverage would qualify as GNG.
For the fourth point, I would say those count as secondary coverage. I've seen them referenced on other college soccer related articles such as 2018 NCAA Division I women's soccer season and 2018 NCAA Division I women's soccer rankings. They are also referenced on the men's version of those articles, but I could link to the women's ones easier.
On the fifth point, I don't think there should be a hard cap. I like to edit a lot of season team pages, and I've seen a wide degree of requirements for number of sources on those. Some get approved with no sources, some get the tag at the top that says needs more sources when they have 3 or 4 references. So I think given that inconsistency, we shouldn't set a standard for tournament articles. swimmer33 18:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Support I think that given discussion on previous AfDs, there is enough evidence to support GNG, and its more of an issue with connecting those references to the individual pages. 18:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment This isn't an RfC, so I'm not sure why we're supporting things. The problem here I think is nuance. Most tournaments don't even get this level of coverage: [12] [13] or [14]. I'm not sure there's enough there to source a standalone article, but some tournaments do receive secondary coverage from local sources, and some don't. The post above that major coverage is demanded isn't true. This independent, secondary article wouldn't count toward WP:GNG, though - too short/routine: [15]. It feels disingenuous to me to only use student newspapers to source these articles when literally no one else covers them, since they'll likely have someone covering every sporting event the university participates in, notable or not. You have to be careful with Topdrawersoccer.com since they reprint articles written by the participating teams. If their own staff writes an article I'd be okay with using it. SoccerAmerica should also be fine, but I'm not sure what their reprint policy is. SportingFlyer T·C 20:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
With regards to college newspapers, I wrote for mine in college. We were paid, and were completely independent of the university. In fact, at one point we actively pissed off the athletic department with the way we reported on the star (American) football player being involved in a fight, but there was nothing they could do since we were independent of the university, and, more relevantly, the athletic department. Smartyllama (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Jonathan Mitchell height

Jonathan Mitchell (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1.80m or 1.89m? The former is supported by more sources, but the latter is supported by his current club... Giant Snowman 14:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be a couple of cm off Vincent Kompany (who is listed as 1.90m) in this picture, so I would say 1.89 is definitely more plausible than 1.80. Also, the most recent (reliable) source is more important than the others (in this case, the club source is more relevant). Nehme1499 (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

National teams nicknames

Hi, I just wanted to bring to your attention that this list regarding national team nicknames needs some sourcing. It would be nice if everyone took care of his own country if it needs any work ~~(the format should be: Nickname in native language (pronunciation in latin script) | English translation of the nickname)~~. Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't include pronunciation, and it's probably worth adding two separate columns for notes and references. It's also worth merging into one big table rather than breaking down by confederation, and adding a column for that instead. Giant Snowman 15:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the pronunciation could be useful, but if it's deemed useless I wouldn't object to its removal. As for the rest, it makes sense and I will try to adjust them. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Done I have fixed the whole article. It still needs some references and explanations so I would invite people to take care of their respective countries. Nehme1499 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Motherwell LF.C. name change

Motherwell L.F.C. have gone under a kind of rebrand: "Going forward, Donald Jennow’s side will simply play under the banner of Motherwell Football Club, with reference being made to the team as women only when needed for clarity."

It might cause some issues in the future. Should the article be moved to Motherwell F.C. (women) or similar? TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I would go with Motherwell F.C. Women in the same way, for example, Juventus F.C. Women is called. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Darren Kelly

Can someone help keep an eye out on Darren Kelly? There's been a long-term issue with an editor(s) adding unsourced statistics, removing seemingly inconvenient sourced content and making dubious changes to the managerial statistics tables. @Xenomorph1984: and I have been monitoring this for a while but it's escalated over the last few days. And going by this edit summary it seems the subject himself is involved in guiding these edits, making this a WP:COI issue. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect if it is not the subject himself, it is a close friend/relative and WP:COI issue. The current user appears to also have been using another login in the past (Malibobs) and also previously being anonymous, exactly same the changes repeatedly and claiming personal facts without source. They also never edit anything other than Darren Kelly. Xenomorph1984 (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Lists of English football transfers

My second query is about these lists. I last edited on the '17-'18 winter list, when the standard was to only include a transfer including a Premier League or Championship club, however the next list (summer '18) includes any Premier League or EFL club. My problem, barring the lack of consistency, is this - which is a better format? Of course a more comprehensive list is better, but at any time (both in and out of the window, given that the rules are different lower down the pyramid) clubs are loaning out players to non-league teams, either this results in a very incomplete list or a very lengthy list. What is the preferred format, and where is the cutoff for a notable transfer? For example Cody Prior moving from Doncaster Rovers to Nuneaton Borough for a months loan, whilst interesting to a fan of either club, seems a bit superfluous for this compilation but should technically be included. Asterixtintin (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It should include transfer that involved at least one club from/to Premier League or Championship . Adding the whole transfer of EFL would make the list very long. Also, i think there was a consensus to not adding youth transfer. (Well, top club may signing 10 youth players a season that not even single one of them turn pro) Matthew hk (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Only first and second league. Kante4 (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You mean only transfer from and to first and second league? Some transfer from Serie A to Serie C looks notable. Matthew hk (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

How would you define a youth transfer? I'm curious because the example I gave has a player who has made his senior debut, but it is for him to gain regular first experience.Asterixtintin (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyone young enough (15, 11? 9?) and without any senior debut. Actually some transfer were re-inserted in Italian list in the past, as the transfer was reported by media, and the wonder kid made his debut during the season. Those list usually had citation for each entry, or at least appeared in the transfer list prepared by media (in English case, e.g. BBC). Matthew hk (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

What counts as a silver goal?

The template {{Silver goal}} exists to denote silver goals, which were briefly used by UEFA in their competitions between 2002 and 2004 (explained here). However, it is not always clear what "counts" as a silver goal, so I was hoping for some clarification.

