Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 129

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125←Archive 127Archive 128Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131→Archive 135

Naming dispute with administrator RE Bohemian FC (Dublin).

Hello, this is my first time to query/challenge something so I hope this is the correct way.

I've been editing on here for a while and maintain the page for Bohemian FC's current season (see here) and have done for the past few years. The main reason I'm writing to you is with regard to the name of the club. Another user who maintains the page for player Kris Twardek refuses to accept that the team is never simply called Bohemian in Irish media, where they are based. The team is officially called Bohemian FC or Bohemians. Never simply Bohemian. This is apparent on the main article for the club on Wikipedia. The user GiantSnowman will not accept this despite it also being apparent at a cursory glance toward any media relating to the club. I don't want to be petty or pedantic but I feel uniformity should prevail on an encyclopedia. Calling the club Bohemian is akin to calling Heart of Midlothian F.C. Heart or something to that effect.

I would appreciate if the link on player Kris Twardek's page was allowed to be displayed as Bohemians as it is in nearly every other instance, or Bohemian FC. The nomenclature Bohemian is just not used whatsoever. I am a member of the club for the last 20 years.

Thank you

Fwaig Fwaig (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Another time, if you include a ping to the person you're talking about, like @GiantSnowman:, they'll get a notification that you've started a discussion (see template:Ping for what to write). I've done it now.
On the substance of the dispute, I'd agree that Bohemians in the plural is the normal way of referring to the club. Of the 20-odd players with surnames beginning with F in category:Bohemian F.C. players, there's only one that uses Bohemian in the singular (Gareth Farrelly). UEFA use Bohemians in profile and prose. The BBC, the Irish Independent and Google news pretty well only use Bohemian in the singular if it's followed by FC/Football Club (or Rhapsody, but that's off topic). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not bothered either way - I just want consistency supported by sources (which Fwaig has still yet to provide). GiantSnowman 09:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
GS, if you haven't checked sources yourself, why would you write something as confident and assertive as "we do not use 'Bohemians' in the same way we don't say 'Wolves' or 'Hearts'"? Robby.is.on (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Because standard piping is always [[Wiki F.C.|Wiki]] - hence why we don't use Wolves or Hearts, and there was no explanation or sources provided as to why we should use [[Bohemian F.C.|Bohemians]] other than "it's just what the club does". GiantSnowman 11:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I know that. But if you can't rule out there might be an exception to the rule you aren't really in a position to make such a definitive statement. There's a difference between stating "[…] standard piping is always [[Wiki F.C.|Wiki]]" and stating "we do not use 'Bohemians' in the same way we don't say 'Wolves' or 'Hearts'". The latter implies you have done the research for the club. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Struway2's research matches what I've heard and read about the club. I've corrected instances of "Bohemian" at Kris Twardek. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Békéscsaba 1912 Előre needs a big of attention (from a Hungary expert?)

I've come across Békéscsaba 1912 Előre which was moved from Békéscsaba 1912 Előre SE back in 2015 without discussion by an editor claiming it was the new name. The badge on the current website suggests that is the case, in which case the badge on the Wiki page needs updating, and the name changing on eg the Category:Békéscsaba 1912 Előre SE hierarchy. I don't pretend to know anything about Hungarian football though, so over to you guys! <g> Le Deluge (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Using the word "summer"

Hi, I was wondering what people's thoughts were on the use of the word summer in articles. To elaborate, I'm tidying up Craig Shakespeare's page and like loads of football articles there's a lot of "on 8 June he did this, on 1 July he did that" and so on and it makes for some pretty ugly prose. I get that the exact date (or at least the month) is of significance in mid-season, as it gives the reader a sense of the point in the campaign a transfer/managerial appointment (for example) took place, so date heavy articles are a necessity even if they can make for grim reading. However, between seasons I don't think the exact date is of any great significance most of the time and there's an opportunity to freshen the writing style. The concern is that obviously it's not summer across the globe - does that matter given we've situated the person in a place where it is summer? I suppose an alternative would be to use wording like "prior to the 1900-01 season" or "in the 1900-01 pre-season". Thoughts appreciated! HornetMike (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I generally don't put exact dates for just coaching roles as I don't think it's generally reported with the specific accuracy of managerial and playing roles, and obviously for individual matches.--EchetusXe 22:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
It might be a British idiom only but the term close season (close is pronounced as for near, not shut) has long been in use for any inter-season period. Could we use that? No Great Shaker (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
"Close season" definitely works, but IMO it's perfectly OK to say "summer". I can understand not wanting to use terms like summer, autumn, etc, if we've talking about, say, the release of a new album in the article about a pop star if said release took place at the same time all over the globe, but when the subject of the article is explicitly tied to one country, I don't see any issue with referring to summer, winter, etc. Can you imagine trying to re-write Winter of 1962–63 in the United Kingdom to avoid the word "winter" because it wasn't winter in Australia at the time? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Close season or off season are both possibilities (minor point, but I've always heard close season pronounced as in being shut, see [1]) Spike 'em (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm guessing that to those writing above, "summer" means a time when they're not playing. But that doesn't work everywhere. Here in Australia for example, the A-League, the premier national league, is played over summer. Also, this not very rabid fan is not at all familiar with the term "close season". And we do need to write for not so rabid fans. HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I have heard people say cloze season so I'd guess there's a north/south thing here ;) I think in general that local usage must apply. What do the Aussies call their inter-season period? No Great Shaker (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I've never heard the term "close season" and I do enjoy my soccer. Aussies call it the "off-season" or "pre-season" (or "silly season" or specifically in the A-League "the longest pre-season ever"). --SuperJew (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I've used summer (where it's been clear that I'm talking about a particular location), off-season, and close season (close as in the opposite of open - the period when the season has drawn to a close). I think they're all pretty clear and it's good to use different phrases throughout the article because using the same word repeatedly gets a bit tedious. — GasHeadSteve [TALK] 14:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

German club names in UEFA competitions

There is currently a discussion going on at Talk:2019–20 UEFA Europa League over how German (and Austrian) club names are supposed to be displayed in articles on UEFA competitions. Specifically, the current case is that there is a disagreement over whether VfL Wolfsburg and Wolfsberger AC should be shortened to just "Wolfsburg" and "Wolfsberg" or not. I would like to ask for a few more opinions on the topic so that we can establish a clear consensus. Phanto1999 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Archive 109

can the Category: W-League (Australia) seasons by club be removed from the categories on the Archive 109 page ? No longer belongs. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Done, I've changed the category to a link. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

A tale of two Dean Smiths

A discussion has been started at Talk:Dean Smith regarding whether Dean Smith should be regarded as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or whether it should be disambiguated. I welcome your participation in the discussion, which can be found at this location. Please keep all discussion regarding the proposed disambiguation on the relevant talk page. Thanks, Domeditrix (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Takumi Minamino

Anyone with eyes over on Takumi Minamino just to watch the IP edits etc. As with a lot of high profile pre-contract signings he's having his current club etc changed regularly and likely will for the next few days. There was a contentious anti-Utd edit earlier also. Koncorde (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article. GiantSnowman 17:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Ta GS. Koncorde (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Juan Foyth

Someone keeps changing Foyth's height from different IPs, trying to cite a picture I think, I've reverted too many times now. Maybe someone else can keep an eye on the article, I was wondering if it should be protected for a couple of weeks know. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Are those the heights with and without the hair? I agree we should use the PL source, but I have my doubts about its accuracy. I went to the Spurs site to see if they have anything (they don't) but was shocked at how bad the site is. It looks like a kid has just discovered Javascript and loaded every trick (s)he could find to produce a useless site that looks fancy.   Jts1882 | talk  11:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Spurs own website isn't always the best, Premierleague and Soccerway have 1.79m but Soccerbase have 1.91m however I don't know where Soccerbase has collected it's information from. Premier League and Soccerway collected from Tottenham Hotspur from his signing, registration with the club. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This photo shows the player has a similar height to Nathan Aké which 1.91m would certainly be wrong. Soccerbase are not always accurate at keeping the player's BLP's accurate (Dwight Gayle's birthdate is still a year off compared to 11v11 and Kyle Naughton's would be six days off compared to what Swansea's website shows as discussed on the associated talk page a month ago). This 1.91 figure is something out of the factual accuracy of this player. On Talk:Juan Foyth, would you still want the outdated infobox there as it seems confusing. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
His previous club website had 1.87m: click on "Ver plantilla completa" (see full squad) and then click on his picture, and this article in La Nación from when he got his first senior call-up for Argentina talks about how Estudiantes tried him at centre-back when he was 16 because he was still growing and now he's 1.87m. The 1.91m could have come from this Independent article, whch describes him as 6 ft 3 in, but in the same piece Pochettino thinks him "the same height as Toby [Alderweireld], Jan [Vertonghen], Davinson [Sanchez]" who according to their wiki pages are 1.87–1.89.
The PL's 1.79 is clearly nonsense and, as mentioned above, stats websites are only as reliable as their sources. If it were me, I'd go with 1.87 citing his previous club. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Photos are very unreliable for comparing height. Players can stand with different postures and the camera angle can play tricks. Take this photo, for instance. Looking from the right, Alli (188cm), Llorente (195), Sanchez (187) and 179 seems plausible for Foyth. But then note that Son is 183 and looks shorter than Foyth. One photo, two different comparisons can give different results. I got the heights from worldfootball.net which has Foyth at 179cm, only slightly taller than Eriksen (177). I don't know what to believe, but that matter little. I think we just have to decide what is the most reliable source for the height of PL players.   Jts1882 | talk  11:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm having to say this but we should not use photos of players to try and calculate height. Use reliable sources. GiantSnowman 12:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of this discussion that different reliable sources give wildly varying figures, as per the above comment Premierleague and Soccerway have 1.79m but Soccerbase have 1.91m.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
ESPN lists 1.78. Goal.com has him at 1.79. MSN Sport 1.79. But the Times has a statement of "6' 1", and Fox Sport says "6' 2". It's a case of picking a source, ideally the most recently updated one if it can be identified. Koncorde (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, considering the amount of issues regarding his height wouldn't it be best to remove it all together from the article then? Govvy (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
If were don't know his exact height, can we add a note of whom he is taller and shorter than for comparison, issuing the photos as reference? Spike 'em (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
With Zola on one side and Peter Crouch on the other?? Govvy (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The Times article says the young centre back seems to shrink from his said height and weight of 6ft 1in and a shade under 11 stone. Perhaps we should take it literally.   Jts1882 | talk  18:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman and Jts1882: - *facepalm* photos are done at different angles re heights, the photo I used could have been taken from somewhere else - the two players (himself and Aké) could have been in different places in the football field and one would have appeared more distant than the other. Some example would have been this one where Burnley's player Matthew Lowton appears to be smaller than Ashley Barnes, Jack Cork and Łukasz Fabiański which does play tricks on the human eye. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I have a picture of me from my first trip to Paris which indicates that I am approximately the same height as the Eiffel Tower. If we accept this nonsense of using arbitrary photographs to inform an encyclopaedia article, then I will update the article List of tallest people forthwith: as my new height of >300m will be more than one hundred-fold taller than the mere 2.72m of Robert Wadlow. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Attendance MU vs Everton

Should we follow 73k (in MU site) or 63k (in PL site)? Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd say the official league stat so that there is league-wide consistency. --SuperJew (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: After you ^up Flix11 (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Why would you simply use this forum to inflame your edit war (happening at this article)? Please play nice ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

FAC begging

I currently have 1927 FA Cup Final at FAC if anyone has the time over the Christmas period to take a look. Would be much appreciated. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look in about mate Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Lee. Kosack (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Martin Peters Australian stint.

