Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 123

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

→

Archive 130

Former players

Hi, quick question: is the section former/notable players valid? It seems pretty subjective to me, especially when unsourced. What are your opinions? Nehme1499 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not, mostly due to the subjectiveness you mention. The best thing to do is to provide a link somewhere in the club's article to their player category, where readers can find all the players, not a dubiously selected few. Number 57 21:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think can be valid when properly defined. A list of club record holders, for instance. For smaller clubs, the section may be useful to note players who have won international caps after playing for the team, since these clubs are often known specifically for producing such-and-such a player. I agree just having a list of players without any sort of criteria should be avoided. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a template, {{famous}}, which can be used when there is no criteria. In general, I don't have a problem with these lists as long as the criteria is defined, although it would be good to have a standardised criteria across all articles. Players that have played internationally seems to be more or less the norm, which seems reasonable, although, as noted by @SportingFlyer, that probably only makes sense for smaller clubs (otherwise it's going to make the list unwieldy). I noticed that @GiantSnowman: recently deleted such a list on the BATE Borisov article. I don't think I agree with that. There will often be a club-specific list that can be used, e.g. the West Ham article has the West Ham dream team, which was taken from a book. Nzd (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Surely the criteria for who are a club's notable players should be set elsewhere - i.e. not by Wikipedia editors. Things like a "Hall of Fame", or "Greatest Team Ever" could be used. What constitutes a "smaller" club where a list of internationals could be used? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree that it should be an external list - Hall of Fame, book etc. - which determines 'famous players', not us. GiantSnowman 11:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The naming is what is confusing here. Surely all players that have a Wikipedia profile are notable. All these lists are are WP:FANCRUFT in my opinion. Anyone who is truly notable for having played there (club hero, in the hall of fame at a club, or record transfer) can very easily be placed into prose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hall of Fame by primary source is not a FANCRUFT, others "famous player list", more or less are FANCRUFT (e.g. by number of appearances, by international call-up for the players who played for the club, even for those left the club when receiving call-up, or player who made top division appearance as a youth product of that academy.) Other article titles are survived such as Juventus F.C. and the Italy national football team, which specific enough and backed by citation. Matthew hk (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Y-League appearance

There is no promotion and relegation in Australia, so Y-League, a league that have age restriction, is a reserve league or not ? Someone claimed it is a senior men competition and reverted it in Anthony Lesiotis. However, we never listed Campionato Nazionale Primavera and Premier Reserve League to the infobox. Matthew hk (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW did they have any discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Australia task force? Matthew hk (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It does not look like a senior league to me. The reserve team page linked to in the article above states "Founded in 2011, it is the reserve and youth team of Melbourne City". Spike 'em (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be some slight confusion in the article - the infobox says he played for Melbourne City FC NPL, who play in the National Premier Leagues, yet it is piped to Melbourne City FC Reserves, who play in the Y-League. So which team did he actually play for..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The Y-League is not a senior league, but in the revert to article above, Simione001 says the npl is a senior mens competition. 2nd tier of australian football..Looking at Melbourne City FC Reserves, there is no mention of them playing in the NPL, but looking back, they are linked to in 2018 Football Federation Victoria season#2018 National Premier Leagues Victoria 2 / National Premier Leagues Victoria 2, which is described as a semi-professional level 2 of the regional league (and hence the 3rd level of Aus football). This does not seem to be a reserve or youth league as there are other (non-reserve / youth) teams taking part in it. If this is seen to be a senior league (is there a definition of this term anywhere?), then appearances here are valid. However, there is no source on the article to back the numbers up: the Soccerway ext link only lists A-League and Y-League appearances (Y-league appearances should definitely not be included in the figures in the infobox). Spike 'em (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

ping @Simione001:, you said Lesiotis played for Melbourne City FC NPL, however ,soccerway listed the caps as Y-League. We don't listed Y-League cap as it is reserves league, (likes Primavera, Premier Reserve League and A2 Ligi). Do you have any prove Lesiotis played for Melbourne City FC NPL? Matthew hk (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed many years ago. In any case every team in the A-League other than Wellington Phoenix FC from New Zealand has a team that plays in the National Premier Leagues. You will not find these stats on soccerway. If you click on the link [1] you will see Melbourne City placed 6th on the table in 2018. Also please see Australian soccer league system for more info.Simione001 (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

In addition please see Melbourne City FC NPL. Although all other A-League clubs do not have a dedicated NPL team article and therefore the "Reserves" team article doubles as both the page for the Y-League team the NPL team. Thanks.Simione001 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Where do you get the appearance stats from then? There are no references backing up the data on the article listed above, so it could reasonably be removed as unsourced BLP. Spike 'em (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Here [2]. Simione001 (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You should add that as a ref to the article then to save this sort of discussion, though is this a WP:RS (looks like it may be WP:UGC)? Why does he have games listed in both West and East league for 2017 & 2018? Spike 'em (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This website is the official website sanctioned by the Federation for collecting this data. Not sure about the east/west stuff. Some of the appearances are duplicates hence only 23 appearances. You know if you look at just about any australian player that has turned pro in the last 5 years, almost all will have appearances in the NPL listed in their infobox. This is no different than the apps DeAndre Yedlin made for the Seattle U-23 in 2012 for example. Simione001 (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You can also find reports on the clubs' websites backing this up, such as today's report on Melb Vic's NPL match --SuperJew (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Performance in continental competitions

Hi, I was wondering if the section "Performance in X competitions" should be kept in certain articles. For example, some Lebanese football team articles, such as Al-Ansar SC, have a section called "Performance in AFC Competitions" which describes the team's record in Asian competitions year by year. What are your opinions on this? Should the section be kept or removed? Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, these should be kept. It could be expanded, but there's nothing wrong with the information, in fact we have full articles on continental competition for some teams. SportingFlyer T·C 08:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Bill Montgomery (footballer, born 1885)

Sunderland sources seem to say this chap was born in Scotland (Gourock); Frost on Bradford City says he was born in Northern Ireland (Eglinton). Any idea which is correct? GiantSnowman 19:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There is William Montgomery born in 1885 Northern Ireland that died in 1971, unless there is a mix-up with that one I don't know. Govvy (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Joyce and Litser both have b. Gourock, 1885, d. 1953. Nzd (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

When I search the 1911 census I find William Montgomery 26 year old professional footballer living in Royton (Oldham) born in Gourock. Scottish League players' records p, 136 born Gourock 1885 died Oakland 21 November 1953. When I search the California Death Index I find born 2 June 1884 died 21 November 1953 in Alameda. There is no William Montgomery born 1885 in Gourock in Scotlandspeople, but there is one born in 1884. Cattivi (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Alameda and Oakland are right next to each other, so I'm not too concerned with that discrepancy. I'd use Alameda in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone - Frost must be mistaken. GiantSnowman 17:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

'Teams' column for women's competitions in a template

I just raised an issue at the talk page of Template talk:National football squad player to alter the template. The situation with professional women's football/soccer (whatever your leaning) is that many players are with two clubs, playing 4-5 month seasons with each during a 12 month period. e.g. Sam Kerr playing with Perth Glory and Chicago Red Stars. Rather than have to alternate and update club teams for the articles on each Country's women's national soccer team article, can the template be altered to accommodate 2 clubs simultaneously, to reflect the reality of dual clubs for professional women footballers? Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany

Am I correct in thinking that these kind of three-intersetion categories are not needed? I remember some CFDs about this a few years ago... GiantSnowman 16:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah as far as I know it should only go as specific as Fooish expatriate sportspeople in Bar, not into the particular sports. Crowsus (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree these sort of triple intersection categories are unnecessary, I believe a similar discussion took place here, and a much older CfD took place here. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks. GiantSnowman 08:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

CfD here. GiantSnowman 08:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I am really not sure about this issue, an user with admin rights created a lot of category likes Senegalese expatriate sportspeople in Portugal, which in fact is a triple intersection. While she voted some other triple intersection in other profession as WP:overcategorization, i am not sure about the different between other profession and sportspeople . Certainly i would vote keep for cat likes Brazilian expatriate footballers in Italy, which probably have GNG passing material about this subject. But others, including most of sportspeople cat, seem over categorization. In specific, seem fails WP:OCAT#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation (yes i know nationality is not ethnicity) "that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. " or WP:OCAT#Trivial characteristics or intersection. For American expatriate soccer players in Germany, not sure it have GNG material to "recognized" the combination. Matthew hk (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Club appearances in infobox

Hi, take the following scenario: a player has scored 3 goals in a season (his 3 goals came as a single goal in one game and a brace in another), but I have no info on all the other games he has played in the season, would it make more sense to write 2+ in appearances, as I know for a fact he has played at least 2 games, or nothing at all as 2+ apps and 3 goals isn't indicative to his season (3 goals in 2 is different that 3 in 20 for example). What are your opinions? Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Leave it blank, to avoid confusion, and detail it in the prose instead. GiantSnowman 10:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks, and what about the club statistics table? For example, in Hassan Maatouk I have written the apps in the form x-y with x being the minimum number of apps he has done and y the max. For the min I take the matches in which he has scored, and for the max I take the maximum amount of games he could have played in that season (total number of games of that club in the league in that season). I imagine this being OR, so would it be better, again, to put the +, keep it empty or keep it as I did? Nehme1499 (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That definitely sounds like OR to me. If there is no source available to say how many games he has played then it should be left out. Spike 'em (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. GiantSnowman 12:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Football squad player v Template:Football squad player2

I have been wondering for a while why some pages use Template:Football squad player and some use Template:Football squad player2. For instance, Arsenal F.C.#Players uses the original and LA Galaxy#Players and staff uses the latter.

My question is, why haven't we unified this yet?

Number 1 requires you to scroll left and right on a mobile device (I have tried multiple mobile phones and requires this), whilst number 2 fits within the frame of the screen on each device I've tried. Correct me if I'm wrong but the mobile readership is probably the biggest portion of the encyclopedia, if not it would be getting there, so shouldn't we be accommodating to this and transferring to the usage a merge and using under Template:Football squad player2?

Any comments on this appreciated, I have been off Wikipedia for several years and have been a reader during this time and this is something I noticed. Borgarde (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why these should be seperate. Perhaps if no one raises an objection, raise a merge template discussion... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It's the same for UAE clubs, like Fujairah FC. I would agree to merging the two templates. Nehme1499 (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no issue with the merge - but which 'version' should we use? To be awkward I am going to suggest a third version, of sorts, similar to what we historically had with Boca Juniors. In short, the squad list on the club page should be a version of the squad template which appears on the player pages, to make updating easier and ensuring there is no discrepancy between the two. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 10:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I liked that one – a decent compromise between demands to include the country name or not. Plus, as you say, it ensures the squad list on the article and the template match. Number 57 12:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to say we couldn't have the best of both worlds: combining the dual function of the Boca Juniors type with the accessibility-compliant and apparently more mobile-phone-friendly table format of Template:Football squad player2. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I'd be fine with that. Any template wizards eager too draft something up? GiantSnowman 12:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to get this right. We update the squad template and it automatically updates the current squad section of the main article or vice versa? Would be great but not sure i got this correctly or being too dumb. Kante4 (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No, that's exactly what would happen. Simultaneous update. GiantSnowman 15:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Would be great. Both would have the same players in it all the time, no "forgetting", call me in. Kante4 (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree this would be very useful, I've had a draft of this template in my sandbox for a while and have been meaning to complete it. I also agree that the different templates used by the US/UAE and the rest of the world makes little sense, there should be one consistent format, similar to league tables. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

In an ideal world, merging the navbox with the table into one unified template would be great, but it wouldn't work for Manchester United F.C. (and probably several others). The squad list in the club's main article only includes players explicitly listed as part of the first team on this page, but Template:Manchester United F.C. squad includes all players with a squad number (and new signings who haven't been allocated numbers yet). Merging these templates would mean having to include players in the first-team squad list who aren't actually in the first team or omitting players from the navbox when they should probably be included. – PeeJay 10:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If a player has a first-team squad number then they should be included. There certainly should be no discrepancy between a 'first team squad' list on the club page and a 'first team squad' template. GiantSnowman 11:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the squad list on a club article and the squad navbox should have the same scope of players. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That's absolute nonsense. What about Manchester City F.C., who assign squad numbers to many of their academy players (see Manchester City F.C. EDS and Academy). Never in a million years would you try to make the argument that Alpha Richard Dionkou or Rowan McDonald are first-team players, but they have squad numbers. Personally, I wouldn't even argue that Felix Nmecha is a first-team player, and he's played in the EFL Cup. Manchester City don't consider these guys as first-team players, so why should we? – PeeJay 11:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Then don't include those players on either. GiantSnowman 11:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Which ones? All of them, or just the ones who don't have an article? It wouldn't make sense to leave Felix Nmecha out of the navbox just because he's not part of the first team. – PeeJay 12:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's a compromise: how about a parameter in the template switch that allows for some entries to be included only in the navbox? – PeeJay 12:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

No. Either they are first-team or they are not. If a player has a squad number that's a good indication, but as you point out, not always indicative. I think if they've appearance in a match day squad then they should be included. GiantSnowman 12:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Many would disagree. – PeeJay 13:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we should follow the link at each team's website squad. Those should be included. Kante4 (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

We're getting distracted. Let's get the actual template sorted first, then we can argue about what players are included or not. GiantSnowman 15:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman, we should get the template sorted first, then we can iron out extra parameters for exclusion or addition if we choose so. Borgarde (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed page move of Bonaire League

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.

---

@SportingFlyer, Matthew hk, Number 57, S.A. Julio, and Hhkohh: See Talk:Bonaire League. Chanheigeorge (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Please list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves in future. GiantSnowman 10:05, 22 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.

Nigel Hasselbaink

Can somebody please have a word with @SWAGnificient: who is edit warring by changing Hasselbaink's nationality... (he has a history of this kind of conduct). GiantSnowman 16:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

ACL infobox

I just see an IP and a user (obvious is a person!) try to exclude attendance, matches and the number of goals in qualifying play-off. [3] and [4]. Thoughts? Hhkohh (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Snowflake91 who may involve and other editors are welcomed to comment, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• oppose exclude like Copa Libertadores Hhkohh (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. Totals of goals, attendances etc. should only include the competition proper, i.e. exclude the qualifiers. Is that what you're suggesting, or are you saying we should include qualifiers? – PeeJay 21:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3, I said we should include the qualifiers Hhkohh (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Then I disagree. What does the AFC do in their official statistical records? – PeeJay 22:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3, See this Hhkohh (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3, okay, we should exclude qualifying stats Hhkohh (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

If the AFC includes qualifiers, I guess I can't argue with them. What made you change your mind? – PeeJay 16:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3, because AFC official stats did not include qualifying matches stats Hhkohh (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Manager (association football), Coach (sport)#Association football and Head coach#Association football

Technically these positions are all different, but in practice can these terms be used interchangeably, or can one of them serve as an umbrella term that also encompasses the others? There's a category named Category:FIFA World Cup managers, while in practice those in charge of national teams are more often described as "(head) coaches". I'm preparing a list because I realized there isn't one yet. Should I go for the title List of managers at the FIFA World Cup or is there a better variant? --Theurgist (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Salman Ahmed Al-Ansari

Can someone look at this page and its edit history and help me determine if it in a fact combines information on two different people (footballer and lawyer) and should be split, or is it correct? I'm inclined to think they are different people since none of lawyer's external references mention his playing career, and and also because the DOB was baldly changed from 1983 to 1981 (despite the fact that he played at 1999 U17 WC, and being born in 1981 would make him overage).--BlameRuiner (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you might be right, I would be inclined to remove all the lawyer stuff from the article, I don't think the lawyer passes WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG at all. The footballer needs to be reinstated. Govvy (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

183.179.74.249

• 183.179.74.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

IP continuously added big team icon like this, can someone mass rollback it? Thanks Hhkohh (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ciaron Brown

Can an admin please restore Ciaron Brown? He made his debut for Livingston in the SPL this afternoon.[5] Kosack (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack:  Done - please can you update? GiantSnowman 19:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Kosack (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Professional football leagues in Lithuania and Ireland

I've found references that suggest that the Lithuanian A Lyga is fully professional - from the football federation and Lithuanian news articles (this one explicitly states that the entire league is professional). This contrasts with the WikiProject page. The reference provided to show that the A Lyga is not fully professional (here) is an article based on a clearly unsustainable team from nine seasons ago; I cannot find any evidence that any of the eight current clubs are not professional, including newly promoted FK Panevėžys.

Thoughts on adding the A Lyga to the list of fully professional leagues?

As an aside, I've noticed that the League of Ireland criteria are quite murky. The league presents itself as fully professional, yet some individual clubs aren't, and still countless players like this guy are created without ever having left the league or fulfilling general notability criteria. What's up with this? Mrsmiis (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a problem with FPL in my opinion. on WP:Footy, we seem to recognise three states; amateur, semi-professional, and professional and have articles for players who are either senior internationals or have played in a professional league, whereas FIFA recognise two states; amateur and professional. If a player is what WP:footy considers semi-professional, they are in the eyes of FIFA, professional.