Here are all the matches (which I am aware of) during the silver goal era which had goals in extra time:

#	Match	Second half ET goal?	Multiple ET goals?	Both teams scored in ET?	Tied AET? (Went to PSO)	Notes
1	UEFA Euro 2004 – Semi-finals – Greece v Czech Republic
2	2003–04 UEFA Champions League – Third qualifying round – Ajax v GAK
3	2003 UEFA Intertoto Cup – First round – Marek Dupnitsa v Videoton
4	2003–04 UEFA Cup – Qualifying round – Debrecen v Ekranas
5	2003–04 UEFA Cup – First round – Basel v Malatyaspor
6	2003–04 UEFA Cup – Fourth round – Valencia v Gençlerbirliği
7	2003 UEFA European Under-19 Championship – Semi-finals – Austria v Portugal		Yes			In 1st half of ET: Portugal scored 3 goals
8	2003 UEFA Intertoto Cup – First round – Narva Trans v OFK Beograd		Yes			In 1st half of ET: OFK Beograd scored 2 goals
9	2002–03 UEFA Cup – Final – Celtic v Porto	Yes
10	2004 UEFA European Under-21 Championship – Third place play-off – Portugal v Sweden	Yes
11	2003 UEFA Intertoto Cup – Third round – Brno v Guingamp	Yes	Yes	Yes		In 2nd half of ET: Brno scored 2 goals, after which Guingamp scored 1 goal
12	2004 UEFA European Under-17 Championship – Third place play-off – Portugal v England	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Match was 2×40 minutes, extra time was 2×10 minutes In 2nd half of ET: both teams scored 1 goal, match decided by PSO

As a side note, for two-legged ties, the away goals rule did not apply in extra time.

While there is no confusion with matches 1–6, matches 7–12 are are not as clear. My two questions are:

If a goal is scored in the second half of extra time, should this still be indicated as a silver goal? (This is no different than a normal goal in extra time.)
If there are multiple goals, how should these be indicated? What about matches 11 and 12, where both teams scored (the latter which was still tied AET and went to penalties)?

Pinging PeeJay2K3, who I had discussed this with a while back. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I understand, it's only called a silver goal if it's in the 1st half of ET. That's when it's counted as "special". In 2nd half, it's just a regular ET goal. Um, not sure regarding the multiple goals in 1st half of ET (seems also the 2 pages mentioned mark it differently). --SuperJew (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding match 12, I'd def say it's not a silver goal (either of them) as the silver goal is when it decides the match, what didn't happen here as they were still tied. Also according to the page, the goals were in the 1st half of ET. --SuperJew (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, match 12 clearly wouldn't need a silver goal. To add though, both goals were in the second half of extra time, as the under-17 matches lasted 80 minutes with 20 minutes of extra time. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

According to [16], the Porto goal over Celtic was still a "silver goal" since it wasn't a "golden goal." Neither goal here is called a "silver goal" by the commentator. [17] Here doesn't refer to the Portugal-England goal as a "silver goal," either: [18] I would call the Porto and Greece goals "silver goals" since the media refers to them as such and ignore the rest. SportingFlyer T·C 05:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A golden or silver goal is a match deciding goal that stops the match prematurely. Thus a silver goal cannot be scored in the second half of extra time as the game still goes to the completion of extra time. When two or three goals are scored in the first half of extra time then at least one must be a silver goal. It's not clear whether such a match is determined by three silver goals or one silver goal followed by two regular goals or even if only the last one is the silver goal. Unless there is some clear FIFA/UEFA statement, it's impossible to tell as it wasn't used very often so little precedent was set. Jts1882 | talk 09:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Can we remove the silver goal all together? Yes, if the regulation of the tournament was using silver goal, then it should be mentioned in the tournament wiki article. However, except it was well-sourced (primary source e.g. match report AND secondary source), it seem need a lot of interpretation it is silver goal or not in individual match by just looking at the time of the goal was scored. Matthew hk (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it is worth noting, especially in matches 1–6 where the situation is obvious. Regarding the 2003 UEFA Cup Final, I believe the mention of a silver goal is more related to the fact that at the time teams were accustomed to the match being immediately over with a golden goal, so the silver goal rule let the match play out the last five minutes (not that a silver goal was actually scored). Therefore I'd agree with Jts1882 that matches 9–12 should not be indicated as silver goals. The only question is with matches 7 and 8, where the silver goal rule applied, but the winning team scored more than once. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

To add, The Independent state "The first so-called Silver Goal ended Celtic's hopes". Though elsewhere there is a distinction between "silver goal" and "silver goal rule". For example, UEFA's archived match report states: "FC Porto became the first team to win a trophy on the 'silver goal' rule". However, under the scoreline they note: Porto win on "Silver Goal". The current match page states "Porto win after extra time", along with the post match report. Also this UEFA press kit states "lost 3-2 to FC Porto on the silver goal rule". S.A. Julio (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Think Matthew just mean the silver icon. The color differnce is hard to make out anyways even when directly above is the normal icon. Thus I'd also go for just using the general goal icon. -Koppapa (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say if it was stand-alone article or somewhere it have a short description of the match, then use silver goal if it was verifiable by citation, but the template, may be no need for the ambiguous case. Matthew hk (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree regarding use of secondary sources. No point in trying to define it ourselves, especially if the Celtic/Porto goal was considered a "silver goal." SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Alfredo Di Stéfano

Can someone review the current IP edit war over the piping of Sao Paulo FC at Di Stefano's article. I have only ever known the team by the short name, but also see no issue with the use of the long name to ensure we differentiate between the club and the city (and potentially any other historic Sao Paulo). However a specific IP is pushing the edit and multiple are reverting. Ta. Koncorde (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove all FC or other affix (FK, CF, CA for sure, A.C. someone contested before) unless need to disambiguation to other football club. The lede also said footballer, so redundant to call the club FC again per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams). Matthew hk (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Chinese nationality