I was wondering if those games should be included in the info box or not. Govvy (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Because it said they were guest appearances so I wasn't sure about that. Govvy (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:New Aberdeen Stadium

Hi, a move proposal has been started here, contributions welcomed from anyone with an interest. Crowsus (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Micronesia players notability

Federated States of Micronesia national football team is not a member of FIFA or even OFC. Apparently articles were created for almost all their players at 2003 Pacific Games. Just wanted to confirm here if they are notable or not, and if it would be better to use a mass AfD nom, or individual PRODs? --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of assumed notability, they seem to not have much info about them and not likely to get more as they are all retired. --SuperJew (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Micronesia does appear to be an associate member of OFC, though not a member of FIFA, in which case players who played for them at a continental level would be notable. This would definitely include the OFC Nations Cup but I don't know if it includes the Pacific Games or if that's even a senior tournament. Smartyllama (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
That's the thing - they are not even a member of OFC.--BlameRuiner (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
According to their article, they are an associate member of OFC, which is what they call members who are not members of FIFA. So it is inaccurate to say "they are not a member of FIFA." They're like Martinique or Guadeloupe are to CONCACAF, and players who play in their Gold Cup games, for either side, are notable per NFOOTY. Likewise, players who play for Micronesia at the OFC Nations Cup are notable as well, though I don't know about the Pacific Games. Smartyllama (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually, nevermind. They are listed in the OFC template but are not actually OFC members. Someone with more template skill than I should fix that. Smartyllama (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Arsenal F.C. managers, colour scheme

Hi all. Have a situation developing at Talk:List of Arsenal F.C. managers, whereby @Lazer-kitty: argues that the colour scheme/italics for the list are unnecessary. We are in disagreement, I have no problem with the colours and if it was a major issue then surely it would've been flagged up when it got promoted a couple of years ago. But the user refuses to engage in any discussion, going all WP:IDONTLIKEIT, calling me a liar, telling me to 'stand aside' when I have repeatedly told him to ask for input here. They refuse so I'm taking the liberty to open a discussion, get some sort of consensus and just move on. Let me make myself clear, I'm not against removing colours (I think it distinguishes the managers who were promoted from caretaker fine), but this may pertain to a wider discussion about the use of colours in lists such as List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals. Merry christmas, Lemonade51 (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

From my perspective, I don't see anything wrong with using colours. Just because it isn't specifically mentioned in the MOS, doesn't mean it isn't allowed. Personally I think it is a helpful way to differentiate between full and temporary managers. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
As far as I understand it, WP:DTT requires only that colour is not the only indicator when being used to denote something in a table, which this does. The use of colour, italics and symbol could be considered overkill but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. Kosack (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
It isn't just the symbol: WP:DTT requires compliance with all the requirements of MOS:COLOUR, including enough contrast between background and text colour. Personally, I struggle a bit with blue text against the caretaker/single-dagger background, and this tool suggests that the colour difference is insufficient and the brightness difference only just good enough. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh certainly, if the contrast is causing issues for readers then that needs to be addressed. I was thinking more the use of colour in general which seems to be the issue here. Kosack (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
One issue that stands out to me is the use of italics for caretaker managers promoted to full manager. In the case of Bertie Mee he is in italics (because he was briefly caretaker), even though he was manager for ten years. A cursory look would misleadingly place him as a caretaker rather than full time manager. Rather than bringing clarity the italics are adding to confusion. I would favour italics for caretaker managers who were only caretaker manager. Someone like Mee should be shown in normal text with a ‡ to indicate the caretaker nature at the start. In general having two darker colours for two different caretaker categories seems to be misleading and emphasise the trivial. The colour scheme should be there to emphasise important issue.   Jts1882 | talk  14:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

My side of the argument: I think the color is both unnecessary and overwhelming. It dominates the list in order to indicate something relatively minor. I pretty much agree 100% with Jts1882 above, especially when he says it "emphasizes the trivial."
My problem with Lemonade51 specifically is that 100% of his arguments against me are based on lies.

  1. When he originally reverted my changes he did so with the comment "retain colour scheme per MOS:DTT," suggesting that MOS:DTT requires colors (false).
  2. He later claimed I had to gain approval from WP:FOOTY because the color scheme was a project-wide policy (false).
  3. He also claimed that the color scheme was there to maintain consistency with other similar lists (false; the vast majority of them include no colors).

If he had simply approached the discussion in good faith (as you folks have, thank you) and explained why he thought the colors were valuable and improved the article, we probably wouldn't be here, but instead he instantly resorted to lying and wikilawyering, which is behavior I find unacceptable and refuse to engage with. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lazer-kitty:"...if explained why he thought the colors were valuable and improved the article, we probably wouldn't be here," so which part of 'I think it distinguishes the managers who were promoted from caretaker' do you not understand? You removed colour and symbols, hence my point about MOS:DTT. Yes, it might seem 'trivial' to denote promoted caretaker appointments but I happen to think it serves this particular list well when you read the prose. As I said above, I'm in favour of keeping the colour key but I'm happy to compromise -- that doesn't mean removing symbols which you have done and ignored. You also wrote on the talk page, "I checked several other managerial lists before making these changes; none used colors." I presented two lists with a colour scheme so either you ignored it thinking it would hinder your point, or you didn't look well enough. You couldn't be arsed to bring this to the attention of others in order to find a solution (surprising, given the way you are attempting to curry favour now), and if you are going to tell editors who disagree with your approach to 'step aside' then more fool you. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Wishing a very happy Christmas to all footy editors, your friends and families :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Same to you and yours! GiantSnowman 13:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Results Pages for Low-Ranked Nations

Hello. Are there any sort of notability guidelines regarding results pages for national teams, or are results for all nations considered to be notable? SmackJam (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Problematic edits of IP 103.60.175.78‎

Could an admin look at the edits of this IP? The editor is doing mass changing of colours in football templates (among others) and was already blocked several times. The last block ended today and they started doing this edits again. I already listed this IP at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism‎, but nothing happens and the edits are piling up. --Jaellee (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Liga 3 Final

Hi, I want to ask. CASSIOPEIA is suggesting to merge 2019 Liga 3 Final to 2019 Liga 3. Should I merge them? And what about for 2017 and 2018 season? Also what do you all think for Liga 2 Final? Should I merge them too? Regards Wira rhea (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Football League Super Cup

Thought I put this article forward for a bit of TLC from editors. Govvy (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Added to Liverpool FC wiki page, as agreed on talk page. Solid Snack90 (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

League category for a player who hasn’t made an appearance

Hi, in case a player was part of a team in a specific league but didn’t appear for them (e.g. a 3rd-choice GK), should he be categorised under that league (Category:Sample League player)? Nehme1499 (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd say definitely yes, if he was on the bench in game. If he wasn't even on the bench then I don't have a solid opinion. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
No; it's always been for players who have actually played in the league. GiantSnowman 13:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
What GiantSnowman said. You can't be a Premier League player unless you've played in the Premier League. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Only when he plays in a "league". Kante4 (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with others, players must make an appearance in a league to be in its category. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman, Struway2, and Kante4: Just to be clear though, we do categorise the player in the club category even if they don't make an appearance for the club, correct? --SuperJew (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup. Kante4 (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Can someone explain the logic of that? What's the difference between club and league? I would think it should be for both the same consensus - either categorise in league and club regardless of appearances or don't categorise in either until they make an appearance. --SuperJew (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
For me, if a player signs for a club, he is registered with it and should be in the category. The league categories are for players who actually appeared in the league. Kante4 (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree. A good example is the Villa v Liverpool League Cup match recently. How many of those Liverpool teenagers qualify for the Premier League category even though they all qualify for the Liverpool category? No Great Shaker (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
If he's registered with the club, isn't he registered with the league (apart from special cases where clubs sign players for Champions League squad only)? --SuperJew (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
No, many players (youth) are not registered with the league (Premier League is a 25-player squad only, for example). Are you saying somebody who is a youth player at Man Utd from 8 to 18 without getting anywhere the first team should be considered a Premier League player? GiantSnowman 13:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
My question is more should players be in the league category if they are registered with the league, regardless of appearing or not in a league match. Or on the contrary should the club category be only for players who have made an appearance for the club? --SuperJew (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the player can only be in a league category if he has played a match in that league and can only be in a club category if he has played a first-team match for that club. So, the Liverpool players who turned out in the League Cup match at Villa are in the club category as first-team players but they haven't played in the Premier League so aren't in that category. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, there is longstanding consensus that any player who is signed to a club is in the club category, regardless of whether or not they make a first-team appearance. GiantSnowman 15:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Right. Sorry, my mistake. Obviously, notability plays a part there because a junior player won't have an article. Thanks, GS. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Sure, I see this consensus. My question is why different logic is applied to league and club? Surely you can point me to where this consensus was discussed and the discrepancies between league and club discussed. Otherwise, maybe the question should be re-opened. --SuperJew (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
The question has been re-discussed here and the existing conensus has been re-confirmed. Drop the stick. GiantSnowman 17:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not holding any stick. Could you please link me to the discussions or give me the gist of why the logic is different for club and league? I didn't manage to find the discussions - might've have searched the wrong terms. --SuperJew (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the consensus as well. The logic is different because the non-appearing player is an employee of the club, so by definition he has been a part of that club and can say they were contracted to their team, but a player who never appears in a league, even though he may be registered to appear in the league, cannot say they have played in that league. SportingFlyer T·C 18:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation SportingFlyer. I'm not sure I agree with it, as someone registered to the league can say they were registered for that league. The question is basically how it's defined in the categories. Just putting up my 2 cents now, not trying to further any cause to change. --SuperJew (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Registration isn't necessarily transparent, though, whereas appearances are clearly recorded. For a very on-point example from another sport, check out this article about baseball players who were clearly on a major league roster, but never appeared in a game, and thus are not considered "major leaguers" by baseball historians. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Fair. By that logic I'd propose that also for club categories it would have to be only following an appearance for the club (which if we are bringing examples from other sports, in Australian football on wiki, only players who have made an appearance for a club are categorised in the club category). Could see confusion with youth players (should they be in club category) and with trialists. --SuperJew (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Liverpool FC entry Update

Opening section should now state: ‘Liverpool is officially the most successful English club in terms of overall major honours won (47).’ Source: SkySports.

Honours section: Although not recognised as a major honour, Liverpool won the Football League Super Cup in 1985-1986 season. This should be added to Honours won, as it was a competitive and replacement tournament for the English ban in UEFA competitions and was played across the domestic season. Solid Snack90 (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no "official" list. There are various pieces of media that generate their own lists from time to time, and have decided over the last few years what they think constitutes honours, and what constitutes a "major" honour. As few use the same criteria, exclude particular competitions and include others this leads to discrepancies.
However the League Super Cup should be added to the main Liverpool article as it was a formal competition even if just for the one season. Koncorde (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone have any opinion about counting Liverpool’s Lancashire League title among their honours? It was a regional league and although the Southern League was the same, the Lancashire League never had the same status. Seems to me like anyone who includes it is simply trying to inflate Liverpool’s trophy count. – PeeJay 12:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay that’s good to know, I was under the impression there was, somewhere, something that constituted what was a major honour, thanks for the heads up.

Can we get the FLSC added to the opening section (outlining honours won) and to the Honours section, under Domestic and Cup. Solid Snack90 (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I personally wouldn’t include the Lancashire League and the current Liverpool FC page doesn’t include it as an honour won in the breakdown section. I think this correct. Solid Snack90 (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Are you talking about the Lancashire League title listed at List of Liverpool F.C. records and statistics, because Liverpool have it listed as a top honour on their main site. It's not listed on the main article know. I think that should stay, I also think the friendly summer tournaments won should be listed on the records and stats page in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, but have you considered why Liverpool list the Lancashire League title first on their website? Very few other websites do (I haven't the resources to check them all!), so it strikes me as a case of egos being massaged; yeah, it was the first title they won, but it's not typically considered a significant honour by anyone else. And why do you think friendly tournaments should be recognised at all? – PeeJay 22:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I would always argue that things like the Super Cups, the Charity Shield and even this World Club Cup thing are noddy events which only provide a bonus for clubs who have already done the business by winning something that really does matter: the league title, FA Cup, League Cup, European Cup, UEFA Cup or the old CWC. Measuring success via those criteria, Liverpool have won 18+7+8+6+3+0=42; Manchester United have won 20+12+5+3+1+1=42. So it's a tie and they are equally successful. I don't think either of these clubs' articles should claim to be most successful overall, though it is fair enough to say that Manchester United are the most successful in domestic competitions and Liverpool (among British clubs) in European competitions.

The original Lancashire League was historically a very significant competition. It was instrumental in elevating several clubs like Liverpool into the Football League itself. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

See, that's where we have an issue. You say it's your argument, but you haven't provided any sources to back up your interpretation, nor any to support the idea that the Lancashire League was at all significant. – PeeJay 22:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

FYI - As agreed, I’ve added the Football League Super Cup as an honour to the Liverpool wiki page. Thanks for the discussion and bouncing of ideas/thoughts. Solid Snack90 (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation: (footballer) or (soccer)?