FIFA define a professional as "a player who has a written contract with a club and is paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurs. All other players are considered to be amateurs."[6] TheBigJagielka (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

My mate William McWiki is a good player. The manager of his Sunday League team pays him £20 every week to play; it only costs William £5 in petrol to drive to the park and back. He is therefore paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurs. But he is not a professional player, and he is not notable. That is why we don't use the FIFA definition. GiantSnowman 09:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Petrol is not the only cost he incurs; he must take time off work to train and play, possibly preventing him from earning more than he could, this it's an alternative cost. 109.232.29.145 (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Our own Semi-professional sports article has a dubious definition as well, saying "A semipro player/team could also be one that represents a place of employment that only the employees are allowed to play on. In this case, it is considered semipro because their employer pays them, but for their regular job, not for playing on the company's team." By that logic, if I play in one of the many recreational sports leagues my company offers for its employees throughout the year, I'm a semi-professional athlete. Granted, those leagues are all single-entity as all teams are "owned" by my company, but so is Major League Soccer, which is obviously fully professional. The point is, the difference between professional, fully professional, semi-professional, and amateur isn't always so clear even if you use our own definitions in the respective wiki articles. Smartyllama (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The existence of articles like the Jamie McGrath one doesn't demonstrate anything "murky" about the criteria, it just means the article hasn't come to wide attention. It wasn't even tagged for this project on its talk page until I did so just now, and it's never been the subject of a deletion discussion. It quite clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. A decent-looking article has been put together, but a quick glance makes me think it probably fails WP:GNG as well; most of the sources are primary or routine. Jellyman (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Dick Groves

Can anybody with a copy of Joyce (or club-specific book) help expand Dick Groves? Seemingly played for Bristol Rovers, Southampton, Plymouth Argyle and Torquay United - but I don't think he played first-team for Plymouth based a search here. GiantSnowman 16:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

He's not in the book and I can't find anything about his playing career that wasn't written years later. He didn't work for 12 clubs in the Netherlands (he worked for ADO for three months, May 1953- August 1953, maybe he trained the reserves, 3rd team, 4rd team, youth etc. as well). [7]. He certainly managed Wellington Town in the 1953-54 season [8]. Cattivi (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

He could be younger (born 1916) Here [9] he's 36 years old. A Richard Geoffrey Groves, sports coach, living in Opotiki New Zealand is on the 1970 honours list[10] In 1964 a Richard Geoffrey Groves age 48 emigrated from Sydney to New Zealand. There is a Richard G. Groves born 1916 Bristol. It makes perfect sense, but I'm not sure biographies should be (re)written on primary sources only. Cattivi (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the article. Unsure about birth date... GiantSnowman 10:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Richard Groves Bristol Rovers reserves, former Street and Bath City player, has a trail with Southampton. (Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette, 26 March 1938 p 16) Cattivi (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

TheFinalBall nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheFinalBall

Hi all. At first glance, it looks like the article on the website fails GNG due to lack of (online) sourcing, however it is used as a reference by thousands of articles, so it would be appreciated if project members provided guidance at the AFD. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The site shouldn't be used as a reference as it's data includes user-generated content. Many of those results are due to the presence of the {{TheFinalBall}} template. Given the previous consensus to delete the Transfermarkt template, should be same logic not be applied to this one? Nzd (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest all comments in relation to the article are kept at the AFD - however, in relation to the template, yes I agree this is same as Transfermarkt and should be deleted via TFD (and not used in sources per RS). GiantSnowman 12:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I've started a TfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully, unlike previous similar template deletions, we don't end up with a large number of unreferenced BLPs. Hack (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I made a suggestion here back in March 2018 about putting {{TheFinalBall}} and {{TheFinalBall manager}} up for deletion, but this was not supported at the time. Given that the result of the discussion on {{TheFinalBall}} was delete, should {{TheFinalBall manager}} now be nominated for deletion? LTFC 95 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, TfD created. Nzd (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals

I think Harry Kane's and the other players that are still playing ratio might be off. I was trying to work it out, by my Maths skills are kinda crap! Maybe someone else can have a look thanks. Govvy (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Kane and Aguero look fine to me. You could replace the figure with an expression so that it works it out automatically (but at present you'd need to update both the expression and the data column). For Kane, for example, replace the number with {{Decimals|{{#expr:123/176}}|2}} which will display as 0.70. Spike 'em (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that might be a little beyond my editing skills! I can just manage javascript, css, a little php, anything more, well... Govvy (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You can just c+p the code above and change the numbers to match the goals/appearances figures OR we could create a template which will populate all 3 columns with 2 numbers provided. See User:Spike 'em/sandbox/goaltable for an example: I created a simple template to do this that I could move it to {{fb-gpr}} and we could replace the 3 data columns with something like {{fb-gpr|g=123|p=234}} Spike 'em (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I had a look, that does look workable, I think I could get use to that and it would keep the ratio accurate. Govvy (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Kepa

Swift temp protection requested please, IPs are having a banter fest following his antics in the cup final, thanks. Crowsus (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note: Just so editors are aware, the page has now been protected. Eagleash (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

duplicate articles

Can someone merge Yumlembem Premi Devi and Yumlembam Devi as they are the same person...GrahamHardy (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Have merged and moved to Yumlembam Premi Devi as that seems to be the most common usage of name. Spike 'em (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Question about symbols

There's a discussion here regarding whether to use a prime or apostrophe. As this template is in your project's purview, your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Team of the season notability (in semi-pro leagues)

Hi, does making part of the team of the season of a league make a player notable on its own? Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If it's not a fully-pro league then I doubt it... GiantSnowman 11:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

And if it is fully-pro, then an appearance is enough. --SuperJew (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep. I doubt someone would make 'Team of the Season' without a significant number of appearances anyway... GiantSnowman 13:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah the question is about semi-pro leagues. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say no. If the appearances themselves don't make a player notable, then I don't think it matters how well a player played in any of those matches, even if they do get named in the "team of the season". The level of football is what matters, not the awards. – PeeJay 14:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks, that's what I was thinking. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

French Professional squads - number 33 (and sometimes 34, 35)

Putting this here for general information, as I'm not sure how many people who read this page are involved in editing French football teams/players, and of the ones who do there are a few who aren't/weren't aware of this rule. It applies to all Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 clubs, and the four current professional clubs in Championnat National 1.

The squad number 33 has a special meaning in French professional football. It is not permanently assigned to one player, instead being used for last minute replacements of an otherwise unregistered player from the youth/reserve team. Some, but not all, clubs extend this to squad numbers 34 and 35 also. Many players over the season, from one week to the next, could wear the 33 shirt, and you will not find them included in the sourced squad list. Therefore, it is not appropriate to include a player with a squad number 33 in the squad list on an article. We should take care with the sourcing of shirts 34 and 35 also. Soccerway tends to update the squad list with the last used number for a player, and in many instances a player will have worn multiple of 33/34/35 shirts during the season. Of course some teams allocate 34 and 35 as normal, and if reliable sources can be found which show these are permanently allocated to the same player then it's fine for them to be included as such in the squad list.

The rules for this can be found in French Professional Football League (LFP) Competitions Regulations, part 1, title 4, chapter 2, article 576: "All teams must have an unattributed jersey numbered 33 reserved for last minute replacements." Gricehead (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

That's really interesting, thanks Gricehead. I've never heard of this before. – PeeJay 14:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Same - is it worth mentioning at List of retired numbers in association football? GiantSnowman 14:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly retired... more like the opposite of retired ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperJew (talk • contribs) 15:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes but there's a big section about number 12 for 'fans'... GiantSnowman 15:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

My point was that the number is used (just not assigned to one player only). The number 12 retired for fans is not in use. --SuperJew (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

International tournaments squads maintenance

I've been doing some maintenance work on international tournaments squad templates recently (mostly fixing redirects and redlinks), which prompted me to also do some fixes on player bios and squad pages. I've found some issues and inconsistencies that I hope the community will help me to resolve.

1. Should the Olympic squad templates include "stand-by" players which didn't actually travel to the tournament? Example: Template:Slovakia men's football squad 2000 Summer Olympics + Football at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#Slovakia - players Oravec and Greško did not play, yet they are in the template. AFAIK the modern Olympic squads are restricted to 18 players so it's not like they were simply benched.
2. Should the squad pages include the information about players' transfers after the tournament, and loan spells prior to the tournament? Examples: 2006 FIFA World Cup squads#Ecuador (transfers); 2009 UEFA European Under-21 Championship squads#_Italy (loans).

Cheers. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think if we're going to include standby players in the navboxes, we need to find a way to make it clear that they weren't part of the proper squad. I'm a little confused as to why Jan Mucha is included in Slovakia's main squad though when they already had 18 players in the squad though. As for the transfer info, as far as I'm concerned it makes sense to note any transfers that were agreed before the tournament started, as it may be a little confusing for readers not to do so. Any transfers that weren't agreed until after the tournament can be omitted, IMO. – PeeJay 14:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Standby players should not be included - in the same way we don't include players from the 'preliminary' squad lists.

No, no need to discuss transfers. Just the club at the time of the tournament. GiantSnowman 14:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The implication at Football at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads is that these standby players aren't just players who didn't quite make the cut after the initial training camp but rather reserve players officially named to the IOC/FIFA as the guys who would come in if there were injuries. If someone could clarify this, that would be helpful. – PeeJay 15:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Non FIFA international team notability

Staying on the same note of notability, WP:NFOOTY says: "Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA, in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA, or the Olympic Games.". Does this mean that a player who plays for Northern Cyprus (or any ConIFA team for that matter) against, for example, France is notable because of this? Or am I missing something? Nehme1499 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

No, because such a match would not be competitive and Northern Cyprus is not a member of UEFA. However, someone who played in a Euro qualification match between Gibraltar and France when Gibraltar was a UEFA member but not a FIFA member would be. Smartyllama (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

So for a player to be notable he must have played a match for an international side that is AT LEAST part of a continental confederation (AFC, UEFA, etc.)? Nehme1499 (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes; playing for a ConIFA-only team is not sufficient. GiantSnowman 15:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if a footballer played for a confederation-associated team in a competitive match (i.e., not a friendly). If someone played for Guadeloupe in CONCACAF's Gold Cup (finals or qualifying), they have appeared in a FIFA Tier 1 international, but not if they played in a warm-up friendly match for Guadeloupe. Jogurney (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on the above, should Christophe Olol have an article? He's made 2 appearances for Guadeloupe - neither of which was a competitive CONCACAF match. Jogurney (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

His appearance in a Caribbean Cup qualifier, which doubled as a Gold Cup qualifier, would be sufficient even though it was against non-FIFA Martinique. Now that the Caribbean Cup is no longer a Gold Cup qualifier, we may have to revisit this going forward, but Olol definitely meets the requirements. Smartyllama (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

NFT.com says that he has played 4 matches, all of which non-FIFA. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

According to FIFA, there were 2 dates available in October 2012 for official matches (12-16 October). Olol didn't play for Guadeloupe during that window, so I'm almost certain his match against Martinique on 27 October could not have been an official FIFA "A" international if played by two FIFA associations. I understand that the 2012 Caribbean Cup finals were the qualifiers for the 2013 CONCACAF Gold Cup, but I don't see anything to tie the 2012 Carribean Cup qualifying process into that chain. In short, I don't believe he would even scrape by on WP:NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The Caribbean Cup qualifiers decided who made the Caribbean Cup finals, which determined who made the Gold Cup. It was basically an earlier round of qualifying. And FIFA "A" matches can and do occur outside of official windows, there are just more restrictive rules on who you can call up for friendlies which may or may not apply to official tournament qualifying, I'm not sure. It's also worth noting the Caribbean Cup finals aren't listed on the match calendar either, and those were obviously official. Smartyllama (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• I read that bit to encourage the creation of articles for historical players who played internationals before FIFA sanctioned their team, but perhaps I'm wrong - anyone know the actual reason that's there? SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I believe it was written to address footballers with confederation-associated teams that play in competitive matches (e.g., French Guinea, Guadeloupe and Martinique have reached the finals of the CONCACAF Gold Cup a few times and New Caledonia reached the OFC Nations Cup finals, while most of these teams like Gibraltar have never progressed through qualifying for the continental competition). Jogurney (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• So that players who play in continental tournaments (finals or qualifying) are notable even if they faced (or played for) a non-FIFA team. Otherwise, someone who played against Martinique in the Gold Cup would not be notable but someone who played against Haiti or Canada or any other FIFA member would, and that didn't make a whole lot of sense. So basically what Jogurney said. Keep in mind that qualification counts too - players who played for either team in Gibraltar's qualifiers when they belonged to UEFA but not FIFA would be notable. However, players who played in Gibraltar friendlies during that time would not be. Smartyllama (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

1996 Liga de Fútbol Profesional Boliviano

can someone have a look at 1996 Liga de Fútbol Profesional Boliviano? the only source I have found for this season is http://www.rsssf.com/tablesb/bol96.html which has completely different results from what is in the article :( any idea what is going on? my guess is that the article is wrong since the point values are all over the place. Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It's really strange. It's been wrong forever. The Oriente Petrolero spanish language page says they came in first in their group in 1996 with 29 points after 14 games, which matches the tables on the French language page. I have no idea what's wrong here, or how. SportingFlyer T·C 01:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:A-League players

@DannyS712: has been removing this category from valid articles, citing SUBCAT. This is clearly not correct. I have invited him to self-revert. GiantSnowman 10:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"See also: xxxx-xxxx club season"

Hi all, just a quick general query.

I note from the Thomas Müller page that each of his seasonal sub-headings have a link to the season underneath, e.g., "See also: 2009–10 FC Bayern Munich season". For future reference, can this done be on other pages where appropriate or is it better just to link the specific season in the body of each paragraph?

Thanks, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be preferable to simply find a way of linking it in the prose. It's also already linked in the club stats section, so I'm not sure it's appropriate. Number 57 13:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with N57, link in the prose, do not add a separate {{See also}} link. I've noticed this in a 'See also' section on Scottish player articles as well. Remove. GiantSnowman 13:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer review requested for Bury F.C.

Hello. I've been advised to let you know that Bury F.C. has been listed at the peer review process under Wikipedia:Peer review/Bury F.C./archive1. If anyone would like to perform a review, I'll be glad to hear from you and will try to answer any questions you have. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

On a similar note, I currently have Cardiff City F.C. at FAC. Any comments are more than welcome. Kosack (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

England national football team

How many of you have this on your watchlist? Govvy (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

There are (currently) 638 pagewatchers. GiantSnowman 11:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

captaincy notation

I am starting a new discussion regarding notation of captaincy in football club's first-team roster section. I had updated such information on Seattle Sounders FC and Reign FC, but my updates were repeatedly reverted by User:Walter Görlitz as he insisted that there had already been consensus to exclude such information by WP:FOOTY North American editors. Despite his inability to present any evidence regarding such a consensus, I am soliciting feedback here from community before our disagreement descends into edit warring. I would advocate for inclusion of captaincy information because it is usually a verifiable and notable information about a football club, as long as official and/or reliable source could be provided. Furthermore, all of the reasons that User:Walter Görlitz had provided had not stood up to scrutiny:

• As far as I could tell, there had been no consensus on this issue one way or the other, and it is not something specified in the football club page template.
• Despite User:Walter Görlitz claiming that captaincy information was uncommon, 14 out of 18 current football club articles rated at featured article level include captaincy information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:FA-Class_football_articles
• Archive of this talk page reveals that the '|other=' parameter in football squad was designed specifically to note information such as captaincy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Clubs/Archive_1#Extra_info_(like_captain_or_loan)_issue

Appreciate any inputs and suggestions! Mightytotems (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Why would we not want to include that information? What consensus existed there, and what were the reasons behind it? SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Most Bundesliga articles and no MLS articles do, and most are reverted (by others) as the team does not publish the info on the roster pages. When we have to rely on vague tweets and other sources, it's not really worth it. Don't ping or link to me again please. Just let me know when consensus is reached. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

All 18 current Bundesliga clubs have captaincy info noted. If this is a consensus unique to MLS, please provide rationale here so we could reach consensus. Mightytotems (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

And using MLS clubs as example does not justify your repeated reverts on Reign FC, which is not an MLS club. Mightytotems (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz insisted that there was a consensus in WP:FOOTY to not include captaincy information, and he used it to justify his repeated reverts (frankly I considered blocking him for 3RR but wanted to document it first). But he refused to point to where this consensus is, I could not locate it anywhere and, as I documented above, his assertion goes against current convention. Mightytotems (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

People reverting in multiple articles, and I said go discuss it here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd expect to see captaincy noted in squad lists (subject to usual WP:V constraints). Spike 'em (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Taking the input here into account, I believe here is a solution that will satisfy all: in general, captaincy information will be included in squad lists as most highly rated football club articles already do (subject to WP:V constraints). Walter Görlitz point out that few MLS club articles include this information; in those cases (e.g., Sounders FC), for now captaincy will only be noted if there are official club sources or releases that verify captaincy information. Hopefully this is a compromise that will satisfy most posters. Mightytotems (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I am very much for inclusion of captains in squad tables for club articles as well as other articles that use squad tables (e.g. cup finals and competition rosters). It's fairly easy to identify for major competitions and does no harm to the project's articles. On the other hand, 3RR and ownership of football articles does harm the project and turn away potential editors. SounderBruce 22:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Captaincy information (limited to 1st and 2nd captains only) should be noted wherever possible, as long as it is supported by firm, reliable sources. GiantSnowman 11:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Naming convention of footballer

@Ortizesp:, please start a discussion before inventing new name for the footballer, which your system of "nickname + surname" need other people to agree in order to move them yourselves uncontroversially.