First of two queries today, but I notice that the two recent signings for Beijing Sinobo Guoan, John Hou Sæter and Nico Yennaris, are both being listed as having a Chinese nationality in their player tables as well as having the Chinese names that they have taken. Given that it is a Chinese club I don't have any problem with the latter, but I feel that the nationality is a tad disingenuous, given that both are youth internationals for their birth countries and neither seems to expressed interest in actually playing for the Chinese national team. What are other peoples opinions on the matter? Asterixtintin (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Use their POB if no cap (or sometimes POB did not grant nationality in some case), and use their last nationality they represent internationally, including youth national team. In theory became Chinese need to renounce other nationality, but in some case the previous nationality cannot be renounced , or there is bureaucratic process to restore the nationality. And the consensus of this project, use "sport nationality" instead of real nationality. To sum up, remove them as Chinese. Matthew hk (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And make it more complicated. Chinese League have foreigner quota, but as Messi had Spanish nationality, we don't change him to Spanish, it should use other way to indicate who was occupied foreigner quota (which quota have 2 categories, Asian foreigner and non-Asian foreigner ) Matthew hk (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the nationalities to their represented sides and added a footnote to say that they took Chinese citizenship. Asterixtintin (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

They should have Norwegian and English flags respectively, and be listed using their common (ie non-Chinese) names. Giant Snowman 14:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Page moves by User:Chanheigeorge

Chanheigeorge (talk · contribs) has been moving a number of page names without gaining consensus. I noticed the move of 2018 Zambian Super League to 2018 Zambia Super League earlier today, which I disagree with. They have also been renaming a bunch of Central American leagues to their Spanish common name as opposed to the English common name. Typically our naming convention for leagues is the English country demonym followed by the English league name, for instance Croatian First Football League instead of Croatian Prva HNL. I'm posting here since there were a number of moves done on a number of different leagues without even trying to establish any sort of consensus. I personally think the moves need to be reverted, with the exception of the US Virgin Islands and Sri Lanka, which were actual competition renames. Examples below:

Thanks. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

May be a SPA or sock? I opened a thread in ANI for another user. Typically those accounts did not have much edit outside move and c&p move. Matthew hk (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Also for the name, we use common name in English if they have one. We invent some article title such as Argentine Primera División and Austrian Regionalliga by just adding demonym. Matthew hk (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd be shocked if the user were a sock based on the contribution log. SportingFlyer T·C 22:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The Guatemala and Zambia moves were correct, as they brought the season articles in line with the main article Zambia Super League/Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Guatemala, a page that they were not responsible for moving. The Nicaraguan one looks good to me; the Salvadoran one is a bit of a mouthful now, but probably better than the original; the English/Spanish hybrid titles were rather awkward. Also worth noting that WP:BEBOLD is a policy; they do not need to gain consensus to move articles. Number 5 7 23:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I noticed the Zambian one since I had a recent talk page discussion here: [19]. I think "Zambian Super League" should be the article title. Should I just go ahead and revert those moves? SportingFlyer T·C 23:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

If you disagree with bold page moves, then move the article(s) back (WP:BRD). But no idea why someone would suggest Chanheigeorge is a sock, it would only take a brief check of their contributions to realise that they are one of the most experienced and helpful contributors to football on Wikipedia. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I just checked their contributions, but they seldom used a formal RM discussion in the last five years. By the way, Matthew hk why you suspected whose account was created in 2005 is a sock? Hhkohh (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, why not just revert move if you contested? Hhkohh (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: done, for Zambia. It was easier than I thought it would be. I started a discussion here in case the scope was large, or if it could be easily undone. SportingFlyer T·C 01:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: That was not helpful; now the season articles have a different title to the main article. Number 5 7 14:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Number 57, why not open a RM discussion? Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57: I merely reverted the move. I'm of the opinion the league article title should be "Zambian Super League" and will start a RM soon. SportingFlyer T·C 19:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

seems Zambia is going to move warring unless we have a RM discussion. Hhkohh (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: I haven't seen anything since my revert, is there a link I should be aware of? SportingFlyer T·C 02:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

No currently, but I just saw someone moved to that title before. Hhkohh (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

And these kinds of page moves are controversial and these should use a formal RM discussion. Hhkohh (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

For Chanheigeorge, i did not check the log in detail (midnight near morning at my local time) but the thread i started in ANI, it looks SPA when the user lack of other contribution (counting bold move divided by recent edit, plus just counting warning on his talk page about move) There is quite a lot of SPA accounts for football article, such as FCSB suffered from WP:tag team to wipe the history and CU-proof sock on edit war on IPA (Ragaricus). Matthew hk (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, many of my page moves are based on what I find as "official" names of the tournaments. If you have any disputes of these, of course you can raise them, but seems odd that the first line of opposition is to assume that I'm a sock. Anyway, here are some of my supporting evidence:

Primera División de Fútbol de El Salvador: [20]
Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Guatemala (redirect from Liga Nacional de Guatemala): [21]
Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional de Honduras (redirect from Liga Nacional de Honduras): [22]
Liga Primera de Nicaragua: [23], [24]

The Zambia is tricky, I have seen variations of the name, from "FAZ Super League", "FAZ Super Division", "Zambia Super League", "Zambian Super League". I think the official name may actually be "FAZ Super League". Chanheigeorge (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chanheigeorge: We use common name that English user would use, instead of official name in foreign language. Moving to official name are controversial move. Certainly i would against totally invented and unheard on media term " Austrian Regional League", but not against Austrian Regionalliga, adding demonym . For El Salvador, not sure other sport are notable or not, but i would start a RM with nomination of Primera División (El Salvador) or Salvadoran Primera División or other term that appear in English language media , unless there is lack of such material. For the record, i doubt Croatian First Football League as a common name. It seem a translation but not commonly used. Anyway, moving those league, i think most of them are controversial and require full discussion. It would be counter productive to nominate all to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests under Requests to revert undiscussed moves. Matthew hk (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Chanheigeorge, I agree with Matt. Also, I think you had better use RM discussion instead of moving directly or explaining here (instruction:WP:RM/CM) Hhkohh (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: @Matthew hk: There is scantly any coverage of the above Central American leagues in English media. And why "Salvadoran Primera División" and not "Salvadoran Premier Division", which is the actual full English translation. The Guatemalan and Honduran leagues are previously already at "Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Guatemala" and "Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional de Honduras", so I was merely moving to conform the individual season articles more closely to the league articles. And "Liga Primera de Nicaragua" (or "Nicaraguan Premier League" in full English translation) is the current name, so my move from Nicaraguan Primera División to Liga Primera de Nicaragua actually conforms more closely to the current name. I have also moved Sri Lanka Football Premier League to Sri Lanka Champions League, and U.S. Virgin Islands Championship to U.S. Virgin Islands Premier League, which both conform to the current tournament name. Again, if there are oppositions to my moves, we can discuss and revert, but I don't think I have done anything that does not follow Wikipedia policies. Of course, since people have reservations about these moves, I will discuss first next time before moving similar articles. Chanheigeorge (talk)