Hallo, I came to this project's pages hoping to find out which disambiguation should be used for an article on a player (related to Rachel Lowe (soccer), as Rachel Lowe (footballer) was on my watchlist after an old PROD). I eventually found Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(sportspeople)#Association_football_(soccer) which clarifies: "(soccer)" for players from America, Canada, Australia, "(footballer)" for others. Could this usefully be added to your project pages somewhere? I got as far as the MOS for articles on players, but it doesn't mention the higher-level question of article titles. PamD 09:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks: it may help other editors: there's quite a lot of inconsistency: see Category:American women's soccer players. PamD 09:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any inconsistencies to be honest - a quick spot check shows the "inconsistent" footballers appear to be dual nationals who all seem more associated with their other nationality - but appreciate the heads up. SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@PamD: There are no inconsistencies - the players in that category with "(footballer)" are American-born, but represented a different nation internationally:
--SuperJew (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
That's good to know, thanks. The link on the project page will be helpful for the occasional passing WikiGnome who isn't a footy expert but edits stuff on any and all topics and tries to get things right! PamD 10:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
But the first few "(footballer)"s in Category:Australian women's soccer players all seem to be Australian by birth with no mention of playing for other nations, eg Catherine Brown (footballer). PamD 10:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a very clear policy for Australia - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) - but it's understandable that soccer fans with little knowledge of the the other sports called "football" sometimes get it wrong. There are four sports played professionally in Australia that are called "football" at times by at least some of their fans (and a few other football codes not played professionally). The round ball code was officially known as soccer until 2005, when the national body renamed itself to Football Federation Australia, and encouraged clubs to also change their names to use the word "football". Many, but not all, have done so. It doesn't make sense to change when your town already has a "Xxxxxx Football Club" that plays a different sport. It's all a bit confusing. I could go on, but it might not become immediately clearer. It means that those Australian entries that say "football" or "footballer" are not following policy (feel free to fix them if you have the energy), but it's also not surprising. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Catherine Brown has played more than one type of football, though. Hack (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm. I see what you mean with those edits to her article. Catherine Brown is a disambiguation page, with a lot of entries. It lists the lady in questions as Catherine Brown (footballer), which is actually a redirect to Catherine Brown (soccer). Should this now change to Catherine Brown (soccer and Australian Rules football player)? HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
In the case of a player playing both codes (Brianna Davey and Jenna McCormick also come to mind though luckily they don't need disambiguation as of now), I would think we would want to disambiguate according to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In the case of Catherine Brown it seems simple - soccer she played at the highest domestic level (32 appearances in 4 seasons for Canberra United in the W-League ), while footy she only trialled and now plays in a lower tier competition. Therefore seems to me her primary code is soccer and should stay at the current page. --SuperJew (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. HiLo48 (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I've edited the DAB (per MOS:DABENTRY), as the entry there predated the recent page move. I'd say that unless her AFL career was notable in its own right that leaving at (soccer) is the best solution. Spike 'em (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@PamD: True. I fixed the inconsistencies. --SuperJew (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Important discussion

Not many people seem to follow the listings at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves but I urge as many people as possible to contribute to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 30#Category:English Football League managers. GiantSnowman 10:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year team, 2019 was an interesting year, lots of manager sackings in the prem league, don't know if that's a new record. Welcome to 2020 team, wish everyone well and good luck for the second half of the season! Govvy (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Same to you! GiantSnowman 14:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

On Hiatus

After a lot of time editing on here and the personal fact that I have not yet recovered from the disappointment that 25 December 2019 has gone, I am taking a well-earned break from this site. See this for more information - the text will be reverted by me when I come back.

Thanks to all the constructive edits the experienced users has made to keep the site well presented (and Special:Diff/920427713 was a rare unfortunate blooper from one of you). Bye for now, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hope you feel better soon Iggy! GiantSnowman 14:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Have a good break. I'll try and cut out the silly mistakes. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Edits by user User:Simione001

Hi all including User Simione001,

Can I please request that those more regular and informed editors of wikipedia review the edits Simione001 is making. I say that since Simione001 is editing the Lyndon Dykes page to what could be pushing some sort of pro-Australia agenda? I say that since Simione001 is:

a) Add stats to the info box that clearly go against Wikipedia standard that stats in the info box should be Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only. Lyndon Dykes has never played in the senior league in Australia. None of the clubs he has played for that Simione001 is keen to include the stats are senior league clubs in Australia.

b) Simione001 was also keen to remove the comment that Dykes has come out as stating his preference to represent Scotland at international level. In Simione's defence the source listed at the time was not the correct source re Dykes coming out in favour of him playing for Scotland.

If there is anyone who is keen to patrol edits to ensure they comply with Wikipedia standards, a review of Simione001's edits may be worthwhile. Any constructive input is welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.236.63 (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The source of the declaration for Scotland was the Scottish Sun, which is not a high quality source for verifying information about living people. He has subsequently stated that he is open to playing for either Scotland or Australia.[2] Hack (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Hack,

Your comment is inaccurate. The source provided on the Lyndon Dykes page is not the Scottish Sun. Please review relevant wikipedia pages in future before making unfounded comments.

Hi all,

It will be interesting to see if others in addition to users Hack and Simione001 from the WikiProject Football/Australia task force look to brigade this conversation and other topics on this and other pages.

Just to add to re edits made by User:Simione001:

a) Simione001 undid the edit re Lyndon Dykes allegiance with this absurd comment:

"Ready to commit to Scotland is not the same as declaring a switch in allegiances to Scotland."

b) A comment was added to Simione001's talk page. Simione001 has edited that talk page to hide the comment critiquing Simione001's edits.

c) Simione001 is looking to include in the infobox appearances and stats e.g. for Mudgeeraba SC despite Mudgeeraba not playing in Australia's senior league. That goes against the Wikipedia standard that stats in the info box should be senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.237.197 (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

a) there is no one senior league in Australia. I'm not sure why you claim the clubs that Simione001 listed are not in the senior league. NPL Queensland (Redlands United, Gold Coast City), Gold Coast Premier League (Mudgeeraba SC, Merrimac FC, Surfers Paradise Apollo), and Scottish Championship (Queen of the South) are senior leagues, even if they're not the highest tier.
b) As Hack mentioned above, there are sources published after the source claiming his declaration for Scotland (such as The World Game) showing Dykes is open to representing either nation, even giving more weight to the Aussie team.
c) Simione001 has every right to change what they want on their talk page. They answered you before removing it acknowledging they read. You don't need to police their talk page and you brought it up here "so it is visible for others to see".
--SuperJew (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
You seem to have a misundertsanding of what goes into the infobox. For example, many players in the UK begin and / or end their careers outside the top leagues (Premier League, EFL, Scottish League etc). Where stats are available for non-league first-team appearances, they are habitually included in the infobox. Why would you consider stats for QoS (a team playing in a professional league) should not be included in the i/bx? As it stands, his apps for QoS show as 86 whereas Soccerbase has him at 100 (sub apps are included). Please be cautious when accusing other ediotrs of 'vandalism' when clearly it is a dispute over content (not the same thing at all). (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Thank you Eagleash (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Duncan Ferguson

I think one of the admins needs to strike this edit. [3] Govvy (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Mattythewhite‎ I saw you on the article, don't you want to strike the horrible comments on that page? Govvy (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, cheers. Govvy (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Grammatical doubt

Hi there "teammates", and a happy 2020 to everyone,

without further ado: i REALLY thought that writing "at" regarding football matches (for example "Tomorrow we play at Barcelona", or "Rangers won 2-1 at Celtic last meeting") was correct. Doubt is, is it not correct at all? Or it is somewhat correct, but we should avoid it due to it being too colloquial?

Thanks in advance for the reply(es), keep it up and behave from Portugal! --Quite A Character (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It is correct to use "at" in both the examples you give. I can't see how it could be considered colloquial. Number 57 10:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The latter is obviously colloquial, the former less so. Since there is no such place as Celtic, one cannot play AT Celtic. I guess one can at Barcelona, but it's the name of a city, not a stadium. Unlike Celtic, the word Barcelona doesn't even appear in the name of the stadium. So no, it's not grammatically correct to use "at" in that way. HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I strongly disagree; "at" is the correct preposition in the above sentences; the colloquialism (as you see it) is in the use of club names as places. However, I do not believe this is a colloquialism either; it is common (in British English at least) to refer to football matches in this way (see, for example, "Liverpool's win at Chelsea epitomises resilience Jurgen Klopp has built into team" I am a former English teacher FWIW, so I hope I have at least some basic understanding of grammar. Number 57 11:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
"Against" would equally compatible in pretty much all situations like this just in case anyone wants some variety or to avoid confusion for non natives, or to remove vagueness.
Anyway, "At" is legitimate use and not colloquial. Even the use of the club name as a place isn't colloquial either - they have just gained a synonymous meaning which needs context to make sense.
The use of the word Barcelona to mean the city, stadium, football club, is fine. Especially as the stadium is actually called the "Camp Nou" (which kind of demonstrates the synonymous nature of the language). Koncorde (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the context of football makes it clear that we are playing at the Nou Camp, that Rangers won at Celtic Park and that Liverpool won at Stamford Bridge (although there are no doubt some people who would say Liverpool weren't around in 1066). The terminology of football is now so widespread in GB English that it is has left colloquialism far behind. I recently heard a lady say about a traffic situation that it was a matter of life and death – and the man with her said it was much more serious than that – which shows how far football has infiltrated everyday English! Anyway, someone should tell the BBC to use Herr Klopp's umlaut..... No Great Shaker (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
"the context of football makes it clear that..." But this is a global encyclopaedia, where we cannot assume that all our readers come from "the context of football". I am from a country where most people aren't insiders to the sport's special language usage. We must not write as if they are. What's so hard about avoiding insider style language? HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The use of "at" isn't the inside context element. The "contextual of football" element is the use of the word "Celtic" to mean "Celtic Football Club" and therefore "Celtic Park". By the same token that same context is applied to pretty much every single article on wikipedia. At no point should anyone ever write "Cristiano Ronaldo scored three goals in an away leg of the Champions League competition at the San Siro against A C Milan in the semi finals of the 2007/2008 season" where "Cristiano Ronaldo scored a hat-trick at AC Milan in the semi final of the 2007/2008 Champions League" would suffice. Using "at" (instead of "against") in that example is clumsy, but the "at" conveys the away-leg concept where "against" offers no indication and would likely require further qualification (if we care to even differentiate). In short we must write for a wide base of readers, but we also have to assume that they are able to read at a high enough standard to understand what the word "at x" means in any context. We do not have to say "The French Army engaged in battle against the British Army on the fields of Waterloo" when "The French Army fought the British at Waterloo" does the same thing. It is now such common parlance that the context is self explanatory.
TL;DR all articles use common terminology that will only have some context within the category of the article. This is normal, expected, and we are expected only to limit the jargon or link to such jargon where possible. "At" is not jargon. "At Celtic" is not jargon anymore than "At Waterloo". Koncorde (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you follow other sports at all? I'm fairly certain "at" isn't used outside (association) football. It doesn't seem to work for cricket, or the other football codes in my country. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Are you pulling our legs? It’s used in cricket all the time, at least over here. “Glamorgan won at Worcestershire” is a perfectly valid construction. Also, using the name of the team to refer to their home city/stadium or vice versa is also a common linguistic tool known as “synecdoche”. – PeeJay 07:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Other sports would include rugby league which is popular in Australia. I've a friend who supports Salford and I've often heard him say things like "we're at Saints next" so using not only at but also a nickname, and it's fully understandable and acceptable as long as you know who Saints are. In football, people routinely say "at Wolves" or "at Spurs" as those nicknames are more famous than the real names. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes. It is used in most US sports for instance (they like their use of the @ symbol for shorthand in a lot of infoboxes, but it's relatively standard) just in speech and narrative). Cricket will be used depending on the source but it's quite normal because the whole concept of counties as synonyms for the county team, ground etc is relatively strong, you are unlikely to see it on an international stage however (doubt it'd be used for any sport internationally, "in", or "to", or "against", or "Vs" would almost certainly be used).
To repeat, grammatically there is nothing wrong with it. Whether we use "at" or any other of 5 or 6 alternatives won't change the underlying meaning or understanding. Koncorde (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Just for curiosity, I did a search for Australian sports and South African sports and neither came up with anything (although Google identified the correct matchups and presented all the associated sports gumph) which would suggest it's not something used commonly in those countries in the press. Australian English may not have yet picked it up. Koncorde (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The standard for listing fixtures in US sports seems to be "Away team at Home team" rather than "Home team v Away team", which supports its usage in American English as well as British. Spike 'em (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
We're getting to the point where some of it falling out if use again. I said to a younger friend a few days ago "if Gary Kasparov was playing chess at the bottom of my garden, I'd draw the curtains" and he didn't get either reference. In the context used, it was hilarious by the way. Koncorde (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Personally I don't have an issue with "at" but I myself prefer to use "away to"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

List of managers of the football championship in England

FYI I have started a discussion at the talk page of this article about its title, which doesn't seem right to me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Along the same lines, there is a similar issue with List of England international footballers capped while playing for Football League clubs. Kosack (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
That article title is horrendously wrong, because pretty much every player capped by England between 1888 and 1992 was playing in the Football League. I presume what it is meant to be is List of England international footballers capped while playing outside the top tier of English football, which doesn't exactly trip off the tongue...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Style amendment for Template:Infobox sports rivalry on derby/rivalry articles

First of all, just a disclaimer: the idea I am proposing does not include any suggestion re-writing the code used in the template I have listed in the title. That's why I'm bringing this up here and not on the template's talk page.

I'm a big fan of finding little tweaks and ways of improvements and the idea that not all change has to be wholesale from the ground up. In my time making minor updates to Manchester derby, this got me looking at the infobox which we use on many of these articles. Specifically, it got me thinking about the field "stadiums" and how the way we use it is really is a pretty blatant case of recentism. I don't really understand why we are only listing the present stadia for the two teams when these two stadia are usually not the only ones the fixture has been played at. I don't really see why this is any more valid than any other list of stadia involved. Why the current ones over, say, the most used ones? Why the current ones over the progenitor stadia? After all, if one club moves to another stadium tomorrow and their derby article then has to be updated, why is the information somehow more historically relevant before the move and then irrelevant afterwards. Shouldn't we be looking to list all the stadia, not just one each?

I get the feeling that the main reason this may well be done was a desire many moons ago to simply prevent that section from turning into a half-page long list of names which could frequently wrap onto more than one line, thus unnecessarily breaking up the information and elongating the template half-way down the article length. However, it seems to me that there are ways around this. For example, I came up with this design for a way of laying it out - putting the two teams into separate columns which halves the potential length of the section, and what's more allows the two teams to be listed side-by-side, which (to my mind at least) makes a small but noticeable effort to reduce the extent to which it can look like alphabetical order is promoting one team over the other.