Other people, did you agree to move footballer to "common name" , or "common name" + bracket for disambiguation , or Ortizesp's Carlitos Oliveira. Please check as i seem missing a lot of bold move to restore to the original article title. Matthew hk (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, unless there's a source that refers to him as "Carlitos Oliveira", we shouldn't use that name. And even if there is a source, we would have to weigh it up against what other sources call him. – PeeJay 01:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Also agree - @Ortizesp: that is not standard naming convention. GiantSnowman 11:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Robert Fairbairn

Hi, just over from WP:CRIC. I've just made an article on the above cricketer. His profile page on CricketArchive says he played football for Corinthian Casuals, Queen's Park, St Johnstone and Partick Thistle, but I can't seem to find any sources for this. Just wondering if someone would be able to verify if he did or not. Thanks. StickyWicket (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No trace of him on the QPFC site, or the Partick Thistle History Archive. Both normally have at least some mention of a surname (Thistle had a David Fairbairn but that was a bit earlier). Crowsus (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Crowsus: thanks for checking :) StickyWicket (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Most probable scenario is that he only played youth/reserve team football for the Scottish clubs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I've managed to verify some of this through a trawl of the British Newspaper Archive. He did indeed play league football for St Johnstone as an amateur (he was "severely barracked" on his debut!). Although he didn't play for the first team, he is noted as turning out of for "one of the Queen's Park elevens" after moving to Glasgow. I'll add the details and references to the article later on. Jellyman (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Jordan Archer of Bury

Please see discussion here regarding moving this draft into mainspace - there's discrepancy over DOB which affects disambiguation... GiantSnowman 13:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Nation at World Cup

Hi all, I've seen that Dolfinz1972 has been making some changes to these articles (over 20 in total) that remove pretty basic information from the lede. It seems to be simple removal of basic information. As it's a lot of pages, I'll roll them back for now, however, if anyone feels they are useful edits, let me know - see WP:BRD Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's just a summary of the World Cup and has nothing to do with the countries. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Which is perfectly valid in an article that is about the World Cup. Stop reverting and discuss. Spike 'em (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any valid reason for excluding this information. "XXX at the World Cup" is an article about both XXX and the World Cup; it's necessary to (briefly) explain what both things are. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur - no reason to remove that info. A summary of what the World Cup is serves a purpose in the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I also concur - we have to assume someone is coming to that article from off-site, and the context is important. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

MY take is that it is overlong (and indeed irrelevant) for the lead. In the body maybe, but not the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's important that these articles are grounded. If this was a football wiki, it could be seen as obvious, however, someone could easily read these articles with no prior information on football, or the world cup, and as such should give information on what the article is for. I'm glad to see this is now being discussed (not that I was attempting to instigate any edit wars, but simply bring attention to controversial information removal. These articles are often quite badly put together, so some extra prose work would also be nice. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The lede of those articles is dominated by very similar text describing the world cup and its phases, whereas the lede is supposed to summarise the article, not provide background and context. The material on the world cup doesn't appear again in the article, so is inappropriate where it is. If it is to be retained as essential background it should be in its own section, but this should be kept short to provide context with links to other world cup articles for details.   Jts1882 | talk  15:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. It's basic info that is covered by the main article and those subarticles just summarize the countries. No need to repeat that info. Kante4 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

To everyone, why do you keep reverting if other countries like Spain don't have it? Please stop!Dolfinz1972 (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you please be more WP:CIVIL in your edit summaries such as here. The argument that another article doesn't have information is completely irrelevant, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop causing the edit warring. It's infuriating. If I were you IDGAF! I want to kill myself now because Wikipedians don't care.Dolfinz1972 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You have just breached WP:3RR on England at the FIFA World Cup. I see your block has not had any effect. Spike 'em (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do you give a fuck about editing England but not Scotland? Dolfinz1972 (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dolfinz1972, I'm sure you've already read my edit summary here, but I'll repeat it so you can't claim you haven't read it: Articles need to provide sufficient context such that a reader unfamiliar with the topic can understand the background, and since our articles are reused in print media you can't assume the reader can follow hyperlinks. If other articles are missing information, you should add the appropriate information to those, not vandalise the existing articles. You're not only removing relevant information, you're breaching 3RR to remove relevant information, and if you keep this up there's only one way it will end. A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title (my emphasis) if you need chapter and verse. ‑ Iridescent 16:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent, with all due respect, I'm not vandalizing. Please stop causing the edit war and making me the enemy. Leave the page alone. If you left Scotland alone leave everything alone. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I've raised this at the administrators noticeboard, for the WP:3RR violation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't originally resist these changes, but I have made a couple of reverts once it became apparent that User:Dolfinz1972 had not garnered consensus for them. That said, I actually think it makes sense to remove some of the overly specific info from the lead sections of these articles. We link to FIFA World Cup, which should be sufficient to provide the reader with the context of the competition and its qualification processes. – PeeJay 19:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Naming convention of football clubs from Bangladesh

see Category:Football clubs in Bangladesh.

There is some club carrying legal suffix "Limited" which seem not part of the common name, while some club had the full spelling of "Krira Sangha", such as Arambagh Krira Sangha, but some clubs just abbreviated the similar term as "KC" (see Muktijoddha Sangsad KC; full name on the crest). Should we establish a naming convention , such as dropping the legal suffix limited, fixing KS/KC/AC/FC/ as a norm instead of full spelling (unless their common name are spelled the "affix" in full), and dot and no dot issue? Matthew hk (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

College soccer parameter for WikiProject talk box

A little while ago, I requested a college soccer parameter to be put in {{WP Football}} so it could read as for example {{WP Football|class=start|importance=low|college=yes|college-importance=mid}}. Has there been any progress on this? Quidster4040 (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Aren't those generally for Task Forces? Is there a college football task force? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/College soccer task force. Smartyllama (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Supercopa de Catalunya articles

Hi, so far there have been four editions of the recently-established Supercopa de Catalunya, none of them have articles though. If I were to create these, would it be noticeable? TheSoccerBoy (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Small disagreement on Manchester United F.C.

Currently in the intro of Man Utd article it says they are "the only English club to have won every competition available to them". I believe this is factually incorrect as they did not win Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, add to that Football League Centenary Trophy and Football League Super Cup. True that these 3 cups aren't seen as the most important but they weren't pre-season tournaments. This is an encyclopedia and surely the current statement is factually incorrect. So I changed it to say "the only English club to have won every ongoing competition available to them" as this is now accurate in my opinion. However it was reverted by User:PeeJay2K3 who said it should just be taken as read that "every trophy available to them" refers to the set described [earlier in the paragraph]. What's the thoughts of others on this? Hashim-afc (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Claims like this, where the definition of what is meant is open to some interpretation, are best avoided unless we are specifically attributing it to a source – otherwise it's verging on original research / synthesis. In this case, the Sky Sports article item used as a reference is somewhat vague as to the nature of the achievement it describes – you could read it as referring to the possibility of them winning every European trophy. So I think the claim is best removed from the article altogether. Jellyman (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree that it should be removed. Number 57 17:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, they certainly didn't win all competitions available to them at all. should be removed. SteamingStars (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems quite unlikely a claim too. There's bound to be a case of a team only existing for a season and winning the local league and folding before they get to play in any cups. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right, but Utd didn't win the fairs cup even though they did participate in it. The claim is that they won every trophy available to them, and by them not winning the fairs cup, means this claim is false. SteamingStars (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It's clear there's never going to be a consensus on what this claim actually means, so I've gone ahead and removed it from the article. Jellyman (talk) 07:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Leonardo Jardim

Edit war afoot (since I want to avoid that, I come here), now I elaborate:

@Hippo43: thinks we should have "Sporting CP" written in intro, "Sporting CP" in the infobox, but only "Sporting" in the first instance where club is mentioned in storyline (originally, they did not even have the wikilink altogether! See this diff please https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonardo_Jardim&diff=883193947&oldid=883154959). I tried to argue with them the "CP" suffix was needed as there are several clubs named Sporting in the world, they are having none of that; their only summary reason for reverting me is "common name used in English", but apparently it is only common for the storyline, zero coherence.

Since people like to present Cristiano Ronaldo as an example for everything here (regarding footy of course), see how both his box and storyline (the early club career) have the club displayed as "Sporting CP". Other than Mr. Ronaldo, I have seen hundreds of articles (i.e. Luís Figo) displayed in the same manner, maybe Mr. Jardim is "special" and I am missing something...

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course Quite a Character does not know what I think. I don't mind too much. I would probably prefer changing more mentions to Sporting, because it seems to me the far more common name in English, but I could be wrong. I think his petty edit warring over it is unfortunate. Happy to go along with what other interested editors think. --hippo43 (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No matter what is decided, piping should be consistent - do not use both 'Sporting CP' and 'Sporting' in the same article.

As for what should be used, I suggest using Sporting CP throughout. 'Sporting' is too ambiguous. GiantSnowman 15:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

In the specific case of the diff cited above, it was established in the lead that Mr Jardim managed Sporting CP, but not that the person who was "Sporting-bound" was going to that same club. So I would write out and link Sporting CP in that sentence. In general, once context is established, there's no need to use the full club name every time. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course @Struway2:, i meant only the first instance in storyline. Once established, "Sporting" is enough. Also, thanks to @Hippo43: and @GiantSnowman: for their outputs. Back to Struway, i have sourced the connection between Mr. Jardim and Mr. Domingos Paciência as requested. --Quite A Character (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Carlos Kaiser

Carlos Kaiser (footballer) shouldn't this article be labelled "fraudster"? I mean he never set foot in Ajaccio for a start and some of the clubs he allegedly signed for is probably a scam and the list and dates are debatable and probably a lot more complex.Abcmaxx (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I'd argue he's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Potential WP:BLP issues here. GiantSnowman 11:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems a like good case for removing the infobox. Hack (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The article had been tag for refimprove for a while, which A. we need to verify he was actually signed by clubs ABCD, not he claimed he was signed by ABCD. (Which Alieu Darbo was cleaned up, despite NPOV version to represent the alleged fraud, was not written yet). B. the wording of the article requires to follow BLP guideline. If there are source use that wording , it may be WP:DUE to follow that wording. But just call him fraudster without citation or WP:UNDUE, is violating guideline. Matthew hk (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought there was a full on hour and a half documentary on him (unless I'm confused). I'm sure there are loads of sources about him. The article contains quite a few. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Basically after having that article in my watch list for so long, other users was concerning the problem of primary source. It basically all according to the footballer own narrative to build the news article as well as the documentary . It may be better to dig out news article about the signing, despite it would be so hard to access paper archive. Why i am quoting Darbo. His entirely fake career was well reported in his native country, but no body even reported the signing by Teneriffe in Spain. And then after so many fake club, Sportbladet made a long news coverage on the fraud, which made other newspaper (or the same as Sportbladet , i forgot) apologise on possibly making news coverage on Darbo's fake club signing, to add more fuel to the fraud as apparently genuine signing. Kaiser still pass GNG to have an article (as well as Darbo, seem passing GNG), but i feel UNDUE to me that all clubs really signed him without any suspicions Matthew hk (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

US Premiership

I don't know if there's an article is the works for US Premiership, but if not, can an article created? SportsFan007 (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007

@SportsFan007: how is it notable? GiantSnowman 08:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I guess it's too soon to make an article. Thank You! Over and Out. SportsFan007 (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007

I wasn't being funny, I was genuinely asking. GiantSnowman 08:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I realize that, I looked for news articles on the US Premiership and didnt find any that would make it notable enough for an aricle. Although, US Premiership does have a website: uspremiership.net SportsFan007 (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007

Not a very good website unless you have a very wide screen! It also got a passing mention in the Guardian recently: Is promotion and relegation any closer in US soccer? The whole set up in the USA is baffling and it could be explained much better in Soccer_in_the_United_States.   Jts1882 | talk  09:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah it’s a very confusing system, United States soccer league system has the best explanation, but it’s hard to make such a terribly designed system clear. There’s really only four officially sanctioned leagues by the USSF, including two at the “third division” level that are both starting this year. Everything else below it is jumbled nonsense. Jay eyem (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it is relegation and promotion that leads to a properly organised system. The hierarchy below level 5 in the English system didn't get organised until the Football League brought in proper relegation and promotion to replace the reelection system.   Jts1882 | talk  13:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

1981 FA Charity Shield

Anyone got the time for when the goals are scored? For some reason it's not on the article or in my reference book. Govvy (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Should be Withe (30', 52') and Falco (43', 48') per this website. Phrases such as "three minutes later" and "on the half-hour mark" are a bit ambiguous but these should be the times. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I did look at that, might use it as a source, but there still seems a lack of clarity for times scored. Cheers know. Govvy (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Goal scoring minute

Hi, I want to ask about goal scoring minute. The broadcaster for 2019 Indonesia President's Cup, Indosiar was shown the minute like for example the goal was on 03:20 minute, but Indosiar put it in minute 3 instead of 4. But if I watch in international football, for example Serie A, that minute is go to 4 instead of 3. Which time should I put in the page? Wira rhea (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Wira rhea, can you give some source here? Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hhkohh, source for what? If for the goal minute, I watched it on TV and then put it on page. The report will be added later if PSSI official website already updated. So what should I do? Do I put the same as the TV shown or what? I still confused about it. Wira rhea (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Match report source. Suggest after the report is published, we can correct this. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Other editors feel free to comment here Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hhkohh, if that's the case, I'll fix it later after other editors give their opinions. Thanks. Wira rhea (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Well except quite a different between source, i would stick to primary source one (PSSI). Last time people posting a time different of 5 minutes i think: CBF.com.br (but not the PDF file of actual CBF report) verse the version of media. Matthew hk (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Paul Hasule

How a dead person has got a current team? Died in 2004, it's written "Current team Police FC (manager)".--FCNantes72 (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed the current team from the infobox.   Jts1882 | talk  13:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Players' nicknames in articles

There's an ip edit warring at Valencia CF insisting that players be listed using "real names" rather than "nicknames." So "Norberto Murara Neto" instead of Neto, which he's commonly known as and which we have the article Neto (footballer, born 1989) at. AFAIK WP:COMMONNAME is the policy in this case, no? Valenciano (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I would use the common name: Kaka, Hulk and Ronaldinho, for example, are (almost) never called by their full name and it would be confusing to see their names listed that way. Nehme1499 (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Neto is not a nick name, it is a suffix for grandson and his artist name. Kaka was his nick name at childhood but now artist name. For Brazilian they are mononymous , unless need of disambiguation, e.g. Juninho Paulista (Juninho of São Paulo), Ronaldinho Gaúcho (Ronaldinho of Rio Grande do Sul). It is rare case we use full name instead, we use short name and use full name for article title due to disambiguation only. Matthew hk (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If the article is at Neto, then use 'Neto'. GiantSnowman 11:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes Neto's WP:article titles was Neto (footballer, born 1989). We did not need the bracket in the squad list. However, the article title of Felipe was located in Felipe Ventura dos Santos. It is totally fine to pipe to "Felipe " only as it is his only common name and stage name. Matthew hk (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Colons in headings

I noticed that we are including colons in headings, well WP:PSEUDOHEADings. For example, 2018 FIFA World Cup Final#Details it would be correct to have

Man of the Match: Antoine Griezmann (France)

or actually

Man of the Match: Antoine Griezmann (France)

(with the colon outside of the formatting), alternately

Man of the Match

Antoine Griezmann (France)

but not

Man of the Match:

Antoine Griezmann (France)

It starts with Substitutions: rather than Substitutions and the list of players. The same happens with manager and the list of officials. Am I wrong in my reading of this? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, no interest in discussing formatting guidelines? I would be happy to take this to a forum where they will discuss it and apply a consistent rule if that would be the project's preference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer the second option, the one with the colon outside of the formatting. It’s all preference though, so I don’t know. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any sort of grammatical rule about this. Unless you can present one, this feels like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. – PeeJay 12:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it could be the case that you don't like the change. I will take it to the appropriate forum. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so you are just attempting to make a change for change's sake. If you can't present a grammatical reason why this should change, it should stay as it is. – PeeJay 15:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Is that what I wrote? Come off of it PeeJay, you're smarter than that. I provided the grammatical reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Marc-André ter Stegen

User:Walter Görlitz is edit-waring yet again with another user over the above article on my watchlist and frankly, I think Walter is being stupid. Can one of you admins sort out the guy. Govvy (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the edit that it should be included but the way you talk was not needed. Kante4 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

First, The edit war was between two editors, Fcbjuvenil (talk · contribs) and me, so for Govvy (talk · contribs) to single me out for his judgment is entirely dishonest.

Fcbjuvenil's first edit was made without explanation. I clearly explained why it should not be made (Barcelona is a Catalan team, and they are a focal point for Catalan separatism, so this was a political statement). Fcbjuvenil's other two reverts were unexplained.