The problem is people have other view of the name of the league, not your proposed name is c&p from foreign language site, thus the spirit of starting a discussion thread as RM process. Person name are less controversial (except people with diacritic in the name or source material are conflicted on the order of the name Western name order for non-Western or other problem) Primera División (El Salvador) isn't a translation and more concise name, and i doubt is there any other league to challenge the status of primary topic for "Primera División" the football league in El Salvador. Just like La Liga and Serie A, it did not have the sport in it as it was too notable. There is some case which Bangladesh Premier League may be more notable as the cricket league in the country, but according to WP:official name, we don't use official name usually, instead by WP:CRITERIA, the title need to fit Recognizability , Naturalness , Precision , Conciseness and Consistency . Using common name directly is one way to fit all the criteria. Or by case by case basis, we adding bracket or demonym instead of invent a totally new name by full translation. Matthew hk (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Positions by round table

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

Many league season articles have a table which shows the changing positions of teams in the league by round. The 2018–19 Premier League article does not, and periodically people attempt to add it as they see it for other leagues. There is a discussion on this between myself, Formulaonewiki, Govvy, Spike 'em, TB Chigz and PeeJay on the Talk:2018–19 Premier League page where the majority opinion from a small group of people was not to add it per WP:NOSTATS. The problem is that users periodically add the table in again after seeing it on other league articles, and then it is removed again. I would suggest it does not make sense to have a different policy on similar pages, and it will continue to encourage people to the table. Therefore I suggest one of three scenarios

a) The table is included in all season articles, if someone is willing to create it

b) The table is removed from all articles for all leagues

c) It remains on non English leagues, but is barred from English leagues, and we add a specific comment in the article code telling people not to add it (which doesn't show up in the actual article)

Does anyone have any comments, should we put it to a vote? --Jopal22 (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Just because a table is statistical on its own doesn't mean it violates WP:NOTSTATS. Secondary sources showing progression should be available, and the table is provided within the proper context. I'm not sure I see the problem. I would vote d, in which it's able to be included if there's a link to a reliable secondary source. SportingFlyer T·C 23:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Position by rounds should be written in club season articles. If we can update in every club season articles in each league, it is unnecessary to list it in league season articles Hhkohh (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

If not all club season articles in a league were created, we can write in league articles Hhkohh (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

So I think it is unnecessary to list Position by round in 2018–19 Premier League and 2018–19 A-League where all club season articles were created Hhkohh (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

OTOH, the league article is usually more up-to-date than the club season article. And anyways I think it is useful to see the differences in positions of clubs in relation to other clubs, which you can't see on the club season article which only shows the specific club. --SuperJew (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Many readers are focused on their own teams. So they do not mind these in 2018–19 A-League. They should prefer their own club season article. See also Wikipedia:Content forking Hhkohh (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

And I could argue that many readers focus on the whole league. That's a factless, baseless argument. Point is that the two things (position by round on club page and position by round on season page) give different information (one is focused and one in context of the whole league) and therefore no problem having them both. I fail to see how the guideline you linked is relevant. --SuperJew (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

So? I think we should we discuss this matter on each talk page. I think people in England usually focus on club while people in Australia focus on the whole league Hhkohh (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This again? Often ppl go on about WP:NOTSTATS, however I see position by round as being WP:TRIVIAL. I am not sure we should be having analytical data like this either. Govvy (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way another option is to add it as a collapsable table (example below), therefore those who want to see it can unhide it, but for those who don't like it, it won't add "clutter". The only thing is that functionality will have to be added to the current template, and I don't know how to do that. Jopal22 (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Positions by round
example	example	example	example	example

adding content as hidden just to get round people's objections is a fudge and is the worst possible option. Spike 'em (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Well lets put it to vote.

Show table in all leagues. Enough people find it useful to warrant its inclusion. Jopal22 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Show table in all leagues. --SuperJew (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
No position by round excessive statistics, only the league standings and scores are necessary. Many leagues also do not have a rigid schedule which causes issues (including with sourcing the information). This has been discussed previously (example here). Wikipedia is not a sports statistics database, this information can be found through external links on articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
No position by round adds to clutter of stats in the articles. Spike 'em (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
No results by round how many people pay attention on this? neutral on position by round per above Hhkohh (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Show table provided a table can be reliably sourced and is not WP:OR. The information would not be uncommon to see in a sports encyclopedia, and I'm not convinced it's "clutter." SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
No position by round Not needed, previous conversations are against it, also you are not suppose to have collapsable content, it often violates WP:ACCESS. Govvy (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
No position by round Much as I like the idea, because the positions of each team will be in their respective seasonal pages, I don't think it's necessary to add that table.TB Chigz (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

So think it is time to close this. The result was 4 against, 3 for, 1 neutral. In a surprise turn of events, TB Chigz, the user who kept updating the table in the premier league talk page had the deciding vote and voted against! So, my aim here was not primarily to push through getting the table in the article, but to make it so the table wasn't constantly being added and removed. I will leave it to other people to decide what to do in other leagues, but in the Premier League I will add a specific note not to add the table, because new people repeatably come in and spend time creating the table, which I want to avoid. Jopal22 (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate categories related to Segunda Liga and LigaPro (same league/division/tier)