I am aware that this suggestion has flaws. Every suggestion does. This amendment does not take into account neutral venues which have been used, say for cup finals. It also raises questions over whether other grounds should be used if they, say, were used temporarily during periods when one stadium was inaccessible - as happened in the case of the Manchester derby itself when Manchester United found it necessary to use Maine Road as a home ground as Old Trafford had been bombed. To this I would say that I personally propose the conditions that A) only grounds serving as home venues be used as neutral venues are incidental to the match and this article should recognise the importance of the two teams' home locations, and B) only permanent homes should be listed except in circumstances where one team had no fixed location for a significant portion of its history, but ultimately I am open on this point - at the end of the day I consider how one might determine what should and should not be listed as being of lesser importance than the primary issue of reducing the excessive focus on the present in what is supposed to be a historical record. Falastur2 Talk 18:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

under-21 football team results

It's been brought to my attention that this WikiProject manages many lists of under-21 football team results. None of these entries seem to assert notability and the lists themselves fail WP:LISTN. While I understand fans enjoy writing about their hobby, I think this violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. Can you please take action to clean up these entries? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Soccerbase or Premier League site

This edit has removed a couple of goals scored by Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink based on the Premier League website's stats for the player. The original stats came from Soccerbase. Is there any evidence out there to say which source is correct?--EchetusXe 13:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought I have a look at soccerway, but they don't have any stats for him. Govvy (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
They're both goals originally given to Hasselbaink but changed to own goals by the Dubious Goals Committee. The Chelsea discrepancy is the second goal in this game ruled to be a Dabizas own goal. The Middlesbrough one is similar: the second goal in this game ruled to be a Wallwork own goal. Soccerbase rarely make corrections, clearly the Premier League do. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I just wanna insert my 2 cents by mentioning how much I hate it when Soccerway changes a retired player's profile to a coach profile, making the old playing stats inaccessible. Although in some cases they have two separate profiles for playing and coaching career. --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks Struway.--EchetusXe 12:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

What about NASL players?

Does anyone think that List of foreign NASL players should have an article? Dwanyewest (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Which version of NASL? Either way I'd suggest no. GiantSnowman 19:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Close request

Can somebody please review and close this which is two months old now... GiantSnowman 16:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

May be due to improper RM naming process? RMCD bot removed the tag in article namespace and someone vandalise the talk page archive history . Matthew hk (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

List of English football transfers winter 2019–20

I am a little confused, if the list of transfers is suppose to be from 1 January 2020, why are there transfers from August and September 2019 where it looks like they are joining those clubs straight away? Govvy (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's because the English summer transfer window (in the top two divisions anyway) shut in early August. Clubs in most other countries could sign players in their summer window later than that (e.g. Brandon Barker moving to Rangers), but technically it count as a "winter" transfer in England because it happened after the summer window shut. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I think these articles need more notes!! :/ Govvy (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
If anything, there's too much text in that article lead. Talking in the first sentence about the January window is kind of misleading, because the list covers all transfers that happened after the last summer window closed (in early August) up to the opening of the 2020 summer window. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The winter transfer window articles cover all deals that take place between the end of the summer window and the end of the winter window. Makes more sense to put the transfers/loans that are agreed outside the windows in the article for the next window. – PeeJay 16:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
What PeeJay2K3 says makes sense. Another option is dividing it by seasons or by years instead of by windows. --SuperJew (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
We tried that a while back, but the number of individual references required made it unfeasible. I'm glad we went back to only including Premier League and Championship transfers though. It was impossibly huge when someone decided to add League One and League Two, what with all the loan deals that always happen. Maybe if we further subdivide into separate lists for Premier League and Championship, that would be good too? – PeeJay 16:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Well I always thought the whole process in these tables seem messy, but I don't really know a better way. Govvy (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I think per league makes more sense than per country. I don't see the problem with individual references though. --SuperJew (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
There's no problem with individual references per se, but when you have hundreds of citation templates, in addition to hundreds of {{sortname}} templates, the Wikipedia platform becomes incapable of supporting that many transclusions and the page breaks. That's why we use a single source for most transfers and only add individual ones where necessary. You don't see it because we saw it years ago and worked to avoid it. By the way, can I petition everyone to please avoid using the format exhibited at List of Spanish football transfers summer 2019. Doing it on a club-by-club basis is pointless and ugly, and you end up with many transfers within the division listed multiple times. The chronological format used for English transfers with columns for each involved club is far superior. – PeeJay 13:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I think doing only Premier League would be fine. --SuperJew (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
And yeah, the way in the Spanish article you linked is really bad and redundant. --SuperJew (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Not just redundant, but it doesn't allow the sorting. The one sortable table is much more useful and can generate the club results.   Jts1882 | talk  20:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Metin-Ali-Feyyaz – a mess

Hi folks. Anyone happy to do some cleaning up? The Metin-Ali-Feyyaz article is quite a mess as are its subjects' articles: Metin Tekin, Ali Gültiken, and Feyyaz Uçar – the latter two to a lesser extent. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there even notability to the article? Do we have a Messi-Suarez-Neymar article? --SuperJew (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
That is a good question… Robby.is.on (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan Field

Please can User:Iggy the Swan or User:Struway2 or someone else move Matthew Lowton to Jonathan Field. He has changed his name as many IP addresses said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.231.43 (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Where's the source for your claim? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
What nonsense. Literally not a single Google result for "Matthew Lowton" "Jonathan Field" other than a scrape of our own Admin Noticeboard. If he has changed his name, he clearly hasn't told anyone, including his own employer -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
"Many IP addresses", and also the blocked Mike2Matthews17, have been trolling at pages including Matthew Lowton and Jack Cork for ages. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Heh, I know a Jonathan Field and he is no footballer!! :/ Weird one. Govvy (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Please answer

Should the format on Template:Infobox sports rivalry used in derby/rivalry articles like in e.g. Derby d'Italia (add Delle Alpi, Olimpico Torino), Arsenal F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry and Arsenal F.C.–Chelsea F.C. rivalry be edited to include all of the two clubs' home stadiums they ever used like Falastur2 did here? Flix11 (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Trivial?

Is this edit on Alderweireld trivial or not? [4] Govvy (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It might make an interesting trivia to add to a section, but it does seem too trivial to make up the entire personal life section.   Jts1882 | talk  16:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It's poorly-disguised linkspam. Spike 'em (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Which I've now reverted. Spike 'em (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It is too trivial to mention at all. Most footballers these days have lots of tattoos, and unless any of them are in some way specifically noted for it or there is some larger story behind their tats that has received press coverage then it does not merit mention in their articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Copa Libertadores

Copa Libertadores, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Playmakerstats

Hi, is www.playmakerstats.com a reliable source?, please advise Atlantic306 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe so. GiantSnowman 20:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
playermakerstats.com is the new name for thefinalball.com / ogol.com.br / footballzz.co.uk etc. Consensus is they are not WP:RS due to being open to user contributions. Gricehead (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

National team adjective or noun

DESK JOVI (talk · contribs) has been changing the piping of national team names, for instance [[Germany national football team|German national team]] at Mario Gómez and [[England national football team|English national team]] at Harry Kane. Anyone care to explain why it is this way? My advice is being ignored (and I can't imagine why, since I'm such a genial fellow). Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering most GA and FA footballers have their national team listed as a noun (e.g. England, not English), I would keep it that way. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
That's obvious, but why are we using the noun and not the adjective? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure that there's has been consensus regarding the use of the noun in the article page's name itself (so England national football team, not English national football team. The piping should reflect the name of the article itself (minus the word "football", which is redundant). Nehme1499 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
How is the name of the sport redundant? There are other sports, you know, and England plays many of them. I personally see the use of the noun rather than the adjective as an unacceptable form of neologism, but I'm old, and from a country where soccer isn't the major football code, so what would I know? HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not talking about changing the article name (say, from England national football team to England national team). I'm talking about piping the link to the article (e.g. [[England national football team|England national team]]) in the footballer's article. There's no need to put the word "football" since the first phrase of a footballer's page is "Adam Smith is a professional footballer": it's clear that we are talking about a footballer. If one reads "England national team" there isn't going to be ambiguity regarding which sport the footballer's national team operates in. Nehme1499 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. I misunderstood. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, to be fair I wasn't very clear hahaha. Nehme1499 (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Mikael Ndjoli date of birth dilemma

Motherwell have now put up a profile on their website of new signing Mikael Ndjoli, and it lists his birth date as 8 October 1997, different in every variable from the date we list of 16 December 1998. The latter date is the one listed on Soccerbase and his profile on the official Premier League website, and ties in with the fact that when he signed on loan for Gillingham last year he was described (by the club and the BBC report) as being 20, and the club posted on social media wishing him a happy 21st on 16 December last year. So I contacted Motherwell and got a reply from the club's Head of Digital and Communications, which read "Mikael's correct date of birth is 8 October 1997, as verified by the player. We noticed the 1998 date of birth on Wikipedia previously, but 1997 is correct". How to proceed - assume he is definitely right, change to the 1997 date and put a hidden note in explaining that other sources are wrong..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

His profile when he was at Kilmarnock also had 8 October 1997.
According to the article and confirmed on the FA registration lists, he took up a scholarship with Millwall in 2014. A December 1998 birth would still have been 15, which is below school-leaving age so too young to start a football scholarship. And AFC Bournemouth signed "18-year-old Ndjoli" in July 2016 – consistent with an October 1997 birth.
I know we can't use primary sources for dates of birth and the like, but I've never seen the harm in using them to tell which of two reliable secondary sources can't be correct. Birth records show a Bongil Ndjoli-Michael, which may or may not be the same person as Mikael Bongili Ndjoli but almost certainly is, registered in Camden in October 1997, and no-one of similar name born in 1998 or registered in 1998 or 1999.
Maybe copy this thread to the article talk page and put a hidden note pointing to it? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Camp Nou

What do you guys think of MiniEstadi1982 (talk · contribs)'s recent edits? He went ahead and boldly piped all mentions of Camp Nou pre-2001 to Estadio del Club de Fútbol Barcelona. He also added it as a past name in the stadium's infobox, without any sources. --BlameRuiner (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If you go to this article, you can see that the official name "Camp Nou" wasn't official until 2001. MiniEstadi1982 (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.mundodeportivo.com/20140302/fc-barcelona/el-barca-vivira-su-primer-referendum-total_54401909556.html MiniEstadi1982 (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It may not have been official until 2001, but De Kuip has never been the official name for Stadion Feijenoord, yet it has always been the common name for the stadium. By all means make mention of the fact that "Camp Nou" only became the official name in 2001, but there's no need to pipe to "Estadio del Club de Fútbol Barcelona" anywhere. – PeeJay 16:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
And if it is to be piped/changed, it definitely shouldn't be done via search-and-replace within article text, which seems to be have been used in the case of this edit and as a result changed the content of a direct quotation from a source, which should never be done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by IP user

Hi, can someone take a look at 213.233.147.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 213.233.147.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (presumably the same person)? He keeps making disruptive edits at Dejan Kulusevski. He also seems to have a long history of doing this... Nehme1499 (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Those are the same IP address. Did you want us to take a look at another one in addition to 213.233.147.165? – PeeJay 17:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake. I meant also to tag 213.233.132.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Nehme1499 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Inter Milan

This editor keeps removing the citation, I really can't revert anymore, I don't understand the removal, [5] I think it's disruptive to remove as it clarifies the name. Some help on this please. Govvy (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Cheers, btw, my gut feeling is that that they guy plays a little WP:OWN and maybe using more than one account. Govvy (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
If you suspect sockpuppetry, there are ways to get that investigated. – PeeJay 16:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I did ask Bbb23 but he didn't think there was enough in it to investigate at the moment. Govvy (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"2020–present" or "2020–29"?