Finally, Kante4, if it should be included, the league and not the nation should be mentioned as is the case with most other player articles (Mesut Özil and Jordan Henderson for example, while Antonio Valencia uses both the nation and league). So get your fecal matter aggregated and discuss this in the player MoS and leave me out of your petty flag waving debates. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh? But not surprised by your approach (well documented). Kante4 (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a problem losing the "Spanish club" from the article. It is a contentious matter. However, can we please keep all conversation WP:CIVIL? As the other editor didn't leave any edit summary, it's a bit difficult to see why the information was returned. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not the one always engaging in mass-reversions on articles, I've seen Walter being argumentative with many different people over many different articles and never ever getting a reprimand. Next Catalan is a region of Spain with a regional government and not currently an independent nation. Unless Catalonia becomes it's own sovereign, then Barcelona is still in Spain. There for, it's still a Spanish club regardless if you call it disputed territory. Govvy (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference from saying "Catalan club" and saying nothing. The article really doesn't need to clarify what country the team is in, it links the main article which explains this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Please, La Liga is the league for Spain. There is some outlier such as Monaco which plays for French league, or San Marino in Italy, or some border town switch to play for English league system, or Canada in MLS. However, it is more relevant to use "Spanish club" for Barcelona (as Catalonia declaration of independent had been failed) and in a lede of foreign player (not Spanish nationality). Matthew hk (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Use nothing, "Spanish club" or "La Liga" club. Saying "Catalan club" is POV nationalism. GiantSnowman 11:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

For the record. Fcbjuvenil is the guy adding "Spanish club" wording and Walter is the guy remove it, and using above reasoning, "Barcelona is a Catalan team", Walter is clearly POV pushing to me. Matthew hk (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Barcelona is still in Spain! I don't know why people are getting political! Use nothing? It's just stating fact, Spanish club or La Liga club. Wrexham A.F.C. is a Welsh club is the English football league system! Barcelona is a Spanish club in the Catalonia region in the Spanish football league system! Playing in the Spanish La Liga, so not saying La Liga club? I don't know, that's not really helping. Yet all I asked is for some of the admins that work with this project to have a word with Walter about how he goes about editing articles, something some people have completely over-looked. Walter likes to try and hide the issues by removing all the complaints by other users on his talk page but he can't delete his history log. These types of things have been going on a long time. This constant on and off war-munger... :/ Govvy (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Using La Liga club for Barcelona and others is both accurate and removes any element of favouring Spanish unionism or Catalan (etc) nationalism. Crowsus (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd say removing all mention of the country where Barcelona is located is taking a position. Spain is the country recognised by the UN, the EU, FIFA and UEFA. Barcelona play in La Liga, which is the Spanish league. Calling Barcelona a Spanish club will be backed by all reliable sources. It not neutral to suppress this information.   Jts1882 | talk  17:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not asking for Catalan club. I'm not asking for "nothing" either. I am simply stating that adding "Spanish" is a potential irritant to some readers and want it to be a consensus decision. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You should use talk page. Also, forum shop or not, may be using Rfc on using "Spanish", or "La Liga" or none or other option. Matthew hk (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

What would be the point of including it on ter Stegen's page in the first place? This seems like a conversation for FC Barcelona. And not to talk shit about other Spanish teams, but we're talking about Barcelona here, not a Segunda División B side. That Barcelona is Spanish/Catalan/La Liga/etc. does not need to be specified in the lead of a player's page when the club is so immensely well known. I wouldn't need to specify what country Bayern Munich plays in, but I might for, say, Kapfenberger SV. This spat just seems to be taking away focus from the player. Jay eyem (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Solving such edit war is not using undo button. Use talk page or even Rfc. It may end up as supervote, but it would be the consensus. Just walk away not to intervence something apparently against consensus? I would not. Also, not sure is there any general consensus on specify the league or the country of the expat footballer, but such norm was observed in Cristiano Ronaldo (Italian club), Philippe Coutinho (Spanish club Barcelona) . Matthew hk (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, I don’t see why either of those cases would be necessary. The layman knows where Barcelona and Juventus are. This isn’t Rayo Vallecano or Calcio Catania, people know which country/league that Juventus and Barcelona play in. I don’t see why it’s necessary to emphasize the national affiliation of clubs in the leads for individual players for such well renowned teams. Jay eyem (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jay eyem: If you saw a map of Italy without any names on, do you think you can pinpoint where Juventus is? At the same time, do you forget there are lots of people out there with learning disabilities and providing all the information to help them out? An article should have clarity, be clear and precise. Never assume anything, that's just wrong. Govvy (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

That starts to become a slippery slope for what all should be included. Why would the nation be any more relevant than the region or the league for such well-renknowned teams, specifically in the lead of a player’s bio? And I don’t see what having a learning disability applies here particularly. And there’s nothing clear and precise about the Catalan situation, certainly not to the layman, so I understand Görlitz’s concern here. And for the record I have a decent sense of geography for an American, I know where Turin is. Jay eyem (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: I think you should leave the anon alone at this point.

@Matthew hk: I was not forum shopping. I want an overarching approach to this. I'm seeing that the league should be used in this case and not the nation. 15:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Walter first, sign your posts, secondly what do you mean by anon? Thirdly, is that your IP socking on the article? Govvy (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz and Govvy: can you please both start AGFing and speaking civilly. GiantSnowman 15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought I signed my post and where did I not assume good faith or speak without civility?

While we're using this forum to give advice, could you please start observing MOS:ACCESS and do not space your responses correctly?

As for "the anon", this is in reference to the Ter Stegen article. The anon is from Middlesbrough and you reverted the anon here and here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For a summary. You can use "Ronaldo is a footballer for Barcelona and Portugal national team" or even "Ronaldo is a Portuguese" or even shorter "Ronaldo is a human", but every version losing information to a level of meaningless. Unless the footballer is a journeyman, it still more appropriate that after mentioning the current club and team in sentence , and then in the second sentence mentioning the former club, such as Ronaldo was notable as a former player of Real Madrid, Manchester United and may be Sporting, and not that wise to assume everyone knew they are in the same league (same country) or not. Now the lede of Stegen mentioned " Bundesliga with Borussia Mönchengladbach," "first season in Spain" (well, instead of Catalonia nor Barcelona the city), " won the treble....... Copa del Rey and UEFA Champions League.", which oddly missing La Liga in the first two sentences as well as only putting Spain in the second sentence instead of the first. BTW, he did not made any appearance in the first season in the league, so technically the club won the treble, but i doubt he won a actual La Liga medal in 2005 or not. Matthew hk (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not about the player's nationality. It is about using "Spanish" in relation to the Barcelona. Yes, it is located in Spain, but the city does not wish to be in Spain and so it act as a red flag to fans and Catalan nationalists. Using the league rather than the nation seems to be a good option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

We do not bow to unhappy nationalists trying to push a POV on an article. GiantSnowman 15:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused, Walter are you making up your own judgements for FC Barcelona? Good job on throwing all facts out the window and also is that you socking from User:109.152.199.173? Because you referred to anon as the IP, never heard that before. Something bad is happening and it isn't me. Govvy (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, it even more odd in this thread. 109.152.199.173 (talk · contribs) had tried to refactor or fix typo for Govvy. Special:Diff/886644902. Did the ip tried to impersonated as Govvy's logout edit? Matthew hk (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

???Got home soaked to the bone, anyway, I hate being wiki-stalked. Govvy (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Someone with a bone to pick with Govvy. Have a discussion with the anon. I do not condone the behaviour.

@Mattythewhite: is on Govvy's side though and just reverted the anon.

@GiantSnowman: I know you want to make this a separatism/nationalism debate, but it's not. It's a courtesy. We already do not have a standard (as was shown above). The point is, we do not need to list the nationality of the league, we only have to have the league, so why are electing one over the other and can we please standardize? I seem to recall that some of the EPL teams (and possibly their player) use a template, possibly with links into Wikidata, to address this. If we can say "{{LeagueAndTeam|Some Team FC}} in the lede and have it expand to the team's current league (changed every season after promotion or relegation) and the team's name, with appropriate links to the article, that would solve the problem. Now we have an ad hoc process where one article could have only the team's name, another has the league and team name, another has the nation and the team name while another has all three. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Walter, the ip is on your side. Let see other uninvolved admin have any thought in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walter Görlitz. Either it is a genuine black hand account or someone impersonating as one. Matthew hk (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No @Matthew hk:, the IP is on the side of LOLz. The admins made it clear they are unrelated. Any look at my edits could have shown you that. I'm in Canada and don't have time energy to do this sort of IP masking or other interference. I've had anons harass me as well, but at least they stay in one place so a range block is possible.

Just to be clear, my side is I want a unified approach to addressing how the club should be named in the lede of player. I think mentioning the nation is unnecessary and would put the league in there. In this case, and until we get consensus, leaving it without a nation is the best option. I'm opposed to nationalism, whether it's Spain, Catalonia, Canada or Quebec. They're stupid lines that are drawn on representations of a planet that sees no boundaries. I'm in favour of no nations or flags. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It never able to skip country. Campeonato Brasileiro Série A and Swiss Super League contained the name of the country in the league proper noun. Matthew hk (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I recognize that not all leagues will exclude the name of the nation however, La Liga, Premier League, Bundesliga, Ligue 1, Serie A and other leagues do not include it. The request, however, is to focus on whether we should include the league name the team currently plays in only, the nation that the team is located in only, both the nation and the league, or exclude any mention. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Only less than 5 leagues are known without their country name in true English language as common name (excluding those borrowing the foreign proper noun directly, the loan-word are fancy enough as almost unique common name. But Austrian Football Bundesliga, Austrian Regionalliga, Swiss Erste Liga, Austrian Erste Liga actually existed) There is no way to escape demonym or almost unique loan-word name. Yes local newspaper sometimes excluded to add demonym to the name of the leagues, but in English world, except the Premier League, almost all other league with same name had their demonym version and in wikipedia we seldom to use Premier League (foo) format of disambiguation. The point is , football club played in league, and the domestic league usually tied to one country (MLS and English league system are somewhat different, plus micro-nations Monaco and San Marino), there is no way escape country and demonym . It even more irrelevant of pissing of separatism or not. Moreover, i think i read an article about Catatonia flag. There is a version of flag for Catatonia as a self-claim sovereign nation and then a version of flag just as the traditional regional flag (the autonomous region of Spain flag). Lastly, since most league name (including demonym if relevant) are unique, you can request a RfC to form a Mos on lead for whatever "Swiss club X" format (country, the word club, "piped no FC or other affix name" of the club) or "Swiss Super League club X" format (league, the word club, "piped name" of the club), but i doubt if such RfC existed, people would support the proposal C: none. Matthew hk (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

To the subject again. Barcelona are a Spanish team. Barcelona is a city in Spain. Anything other than that might be mentioned, but should be clear in what context it is mentioned. Koncorde (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Participants in this discussion may have noticed that @DG Mester (contributions) has been mass-removing club nationalities from player articles today (not just Spanish ones). As far as I can tell, there is no consensus for this. Nzd (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

They have a pattern of disruptive edits, occasionally correct ones, but an antagonising approach despite people reaching out. Suspect may need GS's attention. Koncorde (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion over current team's nation or league in the lede

I am clearly not expressing the idea well (as can be seen from Matthew hk's responses). Let's do it this way instead. Now @Iggy the Swan: has made-up his own rule that it is necessary for players not born in the club's country. Let's take a straw poll instead.

• Option 1 Player articles should not list the league or nation of the league in the lede next to the player's current club.
• Option 2 Player articles should list and link the league but not the nation in the lede next to the player's current club.
• Option 3 Player articles should not list the league but should list the nation (links WRT WP:OVERLINK) in the lede next to the player's current club.
• Option 4 Player articles should list the nation (links WRT WP:OVERLINK) as well as list and link to the league in the lede next to the player's current club.
• Option 5 Player articles should not follow 2, 3 or 4 in the lede next to the player's current club only when this club is in a nation other than the one in which the player was born (or currently resides).

If I have missed an option, please feel to add it in your !vote below. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course, if Iggy the Swan is correct and there is a rule or guideline, he can show us and save us all a lot of time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

What I did was that I've seen a few random football articles from the Spanish heavyweights and players who play for their home country football clubs. From what I've seen with these options, some articles belong with the following:-

1 - Alex Morgan, Servando Carrasco, Oliver McBurnie, Sergio Busquets

2 - Jack Cork, Ben Mee, Harry Kane, Gerard Pique

3 - Daniel Candeias

4 - Cristiano Ronaldo, Gareth Bale, Neymar

Also I do think that the article Marc Andre Ter Stegen should be semi-protected due to block evasion. Iggy (Swan) 19:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I go with Option 5. Only show the nation of the club if the player is not born in the same. League should not be linked, it does not get updated when the team does get promoted/relegated (English teams have the template doing the work), for example i needed to fix a few ones when Freiburg got relegated but the player articles were not updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kante4 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

That template is {{English football updater}}. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This is overkill and I don't think we need a rule for this. SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment per Sporting flyer. Each lede is generally open to whatever flows best. It is not critical to mention the league nationality, but if someone chooses to do so (for instance where two clubs exist with similar names) then it is not wrong to do so. The important statement required is: it is wrong to include the incorrect nation, and it isn't wrong to include the correct nation. Koncorde (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players and it shows league linked. I already stated that there could be an easy way to display league along with team that accounts for promotion and relegation by creating a new template. The same could be done for nation if that's what is determined. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment We don't need a rule for this. However, it is maybe better to mention the nationality than the league, as clubs generally play in multiple competitions, and are members of a national association, more than simply members of a league. --hippo43 (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

RheinEnergieStadion

I was doing some work on Spurs season articles and I came to from FC Koln this stadium article, according to this report from UEFA website the stadium was also called Stadion Köln or is that a different stadium? I was a little confused as if I read it right there were two previous stadiums on the same site. Are there any articles for the previous stadiums? Maybe there is a German editor that could tell me if they are the same stadium or if there is a different stadium, cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

UEFA doesn't recognise any sponsors other than the ones that sponsor its own competitions, so it's probably just a generic name used by UEFA to avoid having to refer to RheinEnergie AG by name. Why they couldn't use the name "Müngersdorfer Stadion" I don't know, but that's my best guess at the explanation. – PeeJay 12:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It should be moved to Stadion Köln or Müngersdorfer Stadion or similar - we do not use sponsored names, remember. GiantSnowman 14:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

ehm, I support that stance, but what about (deep breath) Emirates Stadium, King Power Stadium, bet365 Stadium, KCOM Stadium, University of Bolton Stadium, DW Stadium, Allianz Arena, Volkswagen Arena, Red Bull Arena (Leipzig), Opel Arena (stadium), Merkur Spiel-Arena and Mercedes-Benz Arena (Stuttgart), for starters? All those are definitely the current article names, while others with similar branding are piped as the sponsored version in templates etc. A few might have special circumstances but a few of those are definitely just a standard naming rights deal as they have been known by other brands in the past. I think it needs looked at. As for the stadium in question, Stadion Köln should at least be created as a redirect due to this very confusion. Not sure which should be used as the article name though, to me Müngersdorfer is the name of the old place and this new replacement is different, although I see the content refers to both incarnations so I guess its a matter of choice/interpretation. Crowsus (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If the media use common name that different from the sponsored name, then use the name other than sponsored name. The naming rights of the Juventus Stadium was sold to broker Sportfive for so long but it just recently received a sponsored name. It would be funny to move Emirates Stadium away from the current article title Emirates Stadium, as it is the most known common name. The point is, if the stadium had a common name already, we don't rename the article titles just due to the stadium was renamed due to sponsorship. However, it does not mean we move all articles away from title sponsor. Matthew hk (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, well unfortunately, University of Bolton Stadium, bet365 Stadium and Red Bull Arena (Leipzig) immediately come to mind as violating that. For the English ones, its tricky as they were previously known by another sponsor's name (Reebok Stadium and Britannia Stadium) since they were built, so until they got the new branding it would have been fair enough to put them in the same bracket as Emirates Stadium. But Leipzig was known as Zentralstadion for many years including at a World Cup before it got the Red Bull disease, sorry I mean sponsorship. It would have had that name on Wikipedia originally too. Crowsus (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The difference with the ones you've listed above (at least the English ones) is that they've only ever been known by sponsored names. Hence why long-established grounds like Dean Court are not at sponsored names. I think we really need to have this written down somewhere to prevent it having to be explained every time. Number 57 15:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that the article was only recently (four days ago) moved to RheinEnergieStadion, so I've moved it back to Müngersdorfer Stadion. Number 57 15:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, user can revert bold move directly or post it at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves. Most of the time it is safe to use RM than move directly for football club , footballer or other human name. Matthew hk (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Stadiums such as the Allianz Arena, Volkswagen Arena, Opel Arena and Merkur Spiel-Arena have used sponsored names since opening. Red Bull Arena (Leipzig) should probably be moved to Zentralstadion or Zentralstadion (2004). The article Mercedes-Benz Arena (Stuttgart) should probably be moved as well, though I'm unsure if the historical name "Neckarstadion" or more recent name "Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadion" should be used.