@Quite A Character, R96Skinner, Jellyman, and GiantSnowman: According to its article, the second division of Portuguese football has had the following names: Segunda Divisão de Honra (1990–99); Segunda Liga (1999–2005); Liga de Honra (2005–12); again Segunda Liga (2012–2016); LigaPro (2016–present). Segunda Liga article was renamed to LigaPro in 2016, and currently there are the following categories for the same league: Segunda Liga players, LigaPro players and LigaPro managers (cat "Segunda Liga managers" never existed). This begs the question (here again): shouldn't these categories be merged, e.g. for coherence with Primeira Liga categories (Primeira Liga managers, Primeira Liga managers)? If so, shouldn't "LigaPro managers" category be renamed to "Segunda Liga managers"? SLBedit (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

If the league has just rebranded/been renamed (as opposed to being completely re-organised like in Belgium) then we should only have one category, using the current name. Giant Snowman 15:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The most significant change has been the progressive decrease of the number of teams (22 in the first season, then 20, and now 18).[25] SLBedit (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the merge, the new categories being named SEGUNDA LIGA PLAYERS and SEGUNDA LIGA MANAGERS (for aesthetical purposes, looks similar to PRIMEIRA LIGA PLAYERS/MANAGERS). --Quite A Character (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Per C2D of WP:CFDS it should be Category:LigaPro, Category:LigaPro managers and Category:LigaPro players etc. to match the parent article name (LigaPro). Giant Snowman 16:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The only issue is that the league's current name is "LigaPro", despite the fact that "Segunda Liga" was used for a longer period. SLBedit (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant; we always use the current name (non-sponsored, of course). Giant Snowman 16:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so we need a bot to move all "Segunda Liga" players (more than 2,550) to Category:LigaPro players. SLBedit (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The request should be listed at WP:CFDS. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. SLBedit (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There are also two articles under "Segunda Liga players" category: SJPF Segunda Liga Player of the Month and SJPF Segunda Liga Young Player of the Month. SLBedit (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:RM, unless you want to be BOLD and move them yourself. Giant Snowman 18:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Paul Scholes

More eyes welcome at Paul Scholes; numerous editors adding his brief spell coaching at Man Utd into the infobox (whereas we have always only used that for full management roles). Giant Snowman 15:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I may agree to add to the infobox managerial career if he was the head coach of the reserve team, given some match have media coverage. Just no for other younger ladder team, it otherwise it just made the infobox became a list of routine job position . Matthew hk (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is the woolly wording in the infobox instructions, saying we shouldn't include assistant roles "unless that position is a significant part of the person's career" This requires hopelessly subjective judgement as to what qualifies as "significant", and should be changed to unambiguously say manager / head coach roles only.Jellyman (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Players representing a nation different from their birth

I was under the impression that players born in one country who switch alleigance to another through parentage etc. are described in the lede without nationality ("is a professional footballer. Born in X, they represent Y at international level"). But see this from @Walter Görlitz:, saying that isn't standard. Comments welcome, as ever. Giant Snowman 17:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, for example in Soony Saad in the first line of the lede I don’t specify and nationality. But in the following line I explain his nationality situation. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

We have, in the past, stated the nation that he most recently played for. The archives here are littered with requests for just such a guideline and I have been told was not the case. [26] [27] [28] are three of the times I attempted to discuss it. Lack of progress in any way is one of the reasons I stopped discussing it. If we do gain a consensus, I will help to enforce it. Please ping me when the discussion concludes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Born in X may misleading, Edon Zhegrova, according to citation, born in Germany as a refugee and move back to Kosovo at age 2. I may add POB to lede for Eduardo da Silva as he was born and raised in Brazil. Matthew hk (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

See Eduardo is one of those fine examples. He is much more than Brazilian born, he is a Brazilian with dual nationality. Which, for some nations, isn't even a requirement. Residency will qualify you without the need for nationality. "Brazilian born" implies something has happened, but it is very unclear. Koncorde (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem remains that Wiki Football (and several other sporting articles) break the normal wiki rules on nationality. We should, strictly speaking, reference someone such as Alan Shearer as "a British footballer who plays for the England national team" which would enable us to deal with both the legal nationality and footballing representative nationality (and then for duals or otherwise mention both). However for whatever historic reason it was decided football / rugby would use the representative nationality, which leads to clear instances were this does not match or is subject to very confusing outcomes particularly dual, inherited, assumed, or a change in sporting nationality. Where the nationality matches the representative this isn't so bad, but when you get immigrants, or asylum seekers, or overseas territories it gets very convoluted. We also very rarely have any sources for their nationalities, and being "born" in a country may be notable enough for the narrative but does not always convey any actual legal status to the person. Koncorde (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

We're not talking about somebody born in one country who we have no evidence they ever held that citizenship. We're talking about a player who would be considered eg French in every way, until they elected to play for eg Senegal because their grandfather was from that country... Giant Snowman 09:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I know, I was merely expanding that there is a lot of confusion about what is standard or not. Are we talking about his legal passport nationality, or his citizenship nationality, or his representative nationality (for example)? It is very clear that Arfield is not Canadian. He is British, he has a Canadian father through which he qualifies to represent Canada (based on footballs rules). In any situation other than football we would not indicate his nationality as being Canadian. The rules that apply for the football federation may not even apply for the purposes of citizenship, or even equivalent sports. For instance, if Arfield happened to play Rugby or Cricket, would those Canadian federations also acknowledge paperwork submitted to FIFA? The answer is obviously not. So what if he represented different nations at different sports based on elligibility? Would that mean his article would say "Scott Arfield is a Canadian football player and Scottish Rugby player and English cricket player" based solely upon who he represented? The whole situation is messy. Koncorde (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You need a passport or legally have that nationality in order to play for that country. Just we need some sort of standardization for people such as Eduardo da Silva and Cristiano Cordeiro, who start as Brazilian footballer and then naturalizated , or in Scott Arfield case, hold dual nationality at birth (A and B), raised in country A (or C the UK), and then switch to B at senior international level . It was used to have a list of those dual internationals, but i forget the name of the list or may be deleted. Matthew hk (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