Regarding the national team results pages, should we be using X national football team results (2020–present) or X national football team results (2020–29)? Palestine, Saudi Arabia and Syria, for example, use the former, while Albania, Italy and Spain use the latter. Thoughts? Nehme1499 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If all the results are sorted by decades then it makes sense to go for the latter.--EchetusXe 15:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The only problem is that the Italy page you've linked to is from 2010 to 2029, Scotland is from 2020 to 2039 and Papua New Guinea is from 1990 to 2019 so there is no real consistency. At least with 2020–39 you don't have to move the page like you will with 2020–present. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
My issue isn't really with the time bracket itself (which rightly changes from country to country based on the frequency of their games). The problem is regarding the use of "–present" or "–29/–39/etc". Should we be putting time limits such as –29, even though we still haven't reached that year, or is it preferable to use "–present"? Belgium, for example, goes for a completely different format with Belgium national football team results – 2020s. There are, therefore, three (edit: four) options:
  1. X national football team results (2020–present)
  2. X national football team results (2020–29)
  3. X national football team results – 2020s
  4. X national football team 2020–29 results
What are your opinions? I don't have any specific preference, as long as we uniform all the pages to the same standard. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Purely because it's a featured list, I'd go with the same style as Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the first option. Because it don't set a time frame for the end of the results list when we're still at the beginning of the decade. Also there is nothing wrong with making a move later.--Sakiv (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd pick the first option, but it does seem weird to use "2020-present" when all games are 2020. I think "2020-" would be better.   Jts1882 | talk  20:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? Nehme1499 (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Liga FPD

A question has arisen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manfred Ugalde about the status of this league which isn't included in the WP:FPL lists. The article says its a professional league but without certainty. Does anyone know about football in Costa Rica? No Great Shaker (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The league was discussed on a few occasions at the FPL talk page (here and here). The league is most likely professional, though it seems difficult to find reliable sources to confirm this. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@S.A. Julio: that leaves us with a loose end, then, and maybe we should allow benefit of doubt on notability. Thanks for the pointers. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, does the CONCACAF Champions League allow teams from non-pro leagues to compete? Because, for example, the AFC Champions League is exclusively for teams from pro-leagues, while the AFC Cup for teams from non pro-legues. Is there anything of the sort in the CONCACAF? Nehme1499 (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: To answer your question, yeah, teams from non-pro leagues compete in the CCL. After they changed the format and qualifying for the 2019 edition, it's generally only big, professional clubs that qualify, but there's still a route for non-pro teams to make it to the tournament. CONCACAF does get weird in the Caribbean, where the Caribbean Club Championship is solely for teams from "professional leagues" and the Caribbean Club Shield is for teams from " non-professional leagues which are working towards professional standards". CONCACAF has its own definition of professionalism that ties in with club licensing though, I still haven't been able to figure out exactly how they determine it. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the regulations of the League state (in Spanish) that a club must have a professional license to participate in the league. [6] Gricehead (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Yup, it is a professional league. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Player's club statistics

I have seen a number of player's club statistics table include Champions League and Europa League matches and goals in the "Other" column. I would like to clarify that having a Continental column is still the consensus here on Wikipedia. Kingjeff (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If a player has multiple seasons in Continental competitions then yes. If just one or two seasons then include in 'Other', otherwise you are going to have too many empty columns. GiantSnowman 21:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

football squad template

Template:Football squad on pitch This template is only for one team. Is there any template where both team lineups and formations can be shown?  :) S A H A  19:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Maps

Is it just me or are we getting a bit heavy-handed with maps on some of our articles? I was just alerted to the existence of a gallery of kits in some of the early Football League season articles when I spotted that there was a map showing the locations of each of the teams in each division. I'm fine with maps being used somewhat decoratively, but it feels like they've been included in (for example) 1894–95 Football League because people think the article isn't complete without a map and they're easy to do. In my opinion, we could easily do away with them all; the location of each team, especially in map form, seems a little crufty. – PeeJay 21:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Caretaker manager made permanent manager

Due to a discussion on the Ross Embleton page and the Template:Leyton Orient F.C. managers I wish to draw attention to this problem: When a caretaker manager is made permanent manager, should the caretaker spell and permanent spell be listed individually or should the caretaker spell be removed and included in the permanent spell?

I would argue that normal Wikipedia practice is to include the caretaker spell leading up to the permanent spell in the permanent spell. This has been done at e.g. Pep Clotet, Scott Parker, Lee Bowyer, Paul Warne, Gareth Ainsworth and many more. Another user thinks that the caretaker spell and permanent spell should be listed individually as they are at present on the Ross Embleton page and in the Template:Leyton Orient F.C. managers.

I find that this practice will expand the infoboxes and manager templates unnecessarily much, and as far as I can count this is not what has been done in most of the cases, where a permanent manager has been made permanent. It is a minor detail that the manager stared his reign at a club as caretaker, and this could be noted in the text of the article. If we choose to list the spells individually, it will expand many of the current infoboxes and many manager templates. --Vistor (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, they don't change jobs. It's the same position. All in one for me Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, if they transition for caretaker manager to permanent manager then all that needs to happen is the word caretaker removed from the infobox and a source given in the text.--EchetusXe 13:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
These are two separate roles and should be listed separately, otherwise it appears that a manager was never caretaker. GiantSnowman 16:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Not if it is in the text of the article. You claim that your version is the standard, but I can only find one example, where this has been done (Brian Barry-Murphy). If we go by your model, we should edit a vast amount of football manager articles, since this seems never to have been the way we did it on Wikipedia. --Vistor (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The infobox is a summary of a person's career. Missing out caretaker manager jobs (or, at best, misleading people into believing a permanent position began earlier than it did) is not right. GiantSnowman 17:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Lee Bowyer’s infobox for some time did show two distinct periods until an editor merged them into one. Personally I’d go with GiantSnowman on this. The infobox should show caretaker and permanent periods separately.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It never seems to have been a problem before. It is the way it has always been on Wikipedia. I don't find that it is misleading to merge a caretaker manager with his folling permanent spell, since - as it is argued above - is the same position. --Vistor (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I've always seen them displayed as separate spells. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's a different job with a different contract. It should be displayed separately. GiantSnowman 17:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Where? You have not given any examples, and I can't find them. It should be easy for you, if you are right. By the way: What would be the point in doing this in football manager navigation boxes such as Template:Leyton Orient F.C. managers? I think it looks silly that the same person is listed twince in a row. Imagine how confused it be with all caretakers made permanent listed twice in a row --Vistor (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know any off the top of my head, but they are out there. And it's quote rare for caretaker to become permanent (hence the reason they were caretaker). GiantSnowman 18:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there is a few of them, but I can give you 10 more examples of caretakers made permanent, where it is not listed: Wayne Burnett, Joe Dunne, Neil Harris, Glyn Hodges, Gary Rowett, Graham Kavanagh, Steve Lovell, Darren Sarll, Dean Smith, Darren Way. And what about the navigation boxes? What is the point of listing them twice there? --Vistor (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
this all seems like excessive detail. The "caretaker" proviso is just to suggest that the manager hasn't been brought in full time. If they have, then it's not needed. We don't need two entries for the same job. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
We have separate entries when a player is on loan and then becomes permanent, or when they leave the club and then re-sign without playing for a club in between (see eg Carlton Cole). Why should managers be different? GiantSnowman 18:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
When on loan the player is owned by another club - a caretaker manager is not. That is the difference. The re-signing should be merged in my opinion. The box is a summary, and details about when the player signed a contract is in my opinion superfluous. --Vistor (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It appears that people have no more to say on this matter, and since it certainly looks like the standard on Wikipedia until now has been that caretakers are not listed seperately, if they are made permanent managers, I suggest that we standardize the two examples that we know of (Ross Embleton/Template:Leyton Orient F.C. managers and Brian Barry-Murphy/Template:Rochdale A.F.C. managers). If we some day decide that this should not be the standard, we can then change all the articles on managers who started as caretakers. --Vistor (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion has barely begun. GiantSnowman 19:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Then feel free to answer the two questions you have avoided so far: 1) Where are all the articles that you claim exist with caretaker and permanent manager spells listed individually? 2) Why list them seperately in the football manager navigation boxes? I don't think that people care whether they click on "Ross Embleton the caretaker" or "Ross Embleton the permanent manager, who followed Ross Embleton the caretaker". --Vistor (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Ole Gunnar Solskjær --Egghead06 (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Only in the infobox not in the football manager navigation box. The page history shows that it has been changed back and forth a couple of times, so people have disagreed there as well. That makes is 2½ examples against 15. -Vistor (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Pete Wild, Mohamed Magassouba - and, more importantly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 10:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also an argument against listing them seperately. This all feels pointless. Why does it matter if part of a tenure is as a caretaker, when they are later given the role full time? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Because, especially with the Embleton example (carteaker in 2019, permanent in 2020), merging the roles in the infobox states that he was permanent manager in 2019 which is factually inaccurate. I'll also flip it round - why does it matter if we list them separately? After all, doing so is more accurate. GiantSnowman 11:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Peter Wild is another half example since it is not listed like that in the navigation box. It matters, because it will expand the infoboxes and manager templates unnecessarily much (as I stated in my original entry). Lots of managers are caretakers for a couple of weeks and are then made permanent manager. It would be an enourmous task to change all articles on Wikipedia, if we should list all these seperately, since it has not been done before. I don't know if that is what you propose? And again: Why list them seperately in the football manager navigation boxes? --Vistor (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
By the way: Do I understand your last answer correctly, if that means you only think it matters, when they were made caretakers in one year, but not made permanent until the following year? --Vistor (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about the infobox than the manager navbox. I doubt it would be an "enormous" task to improve Wikipedia by correctly recording when a manager was made permanent after being caretaker. And no, I care even when it is the same year, but the fact it has been broken up by a year is also important. GiantSnowman 14:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
So you would be ok with a merger in the navigation boxes? --Vistor (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The infobox usually doesn't make a distinction between the various job titles of the manager or head coach. It seems unnecessary detail to record the interim positions separately, which should be covered in the text. The infobox is there as a summary, not to exhaustively list everything. The important thing is the teams where he was in charge, not the job title.   Jts1882 | talk  14:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
What you're proposing is to remove all caretaker positions from the infobox? I'll respectfully remind you that an infobox is "intended to provide a quick overview of an association football player's or manager's details to enable a reader to extract the most oft-needed information without trawling through the article proper." I believe that includes when they have been caretaker manager, whether or not they have then been made permanent. GiantSnowman 14:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that it is part of "the most oft-needed information" that a manager was caretaker for a couple of games before being made permanent manager. People want to know, when a manager became manager of a club. If they are interested in the details, such as him being caretaker for a couple of games, they can read in the article. --Vistor (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to list caretaker spells that directly precede permanent appointments in the infobox; it is meant to be a summary of the key information of the rest of the article, not a repetition of the every fact. Spike 'em (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Why isn't that considered key information? Mohamed Magassouba was caretaker manager from 2017 to 2019 before becoming permanent, are you saying that a) that is not important and b) the infobox should falsely imply he was permanent manager from 2017? Going back to the Embleton example, are you going to ignore the reliable sources that mention his three interim spells? GiantSnowman 17:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
No, I would consider that it correctly show that he was the manager of the team from 2017, with no qualification needed. I don't have a problem with listing multiple separate appointments to a role, and also think a compromise would be to list caretaker-to-permanent positions as (initially as caretaker) in the infobox. Spike 'em (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Or, an even better suggestion - just keep the caretaker role separate. If you feel the need to qualify it then it is obviously important enough for its own entry. GiantSnowman 17:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary: I'm trying to find a solution that may be a compromise, something you seem to be lacking. Spike 'em (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am norally always happy to compromise in disputes, but now where it introduces incorrect/misleading/incomplete information, cheers. GiantSnowman 20:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Well going through the discussion above, 5 editors favour merging "caretaker to permanent" situations and 2 oppose it, so maybe it should be on the dissenters to come up with some compromise suggestions? Spike 'em (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Spik'em. My suggestion was to merge the couple of articles that aren't merged (five articles). What do you suggest? --Vistor (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Unmerge the others, obviously. Reminder that WP:NOTAVOTE btw. GiantSnowman 20:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't particularly see that any of the arguments against the merge is particularly policy based... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
In the absence of any policy based arguments, this is a content dispute, so how else do we come to a consensus if not by a vote? Spike 'em (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Strength of argument. The only reason that has been put forward by Vistor is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 20:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
And that seems to be the basis of yours too. Some have it one way, others are different. Spike 'em (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
In the absence of a local consensus here, we may need to go down the WP:RFC route. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Without going round in circles, my argument is simple - to say that a manager became manager before they did is incorrect/misleading and to not display the caretaker role in the infobox is incomplete. GiantSnowman 21:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that we should list them before they became managers. We say that it is an unnecessary detail that they served the first couple of weeks (as it normally is) as caretaker. By the way: According to Template:Infobox football biography the infobox should not contain other roles than "team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career." I would not say that it is a "significant part of the person's career" that they served the first couple of weeks as caretaker manager. --Vistor (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Your comment only applies if the caretaker ends up taking the role permanently. What about caretakers who never ascend to the role on a permanent basis (at least, not immediately after their spell as caretaker), e.g. Freddie Ljungberg? – PeeJay 17:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. Being a caretaker manager is a similar but different role to permanent manager, and they need to be both listed separately. GiantSnowman 20:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
If they don't go on to be permanent manager, then their caretaker spell remains in the infobox, as has AFAIK always been the case. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you, just pointing out to User:Vistor that not all caretaker managers go on to take the job permanently. – PeeJay 06:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, if you look at the title of this discussion, we are discussing "caretaker manager made permanent manager". Nobody has argued that caretakers that are not mad permanent managers should be removed from the infobox. --Vistor (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Fine, then let me make my position perfectly clear: a caretaker manager transitioning to become the permanent manager has some kind of change in their employment status. Obviously we're not privy to all the details, but it probably involves the signing of a new contract or the activation of a clause in the contract they signed to become caretaker. In the case of Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, he was still technically employed by Molde FK during his time as caretaker of Manchester United. Therefore it doesn't make sense to merge the two spells into one, even if they are contiguous. The person is employed first as a caretaker, then as the permanent manager; both should be reflected in the infobox. The same may not necessarily apply for statistics tables, but it may be of benefit to readers to be able to see how a club's record changes (or doesn't) before and after the job becomes permanent. – PeeJay 07:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Solskjær is in that regard a special case. Caretakers are normally not employed by other clubs. Let's try to have a look at some of the other articles. What about Brian Barry-Murphy? He was the caretaker from 4 March 2019 to 3 April 2019 before becoming permanent manager. In that month he oversaw four games as caretaker. Is it a "significant part of the person's career" that the first four games (of a total of 49 this far) was as caretaker? I don't think so. And what about the navigation box? Why list him twice there? Do you think that people care if they click on "Brian Barry-Murphy the caretaker" or "Brian Barry-Murphy the permanent manager"? And what about Pete Wild? He managed Oldham in zero games as caretaker befor being made permanent manager. Is that a "significant part of the person's career"? No of course not. --Vistor (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey, so I just found this entire thread and read it all. I am on the side of User:GiantSnowman and others who say that they should be separate. Look, first of all, saying that this would "expand the infoboxes and manager templates unnecessarily much" isn't a strong reason. Who cares how long it makes the infobox? At the end of the day, wikipedia an encyclopedia, we're here to give details as accurately as possible about players and managers, doesn't matter how long the infobox gets or how messy. I personally hate how some infoboxes look because of how long they are or because of loans and stuff but that doesn't matter, if I have to list them, I have to list them. Secondly, I think we need to think about the differences between a caretaker manager and a permanent manager and what that means. Take Freddie Ljungberg for example. He was able to become an interim manager for Arsenal but was not able to become a permanent manager because he lacked a UEFA Pro License. The regulations for an interim/caretaker manager were different than for a permanent manager. Also, they obviously get new contracts when they transition from an interim manager to a permanent manager. That is why you will see, when a caretaker is made permanent a head line that includes "X becomes permanent manager of X, signs until 2021" or whatever. Also, in some countries, the distinction between interim/caretaker manager and permanent manager is important. For example, in the Indian Super League has rules for Indian coaches who want to become head coaches and who can become a head coach overall. So that distinction is important. Obviously, if someone is made caretaker but doesn't manage a team in at least 1 match, then fine, just have the one entry, but if someone is caretaker for a game then that should be listed as separate since it is a separate job from a permanent manager. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why people keep bringing up Freddie Ljungberg, since he was not made permanent manager of Arsenal. If a caretaker is not made permanent manager, he should of course be listed. In the cases where a caretaker manager continues as permanent manager, he does not change job. It is the exact same thing that he is doing. We have a policy (and have had for years) that infoboxes should not list other roles than "team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career." (Template:Infobox football biography). Is it "a significant part of the person's career", if they serve a couple of weeks as caretaker before becoming permanent manager? No it is not. People arguing that we should list the roles seperately have fould five articles in which it is listed as two different roles. In three of the cases the caretaker period was short and by no means "a significant part of the person's career". In only two of those cases (Ole Gunnar Solskjær and Mohamed Magassouba) you could maybe make the case that it is. I argue that we stick with the policy of only listing positions that are "a significant part of the person's career." And I argue that we do not list these positions twice in the navigation boxes, since this makes no sense. I have not seen anyone argue against that, but maybe that is because you agree on that part? --Vistor (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If they are separate in the infobox (as they should be) then they should also be separate in the manager navbox. GiantSnowman 10:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Why? The navigation box is made to help people navigate. I ask again: Do you think that people care if they click on "Brian Barry-Murphy the caretaker" or "Brian Barry-Murphy the permanent manager"? --Vistor (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Because it reflects the truth. GiantSnowman 10:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
So you don't think that Brian Barry-Murphy became manager of Rochdale in 2019? --Vistor (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
And what about managers who were caretaker in a different year before becoming permanent? GiantSnowman 10:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
They should be merged, since the job is exactly the same. It is not a "significant part of the person's career" that they were caretakers for a couple of games, and that does not change just because they become caretakers in December and permanent in January. Now that I answered your question, I think that you should answer the questions that you have avoided for the last couple of days: 1) Regarding the navigation box: Do you think that people care if they click on "Brian Barry-Murphy the caretaker" or "Brian Barry-Murphy the permanent manager"? 2) Regarding the infobox: Barry-Murphy was the caretaker from 4 March 2019 to 3 April 2019 before becoming permanent manager. In that month he oversaw four games as caretaker. Is it a "significant part of the person's career" that the first four games (of a total of 50 this far) was as caretaker? 3) Pete Wild managed Oldham in zero games as caretaker before being made permanent manager. Is that a "significant part of the person's career"? 4) How do your argument fit with the policy that the infobox should not contain other roles than "team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career." (Template:Infobox football biography)? --Vistor (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
As you have been told above it is not exactly the same job, it is still significant being a caretaker (whether or not you become permanent), and you have not covered managers who were caretaker in a different year before becoming permanent - like the Malian manager who was caretaker for two years! GiantSnowman 10:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
What does a caretaker do that is different from a permanent manager? Nothing. They do the exact same thing. I have said above that in the case of Mohamed Magassouba you could argue that it is a significant part of his career, so I have actually covered that fact. Now, why do you not want to answer my rather simple questions? Is that because your argument makes no sense? Or what? --Vistor (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
What does a loan player do that is different from a permanent? What does a player-manager do different? Not a lot but we still display those separately becuase they are different roles/contracts. No need to get aggressive just because nobody is supporting you and you are losing the argument. GiantSnowman 13:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