However, what about stadiums such as Schwarzwald-Stadion? The stadium was originally known as the "Dreisamstadion" after the river Dreisam. Between 2004 and 2014 the stadium used sponsored names, after which the non-sponsored name "Stadion an der Schwarzwaldstraße" was shortly used. The naming rights were bought in late 2014 by Schwarzwald Tourismus GmbH (Black Forest Tourism Board), and the name changed to "Schwarzwald-Stadion" (Black Forest Stadium). While the name comes from a sponsorship deal, I'd think using "Schwarzwald-Stadion" would be fine since Schwarzwald just refers to a region? S.A. Julio (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Going by the rules above, it should go back to Dreisamstadion having been known as that in the past, and Schwarzwald being used for promotional reasons rather than just a name based on the location. Off-topic: I'm a bit disappointed to find out it will close having been there, it's a cool stadium almost in the middle of the forest, but that was 18 years ago now and I don't know if it has been upgraded much since then, so I suppose it's inevitable they would want to move on with the problems of standing places, small pitch etc. At least they asked the fans. Another (hypothetical) reason for the name change is that the new stadium might end up being named Schwarzwaldstadion too? And yes, please find somewhere to write these rules down, these needs to be more than "We don't used sponsored names: except the many times we do, for Reasons A, B, C", which I understand but it requires further explanation. Crowsus (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I've started one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensuses. Actually, it already exists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus. I'm sure there are a few other topics that get brought up again and again (like does playing in a cup competition between two teams from fully-pro leagues count towards NFOOTY, or about EFL Trophy matches against U23 teams) that others can help populate it with. Cheers, Number 57 17:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

So to save on confusion, should Stadion Köln be a redirect then? I take it, it's not a different stadium from history? Govvy (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's only UEFA that uses that name. Considering no other sources use it, suggesting it's not actually caught on in the wider media, I don't think there's any need to create it as a redirect. – PeeJay 18:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If UEFA use it, then it's a plausible search term, and redirects are cheap. Nzd (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No need, no one in Germany calls it that way, never seen before. Kante4 (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Nzd, it is used in UEFA's match reports so it seems like a plausible search term. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Crowsus: Seems the move to Zentralstadion was reverted by Oknazevad, saying "There is no requirement not to use sponsored names when they are actually the WP:COMMONNAME. It is actually POV-pushing to do that, not NPOV." Maybe a WP:RM should be opened? S.A. Julio (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm going with the guidelines on this project as linked above, the conditions of which seem very clear since fully explained to me yesterday, and I have abided by them in that move. If they can just be ignored, what is the point of them even being there? I'll raise a RM. Crowsus (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As the editor who reverted the RBA Leipzig move, I'd like to know where that consensus was developed. Seems to me that the only discussion I could find was one without any input other than the first commentator, and is in conflict with hundreds of other articles on venues for other sports, plus the Wikipedia-wide WP:COMMONNAME policy. Essentially, the fact that we are even having a lengthy discussion to determine what names to use just to avoid sponsored names even if they're the most commonly used is exactly why COMMONNAME is policy. oknazevad (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with Oknazevad here. WP:COMMONNAME is the project-wide policy, and the one that we should be following. SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Slightly concerned that some editors are falling into the common trap of thinking that WP:COMMONNAME is the most important naming policy, which it isn't. There are five equally important naming criteria, of which "Recognizability" (the basis of COMMONNAME) is only one. We have a de facto agreed naming convention for stadiums (just like we do for clubs and leagues), and that's what should be followed. The reason it isn't formalised is that it's too minor an issue to have a formal guideline for. Number 57 22:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I do wish we could follow the same policy as UEFA and avoid sponsored names. Govvy (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well we largely do, but in some cases it's unavoidable without basically creating a made-up name for a stadium that's never had a non-sponsored name. Number 57 22:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What should be done in cases where an (association) football stadium is also used in another sport whose WikiProject does not have a similar consensus? This is especially a problem in North America, for instance TD Place Stadium, Fifth Third Bank Stadium, FNB Field and many of the venues that host the International Champions Cup. The WikiProjects for baseball and Canadian and American football tend to use sponsored names regadless. Smartyllama (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

If you're wanting to argue on a technicality, sure, fine, WP:CRITERIA instead of WP:COMMONNAME. But under what guidelines would you move Red Bull Arena (Leipzig to the more ambiguous Zentralstadion? No one refers to it as that anymore. Same with Müngersdorfer Stadion: I cannot find any sources calling the current stadium the Müngersdorfer Stadion, and every other language except Czech in either Latin or Cyrillic script calls it the RheinEnergieStadion. We're getting carried away here. SportingFlyer T·C 03:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Will Vaulks

More eyes would be welcome here, given his recent call-up to the Welsh national team... GiantSnowman 19:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Additionally at Rotherham United F.C.#Current squad and 2018–19 Rotherham United F.C. season#Current squad where the flag-switchers are busy. Thanks, Gricehead (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Nicolas Senzemba

Hi everyone. Could someone please keep an eye on the page? There's been frequent IP vandalism today and it's ongoing. I've requested page protection but nothing's been done yet. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note: The page has now been protected. Eagleash (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hyphen after "Al" in Arabic clubs

Hi, I was wondering if there was some sort of standard regarding the use of the hyphen after the "Al" in the names of Arabic clubs. For example, both Al-Ahed FC and Al-Ansar SC have hyphens in their names on Wikipedia, but both the AFC (Ahed, Ansar) and the club symbol (in the case of Ahed) don't include it. Would it be uncontroversial to move them to Al Ahed FC and Al Ansar SC?

Also, on the same theme, what should the article name be anyway for an Arabic (or non-latin script based) club? The translated version of the Arabic naming (so for example, if it translates to "Sporting Club", then "SC"), the name on the logo (so if "Al Ahed Club", then keep that name) or what an official entity says (such as the AFC)? Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic was not yet a consensus. It seem Al/El was the prefix that very common in Arabic name, and seldom a single isolated word . According to that MoS, it seem sometimes it was al- and sometimes Al, but may be i would stick to the usage in English external source. Matthew hk (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

1973–74 UEFA Cup

In the lead it says "The third club was revoked to France, Yugoslavia and Portugal, and it was assigned to Scotland and Belgium." I am not sure what's that all about, why it was revoked, there appears to be no sources over it on the article. Was wondering if anyone knew why. Govvy (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It is a statement introduced in the last edit. It is not only unsourced but makes no sense. I reverted it.   Jts1882 | talk  20:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thought there was a bit more to it, article doesn't seem very complete either, probably needs an overhaul. Govvy (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

There's an editor that recently went through a lot of old UEFA Cup pages and added sentences like that. I think the team distribution sections at all of them need to be brought in line with recent UCL/UEL seasons. There's a lot of mess currently. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

2021 FIFA Confederations Cup

FIFA have announced that the 2021 FIFA Confederations Cup will not be taking place. They are instead pursuing an expanded 2021 FIFA Club World Cup in its place. "The revamped FIFA Club World Cup will be played during the international match calendar slot that corresponded to the FIFA Confederations Cup"[11]. At the press conference, FIFA's Gianni Infantino said they were replacing five tournaments with one (1 Confederations Cup, and 4 FIFA Club World Cups).

What should be done with the 2021 FIFA Confederations Cup article? TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been bold and merged the useful content to the main article, along with information on the abolishment. Most of the article was based on the format of previous editions. There was very little information from FIFA on the 2021 tournament, they hadn't made any announcements regarding it in over four years. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Giuliano Maiorana

In the article's career section it says he was working in a bakery when he signed for Histon F.C. in 1987 (from the 4th ref), but it says in the 2nd ref that "up to that point he'd tried his hand at hairdressing for eight months ("I was useless at it and didn't enjoy it – all I did was make coffee and sweep the floor for £27.50 a week"); after that, he worked in an Italian fashion shop called 'Giulios'."; And in the 3rd ref, according to Google translate, it says he was "working outside the rectangle of play in an Italian boutique in the city". Looking at the revision history, IP editors claiming to be Maiorana and his daughter (which obviously can't be verified) previously changed 'bakery' to 'Italian clothes shop' and his nationality in the lede. I thought this might need to be looked into. Theo Mandela (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If sources can't agree on what job he was doing then just leave that detail out, it's not that big a deal..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Or include both? GiantSnowman 09:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:, @GiantSnowman:, @Jellyman: Feel free to be bold and make changes where needed. I don't think it should be left like it is, either the article sticks to the sources or doesn't mention his job at the time. On the issue of his nationality, there's this interview, where (from what I understand) Maiorana says he classes himself as Italian, though born in England, he's never had a British passport and he wanted to play in Serie A and for the Italy national team. If you look at the article's revision history you'll see that there's been edit warring over this for a while. Perhaps nationality could be left out of the lede like on the Tony Cascarino article. Theo Mandela (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Bradley Walsh

Project members may be interested in this discussion, which follows comments from Walsh on Friday's ep of The Chase that he never played for Dunstable Town (about a minute into the ep). The rest appears reasonably sourced, although I'm unable to tell whether the Brentford programme verifies the Barnet appearances. The football section of the infobox has been removed, and I'm not sure that replacement text is appropriate. Anyone have access to his actual stats? Nzd (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Putting text in an article saying "something this article used to say was (probably) wrong" is ridiculous, it does not belong at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude perhaps explaining what is "ridiculous" about acknowledging a seven year long error would be more helpful rather than paraphrasing the entry in the article.

More importantly does anyone have access to the Brentford v Chesterfield programme, mentioned above, from 1995 that may have the correct details of Bradley Walsh's football career? BorisAndDoris (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@BorisAndDoris: acknowledging past errors in articles is not standard practice and looks stupid IMO. Many articles have had erroneous information in them in the past either due to vandalism or any number of other reasons, but we don't put text within the articles saying "apologies, this article used to say XYZ but it turns out that wasn't actually true"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Perhaps it might look stupid if it said what you have said in paraphrasing it into your own language. It is an error that was on the page of a high profile person for seven years and wikipedia was pulled up on it very publicly on TV. The lenght of time the error remained is unusual and I felt that if anyone searched again for this information without a retraction on this site they would find only the erroneous information that wikipedia is responsible for. BorisAndDoris (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 13:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Taking a random example from that list, I note that Adam Gilchrist's article makes no mention whatsoever of the fact that WP claimed for nearly 10 years that he read the works of Karl Marx when on tour, something which he publicly denied in similar circumstances to the Walsh claim........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The place for a comment on the error (if any) is the talk page, not the article. The error could be explained, with dates of insertion and removal, and the reason for its removal given. Then future editors can find out what happened.   Jts1882 | talk  13:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that it has been widely reported, it might be worth saying something like "Many sources [refs] state that Walsh also played for Dunstable Town, however he stated in 2019 that this is untrue [ref]", but putting within the article "this article used to be wrong" is 100% inappropriate in my opinion....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree 100%. GiantSnowman 14:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I would actually say something like "It was reported in several sources that Walsh played on loan for Dunstable Town, but in 2019 during an episode of The Chase he stated that this was not true". On a separate note the claim appears to have originated with the Dunstable Town FC website at some point. It had a "notable former players" section allegedly, at least back to 2013. However, this may have come circularly from ourselves with this edit in March 2012. Funny how these things go. I can't see any source mentioning anything about Walsh, be it him or a person with the same name, dating back prior to that. Koncorde (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can live with there being some sort of retraction on the article page - although I don't see any great problem with acknowledging our part in leaving the error there unchecked for so long - but will agree to this consensus. Thanks for everyone's input on this. BorisAndDoris (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer it as a footnote, rather than as part of the biographical narrative in the main prose. This isn't the first time and certainly won't be the last for this kind of thing. Last September, Franz Carr refuted claims on BBC Radio Nottingham that he'd played for Pittsburgh Riverhounds, and that Brian Clough once locked him in a boiler room. The Riverhounds info had been there since 2007. I've added both of these into WP:Wikipedia on TV and radio. When I returned to editing in 2017, I noticed that one of my article creations, Yılmaz Orhan, had become a Cape Town City player. This was picked up by at least one lazy journalist. Nzd (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

PS, if anyone has access to Brentford v Chesterfield 1995 programme - it could useful in clarification of Bradley Walsh's football career. BorisAndDoris (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Norman Smith's

For information and amusement, editors might like to know that I've just created a stub for Norman Smith (footballer, born September 1897) and will begin disambiguating the other Norman Smith shortly. Both players were born in Newburn in the same quarter of 1897, both played for Queens Park Rangers (although at different times), and both died in 1978! Nzd (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ha! I bet that causes absolutely no confusion when sorting out their biographies... Jellyman (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Lewis Scoble / Junior Mondal

They appear to be the same person. The #25 is listed as Scoble in the latest game by the BBC. Soccerbase says Lewis Scoble and Junior Mondal are different people. The names are completely different, which is odd, not even the first names are the same. It all seems a bit confusing, how to sort it out?--EchetusXe 17:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 122 #Junior Mondal. GiantSnowman 18:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a plausible explanation. Seems to be better known as 'Junior Mondal'. In this BBC report they use 'Scoble' in the statistics but use 'Mondal' in prose. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

A theory also suggested by this forum. GiantSnowman 18:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

List of association football players considered the greatest of all time

This page is extremaly often vandalised and I have reported it to edit wars. I think it would be interesing for people who ofted edit pages related with soccer. BTW this page also require list for Women soccer players. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest to start discussion on the talk page. Interesing information are also here and on my my talk page Dawid2009 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Page is always going to be vandalised because it's an opinion page. Quite frankly it shouldn't even exist on Wikipedia. Some of the so called "experts" are not experts, they are just other players and club presidents and such like. There is no definitive criteria on what makes one greatest of all time, it is comparing defenders and strikers and goalkeepers and apples and oranges and getting different opinions. There is no encyclopaedic value in it at all. At very least it should be retitled List of footballers that a few random people at one time or another said they thought was the best player ever ClubOranje^T 04:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove as its just opinions. Matilda Maniac (talk)

Lots of articles are about opinions. The key question is notability and I don't think anyone would say that this isn't a topic that gets a lot of coverage. However, it needs some strict criteria on what gets included. The sources should be official lists from organisations like FIFA or a books or articles that provide proper analysis. The opinions of colleagues, throw-away comments by ex-players who have just seen a "great" performance, and self-serving comments by club presidents hoping to sign the player or curry favour are not reliable sources. The men's list seems reasonable overall but many would be considered greats rather than best of all time. Few of the experts listed in the last column pass muster as a suitable source in my opinion.   Jts1882 | talk  13:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to AFD it. GiantSnowman 13:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: articles that provide proper analysis - Wait... What? Do you seriously suggest to we should make list based on articles which provided analyses for achivements of the football players? Honestly soccer player's achivements mean absolutly nothing in context of their vitality. Very few people realise about fact that Magico Gonzalez who is wiedly compared to Pele and Maradona even never played in any proffesional club and just spend his time in several pub leagues (yes, he did. Frankly calling a soccer player based on "soccer achivements" is hillarious. How do you explain fact that Maradona is very big fan of Magico Gonzalez but calls CR7 "top dog" and later intentionally tell about: in vulgar way about him : "That’s why tell him to quit f*****g around? It is why we should not make provede the articles which make WP:Recentism. T=In current form this list could change name for Opinions about the most overrated football players. This article should be only and only based on book-sources. At current version surprising is fact that Di Stefano, who had better appreciate from Esuebio than Garrincha and Pele get only several refs and on this and his great teammate from 50's even is not listed. I think we should go with this article to AFD and proper here strong arguments for deletion. If we will have moree users who supports deletion of this we will have better change to delte it. We even do not need explain how it is bad as WP:WEASEL. This is simply against Wikipedias guidelines. In shor It is WP:Hoax which promote some soccer players. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove Per Matilda Maniac and my comment below. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Club name change in infobox

Hi, I was wondering if a name change of a club should be included in some way in the infobox (for example, in the foundation date). Nabi Chit SC changed its name to Bekaa SC last year, but the club was not "refounded" or "under administration", they just changed their name. Should I change the founded date into: 2000; 19 years ago, as Nabi Chit Sports Club. 2018; 1 year ago, as Bekaa Sports Club? Or simply just: 2000; 19 years ago, as Nabi Chit Sports Club?

Thanks in advance, Nehme1499 (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If the club was renamed, I would go the option of "2000, 19 years ago, as Nabi Chit Sports Club, as it is not a 'new' club. Borgarde (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The club was founded in 2000, just under a differnt name. Most club in the Premier League have had a change of name since the foundation date in their infoboxes. More questionably, a few clubs that have been liquidated and ressurected as new clubs also keep their history.

While this could be indicated in the infobox, e.g. founded as Oldname Wanderers, it is not essential information and best kept for the history section. Some clubs have had many names and there is enough stuff in the infobox already.   Jts1882 | talk  12:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks, that's what I was thinking. I imagine it being redundant to put "Bekaa Sport Club (formerly Nabi Chit Sport Club)" in the full name as well right? (both in the case of a refoundation or a simple name change) Nehme1499 (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

List of active premier league goalscorers

What do people think of this list which popped up recently? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Listcruft. It only lists 40+ goals anyway, so it's not right either way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it is fine. The all-time PL list has a cutoff of 100 goals so there are only a handful of active players. It is of interest to see how other active players are doing. For instance Salah is a long way from making the all-time list but his strike rate is impressive and this list illustrates that. I'm sure there will plenty of sources with similar list that can establish notability.   Jts1882 | talk  15:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

AFD it. Not notable. GiantSnowman 16:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Listcruft, ditch. Spike 'em (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If it is kept, it needs moving to List of active Premier League goalscorers..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not needed, as per WP:NOTSTATS. "Of interest" is not the same as encyclopedic. Jellyman (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't waste time, here is the right thread to discuss Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of active premier league goalscorers. Matthew hk (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should nominate List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals and all-such lists. It violates WP:NOTSTATS using the above interpreation. It has artbitrary cut offs both for 100 goals and the administrative change to the PL. What about such stats in articles, are they more encyclopaedic? What about league tables, they are just stats too. If anything list articles have looser requirements than articles.   Jts1882 | talk  12:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals did not look likes WP:Listcruft. We delete dynamic list. List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals would not have a situation of deleting non-active players. I think we deleted many "List of current foreign players of foo league" or "List of current foo country expatriate footballers". Matthew hk (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

What looks like WP:Listcruft is very subjective, including most of the 12 criteria that might be the basis for what "the editor believes" makes it listcruft. The volatile membership is qualified by if it "requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date". There are lots of lists and tables needing more effort so it comes down to whether editors are willing and able. The list of active goalscorers is far more objective than the seven examples given so I don't think it qualifies as WP:Listcruft based on the examples, although I see why others disagree based on the criteria. It's a good example how picking and choosing different parts of the Wikipedia guidelines can lead to opposite conclusions. I still don't see why all-time PL scorers makes the cut and this one doesn't. The test for me is that it is accurate and updated regularly as to be useful it must be current.   Jts1882 | talk  15:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Listcruft is an essay BTW. You can find media coverage of players that scored 100 goals, but it is too NOSTATS and little media coverage of "active goalscorers". Matthew hk (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Pluakdaeng Rayong United F.C.