That's inaccurate - see Grandfather rule. Nzd (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

What is inaccurate? In the source linked to in Grandfather rule, it says permanent nationality of country is needed to play for them, and if a player qualifies for more than one then they need to: be born in a country; have antecedents who were; or to qualify by 2 years residence. Spike 'em (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

At least for Lebanon, in order to represent the national team the player needs to gain nationality. The two things (FIFA and nationality) aren't separate but related. For example, Felix Michel Melki had to obtain Lebanese citizenship before being able to be called up for the national team; I'm not sure about other nationalities though... Nehme1499 (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

That is also untrue (although I do not disagree with your wider point). There are several examples where nationality and representative nation are different, and distinct. This is particularly common with the British isles and Commonwealth citizens, but also exists in several other regions (the Balkan states in particular).

In fact FIFA doesn't care whether a player does or does not have a passport or not, or has even applied for dual nationality etc. Residency and citizenship are distinct from passport and nationality. Koncorde (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: Yep, fair enough. Misunderstanding on my part, probably stemming from the rather convoluted British/Irish nationality laws. Cheers, Nzd (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I am OK with both options, leaving the first sentence without specifiying nationality and then pointing out details next; or, pointing out in the first sentence the national team the player plays for. I have an exemple of Svetozar Popović, a Serbian/Yugoslav player and coach that just happened to accept a call from Romanian national team and played one game for them while he was playing in a Romanian club. Later he became coach and even coached Yugoslav national team on 3 occasions. The article actually wrongly points to place of birth as Yugoslavia, and Yugoslavia was formed in 1918, 16 years after his birth, so the country of birth should be corrected to Kingdom of Serbia. FkpCascais (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

According to the regulation, you need a passport or other form of document to prove you have that nationality. For those Argentine born Italian footballer, they are eligible to Italy nationality at birth, but need actual bureaucratic process to register as an Italian citizen, but in simplicity, they are dual nationality at birth. The actual wording in the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes, clause Eligibility to play for representative teams:

Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the association of that country."

There was a long false urban legend of player X who got permanent residence status in the UK can represent UK, which is wrong. You need full BC nationality AND residence for 2 years (6.1(d)). Matthew hk (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggest you re-read that Matthew. 5, 6 and 7 cover different situations. What qualifies as "nationality" is different dependent upon both the FA of the country. The UK has its own sub-rules that are more strict than FIFA's to maintain the integrity of the home nations.

FIFA's clauses about "having the relevant nationality" can be achieved through several naturalisation processes. Clauses 6 and 7 apply restrictions to those naturalisation processes when they happen to try and prevent mass migration/import of footballers to countries that allow you to purchase a nationality, or offer them as a gift or enticement. In many cases a person may hold a "permanent nationality" through blood relatives or association, but they themselves do not hold a passport or similar documentation. As part of the process of declaring for a country they usually engage in gaining some paperwork and/or proof of ellligibility for nationality. The ellligibility criteria for having that permanent nationality may be more loose on a country by country basis (or tighter). FIFA's guidance refers only to their own thresholds. Koncorde (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

permanent nationality is the clause 5 called "Principle", clause 6 explained that on top of having a permanent nationality, they need 6.1.(a),(b),(c), (d). It does not mean having 6.1.(a),(b),(c), (d) but did not need a passport. Back to 1960s, Hong Kong footballer are granted one-off ROC passport to represent ROC, which in the past they effective control the whole China but in the 1960s ROC only effective control Taiwan. There is some bizarre case that East Timor granted passport to Brazilian footballer but they actually not yet eligible to 6.1.(a),(b),(c), (d) yet. And then those footballer were kicked out of national team after the scandal was exposed. It is more bizarre on claiming no passport check at all. Anyway, "sport nationality" must be a sub-set of player's real nationality, which player can hold multiple nationality. Even Bora Milutinović, a Serbian coach who naturalized as Mexican, we still call him Serbian. For tennis player Naomi Osaka, we call her represents Japan and omit nationality from lede. For Scott Arfield, we can use "is a footballer who represented Canada national team and previously Scotland youth team", but it is insane (and may be racist on self-defining who is not Canadian) to call someone represent Canada not Canadian. Matthew hk (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

And here is the regulations for FIFA competitions : [29][30], both have clause to requires to submit "passport number " and even birth certificate. e.g. \

Before the start of the Competition, all listed players must prove their identity, nationality and age by producing their legally valid individual passport with photograph (stating day, month and year of birth). Any player who fails to submit his passport shall not be allowed to take part in the Competition.

Matthew hk (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The rules in 20XX are not always the same as in 19XX. Switzerland fielded two foreign players against Austria in 1929 [31] They were allowed to do that. Cattivi (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

For Alfredo Di Stéfano, may be he is not Colombian citizen. But Scott Arfield's cap is after the regulation that requires passport in force. Matthew hk (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A passport is for the freedom of movement, it doesn't matter which passport you use if you have two different passports. Duel nationals will have passport of the country they were born and have a passport for their country of residence (primary taxation laws belong to country of residence.) Returning to sports, it doesn't matter which country the sports person is representing regarding the passport. You actually need the FA registration document of that country and that requires photographic copies of the passports of said relatives, of which you qualify. There is also a sports visa with a few other things.