There was the recent example of Ryan Lowe who was twice the caretaker at Bury in the 2017–18 season, either side of Chris Lucketti's short-lived appointment. Lowe was then made permanent ahead of the 2018–19 season so I would say he merits three management entries at List of Bury F.C. managers and in his own infobox. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly - there are different roles/spells and we should reflect that. GiantSnowman 16:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I answered the loan player question on 9 January, but I'll gladly copy-paste that answer: "When on loan the player is owned by another club - a caretaker manager is not." Do you have any examples of player-managers where their spell as player-manager is listes diffently than their permanent spell? I am neither getting aggressive nor am I losing the argument, since you are the one refusing to answer questions, which would suggest that you know that you have a very bad case. And by the way: When I count the number of users in the thread, at least four other users favour my solution. But if you are so sure that you are winning the argument, then why don't you answer my questions? I can list them again if you like: 1) Regarding the navigation box: Do you think that people care if they click on "Brian Barry-Murphy the caretaker" or "Brian Barry-Murphy the permanent manager"? 2) Regarding the infobox: Barry-Murphy was the caretaker from 4 March 2019 to 3 April 2019 before becoming permanent manager. In that month he oversaw four games as caretaker. Is it a "significant part of the person's career" that the first four games (of a total of 50 this far) was as caretaker? 3) Pete Wild managed Oldham in zero games as caretaker before being made permanent manager. Is that a "significant part of the person's career"? 4) How do your argument fit with the policy that the infobox should not contain other roles than "team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career." (Template:Infobox football biography)? --Vistor (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Drop the (Brian Barry-Murphy) stick, take a step back, and accept the views expressed in this thread. There is no consensus to support your view. GiantSnowman 16:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, I could ask you to accept the views expressed in the thread as well, but I can see that you probably won't. And you apparently have no interest in discussing this, since you are not answering the questions. I guess we will have to hear what some of the other users have to say: Lee Vilenski, EchetusXe, Jts1882, Spike 'em. But I will listen, if you would try to propose some kind of compromise, which you have not been willing to this far. --Vistor (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Because we are going round in circles and it's like talking to a brick wall. Why have you only pinged some contributors but not all? Poor form. GiantSnowman 17:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
At least I answer your questions. You just ignore questions, so who is the brick wall? I pinged the named contributors, because you said that no one supported my view, but feel free to ping other users. --Vistor (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
If you bothered to actually read the arguments expressed here you will see that I (and others) have answered your questions already, thanks. GiantSnowman 17:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
PS the fact that all of your edits since 9 January have been to this discussion only (and no mainspace or other edits) shows just how obsessed you are. WP:DROPTHESTICK and go do something else for a bit, please. GiantSnowman 17:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, I have a job outside Wikipedia that I have to take care of once in a while. I can't find your answers to the questions, but I will let others weigh in. You and I are not able to sort this out on our own. --Vistor (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
At this point, I favour a full scale RfC. This has been going on for almost three weeks, with no end in sight. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Kyle O'Brien

Does any of the teams Kyle O'Brien played for qualify under WP:NFOOTY? As far as I can see, not, but perhaps someone here sees something I miss. @UncleTupelo1:. Fram (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

NISA is now a fully-professional league and his time in the Maltese Premier League, whilst probably not meeting WP:NFOOTY guidelines 100%, combined with his overall career seems like he's a reasonable soccer player of note on par with a player of say USL League One. Whilst with Hibernians, they were playing in the Champions League. Of course, happy to let it go if you feel it's not close enough. Cheers. @Fram:. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
According to this[7] (which may be incorrect), he was only two months with Hibernians (and I can't find evidence that he played in the CL), and only three months with Santa Ana, which means that the last three years, he barely played at all. He played one partial game in the NISA so far, and doesn't seem to have received any attention for doing so[8]. He doesn't seem to meet the WP:GNG, but there are too many Kyle O'Briens appearing in the results to be really certain about this. Fram (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
NISA isn't on our fully professional leagues list yet, and even if they were, the players in the league don't receive WP:GNG-qualifying coverage at this point. Perhaps this will change in the upcoming season. This needs to be deleted as it fails both the GNG and the SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft Review

I created a page for a new club in USL League One — Draft:New England Revolution II, but it was moved to a draft due to sourcing issues. I've added some sources. I'm not sure how the process works, but the template says that the relevant WikiProject might be able to help review the draft more quickly. Any thoughts? Balerion (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me! Only major thing I see missing is a citation for the roster and the coach. As for the procedure, I think any user has the authority to move a draft to the main article space. BLAIXX 13:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Marcel Risse

Views on the Marcel Risse stats table please - @Kingjeff: keeps on removing the 'Continental' column (I think it should stay) and the season specific references (I think they should stay and, if broken, be replaced). Thoughts? GiantSnowman 19:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, I eliminated the "Continental" column on your advise that you gave here. He has only played in Europe in two different seasons, therefore I eliminated it. Kingjeff (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Besides that, shouldn't the loan spells at Mainz 05 and Mainz 05 II be indicated? Robby.is.on (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, they should, good point - and also separating from the Mainz permanent spells. GiantSnowman 21:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Season-specific refs are preferable, but if they're broken, we shouldn't put them back in without repairing them, given that the worldfootball.net ref does verify the whole table. I have no view on separate Continental and Other columns, it's a matter of editorial choice. If you're planning to improve the table, please consider replacing the huge col/rowspans with individual pairs of cells: multi-row/col spans do cause accessibility issues. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Struway2: I did eventually bring up to GiantSnowman the fact that kicker magazine references were broken. I specifically mentioned how they were going to the 2019–20 season. A reference to the 2019–20 season doesn't source any previous season. Are we going to legitimize the practice of going anywhere on a website and saying it's properly sourced? Do we really want to go searching the whole website, newspaper, etc just to see if it's properly sourced? As you mentioned World Football does source the whole table. I did put it at the top like many other player articles. To-date, the kicker magazine references are still there, and to-date, the broken links haven't been fixed. Broken links should either be fixed or eliminated. Kingjeff (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kingjeff: I'll fix them tomorrow, if no-one gets there first. I rather hoped those with an interest in tthe article might do so, but it's too late to do it tonight. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I've now fixed the existing kicker urls to point to the appropriate specific seasons. Some of the table rows were already sourced to worldfootball.net before the edit warring started, and I've left those alone. But for consistency, it'd make more sense if all the rows used a season-specific source rather than just some. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I've 1. updated the table up until the end of last season, 2. indicated and separated out the loan spells, 3. replaced "huge col/rowspans" (thanks, Struway2). I hope this is a result everyone can live with. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello members of the project!