Would this team be considered notable per WP:FOOTYN#Club notability? According to WP:FPL, players in Thai League 1 are considered notable per WP:NFOOTY, butI'm not sure the same applies to Thai League 4; so, if the league itself is not considered "fully professional", then maybe the teams in the league themselves need to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG on their own merit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The team used to play in the first division. I imagine the same rule that is applied to players applies here, meaning that when a player transfers to a club that isn't notable per WP:NFOOTY his article isn't deleted if he previously played for a "notable" team. Nehme1499 (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

They pass WP:FOOTYN#Club notability due to having played in a national cup. A team that played top flight football is unlikely to fail WP:GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

When a club was in the top division, even they fails WP:NFOOTY, usually they had WP:GNG news coverage, so for the Thai club, may be some google to pick some news article as citation, would sufficiently passing GNG. However, few countries or home-rule entity, their football are in glass-root football level. That is the term when I google Bonaire's league . So, I doubt there is enough news coverage to allow wiki editors to write a full article for the club or even the league of Bonaire, which is the point of GNG: is there any in-depth articles in circulation for editor to write a wiki article without original research or journalism. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Dawlish teams

As a result of a recent category move to match up with the parent article, I've only just noticed that the Dawlish Town article was moved to Dawlish United F.C. almost 18 months ago as a result of this requested move, where the only evidence offered was a link to United's Facebook page, and an assurance that they were the same club despite the different name and badge. HOWEVER: I can't see any sign on that Facebook page that they claim to any connection to Dawlish Town; and (apart from the new title) our article makes no reference to Dawlish United whatsoever - still calls them Town in the lead sentence, still uses the Town badge, strip etc in the infobox, and has no mention of any events after Town resigned from the Western League in 2011. This forum thread seems to confirm that Town went bust and that United were a pre-existing local club; the only connection between them seems to be that they now play at Town's former ground. Can anyone help with confirming if this is correct and finding any reliable sources to sort things out? Jellyman (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You can post it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves. I think the problem of some club article, were either written by fans or the staff, which they sometimes provide no source and have fans POV. Need more external source to prove Dawlish Town F.C. and Dawlish United F.C. are the same. Matthew hk (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that is the logical next step, I'll post it there. Jellyman (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Reserve teams in 2nd division clubs

Hi a quick question, I checked out the archives and could find nothing and also the MOS. Do we include lists of reserve team members ? This has just been added to a page I'm watching LB Châteauroux. Cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think there's an argument for having this information for clubs whose reserve teams play in leagues we cover on the project, provided it's sourced. So in France this would be down to National 3. Gricehead (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

When did James Newton die?

This chap - Frost has him playing for Bradford City in September 1924 and then moving to Halifax Town in May 1925, but QPFC has him dying in September 1924. I've gone with Frost on this (given a player suddenly dying is not mentioned by him and given that his last game for City was 20 September 1924, giving him less than two weeks to move clubs and then die!) but wider input/sources welcome. GiantSnowman 19:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the player has wrong given names shown - Newton was keeper for Bradford in match played on Monday evening 8 September 1924, so he couldn't have died on 7 September which is dod for a James Israel Newton of Leeds. "Athletic News" issue of 25 May 1925 comments on new players signed to Halifax including James Newton (goalkeeper) from Bradford and noting that he had in earlier years helped Queen's Park gain promotion https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000986/19250525/216/0008

RossRSmith (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Newton played for Halifax 1925-26, Coventry City 1926-1929, Brighton 1929-1930 and was still playing in 1934-35 (Otley) and 1935-1936 (Burley Grove United). James Israel Newton 1898- 7 September 1934, labourer at the bricksworks died of electrocution. I can't find another James Israel Newton. Cattivi (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@RossRSmith and Cattivi: so it looks like his name is different and QPFC have got him mixed up? Do you have a source for his later playing career please? GiantSnowman 09:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Got it from the free bit of ENFA - what a great resource! GiantSnowman 09:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Joyce, Football League Players'Records, 2002 edition, page 183: Halifax 40 matches, Coventry 70, Brighton 1, Otley, Burley Grove United. Emms and Wells page 179 has some additional information. He played for Anderston V., Glasgow Perthshire, Rutherglen Glencairn before Queens Park and Burley Grove United was 1935/36, Otley 1934/35: Shipley Times and Express 27 April 1935 page 11. Cattivi (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

National team appearances in the FIFA Women's World Cup

I noticed there is a section called "droughts" on this article. Its unsourced, and completely trivial. Therefore it should not belong on the article. Thoughts? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Basic arithmetic and counting don't need to be sourced. If the rest of the article is sourced, the droughts can be determined through basic counting and don't need a separate source. As for whether it's trivial, I don't see how it is but don't really view it as that big a deal either way. Smartyllama (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't basic counting WP:Original research? Kante4 (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Original research is any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Using the numbers doesn't violate this as numbers are not a conclusion.   Jts1882 | talk  20:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

In fact, if you look further down that page, WP:CALC explicitly says basic calculations are not original research and do not require a source. Of course, they should reflect information from sources, but as long as the appearances are cited elsewhere in the article, I don't see the issue. Smartyllama (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Working out the numbers seems fine, but it is surely WP:OR / WP:POV to call these "droughts" and list every single occurrence. Spike 'em (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

How so? That's what the word "drought" means, in this context. It's not like we invented the word. Smartyllama (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is the whole list significant enough to include in an encyclopedia article? Does any other source show such a list? Why does every occurrence of a team missing a tournament need to be shown?

The linked article describes a drought as a lengthy period of time. Missing 1 tournament is not a lengthy period of time, nor is it noteworthy. Spike 'em (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

We can discuss what if anything the cutoff should be, but the list should be there in some form or another. And I found plenty of other sources discussing World Cup droughts, both men's and women's, by simple Googling. See [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], etc. Smartyllama (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems trivial to me, no need for 2 tables, and no need to include teams who have missed a single tournament. Spike 'em (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a similar list at National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup, I've removed them both as they are over-inclusive stats trivia. Spike 'em (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

And I have restored both until consensus emerges that they should be removed. Let's discuss this, please, rather than trying to force consensus through edit warring. Smartyllama (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

These lists require WP:OR, someone has to trawl through all the records of qualifications and make notes on all the teams: it is not simply subtracting 2 numbers from each other. Spike 'em (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it is a stretch to call them OR. Listcruft, perhaps. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you read WP:CALC? As long as the qualification records are well sourced (and nobody here is arguing they're not) it's as simple as counting up the number of tournaments between appearances. And with the exception of teams who haven't made the tournament since before World War II (which isn't an issue with the women and is easily surmountable with the men by accounting for the canceled tournaments) you could easily just subtract the years from the last World Cup to the last appearance (so 2018 minus whatever) and divide by four if you really wanted to. Smartyllama (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, do we have consensus that this is a routine calculation? I don't agree that it is. Spike 'em (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems that most people in this thread agree it's a routine calculation and not original research. What we're more divided on is whether it's too trivial to be included. Certainly we can continue discussing both issues, though. This thread's been up less than a day, no need to rush anything. Smartyllama (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Trivial. Listcruft with no meaning. Get rid. Some tiny country has the stars align and makes a World Cup, then forever counts non qualifications. NOT qualifying is not notable and Wikipedia is supposed to record notable. ClubOranje^T 04:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, it's been a week now and comments have dried up. From the comments above: 3 editors (me, Sportsfan 1234 and ClubOranje) clearly say to remove the table; 3 users (Kante4, Jts1882, and Bring back Daz Sampson) have made a comments on whether it is WP:OR but don't explicitly state to keep or remove the tables; 1 (Smartyllama) supports keeping it. Did I misrepresent anyone, or would anyone else like to comment? Spike 'em (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

My comment was mainly to indicate that routine calculations/counting is not original research. This seems to come up often from the deletionists among us. I'm more sympathetic to your comment that the drought concept could be original research or not notable. I had no strong feelings on the table (hence just a comment), although, if kept, it should have a cutoff (3 or more?). Missing one is not a drought any more than missing a meal is a famine. I will point out that there is a table that includes active qualifying streaks, which is arguably subject to the same criticism as the droughts. Perhaps that appearance table should have an introductory paragraph that mentions the teams qualify for all the tournments, others with long qualifying runs and also mentions the longer droughts (>=4). This could be done in a couple of sentences.   Jts1882 | talk  11:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Czech club draft

Can someone take a look at Draft:Prague Raptors Football Club. If it is good move to mainspace. If not good, post a note on the draft. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Level 9 Czech team: not notable to me (their cup apparently starts with level 5). Have left comment on the draft. Spike 'em (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Good assessment IMO - not notable. GiantSnowman 12:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

England–Spain football rivalry

I have proposed the above article for deletion as it is just a bare list of results with no intro, refs or any other evidence that a rivalry exists between the nations, and there isn't one as far as I'm aware. If anyone can add anything of note which could save it from the bin, please do so. Crowsus (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yet another example of someone thinking that "rivalry" simply means "head-to-head record"......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As an Englishman, I'm surprised anyone could believe we have a rivalry with Spain. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Are there any Spanish editors out there who could let us know if there is seen to be a rivalry in Spain (a bit like the England v Germany rivalry being mostly one-sided)? Spike 'em (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Until we played them at Euro '96 I remember nothing about any rivalry. Then in the early 2000's and onwards we ended up playing them a few times in relatively quick succession and it generated a bit if gravitas as Spain climbed the rankings once more. However I suspect any feelings of rivalry come only from the British press, and those who wish to ride the current success of the Spanish teams. Before Spain we had a temporary rivalry with Portugal, before that Holland, before that France amidst all that Argentina and Germany were rivals too. It always coincides with whoever is to be seen as higher in the rankings, or "grudges" promoted by the media.

There is a secondary element to a rivalry between England / Spain also which is the competitive dynamic between the Premier League and the Spanish league, in particular the club wealth / biggest club dynamics etc. This however is just a roll over from the 90's when English clubs were making an effort to re-establish themselves. Koncorde (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ha, a quick glance at the results proves my memory correct. I'd have been too young to remember '82, I vaguely now recall the early 90's friendly (was that a Steve Bull / Ian Wright outing?) and then after '96 it's just a string of friendlies as Spain was the defending champions so not included in any competitive qualification matches. I find it difficult to imagine any rivalry exists when so few competitive matches have been played. Koncorde (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

TwoLegResult agr

It seems blindingly obvious to me that the away-goals note should naturally go opposite the team that won on away goals, not the team that lost:

Team 1	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Manchester United	(a) 3–3	Paris Saint-Germain	0–2	3–1
not Manchester United	3–3 (a)	Paris Saint-Germain	0–2	3–1

Why is this not done? jnestorius^(talk) 03:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The bolding of the team name indicates which team won. The (a) is just an indicator and link to expand on the rule invoked to decide the tie, the bolding of team name already indicates who won. It is like (a.e.t.) which is also shown after the score if invoked. Jopal22 (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because the (a) isn't there to indicate the winner of the game, but rather that the tie itself went to away goals. See 2017–18_UEFA_Champions_League#Play-off_round for an example, the winning team is clear since the text is bolded. SportingFlyer T·C 03:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be saying, there is one clue that points in the right direction, so it doesn't matter if another clue points in the wrong direction. Why not have both clues point in the right direction? Is there any reason to actively prefer always putting (a) after the score instead of on the winner's side? Relying solely on bolding violates WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Although I am not vision impaired I can honestly say I hadn't noticed the bolding until you pointed it out; the degree of contrastiveness depends on your chosen typeface, fontsize, and screen resolution. The (a) is much more prominent to my eyes. How is a reader* unfamiliar with the WikiProject convention supposed to know the (a) isn't there to indicate the winner of the tie? In any case, it is not obvious that bolding indicates the winner of the tie; prima facie it might equally well indicate which of the two teams was seeded, or played at home in the first leg. (*or editor: it isn't in the MOS or the Template documentation as far as I can see) jnestorius^(talk) 08:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If you're arguing that it isn't obvious what the (a) refers to, why would it help any reader unfamiliar with the away goals rule by moving the (a) to the side of the winning team? Anyway, the reason why we put the (a) after the score was given by User:SportingFlyer above. It's just an indicator to show that the tie was decided by the away goals rule, not necessarily to show which team benefited from it. I mean, if you can show a source that tends to put the (a) next to the winning team, that would help. – PeeJay 01:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: The point is to help readers like me who are familiar with the away goes rule but not familiar with the Wikiproject unwritten convention (ie most readers). RSSSF e.g. here puts an asterisk beside the score of the away-goals winning team (doesn't even explain what the asterisk means, that's how familiar its readers are with the rule). jnestorius^(talk) 23:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Current international squad ordering (again)

Hi guys, as was already the case back in November, @Danielmordor: is back and ordering international squads by caps rather than number (if available) or name. Maybe you'd want to check any international teams pages you're following and fix them.

Is there a process here for warning this user about this? As it already happened back in November, maybe they are just now aware of the consensus reached with @GiantSnowman: and @Kante4:. Or maybe they are and they just want to order by caps regardless? --Philk84 08:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Revert citing the consensus, warn, and if they continue report them at WP:ANI or similar. GiantSnowman 08:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

ENFA

Great resource - the ENFA free player search. Search by surname, find the player you need, and it tells you every club they played for. Dates & games need a subscription. We also have a template ({{ENFA}}) for easy sourcing. GiantSnowman 13:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Best not use the template to source content from the free-to-access part of the site. Its output

Tim Template at the English National Football Archive (subscription required)

misleadingly implies the content is verified by a paywalled profile of Tim Template rather than by the free search at http://www.enfa.co.uk/playersearch.php. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you not easily put an attribute for |subscription=n? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I daresay one could do something to make it useful, but as a paywall site it shouldn't be used as an external link anyway, so its output ought to look like a citation with accessdate etc.

More generally, a lot of Category:Association football external link templates were written for use as ELs and formatted as such: e.g. {{Soccerbase}}, whose documentation says "intended for use in the external links section of an article". Because an EL to a stats site is no longer good enough for sourcing a player's stats, people have quite understandably just used the EL templates as refs, despite their not displaying the info you expect from a citation. Some more recent ones have been written specifically for use as citations e.g. {{Hugman}}, others competently converted to work as either e.g. {{NFT player}}, and some bodged to stick an accessdate on the end of the EL format e.g. {{Soccerway}}.

What would be nice, would be if someone with the necessary technical competence could convert one or two of the more common ones in the same way NFT player was: i.e. if an accessdate parameter is supplied it outputs citation format, if not it outputs EL format. {{Soccerway}} is a particular priority of mine, but others are also widely used. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Primera Fuerza

Last night I created Teams and Seasons subcats for the above (the predessor league to the professional setup in Mexico). However, in some cases when I went to adjust the cat in each article using HotCat, 'Primera Fuerza' was embedded (no + or - option) and I had to add the subcat as an addition rather than an amendment. And others which looked like I could simply add the 'teams' to change it now have the subcat and also the embedded parent for some reason. Obviously this is counterproductive (as the articles still remain in the main category list as well as the subcat) and not something I have seen before. I have gone into the coding on the category and in some of the articles but couldn't see anything obvious which would cause this. However, someone with better knowledge should probably be able to work it out easily. Could anyone take a look? Crowsus (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Crowsus: The "embedded" category:Primera Fuerza is being added by the template:Primera Fuerza clubs, the bit that says <includeonly>[[Category:Primera Fuerza]]</includeonly>. On some club pages, like British Club, the category had also been added manually, and it's that copy that you were able to amend; the template-generated cat then showed up as well as the team cat. Where the only instance of category:Primera Fuerza was the template-generated one, it wasn't actually present in the article to be amended, so you had to add the team cat. What to do, depends on whether you think it's a good thing for that template to generate categories in articles to which it's transcluded: if so, which one(s), if not, remove that bit of code. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Squad article template

Hi there. Nearly three years ago, I asked about the format of the templates used to list players in national team squad sections. Discussion here. At the time Sygmoral very kindly made some new templates. Now I'm back to ungratefully propose some more.