But in essence, back to the lead of an article, you shouldn't write a lead like Walter has done, that looks like a miss-representation of the information. What GS said is a much better way. Govvy (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I had suggested something "For Scott Arfield, we can use "is a footballer who represented Canada national team and previously Scotland youth team"" in the previous comment, it just annoying people argue you did not need a passport as a proof or don't even need the nationality in order to play. In fact it requires parent passport as an additional requirement , but does not mean modern football eligibility are so free . In fact, some footballers refused to play for Hong Kong (post-1997) as they are foreign born with Hong Kong parent, they refuse to naturalize as Chinese (Hong Kong is a class of passport of PR China). Omitting nationality before footballer make more sense than "Scottish-Canadian footballer" or "Canadian footballer who represented Canada national team and previously Scotland youth team", but does not mean he is neither Scottish nor Canadian. Matthew hk (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Squad templates notability

Please remind me, do we allow such templates as: Template:New Zealand Squad 2015 Pacific Games and Template:Beşiktaş JK 100th Year Champion Squad? AFAIK, both of these templates should be deleted, by the current guidelines. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

There is historical consensus that for international tournaments, only the World Cup and then top-level confederation tournaments (eg EUROs, ACN etc.) should have templates. There is also consensus that 'champions' squads are not notable. Giant Snowman 13:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

What about participation/victory at continental club tournaments, like the Champions League or the Europa League? Nehme1499 (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No aswell. Just the mentioned once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kante4 (talk • contribs)

I've listed the national team squad navboxes at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 13#National football team squad navboxes. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible changes to WP:NFOOTBALL

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Proposal - NFOOTY#2 - raising the bar. Giant Snowman 15:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

2018 FIFA World Cup statistics

Can someone look at the bottom of the page? Some templates do not display correctly. This page is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded Hhkohh (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The total transcusion size for the page (i.e. the size of all templates transcluded) was exceeded. The reason was that the discipline section was trying to transclude the whole 2018 FIFA World Cup article because the translcusion went to a a redirect. I've fixed it to transclude just the desired section, but now a reference isn't defined properly. : : : : Perhaps the discipline section should just be copied to this page. Thoughts? Jts1882 | talk 15:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Jts1882, we should reverse transclude. Hhkohh (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Jts1882,

Fixed Hhkohh (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Association football scouts

Is this category (and future sub-categories, such as by nationality and league worked in) notable? If so we can expand, if not we need to delete. Giant Snowman 14:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I created the category, Because other sports scout categroy already existed. For example Category:National Football League scouts, Category:Major League Baseball scouts

Association football scouts are not notable. But Are Baseball scouts and American football scouts notable? If delete the Association football scouts category, I think all scouts categories are shoud be deleted.Footwiks (talk)

Just because football scouts are (generally) not notable, it doesn't mean they aren't in all sports. See WP:ALLORNOTHING -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's rare a scout in and of itself is notable. There may be 1 or 2 who are independent notable as scouts for finding a specific player, others who are notable for working as part of a boot room or similar organisation with an equally famous manager (Peter Taylor of Cloughie fame was notable for spotting talent, but his notability was established by other successes). In the end they would need some significant reliable source notability for a stand alone article, or a category. In US sports however a scout is an official position, and as their sports are built around draft systems the scouts often achieve notability (or notoriety). Koncorde (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I think football agent may notable, but scout seem rarely get enough GNG attention. Also, it is a position that suggest the club to sign a player, but there were many other managerial position that have a say in the transfer. For example, may transfer were credited to the football manager (Moggi) or the President (e.g. Genoa which negotiate directly by himself). Matthew hk (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Not notable. Kante4 (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the category is of any use (for football). An individual scout may be wiki-notable, but it is not for being a scout and I'm pretty certain that there are many ex-players out there acting as scouts who have no mention of it on their articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good enough reason to create this category. Spike 'em (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A bit of a tangent, but I can't see the notability of Category:Association football player-coaches either. The criteria is for those players doubling as assistants, so it doesn't even cover player-managers. Who cares? Jellyman (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST i agreed Category:Association football player-coaches should be deleted, since it was defined it was different from Category:Association football player-managers. Matthew hk (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Staff member inclusion criteria for soccer/football team articles

Does FOOTY offer any specific guidance on mentioning individuals in staff/personal sections of soccer/football team articles? Generally, in lists such as this only those considered to be independently Wikipedia notable in their own right often get added per WP:CSC, but soccer/football team articles might follow more specific inclusion criteria. The example which comes to my mind is Utica City FC#Club staff. While I can see mentioning senior staff/executives and coaches, it doesn't seem really necessary to mention VPs or account executives, etc. by name (even if they are mentioned on the club's official website) and seems more like a bit WP:Namechecking instead. I also don't think these staff members need to have flag icons next to their names since unlike perhaps a player, their respective nationalities are again not really encyclopedicially relevant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

They shouldn't be listed, we're not a who's who. I'd nuke the entire section except for maybe the head coach. President, etc can be moved to the infobox. SportingFlyer T·C 07:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

But yet these section was appeared in Manchester United F.C.#Personnel. Such bold remove not sure would cause boomerang keep voting or not.....So let the thread opening first. Matthew hk (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Chelsea also has a similar list, which could similarly be cut down. Do we really need to mention everyone who gets roped into wining and dining those in the corporate seats? Spike 'em (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Firstly if there is no citation for a staff member that should be removed. All flag icons should be removed also. I've tried hard to remove them before, but got reverted. I think notability applies to listing a staff member also. Govvy (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Maximiliano Meza, transfer years

No biggie, but over at the Maximiliano Meza (footballer, born 1992) article myself and User:Fcbjuvenil had a disagreement about Meza's infobox years, namely when the player left Independiente and joined Monterrey. It was a direct transfer, with the latter paying a fee for Meza. It was announced in December, but the transfer window opened in 2019. Fcbjuvenil believes the infobox should show: left Independiente in 2018, but joined Monterrey in 2019. Whereas I believe it should be left 2019/joined 2019 - or at least 2018/2018, not odd years.

Thoughts? Could you class Fcbjuvenil's edits as vandalism? I assumed good faith so didn't but I feel like they are. I was going to change it back to 2019/2019 today, but felt a discussion here was the right thing to do. R96Skinner (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Mexico international transfer window opened on 1 January 2019. https://www.fifatms.com/itms/worldwide-transfer-windows-calendar/ Yes you can argue he already trained with the new club before that date, but his transfer only effective after the window open, unless he is an free agent that did not restricted by transfer window. Matthew hk (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Left 2019/joined 2019. Giant Snowman 15:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

For the record, if the transfer was domestic transfer in China , and the transfer was happened between the end of 2018 Chinese Super League and 2019 Chinese Super League, i don't mind to state left 2018, join 2019. (or between any other league that the season was ended along with the end of the calender year; China's international transfer window opens on 1 January 2019.)