Hello!, I'm Iván and I'd like to rate an importance scale to an article which was accepted from a draft i made months ago. What should I take into consideration when it comes to rating? Thank you. ^_^ --CoryGlee (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Might be worth having a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment#Importance_scale -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you indeed very much! ^_^ --CoryGlee (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Getting input

Hey guys. I started working on List of Bundesliga hat-tricks at my sandbox (in-line with other leagues' hat-tricks list pages. It seems to me strange that the Bundesliga didn't have, while Premier League, Serie A, La Liga, and Ligue 1 all have (I'd say that's probably the top 5), so thought to double check here if there's a reason for that (so that I won't do a lot of work for naught). If there is indeed no reason not to create it, I'd be happy for people to help me out with it in the sandbox (or in a draft page or in the mainspace if those are better places). Thanks for your thoughts --SuperJew (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It is weird that a Bundesliga page does not exist. I looked around to see if an article existed under a different name but I couldn't find anything. I don't see any reason for this page to not be created. BLAIXX 13:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Blaixx: So we should work on it. It's pretty big and I don't really have that much time myself at the moment (exam period and also started a new job), so where would be the best place for people to collaborate on it? As a draft or in the mainspace? --SuperJew (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This Software probably can generate a list. Don't think exporting it though. So I'd guess it would be much typing. Is that list needed anyway? Seems like pure stats... By the way Müller probably leads that one with 32. -Koppapa (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@Koppapa: If you're asking that question, you should ask it about the whole bunch of them ;) --SuperJew (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Also your link brought up the list in German, though it's also not fully updated and completely unsourced, but can be used as a base together with WorldFootball. --SuperJew (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Dates in results section

What do people think about edits like this? Adding upcoming dates for matches in the result section. I feel it is overkill. Pinging @Martijnvdam97:. Kante4 (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it (it's only temporary anyway), but should be consistent for all the cells. --SuperJew (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy with it too. I should be, 'cos I've been doing it myself for a couple of seasons, here, for example. I picked up the idea when I saw it done for an international competition, possibly the group stage of the Champions League, and found it useful. Last season, it was a bit tedious keeping the ever-changing fixtures up to date, so this season I've only been showing fixtures until no further than the end of the following month. I also include a source for the fixtures as well as for the results. Nobody has ever complained – not to me anyway! Drawoh46 (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back Iggy the Swan

First of all, I shall welcome back myself to Wikipedia. It's been one month since I've edited but I see that I have a bunch of alerts and one notice put together, a significant amount comes from that naughty "Jonathan Field" troll (I think it's Mike Matthews17 who'd posted a nonsense message to me which was reverted by an experienced rollbacker). Some of the things I've missed are in the below sections which I have performed in a single edit rather than a whole dozen or so. Let me begin. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays calendar

That was done using the subst template and I did not realise that in the section contents that the text did not display here. It was better to have this as plain text as Mattythewhite fixed. We hope 2020 is a disruption-free year (which obviously it has not, at least on a couple of pages and transfer deadline day as we will see below). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Responding to GiantSnowman

Thanks, I do feel better now since the hiatus begun. I have missed a bunch of misbehaved edits along with a section of trolling affecting two articles, hence a shared barnstar for some of the regulars below the section "side issue" which is an intended subsection of "Matthew Lowton and Jack Cork". Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Responding to Mattythewhite

Thanks, and also for fixing the plain text edit on the Happy New Year calendar which converting it makes the navigation better, i.e. what I see in the archive page where it now belongs. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Alexandre Pato

I've missed the usual edit warring by a lot, especially on 9 January and also sockpuppetry was back for the two regular warring violators. I think the next time this page is due to be protected for similar misbehaviour, make it extended protected to ensure similar editing should not happen again. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mohamed Salah

Quite right that there are a number of opposes here, similar move requests like e.g. changing "Andrew Robertson" to "Andy Robertson" should not pass from a number of users's opinions like mine for example. I see from the log list on watchlist pages only that the move should not have happened. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Harry Maguire

This article is going the right way to be semi-protected indefinitely if page watchers see edits like this again or other similar recurring themes. I count 8 protections in one and a half years and Scott Brown (footballer, born June 1985) is on course for that as well. This is a tedious type of vandalism as I've mentioned on the talk page back in December. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Matthew Lowton and Jack Cork

Some of you already know about this (and discussed this with Robby.is.on. this hour, but the trolling is (or had been) boring as January progressed since I've now seen the page histories of the two articles and Talk:Matthew Lowton. I'd noticed this because the "Jonathan Field" troll (explained below) wanted me or someone else to rename Matthew Lowton to "Jonathan Field" every week which I will never do (see history of Talk:Matthew Lowton) and the "Lions" edits on Jack Cork are also tedious. That has been going on for ages and I am one of those who are fed up of it. The reason is that I've been mentioned in a few edit summaries (along with one or two others as in this example) which is how I have created this section. Quite right the articles are now protected but I would have been in favour of a range block for more than a month rather than the pages being indefinately protected due to none of them have been protected in the past. This trolling must stop (which is now likely) as one or two eagle-eyed watchers are tired of that I suspect and are pulling the wool over our eyes. It won't work. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

A side issue

I had a message from Commons which is almost identical (with added or extended sentences) to the one that the blocked Mike2Matthews17 sent to me on Wikipedia. I had to remove it two days after it was posted because it was done near the end of the month long break that I had. Mattythewhite, I see you undid one edit made by this 84.9.228.142 IP address but not the others, i.e. Category:Matthew Lowton and my Commons talk page. I hope my talk page on Commons can get more page watchers in case vandalism happens again. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Side issue 2

I have also been mentioned in an edit summary by the below troll about this edit and calling me names along with two others.

Apparently this text was allowed to stay there after I logged back in today. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

"Jonathan Field" troll

For an explanation as to why I've called it that - basically, that is a series of IP addresses which changes Matthew Lowton to Jonathan Field and changing Jack Cork's Swansea picture to that of a random lion. This could be Mike Matthews17 (the earlier registered account which the blocked Edgar181 has identified before his reign came to an end). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Arabic script in player of Arabic origin's page?

Hi, what are your opinions regarding the presence of the Arabic script of a player's name, in the case he was born and raised in a country, but has Arabic origins? For example Rayan Cherki or, possibly controversially, Zinedine Zidane. I don't see a problem in adding (Arabic: زين الدين زيدان; born...) to Zidane's page: actually, it's useful to see how the name is originally supposed to be spelled (if one were to literally transliterate Zidane's name from Arabic, it would be "Zain Al Din Zidan", which I find pretty interesting). What are your thoughts? Nehme1499 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I would expect it in players from Arabic-speaking countries, but not for people of Arab descent who were born and raised in other countries. Number 57 13:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, for example who would you consider "players from Arabic-speaking countries"? If Cherki were to play for the Algeria NT, would he be considered so? What I'm trying to get at is, should we add the Arabic script only if he plays for a specific NT, and not if he doesn't? I've been reverted a few times on various players on the basis that the player in question is "French", or "Dutch", or whatever. But really, we need more strict guidelines regarding this. These players aren't "French", or whatever the nation may be, but "French-Algerian", or "Dutch-Moroccan". Dual citizenship is a thing, and a player being born in a specific country doesn't "cancel out" his other nationality. The point of adding the Arabic script is to be able to see how the player's surname is written in its native form. "Cherki" isn't a French surname, "El Shaarawy" isn't an Italian surname and "Ihattaren" isn't a Dutch surname; while those players may be born and raised in a specific country, and may have that country's citizenship, it doens't take away the fact that their surnames are transliterations of their Arabic form, and I feel that it would only be coherent to add the native form of the name in the player's article. All this can also be applied to other non-latin based scripts, such as Cyrillic or Hebrew. Nehme1499 (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Following this to its logical conclusion, we would be adding the Hebrew name to George Cohen as Cohen isn't an English surname. This isn't a good idea IMO. Number 57 22:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Eh, we occasionally do this for Croatian players who are born outside the country and therefore don't have the diacritics in their English common name but are known as such back home. I personally don't have a problem with it if the player has a dual nationality and would be known by an Arabic name in one of their two countries. I think that stops well short of the Cohen logical conclusion as well. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@Number 57: the difference between Cohen and, say, Ihattaren is nationality (as @SportingFlyer pointed out). The fact that Cohen's great-grandfather was Jewish isn't really part of the (former) player's identity. Whereas regarding, Ihattaren, or Cherki, there is still speculation regarding which NT they will choose. Even if they were to chose their native NT, it wouldn't change that fact that they also have, respectively, Moroccan and Algerian citizenship, and that they could have potentially represented those NTs.
An AustralianCroatian? Fine. Zidane? No. GiantSnowman 07:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Zidane, ergo a FrenchAlgerian? Nehme1499 (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Category re-ordering

This part, I don't see the logic behind this "unexplained cat reordering" by KingSkyLord - e.g. this edit - it does not make a global difference and I've seen some have been reverted before. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Just my input about reordering categories: often times I do that to make sure that an article has all the correct categories. More often than not, the way I order categories is different than the way another person does. However, if I find that if no other category has to be added/removed, I just keep the article as it is. No need to make an edit purely to reorder categories. Maybe I’m missing the point here... Nehme1499 (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

That's all to see from me here

Completed the edit. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Iggy, hope you're feeling better. GiantSnowman 14:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The response I made is in the 14th section of the contents as of the time of the signature timestamp, i.e. I am better. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Catching up for lost time eh? Glad to hear it. GiantSnowman 14:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

American teams and FC, SC, AFC, etc.

Hey guys, first off, glad to be back and glad to see this place is still as busy as ever. Second, been doing some work with 2020 USL League Two season and while doing so a question that I've had for ages came up again, why is it that for American football/soccer clubs we keep the FC, SC, AFC etc. for when we add them to tables, infoboxes etc. So, for example, in the 2019–20 in English football page, if you go down to the league's you'd see how Burnley F.C. is listed as simply Burnley in the table. Arsenal F.C. is just Arsenal. Fleetwood Town F.C. is just Fleetwood Town. In my opinion, it looks cleaner and doesn't take away from the reader what these pages are (football clubs). Meanwhile, in 2019 in American soccer, you'll Atlanta United FC as Atlanta United FC, New York City FC as New York City FC, Saint Louis FC as Saint Louis FC, but also Sacramento Republic FC as just Sacramento Republic.

So not only do you have most teams keeping the FC or SC in the tables and infoboxes, you also have an inconsistency with some teams not having that. You also see an inconsistency in the player infoboxes. David Villa and Maximiliano Moralez in their infoboxes have it listed as "New York City" while Gedion Zelalem has "New York City FC". Or Nicolás Lodeiro and Stefan Cleveland have "Seattle Sounders" in their infobox and others have "Seattle Sounders FC".

So, what should be the "standard" here? I personally like the standard where we remove the FC, SC, or AFC for articles and infobox etc. but also want to open it up to others. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

  • American soccer loves to stylise the FC (no periods, either.) For instance, New York City isn't a football team, it's a city, and representing this as such would create a huge ambiguity - whereas New York City FC is a football team, the FC is integral to the team name. Same with Toronto FC or Nashville SC, the SC is integral to letting people understand this is a soccer club for some reason, whereas people instantly know say Burnley or Watford or Liverpool in a soccer context without needing any additional identifier. In England where F.C. is assumed or dropped, but it's very much played up in North America as a regional difference and we're treating things the way we should. In terms of infobox consistency, I would actually add the FC or SC to the player articles instead of shortening it for the reason outlined above. There's nothing wrong with Seattle Sounders dropping the FC, but Toronto or New York City on their own wouldn't be recognisable as football clubs. SportingFlyer T·C 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
See, I just don't get that. What makes New York City special whereas Burnley should just be assumed. Or when you go on articles like Oier Olazábal or Isaac Cuenca who played at Barcelona and it is just Barcelona. Barcelona isn't a football team, it is also a city, a major one at that. Why should it also be assumed that it is the football club though but for New York City not so? Also, from a style perspective, I don't like seeing it used inconsistently. Like with Adam Jahn, you have Atlanta United FC as Atlanta United but Columbus Crew SC as Columbus Crew SC. But what? If he goes to Fulham it should be Fulham until he joins Nashville SC and it stays Nashville SC? Also, I just used England as an example because it is easy but this seems to be the style for wikipedia articles about football teams from all around the world (removing the FC, SC, etc.) but in the US and Canada it isn't (Canada sort of, the Canadian Premier League does remove FC) --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Echoing what was said above: for any club that is a city or state name plus FC/SC, we HAVE to keep the FC/SC on (examples: FC Cincinnati, New York City FC, Toronto FC, FC Dallas, Los Angeles FC, Miami FC, North Carolina FC, Saint Louis FC, Orange County SC, etc, etc.) As SportingFlyer mentioned above, in the United States the place is much more widely known than the soccer club. By dropping the FC or SC from the name, you lose the representation to the club and instead represent the city, which is incorrect. (Side note here: because the U.S. has four other major sports leagues, this also throws up a barrier: Los Angeles, for example, has SEVEN other men's professional sports teams that go by "Los Angeles _____", as well as six soccer clubs with "Los Angeles" in their name; by dropping the FC, you completely lose the context of which team is being referred to.)
As to the other clubs that have been inconsistent, these are my thoughts: it really has to go on a case by case basis. Take Seattle Sounders FC for example, the reason that we SHOULD include the FC is that there were two former clubs known only as "Seattle Sounders" (Seattle Sounders (1974–1983) and Seattle Sounders (1994–2008)). By including the FC here, it shows a difference between those different, but similarly named, clubs. Same for Vancouver Whitecaps FC, where previous franchises were just named "Vancouver Whitecaps". For clubs like Atlanta United FC or Sacramento Republic FC, however, there's no former club to separate, so we should REMOVE the FC as unnecessary. (More examples of this: Phoenix Rising, Loudon United, Birmingham Legion).
The other issue we have are clubs who change their name only by adding that suffix on, like Columbus Crew to Columbus Crew SC or Pittsburgh Riverhounds to Pittsburgh Riverhounds SC. I don't know if it's ever been discussed on here, but it seems like the general consensus has been to include that SC only after the club officially changed it. (e.g. anybody who played for the Riverhounds in 2017 or earlier wouldn't have the SC, but players from 2018 on would include it) I generally think this follows WP:COMMONNAME, because media usage has generally followed that change and refers to the clubs using the added SC. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
And one more comment, I think the gist of this comes down to the cultural difference. We don't standardize one type of English across all pages on Wikipedia, because there's different spellings and grammatical differences from Britain to Canada to the United States. Same thing with the suffixes. In Europe (and honestly, most of the rest of the world), soccer is the unquestioned number one sport, in terms of coverage, number of fans, whatever metric you want to use. In the United States, it's growing, but soccer is still either the fourth or fifth biggest sport (behind football, basketball, baseball, and maybe hockey as well). If I tell someone I'm watching a "New York City" game, odds are they won't jump to soccer, because there's this many teams right around New York City (and the soccer team might be the tenth-most recognized team on that list!) If you say you're watching a "Barcelona" game, you're talking about the fourth-biggest sports team in the world (by monetary value, don't argue this over fan support please!) The fact of the matter, I think, is that soccer just isn't the biggest sport in the U.S. or Canada and all we're going to do is create confusion by removing those suffixes. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
As explained above, dropping the suffix just causes unneeded confusion and has no real harm to the reader, especially if they are an American looking for American content. All articles that mention and link to American clubs (including those on international players) should retain the suffix, but it seems some editors are careless in removing them. SounderBruce 17:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Just one more note from me, we can also use coverage of the terms to back this up. Here's the Google search results for "New York City", I didn't find anything about the soccer club until page 10, and that was one article from the league website about a preseason match. If you search "Fulham", the soccer club is almost the entire first page of results (and one of the frequent searches is "Is Fulham a city"). Same for Barcelona or Burnley. On the other hand, here's the results for Nashville and Cincinnati...there's just nothing about the soccer teams to be found. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
But thing is, I get it but I am just not sure I agree. I am on the Major League Soccer page, I doubt you would have much trouble guessing that New York City is the soccer team. Also, it isn't like there are no other popular sports in England, there are, and not everyone is a football fan so not everyone will think Burnley or Fulham and automatically think the football team. Also, this would just become confusing. How do I know which team to use FC or SC for what to not use them for? Like, for Sacramento Republic FC, should I leave it, should I not? If this was an English article, doesn't matter if this is a new club, old club, new club with the "same name", or a name change, I know to remove the FC or SC. Same with soccer articles for a team from anywhere from around the world, besides from the US/Canada.
I guess my ultimate thought here is this: At the end of the day, after thinking about this, you do make a good point and I guess I can agree. My thing is not really about FC/AC etc. but rather what should the "standard" be. If it is keeping Seattle Sounders FC as just that, then fine, but then like SounderBruce (talk · contribs) said, all articles that link back to these pages should retain the suffix, even if they are international players. So, for David Villa, we should change New York City to New York City FC and keep that the same for every player and article pertaining to NYCFC. But then what should we do for pages like Atlanta United FC. I know pages remove the "FC" but should they then keep it? It would be confusing to remove the suffix for some pages and not do so for others. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Football squad player2}}?