Basically, when updating, say, England national under-19 football team I have to make a number of changes when moving a player from "current squad" to "recent call-ups" (or vice versa). I have to change their template from "nat fs player no caps" to "nat fs r player", I have to remove their number column (we don't list numbers, but the player no caps template breaks without it), I have to add caps and goals columns (again, I'm leaving them blank but the r player template breaks without them), I have to add a last call-up column. This makes it quite a lengthy process and I suspect a lot of national team articles (or at least the youth versions) get neglected. And obviously we're showing columns we don't need to show.

Ideally, I'd suggest a template where one could select which columns you wanted to show. So... let's say all these are you conceivable columns: number, position, name, age, caps, goals, club, club nationality, latest call-up. In a youth team scenario you might not want to show number, caps or goals so you create something like (a terrible approximation of a template set-up follows):

{{national football team start}}

{{national football team show: no=n; caps=n; goals=n}}

{{national football team|pos=FW|name={{sortname|Emile|Smith Rowe}}|age={{birth date and age|2000|7|28|df=y}}|club=[[RB Leipzig]] ''(on loan from [[Arsenal F.C|Arsenal]])''|clubnat=GER|latest=2019 UEFA European Under-19 Championship qualifying round, 14–20 November 2018}}

{{national football team end}}

And ideally if I moved that template across from recent call-ups to current squad and left the latest call-up text in (I probably wouldn't), if I had "latest=n" in the heading on that table then none of it would show. Is that all possible? Sygmoral talked a bit in the discussion above on what conditional things might and might not be possible. I'm afraid a fair bit I didn't understand... or at least don't three years on! I'll leave it there - all ideas welcome! Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The templates used named parameters, so will only show those that it specifically uses and will ignore the rest (unless checked for). I think a few changes would allow the move with just changing the template name. Some defaults would need to be added for |caps= and |goals= and the check for unwanted parameters would need to add some parameters that should be ignored.

I think I can do this if it is considered acceptable to keep unused parameters.   Jts1882 | talk  10:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the changes to the template. If a player is moved from current squad to recent call ups, changing the template name alone will display correctly. Defaults are provided for |caps=-, |goals=- and |latest=, while |no= is ignored. However, the latest call up would need to be added. Is this what was wanted and is this change appropriate?   Jts1882 | talk  10:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@HornetMike: I've also made changes to {{National football squad player (no caps)}} to allow unused |caps=, |goals= and |latest= parameters. To move a player recent to latest you need to change template name and add the number. –   Jts1882 | talk  11:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for doing this so swiftly! I've experimented adding empty/information filled fields to the two templates and none of the parameters I was having to remove each time are showing so that's going to speed up my editing!

In my opening message I was proposing a single template that was flexible so you could set which columns show according to need (everything for a full national team say, stripped back for an age-group side without much citable information etc.). As you can see in England national under-18 football team, there's no need for numbers in the current squad (they don't announce them) and caps/goals in the call-ups (match line-ups often aren't announced, so there's no source for this sort of thing) - it'd be good not to show these columns. The idea being that we then only have to maintain one squad template and can deprecate the rest. Based on your post it seems like wouldn't be possible - templates always have to have the same columns? In which case I think there's a case for a "squad light"/"squad light latest" set of templates for age-group teams which don't show the numbers/caps/goals columns. I don't know whether people think that's worthwhile? I know that's more rather than fewer templates! Many thanks again for your work, HornetMike (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I made those changes as the were simple to make and hopefully uncontreversial; they should be transparent to anyone using them the way they have in the past. It is certainly possible to generate a single more flexible template; however, one template isn't necessary simpler as it has complexity in parameter number rather than template number.

One approach would be to have a |mode= that determined output. For instance, a template could use |mode=latest and |mode=recent instead of using two different templates for the current U19 example. It would still need a change for each player (in parameter value instead of template). Alternatively each column could be flagged someway, using parameters, and/or possibly CSS classes to hide unwanted columns. Any changes along these lines needs more planning (what are the full range of cases required, etc) and some feedback from other editors.   Jts1882 | talk  12:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

On reflection, I think the best solution would be to have one set of squad start/player/end templates generating all eight columns used by the current suite of templates (the default, goal, nocap, & recent series). These all have pos, player, dob and club columns, and variously also have no., caps, goals and latest callup columns. In the combined template, the unwanted columns would be hidden by applying CSS classes to the whole table determined by a parameter in the start template.   Jts1882 | talk  15:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - that sounds like a great proposal (I'm fairly sure I'm understanding it correctly!). Hopefully a few other people will spot this just to ensure there's a consensus! Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wasan Charam

Hi, the only reference (Soccerway) on this article appears to refer to a different player...GrahamHardy (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@GrahamHardy: possible hoax? I'd suggest PROD. GiantSnowman 12:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Might be a mistake on the reference (I think Soccerway works by the number in the url, not the name, so maybe copy-paste error). From a Google search, it seems Wasan does exist --SuperJew (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The soccerway link is correct. Samut Prakan City is the current name (since 2018) of Pattaya United (per our own article. Soccerway (annoyingly) just changes all links to Pattaya United for previous seasons to the new club name. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Struck as incorrect Gricehead (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gricehead: But why does the Soccerway link show the player's name as "P. JEERABURANAKIT".......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that. I'll go and get some more coffee. Gricehead (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

There's an article here that suggests a Pattaya United youth player Wasan Charam was called up to the Thai U-19 squad in 2012. So that makes the dob in our article suspect. The same site, which seems to report on most Pattaya United games around the time, only has one reference to Wasan Charam playing, in a 2012 Thai League Cup (Toyota Cup) game. (Interestingly, there are no hits for Jeeraburanakit on that site at all.) Charam was added to Template:Pattaya United F.C. squad with squad number 23 well before the article was created, in 2011 [18] and AGF for that edit (which has some other additions which are provably true) would suggest that the player did at least exist with that squad number at that time. There's a youtube video of the 2013 squad number 23 scoring his only goal in the Thai Premier League, but it's not clear enough to work out the name on the shirt.from about 1:10. Not sure any of this helps. Gricehead (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

removal of data from youth teams and reserve teams in the career statistics section

In some articles done on certain players, data from youth teams and reserve teams tend to show up in the career statistics part of the article. The most notable example of this is on Lionel Messis article where is shows data from Barcelona C and Barcelona B as well as Argentina U20 and U23. This is a problem because it creates a false narrative of appearances and goals. For example, Messis article says that he has scored 81 international goals, even though he has only scored 65 (as of March 17th 2019), the reason being that data from Argentina u20 and u23 have been featured. The biggest issue with this is that data from youth and reserve teams are only features in a handfull of players articles, which creates a false narrative when comparing career statistics of different players. Therefore i would suggest that we can agree on a common consensus about only featuring stats from A-senior teams which would remove youth and reserve stats from the career statistics section in player articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.107.83.122 (talk) 2019-03-17T15:57:15 (UTC)

Other editors, see also the edit request in Talk:Kylian Mbappé. @2.107.83.122:, Monaco B and Bayern Munich II or Juventus B or Real Madrid B is not a youth team. They played in the same league pyramid. Inter Milan Youth Sector is a youth/ reserve team, we did not list the stat of Campionato Nazionale Primavera. Matthew hk (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

On the Messi International table, I'd leave the age groups, but remove the final total line, as they are completely different categories of matches. Spike 'em (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If the 'youth' team pays in the senior football pyramid (like in Spain, France, Germany etc.), then include the stats. If not (like in the UK), then don't. GiantSnowman 12:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with including the data, but separately. Messi's infobox has "Youth career", "Senior career", and "National team" sections; maybe it should be "Underage", "Senior club" and "Senior national", moving Barcelona C and Argentina U20/U23 to "Underage". And in the "Career statistics" section, remove the meaningless "Career total" line and use colour etc to better distinguish "Underage" from "Senior". jnestorius^(talk) 12:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Some Serie A players made their debut at age 30, it cause more misleading to introduce "Underage" for "Barcelona C". In that case, should Lorenzo Insigne's loan career classified as "Underage"? Senior is senior, regardless the level of that division in the league system/pyramid. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I mistakenly thought "Barcelona C" had played in an underage league. Rest of my comment stands. jnestorius^(talk) 17:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Intros

Considering only the intro (dedicated to a subject's career summary and their achievements) part regarding the international career, and taking Adrien Silva as an example, which version seems better? This one (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adrien_Silva&diff=888335687&oldid=888335565) or the current? In my view, the latter is a bit more "difficult" because it has to be constantly updated ("so far he has X caps"). The former contains his tournaments and the fact he won Euro 2016, more competitions will be duly added if Mr. Silva takes part in another one (caps are already reflected in the box and the international chart below).

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think exact number of caps and goals is a bit excessive for a lede, especially for a currently playing player. For a retired player it might be worth adding the number, but even then I'd say go for an estimate-ish number (for example "played over 100 games for the Israeli national team") as the exact number is not the most important part of a player's career. The lede is to get a quick outline of the important facts. The details should come in the prose later on (and stats for example in the infobox too). --SuperJew (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Exact number does not has to be there, will get outdated at some point when no one updates it every time. Kante4 (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

My two cents: I think it is relevant. Whether a player has won 4 caps since his international debut, or 64, is significant. It is an important marker of his stature as a player. Yes, it has to be updated, but so does the infobox and the table further down the article. A piece of data becoming outdated in future is not a good reason to leave it out, or we would leave out all sorts of things.

In addition, the lead is meant to summarise what appears later in the article. For a player's international career, something like "X made his debut for Latvia in 2012 and has since won 72 caps. He played in the 2014 African Nations Cup." is consistent with the template here and seems a reasonable summary to me. --hippo43 (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how a Latvian intenrational would play in the African Nations Cup, but that seems reasonable to me otherwise. Smartyllama (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ideally any article should be written with as much passive information as possible without getting into specifics of data, or convert the data input as passive a statement as possible. This means that the statements stand alone and do not date, or become outdated, and are reliable and simply to maintain (this helps maintain the fidelity if the lede). By doing this we ensure that the factual accuracy of a players lede remains as reliable as possible. So for instance, noting a player is "a World Cup Winner in 2010" is great. Saying he "has won the world cup once" is less appropriate. Saying someone has "played for England since making their debut in 2010, and represented the team at the European Championships" is great. Saying that he has "10 caps" is largely irrelevant. Later, on after retirement the initial passive data can be fleshed out with the caps / goals from the infobox etc and be more specific, but even then it isn't particularly critical to number the exact caps and goals in the first sentence, and a natural location for the information should be found. Koncorde (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

What Koncorde said.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ClubOranje (talk • contribs) 10:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hippo changed Adrien Silva back, and I have reverted. Per this discussion here it is clear that the consensus is that the level of detail introduced is unnecessary. We must consider that the introduction may, and often is, used in Wikipedia resources for books etc and so we should present as reliable and consistent a data repository as possible. Constantly changing data within a biography is one of those things we should hope to avoid. The infobox template aside. Koncorde (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Netherlands national football team

Can someone been kind enough to add some information for the management and stadiums for the Netherlands team as I am trying to push this article to a Good Article and want to get that information into it before possibly putting it up for nomination. Not Homura (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Coppa Italia 1926-27

Hi everyone. I'd really appreciate some input here. There's been an issue with User:Ballistiq about the 1926–27 Coppa Italia. He's reverted twice in quick succession yesterday, without three pleas to discuss per WP:BOLD. See User talk:Vaselineeeeeeee#Hi and User talk:Ballistiq#1926-27 Coppa Italia. Obviously we know that a winner has not been decided for this edition, as it was interrupted, but this user is subtracting the number one editions for the pages of subsequent editions, as if it had never existed. He showed me this photo [19], which reminds me a lot of the discussion of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 122#Player Honours: Supercups in Trophy Counts? from the 2007–08 Coppa Italia (number 60 instead of 61), although we cannot imply from this photo that the Serie A League does not include this edition in the number of editions as it is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. So I consulted an experienced user at it.wiki, and he provided me with a source from the official Lega Serie A [20] stating the 2016–17 Coppa Italia is the 70th edition. This is the most official source we have. You can see he later points to [21] and [22], which are from the Gazzetta dello Sport, and not official, and so since we have an official source, I think we should go with that. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

My friend, as I said, you are making many errors. Let’s forget that you began to revert that page without discussion and more without politeness (I think you could discuss before reverting). But let’s forget. As I said you, a press employee of an organization did not necessarily reflects the positions of a company, corporation or organization. That article was simply written by a press officer who copied Wikipedia. You must show an official document, and an official document is signed by the Chairman or the Board. When a company or organization uses its logo [23], it reflects its position. More, I used the Gazzetta articles speaking with another user who asked for them. You did know, but you did not say that here.--Ballistiq (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:BOLD for crying outloud, if you get reverted, you discuss before reverting more times. It is an article created by the official organizer of the league, someone affiliated with the league, whether what you say is the case or not is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH on your part, and we can only go by official sources. I know User:Matthew hk asked for other sources, but here, a source by the organizer of the league should trump. By showing several photos you are accomplishing nothing, they are all original research which require inferences on the observer's part. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't have a strong opinion on this matter, but Ballistiq should not have reverted their edits back into articles multiple times. If this continues before a consensus is reached, it will likely result in a block. Number 57 16:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not there was a final, or was abandoned, it is still an instance of the competition. Reliable sources, where available, should ideally indicate whether they are counting finals or instances of the competition. Koncorde (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

yes, that may be the different between the "edition" in the newspaper and the edition in the primary source. But to be sure, it need to read the context as well as the wording was "X edition of the final" or just simply as "the winner of the X edition of the cup". And both make-up statements by myself as example, did not actually stated the incomplete edition are counted or not. May be the news report of the first match of X edition may be better citation and for simple calculation. Matthew hk (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The opening sentences in the articles on 1939–40 Football League and 1946–47 Football League demonstrate how careful wording can avoid needing to decide whether an incomplete season counts in the numbering. Do those articles have to refer to an edition of the cup? It looks like it was just a standard phrase to create the stub articles, although I see the FA Cup gets similar treatment of season number. I'll note that, for the FA Cup, the abandoned 1939-40 competition is ignored in the count and in FA Cup article, which probably needs rephrasing.   Jts1882 | talk  08:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The 1926-27 edition was interrupted during the round of 32, not cancelled before the beginning. Moreover, there are no sources saying the 1926-27 edition was "disowned" by FIGC. Technically, it's still an official Coppa Italia edition, so it has to be counted. --L'Eremita (Il Romitorio) 10:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding if the cup even needs to refer to the edition, no it doesn't. Particularly if there are actually no reliable sources describing it as such. I think the likely only significance will be when the 50th, then 100th instance takes place if the competition. Centenary celebrations are kind of significant. But that does not mean we would then need to retain each edition either (particularly as it would still not be clear what criteria is being used and we would have to include a disclaimer of some sort).

Out of curiosity, what does Italian Wikipedia have in it? Koncorde (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

In it.wiki the 1926-27 edition is counted as the second. --L'Eremita (Il Romitorio) 09:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

iOS app edits

Hi guys. I monitor Category:Pages using infobox football biography with unknown parameters, and every once in a while a page would land there after someone's edit with iOS app. Example: [24] It seems that the app adds some space characters that break the template. This is obviously a bug. Where would one report this? --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• There's an explanation of how to report a bug at Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests. You have to report it on Phabricator. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrong dates for Tommy Lucas ?