In the past, Mexico football and Argentina football was also split into half-season (most recent: 2018–19 Liga MX season#Torneo Clausura; last Clausura was in 2011–12 Argentine Primera División season, but that season Apertura ended in February 2012), which may applies above logic on post-season/pre-season transfer. Matthew hk (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

For players who play in leagues which run to calendar yuears (eg USA, China) then it would be leave 2018/join 2019. That is standard and well-established. For this player, the two leagues don't run that way. Giant Snowman 15:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes i did not state clearly. Meza's previous club was an Argentine club and Argentine had abolished Apertura/Clausura. Even in the past, the end of Apertura can delayed to the first month of the calender year, so Meza should use 2019/2019. Matthew hk (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought so, I will change it back to 2019/2019. Appreciate your input. R96Skinner (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia name change

I want to update several articles using the fb templates to show the name of the country at the time of the matches. Does anybody object to the following changes on multiple articles ?

{{fb-rt|MKD}}→{{fb-rt|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbu-rt|17|MKD}}→{{fbu-rt|17|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbu-rt|19|MKD}}→{{fbu-rt|19|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbu-rt|21|MKD}}→{{fbu-rt|21|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbu|17|MKD}}→{{fbu|17|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbu|19|MKD}}→{{fbu|19|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbu|21|MKD}}→{{fbu|21|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbw-rt|MKD}}→{{fbw-rt|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbwu-rt|17|MKD}}→{{fbwu-rt|17|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbwu-rt|19|MKD}}→{{fbwu-rt|19|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbwu-rt|21|MKD}}→{{fbwu-rt|21|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbwu|17|MKD}}→{{fbwu|17|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbwu|19|MKD}}→{{fbwu|19|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbwu|21|MKD}}→{{fbwu|21|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbw|MKD}}→{{fbw|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fb|MKD}}→{{fb|MKD|name=Macedonia}}

In the coming days I imagine {{fb|MKD}} will become North Macedonia and it could lead to confusion. Now (or soon) is a good time to make these changes.

I had made these changes already using the name from UEFA's website ("FYR Macedonia") but apparently that opens a can of worms. TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

From that naming conventions link: Due to the recent name change, a binding RFC will occur in the next month to amend this page. In the meantime, articles should still adhere to this guideline, excluding the move of Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia. Patience! SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a reason that {{fb|MKD}} displays

North Macedonia, not

FYR Macedonia (WP:MOSMAC was derived from a past discussion involving Arbcom). The name "North Macedonia" should not be used until the (soon to be opened) RfC is closed. However, adding |name=Macedonia right now to historical articles in preparation for the (likely) retargeting of Template:Country data MKD is a good idea, I already did so for the Euros. However, it only needs to be added when referring to a specific point in time, i.e. competitions prior to 2019. It shouldn't be added to places such as UEFA#National team rankings or List of FIFA country codes, which is not relating to the past. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Can't we avoid "name" parameter and simply use {{fb|Macedonia}} to show Macedonia (piped to North Macedonia), like we do with FR Yugoslavia (which is piped to Serbia and Montenegro)? --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The templates {{nft}}, {{nwft}} and {{nfa}}

Why must they always be substutited and never transcluded? --Theurgist (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

From the previous deletion discussions they are seen as confusing to editors when they appear in article text and transclusion is just a way of obfuscating a wikilink. I was thinking of doing something similar for cricket articles, so thanks for bringing to my attention! Spike 'em (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

South Korean Inventing IP Editor back

Hi, Following Special:Contributions/49.143.151.98 (discussed last at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 102#IP vandal) and Special:Contributions/110.35.10.122 (discussed last at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 114#Another IP adding nonsense) and Special:Contributions/103.234.7.72 (discussed last at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 120#Inventive IP Editor returns), all of which resulted in blocks of one length or another, our South Korean friend seems to be back at Special:Contributions/124.62.79.115 with the usual modus operandi of adding invented redlinked players to (often) historic squad lists - including the obviously wrong addition of a 24th player to international 23-man squads [32]. A rollback of all user edits would be benficial as well as the obvious block. Hesitantly pinging @GiantSnowman: who dealt last time. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Give him level 2 warning. Those ip actually easily stack to final warning and then WP:AIV. May be in AIV link to this thread stating he is some sort of LTA in order to warrant a month or year block. Matthew hk (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocking is easy. It's the rollback of all edits that needs most attention. Gricehead (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Dealt with by Struway2 (talk · contribs). Thanks, Gricehead (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Not just me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I've done the easy blocking. Giant Snowman 13:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection for FC BATE Borisov

Yesterday's result againt Arsenal left many British fans unamused. Too much vandalism going on. --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Non-notable player recreated whilst draft exists

I tried PRODding Lucas Perri as he is not notable (yet), and Draft:Lucas Perri exists and has been rejected for move to article space. The prod has been removed, so I've now AfDed him, is this the correct thing to do, or is there a CSD or merge criteria that would better apply? Spike 'em (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I would have done the same thing. Unless there is a merge for draft/mainspace that I don't know about, this is the way forward. Potentially I'd think userfying the draft is the best way forward, as it may/may not be a while before the subject is notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Crystal Palace did have a keeper injury crisis at the time of his arrival, but they are all fit now, so it seems unlikely that he will make an appearance anytime soon. Spike 'em (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

If and when he is notable the (far superior) draft can be moved into main space, and the deleted history restored. Giant Snowman 15:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

[Standardised_rules_2018–19-1] "The FA Handbook Chapter 30 Standardised Rules (section 12.2)". The FA. Retrieved 17 July 2018.

[1]