I think the birth and death dates shown for Tommy Lucas may be incorrect. His entry on the 1939 National Register seen via Ancestry gives a dob of 22 September 1895 not 20 Sept. And the listing on the National Probate Calendar also seen via Ancestry shows dod as 5 December 1953, not 11 Dec. Any project members have other sources which might help clarify ? RossRSmith (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Lamming has the birth date as 20th Sept, but EFO have the 22nd, so I think it would be reasonable to go with that. Not sure about death date; EFO and Lamming both have 11th Dec. Nzd (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Marc-André ter Stegen

Hi, Ureinwohner has really been giving me a hard time with the infobox at Marc-André ter Stegen regarding the player's picture. There are two of these, one taken in 2017 and the other one taken in March 2019. After a few unnecessary chats, Ureinwohner's argument is that the 2017 image has far better quality. I do admit its resolution is somewhat superior than the 2019 image, but the 2019 image itself is not as rubbish as Ureinwohner describes it, in fact, it features the player's new hairstyle and full face unlike the 2017 image where one side of ter Stegen's face is barely shown. However, I will leave it for public decision, what do you think? Which image would deserve to stay? TheSoccerBoy (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• I've already started a thread on the talk page, in part to stop the edit warring that was occurring. Per WP:MULTI I invite everyone to continue the discussion there. SportingFlyer T·C 20:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Kenny Lala

This poor soul's page is under permanent vandal attack since last October. Is it possible to apply a long-term protection? --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done for 1 month, for now. We can extend if needed. GiantSnowman 08:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on discussion

Please come share your thoughts in discussion at Talk:A-League_transfers_for_2019–20_season#Issues_with_page. Posting here to get a broader discussion, especially as that page is quite new. --SuperJew (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: an unfortunate attempt at an April Fools joke. (non-admin closure) SportingFlyer T·C 01:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

---

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Football → Wikipedia:WikiProject Soccer
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football → Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Soccer
• Template:WikiProject Football → Template:WikiProject Soccer

– It is time to move these pages Hhkohh (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - instead move to Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beautiful Game. GiantSnowman 12:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Shouuld move to Wikipedia:WikiProject KickityKick. --SuperJew (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge with kickball instead. Smartyllama (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NATURALDIS as soccer is indeed a alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. This is an opportunity for WP:COMMONALITY as every reader knows the word "soccer" refers to this sport, but to many readers (Americans) "football" is ambiguous, even though, in American football, the ball is much more sporadically in contact with the feet. On second thought, maybe we rename American football to armball. -- Netoholic @ 19:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose what in the hell? SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer, I assume this is yet another self-appointed "comedian" who thinks it being April 1 gives him the right to disrupt everyone else's work. This year we've had mercifully few of them but there's always going to be one. ‑ Iridescent 20:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Netoholic, SportingFlyer, and Iridescent: Did you guys not see the {{april fools}} template? – PeeJay 23:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I didn't read that far down. Saw it, read a couple of the responses, posted. This needs to be closed. SportingFlyer T·C 23:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

    SportingFlyer, it should be closed on 2 April 2019 Hhkohh (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I saw it. Maybe my response was too deadpan. -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Highest scoring draw

Anyone know what the record for the highest scoring draw in a football match is? I've been going through some 19th century Scottish football articles and improving them where possible and I stumbled across a 7–7 draw in a Scottish Cup tie between Queen of the South Wanderers and 5th Kirkcudbrightshire RV. Both teams became defunct a long time ago so I've been struggling to find out anything other than the score but it would be good to include a note in the Scottish Cup article if it was a record. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a 9-9 draw between two sides in an 8th tier division somewhere in the world. To what degree do you mean "highest goalscoring draw"? If you are certain that it's the highest in Scottish Cup history than say that, otherwise I wouldn't be certain that there hasn't been a higher scoring draw at some point in time. Nehme1499 (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Well in professional football it's 6-6 according to this. GiantSnowman 11:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I found some sources talking about 6-6 draws, though they all talk about leagues and don't include cups. On a (slightly) unrelated note I found this match that ended 9-9 in the second to last German football division (obviously unprofessional). Nehme1499 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

My thinking is that 7–7 is almost certainly the highest scoring draw in the Scottish Cup and that it's a world record on the same basis as Arbroath 36–0 Bon Accord for a professional match that wasn't thrown or fixed. What I don't have is a source to independently verify either of those claims. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Pedantically speaking, it can't be a record for professional football, as professionalism wasn't legalised in Scottish football until 1885, as I recall. I think we're into that grey area which would be more accurately described as "a record for any competition in which clubs that are now professional take part", which probably apply to a lot of other "professional football records"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

How about this one, from late 2014 in the Segunda División (https://www.cdnumancia.com/noticia/el-numancia-empata-a-seis-goles-ante-el-lugo-en-un-partido-loco, CD Numancia vs. CD Lugo)? That's surely pro (and wacky)! --Quite A Character (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

WWW.ZEROZERO.PT

Seeing that the template/external link was voted for deletion (and then deleted), the question? Why was the akin link for the statistics of several Portuguese managers allowed to stay?

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It was considered as user-generated content. The article was deleted as well. See also, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 13#Template:TheFinalBall. Not sure there is any alternative site existed as a citation or not. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Is Foradejogo an option? It is considered a reliable source. Jogurney (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I know it's user-generated :@Matthew hk:, I was only wondering why were the external links removed and the managerial statistics reference (same website) allowed to stay; :@Jogurney:, yes it is, 100% reliable per WP standards. --Quite A Character (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should nominate the ZeroZero manager template for the same reason. GiantSnowman 14:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Quite A Character, i mean from the past XfD rationale yes those citation should be cleaned up and the template may need to be deleted as well. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

England national football team

I am not sure when all the kit gallery got put back, I would of raise the issue on the article talk page, but I don't think many people monitor the article. Govvy (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, an IPv6 address is just making it huge... Govvy (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Removed again per WP:NOTGALLERY. GiantSnowman 14:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, I keep thinking it's WP:NOTAGALLERY, with the A in, but fail to find that WP page, often gets me that does. Govvy (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAGALLERY now works as a link! GiantSnowman 15:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

cheers, hopefully that will help. Govvy (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Nationality in lede

Quick question, if a player has dual-citizenship but has only ever played for one country internationally (for example, born in Germany with German citizenship but has only played for the U23 and senior side of Lebanon), is it ok to write "X is a Lebanese football player..." or should I remove the nationality altogether and explain further down in the lede his citizenship situation?

I've been told to do the latter in case a player has, for example, represented the youth sides of a certain country X and then switched allegiance to the senior side of a country Y. In the case he has only played for only country, does this still apply? Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The standard wording for those situations should always be 'X is a professional footballer. Born in Germany, he represents Lebanon at international level'. GiantSnowman 10:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I remember there being an issue with it being phrased that way, mainly due to the fact that a player being born somewhere doesn’t necessarily give him citizenship. Also, are you only talking about the situation in which he has only played for one national team or for multiple? Nehme1499 (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Both. If he played for one nation at youth, say 'Born in Germany, he represented them at youth international level before switching alleigance to Lebanon, for whom he made his senior international debut in 2019' or similar. GiantSnowman 10:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Nehme1499 (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I would say POB depends on context. Some player born and raised in one country and then represented another due to emigration or ancestry. However, it sometimes did not apply, such as Thiago Alcântara, his father was an expat footballer in Italy at that time (so did Giovanni Simeone and Maik Taylor who had an expat soldier father). It depends on they had the nationality as Jus soli or not (which Germany had a limited Jus soli after 2000), as well as reliable source stressing this fact as routine or notable or not, for the case nominated by Nehme1499, as the player had represented for the two countries, so by common sense it should include the POB, but other case (e.g. did not have that nationality and/or not raised there) seem not that notable . Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

More example, may be not for Edon Zhegrova, may be yes for Eduardo da Silva (born and start career in Brazil), Ümit Davala (born and start career in Germany), Muzzy Izzet (born and start career in the UK). Matthew hk (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

TFD notification

Only WP:CFB was notified. I think all relevant sports should participate in this discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 4#Athletic program head coaches navboxes.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, you violate WP:CANVASS, so no need to notify here. Also, if you notify FOOTY project, please list in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves, not here Hhkohh (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: This hardly seems canvassing to me... It's not sent to specific people with established opinions about the subject. He just wished to notify more people about the issue and get a broader discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. The opening sentence of WP:CANVASS says it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Notifying project pages rather than individual editors is an even more neutral way of broadening participation without biasing the discussion.   Jts1882 | talk  06:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not canvassing. GiantSnowman 09:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Alessandro Quattrini - unreferenced

Could an Italian-speaker have a look at Alessandro Quattrini, an unreferenced article of 1990s-era lower league footballer? Some sources proving he meets WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL would be great. Hack (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hack:  Done GiantSnowman 15:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Lirak Hasani‎

Can a neutral party please review Lirak Hasani‎? I am in dispute with DoktorDashi (talk · contribs) who (other than breaching 3RR) has ignored MOS re:infobox, intro, and the stats table, and also ignored CITEVAR, amongst other issues. GiantSnowman 13:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Sorry for all this!— Preceding unsigned comment added by DoktorDashi (talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Jorginho

User:Ortizesp seems to have been on a rampage of moving articles around this weekend, among them moving Jorginho (footballer, born 1991) to Jorginho (Italian footballer) as there is already another Jorginho who was born in 1991. However, considering Jorginho's nationality has its own issues, shouldn't we try to find another less controversial title? – PeeJay 17:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The other footballer being Jorginho (Brazilian footballer, born 1991). We could do Jorginho (footballer, born January 1991) and Jorginho (footballer, born December 1991). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh wow, there's already another footballer by that title. So for the two born in January, narrow it by dates? Is that getting too much now? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Another option is Jorginho (footballer, born December 1991), or Jorginho (Italian footballer, born 1991), but neither one is particularly appealing. The current title disambiguates well, since he's the only player with the name that has Italian nationality. This follows the exact same naming convention as Éder (Italian footballer) for the same reason.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

But he's not really Italian, is he? We should probably avoid making reference to his nationality in the article title, just as we should avoid referencing his nationality in the opening sentence of the article (i.e. "Jorginho is a professional footballer who plays for English club Chelsea and the Italy national team"). – PeeJay 17:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this case has to be an exception. There's tons of Brazilian Jorginhos, even born in the same year, and this is the only one with Italian nationality. And having Italian in the lead disambiguates nicely, or else we'll have to change by month. Same reasoning applies to players like Éder (Italian footballer) and Éder (Portuguese footballer).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortizesp (talk • contribs) 17:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I still think it would be best to avoid mentioning his nationality if at all possible. If that means including his birth month in the article title, so be it. – PeeJay 18:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I ask why? I get that he was born in Brazil, but now that he has played in the Italian National Team, that is his permanent nationality as far as FIFA is concerned. --dashiellx (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's why. – PeeJay 07:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still not understanding your concern. However, I do think this opens up a larger discussion as how to refer to people with the same name as they meet the notability requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. There should probably be a discussion on a standard hierarchy of reference. However, I think 1) Name 2) Name (Occupation) 3) Name (Nationality, Occupation) is the most common across wiki. --dashiellx (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dashiellx: Have a look at this naming convention. --SuperJew (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I had to confess my sin here. I am the guy who bold move Eder the Italian international footballer from his full name Éder Citadin Martins a while ago. But yes, most of the time changing the article title of some biographical article, from full name to mononym + disambiguator (or changing the format of disambiguator) should use WP:RM full discussion. Matthew hk (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. None of the other Jorginho's have any mention of their nationality in the article title, and given no other notable Jorginho's were born in December 1991, it seems far more suitable to use the month of birth in the title. Using nationality as the distinguishing point for a person that likely holds both Brazilian and Italian citizenship needlessly complicates things. Domeditrix (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Position could have been an option, but both of these are midfielders... GiantSnowman 11:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Even then, unless one player is a goalkeeper then position using position to differentiate can lead to issues. It's not like cricket where a bowler will take a few overs in every match in their career and a batsman may never bowl a ball. In my view it's better to use a differentiate with the widest degree of certainty and finality. Domeditrix (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned that @Ortizesp: continues to make problematic page moves. You have been asked multiple times to use WP:RM. Why do you persist? Do we need to raise this issue at ANI and seek a topic ban or similar? GiantSnowman 12:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Lebanese player notability

While Ali Al Haj isn't notable per WP:NFOOTBALL, he did apparently become the only player to have scored in three official national divisions in a single season in 2018, scoring with the U17, U19 and senior side of Nejmeh. The source (French) states: "Ali Hajj is now the only player to have scored at least one goal in three official national championships in a single season, in both junior (u17) and cadet (19) categories where he has already scored 14 and 27 goals respectively in 2017-2018". Now, I'm not sure if he is really the ONLY player in existence to have accomplished this feat, but going by what the source states wouldn't he be considered notable?

What are your opinions? Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

That record does not make him notable for me : plenty of players set age group records like this. Spike 'em (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm also doubtful that this record is a worldwide one, it is not clear that the article is claiming this, rather than just a national one. Spike 'em (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Squad maintenance template

The Squad maintenance template that is used on many football club squad templates appears to no longer work. See Template:Arsenal F.C. squad for example. Any ideas? Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The tool at http://tools.wmflabs.org seems to be down. I can't find any other information about whether it is defunct or temporarily down. When did you last use it?   Jts1882 | talk  19:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't say for certain, but probably early February after the last transfer window. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Daemonickangaroo2018:. It looks like the Templatetransclusioncheck tool has been disabled. From what I can gather it is something to do with deprecation of Ubuntu Trusty at Toolforge, which was shutdown on 25 March because it is no longer supported and might be a security risk (see Toolforge Trusty deprecation). I assume this is some software the Templatetransclusioncheck tool uses. The author was been notified but hasn't responded. We either have to wait for him/her to respond or find someone who understands this stuff.   Jts1882 | talk  08:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Professional Clubs in Semi-Professional Leagues

I'm sure this question has been asked before, but are the players of professional clubs in semi-professional (or amateur) leagues, such as TNS, considered to pass WP:NFOOTBALL? Or do they have to pass WP:GNG to be worthy of an article? Thanks in advance, SmackJam (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2019

Any player playing in a semi-pro league (even those for a professional club) is not notable via NFOOTBALL but might be per GNG. GiantSnowman 16:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

In the specific case of TNS, I'd think that virtually every player who's made any kind of significant appearance (as opposed to coming off the subs bench for ten minutes) is going to meet GNG, as Wales has very active media and thirty seconds searching the Western Mail archive will probably find at least two features on him, one when he signed and one when he made his debut. It's more of an issue in the lower English leagues, where some of the teams are little more than glorified pub sides. ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Many Lebanese players also have significant coverage on them, but are still not deemed notable as they don't play for a professional league (or have yet to debut in the national team). I would obviously much prefer if they would be considered notable by what you say, but I wouldn't be too sure about it. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

If they meet WP:GNG, they're very likely notable in Wikipedia terms; when WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG disagree, GNG always takes precedence. In the Lebanese case, I'd guess that part of the issue is that sources are likely to be in either Arabic or French, which obviously have fewer speakers on English Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah true, most sources I am thinking of are in Arabic ahahah Nehme1499 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, there isn't a problem having non-English sources. --SuperJew (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

True, but if I link 10-20 Arabic sources on a Lebanese player I don’t think that would make him notable (as much as I want it to be this way). What I’m trying to say is: linking non-English sources on a notable player is OK, but using the sources as a way of suggesting notability of a person isn’t (I think). Nehme1499 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent: FYI, an article about a player signing is often deemed nothing more than ROUTINE... GiantSnowman 19:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Depends on the source. If it's just "Carlos Kickaball expresses his delight at signing for Midtable Rovers", sure, but if it's a two-page biography in a national or major regional paper, not so much. The reason I prefaced my comment with "in the specific case of TNS" is that TNS is in the privileged position that although they're a minnow, they're at the intersection of the coverage areas of multiple newspapers which are respectable enough to qualify as reliable sources (the South Wales papers like the Western Mail, the North Wales papers like the Daily Post, and the various Shropshire and Midlands media), plus they're based in an area where all the other football teams are terrible so they have the benefit of being one of the biggest fish in the pond. Consequently they get a lot more coverage than a comparable team in the English or Scottish lower leagues. ‑ Iridescent 19:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Review of User:Arif soul contributions

Would appreciate some eyes on the contributions of Arif soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). One of their edits popped up on my watchlist as an unsourced move of a Brazilian player Francisco Wagsley to an Indonesian club. I wasn't able to source it myself (although I am aware he has recently left Treze Futebol Clube) so removed it. Having visited their talkpage, there appear to be a lot of issues with this user's edits. From quick checks it would appear this user never quotes sources, never uses edit summaries and never posts on talk pages. I have left a message on the user's talk page regarding this post. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I am really not sure it is troll or too rely on transfermarkt or the data from the video game FIFA . Sometimes hard to AGF. I had gave the user a warning for keep on adding poorly sourced height at Marcus Rashford. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Live updates?

Hi, when i look up Revision history of Template:2019 AFC Champions League group tables, i find that two edits made by Hhkohh (talk · contribs) at 11:24 and 11:27 seemed to be live updates. Thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2408:8207:c43:c9f0:282a:7798:e0df:bce9 (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:LIVESCORES applies. Care to explain @Hhkohh:? GiantSnowman 12:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No. we should not live update. I sometimes get an old data then AFC website update later after match concluded. That is the reason why I sometimes update twice. Next time I will be careful while updating. Thanks for pointing me out it again! Hhkohh (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Just saying, that there are several livescore websites (flashscore...) which could be used aswell to avoid mistakes... Kante4 (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Just out of interest, should WP:LIVESCORES maybe redirect to someone a bit more generic/central than Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Snooker? I can see people attempting to claim it doesn't apply to other sports if it's only on the snooker MoS...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Maybe part of WP:NOT? GiantSnowman 13:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that live update prose should be updated to be more inclusive about other sports and the possible element of gambling issues. Govvy (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy, GiantSnowman, ChrisTheDude, and Kante4:, suggest a proposal: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Football. Thoughts? Hhkohh (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but this needs to be Wikipedia-wide, not just football. There have been recent issues at ANI with ice hockey, for example. GiantSnowman 13:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

If we need a Wikipedia-wide MOS, we should reach consensus in other pages such as WP:AN Hhkohh (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe start an RfC at WT:NOT? GiantSnowman 14:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine Hhkohh (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Assistance

Odd, I tried to add a disambiguation hatnote instead of the whoops tag on several players named Zé Pedro (see for instance here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Z%C3%A9_Pedro_(footballer,_born_1991)&diff=892128835&oldid=891818168), it does not display well for reasons that elude me. However, I copied the template from players named Ricardo Silva and only altered the title of course, so what went wrong in your opinion?

Attentively, thanks in advance --Quite A Character (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

By default {{other people}} links to a disambiguation page (by appending "(disambiguation)" to the name you provide. Your choices here are to use

• {{other people|Zé Pedro|Zé Pedro}} which displays as

For other people named Zé Pedro, see Zé Pedro.

• {{other people5|Zé Pedro}} which displays as

For other people with similar names, see Zé Pedro.

Alternatively, you could create Zé Pedro (disambiguation) and redirect it to Zé Pedro then the link will work. Spike 'em (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Which I have done. GiantSnowman 12:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)