Just out of curiosity, why are we using {{Football squad player2}} for certain clubs? At first glance, I see it being used for MLS clubs (e.g. Sporting Kansas City, or Inter Miami CF), as well as in Saudi clubs (e.g. Al Hilal SFC). Is there any specific reason to this? Can't we just universally use {{Football squad player}}, like we do in 95% of clubs? Nehme1499 (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I've seen this mentioned on a number of occasions, I agree that one template should be used consistently in articles. Maybe a merge discussion should be opened at WP:TFD, given the templates serve the exact same purpose. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed that we should stick to using one template (and that that template should be {{Football squad player}}. Number 57 20:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I've listed the templates for merge here. Nehme1499 (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

A Barnstar to share between a few of you

A Barnstar to share between a few of you and possibly more
I award this barnstar jointly to Chris, Matty, Struway, Robby, Govvy, and Kosack for monitoring the pages throughout the month and Transfer deadline day is always the busiest. It is usual that I've missed someone out which is a popular vandal reverter (like User:GiantSnowman, User:Daemonickangaroo2018 and User:Add92 for example, they can also be part of the shared honour barnstar, just not me). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Appreciated. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I can't believe that whoever this person is still hasn't got bored of this seeming obsession.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Cheers, I was away and missed most of the deadline know, got some catching up to do!! Govvy (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Viborg FF

In the infobox it says Superliga, but that's not right now is it?? I am a little confused here. Govvy (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

According to 2019–20 Danish 1st Division, they're in that division (the one below the Superliga). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Cheers, looks like it got fixed by Nehme1499. Govvy (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Pages exceeding maximum template include size.

There are a number of pages covered by the football project that exceed the maximum template include size, i.e. the size of the code returned by all the templates on the page (see Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded). Most pages listing qualifying round matches and transfer in some country. Some like 2012–13_UEFA_Europa_League_qualifying_phase_and_play-off_round just omit the nav box, but others omit important information. For instance Portugal national football team results (2000–19) fails to show the 2019 results and also omits the reference list. The solutions are splitting the page or removing repetitive information like the flag icons, which are the cause of many pages making that error category.   Jts1882 | talk  13:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The Portugal results article should not have flags for competitions, venues or referees. For the Europa League, the best option is probably to split, similar to recent seasons. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Really, per WP:ACCESS and MOS:LIST, the Portugal article shouldn't be a list of footballbox templates. The results should be listed in a table similar to Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, we have over 44,000 stubs! A good opportunity to improve stubs on footballers for your area!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Soccer in South Africa

A request for comment regarding the usage of "football" or "soccer" for South African association football articles has been opened at Talk:Soccer in South Africa. Any contribution from project members would be appreciated. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Rafael Veloso

Can the article please be protected so that only auto-confirmed users can edit there? Situation getting seriously out of hand, and i can't understand anything the user (using both IPs and accounts) is saying in summaries because their English is zero (i do understand they are a utter nuisance, or a downright vandal).

Attentively, thanks in advance --Quite A Character (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

They're suggesting that the sources cited don't back up the claim in the article that the player was banned from playing in Portugal. Perhaps you could point out the wording in the Portuguese source that confirms such a ban? The English-language source only verifies his arrest. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I was distracted by extra time and penalties... What I meant to say was, the Portuguese source dated May 2017 does say he was banned from playing professional football in Portugal, but is he still banned? Struway2 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing has emerged so far, but i know that André Almeida (for example) is back playing professional football in Portugal, so ban must have ended/been lifted. But such a punishment WAS A FACT once (i do understand where you are coming from though), so the accounts/IPs have no business removing anything from the article, or yes?

Cheers, thanks for the input --Quite A Character (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The way the article's written, there's a strong implication that the ban was applied because the player was found guilty of corruption and that it still stands. If the ban was actually temporary pending the result of the investigation, which is what this piece says, whether it's accurate I've no idea, the article should say that. If it was lifted when he was found not guilty, or after a certain period of time, it should say that. The point is, the article should say clearly what the case is, and it doesn't.
And no, edit-warring is unacceptable, but clearer sourcing is needed than a few words dating from before the investigation ended. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Belkas SC

Notable? Largely unsourced.-- Deepfriedokra 12:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

They have played in the top division, so I'd say yes to notability. I've added a couple of refs, added an infobox and rewritten the text Number 57 12:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Task force

How can I start a task force for a football club?  S A H A  11:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The first step would probably be letting us know which club, and garnering support for such a task force on this page. You need to do that before you can start any of the technical stuff. – PeeJay 11:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: I want for 2 clubs, if possible. East Bengal FC and Mohun Bagan AC. These 2 are one of the biggest and oldest Indian football clubs. And also the greatest rivalry in South Asia, the Kolkata Derby. There are many data regarding these 2 clubs, which can be included into various articles related. Also there are many articles, which are not maintained and updated regularly. I want to start the task fore, so that all these can be brought under a roof.  S A H A  11:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Isn’t there already an Indian football task force? Even if not, I don’t think you’d get much support for such a task force from this project. If you want to organise your efforts, I suggest doing it in your own userspace rather than creating a task force. – PeeJay 14:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: OK... and Ya, there is Indian task force. But, its inactive.  S A H A  15:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
So you can make it active again. – PeeJay 12:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@Arnabsaha2212: Have you read the advice at WP:WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@David Biddulph: no. i am reading it right now.  S A H A  11:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Mikel Arteta

IP persistently adding a redundant total row to the career stats table, if anyone can lend a hand. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverted and warned for 3RR (something you need to be wary of as well!) - let me know if he re-appears, we should report. GiantSnowman 23:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why people do that. It's not even 15 + 0 = 15, it's 15 = 15.--EchetusXe 13:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
What's the point of having a totals row for just one season? I don't see a total row for Wilfried Bony on the Stoke (loan) part of the table so with Mr Arteta, the version I see ten minutes behind the discussion started should be as it is. On a different point relating to statistics table dispute, this case did not end in 3RR because the reverter talked to me on my talk page about this. On 16 March 2018 on Eric Lichaj, I'd think that removing rows without appearances would not be included before I see that was reinserted but after concluding, the years without appearances on the article stayed put. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Bradford City captain

An unusual situation - captain James Vaughan has left the club on loan, so Clayton Donaldson is captain until (at least) the end of the season. I know this from going to matches, but cannot find any on or offline sources which confirm it. Can somebody either please a) help find a source or b) give me an idea how we can adequately source this so we can update the relevant articles? GiantSnowman 21:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Same thing happened for Norwich a couple of seasons ago, note was added to squadlist (see 2017–18 Norwich City F.C. season#First-team squad). Similar foot note seems sensible to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I think the question was how to source it rather than simply how to indicate it. If you go to matches, do you have any programmes? Have they mentioned it? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
If you're on speaking terms with any of the local media reporters, giving them a nudge that the information isn't published anywhere yet can lead to them including it in an online or even print piece. Helps them fill space even if it's only a couple of sentences. Gricehead (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
This match report refers to Donaldson as captain, although of course that's only in the context of that one match......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I think a combination reference of such a match report and an article about captain James Vaughan out on loan is the best we can do currently. --SuperJew (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks all - I've used the combined method (and no, nothing in match programmes that I have seen!). GiantSnowman 20:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Mauritian Cup

Is it really that notable? Govvy (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Why would it not be? It's the country's national knockout cup competition....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Scouts, police and fire brigade teams sound like non-league to me. So really wasn't sure. Govvy (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Seems Fire Brigade SC are the most successful club in Mauritius ;) --SuperJew (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The cup winner qualifies for the CAF Confederation Cup, so it is definitely notable. SounderBruce 20:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Eranrabl unblock request

Some of you may recall the palava a couple of years ago when Eranrabl and SuperJew were both blocked as a result of a WP:SPI. Although SuperJew was later unblocked, Eranrabl remains blocked. Views are currently being sought on unblocking him at the Admin's noticeboard. There has been little input, especially from editors familiar with him, so I thought it would be worth advertising it for more input. Cheers, Number 57—Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

A requested move at Talk:Catherine Bott (footballer) has been reopened and relisted. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Please come and help! PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Pre-Olympic friendly matches article

Is the article Football at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament warm-up matches necessary? Don't see the need for an article on pre-tournament friendly matches, this information can be included on each U23/Olympic team's article and/or the "2020–21 in COUNTRY football" article. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems pointless - it's just a list of friendlies which aren't even grouped as a tournament in any way. Also it's not sourced at all. --SuperJew (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree there's no need. GiantSnowman 19:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The matches could just be added on the main football at the Olympics page, listed just before the main matches. WDM10 (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
List them in "foo national football team results" articles may be? And delete the Football at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament warm-up matches. Matthew hk (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Do we need an article for every match? Surely it would be fine to cover in small detail at the 2020 Football in foo article or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking we could add it like this. WDM10 (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Full caps vs other caps in Africa

The tallying of caps for some African players is starting to need some new sets of eyes. For instance, this pertains to 2017 WAFU Cup of Nations players as well as some editions of the African Nations Championship. The National-Football-Teams site does not register 2017 WAFU matches as full caps, which could seem to indicate that they are something else, maybe U23 caps or B team caps? Maybe the best nations (Ghana, Nigeria) send their B teams to such a tournament whereas countries like Niger do not? Or are NFT's figures simply wrong? Geschichte (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Pages like Moussa Djitté say that even U20 teams are sent. Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The African Nations Championship's purpose is to develop African talent, and does that by only allowing in the competition domestic players. Not sure what that means about the tallying of the caps - on one hand you could say playing for let's say Senegal in the ANC is not the same as in the AFCON, since the bar to be selected is lower, but on the other hand you could say the same thing for playing in a friendly as opposed to the World Cup and yet we tally those two on the same scale. In the end I would think it makes sense to tally them the same. --SuperJew (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
NFT.com, while a reliable website, isn't 100% accurate regarding the status of matches. Some unofficial matches are not present on the website, and some official matches are marked as unofficial (even though FIFA's website, when it used to work, showed those matches under their fixtures section). As of today, there is no reliable source for a list of full FIFA international matches. Last year, static.fifa.com (e.g. static.fifa.com/live-scores/teams/country=lib/men/matches/index.html) worked fine, while until the year before the usual www.fifa.com (www.fifa.com/live-scores/teams/country=lib/men/matches/index.html) was fully functional (while now it just redirects to an ad for their mobile app which, in case you were wondering, doesn't have the full aforementioned list). Nehme1499 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
This needs to be fully clarified and collated in a consistent fashion. Either the WAFU Cup of Nations is not an official international tournament for which full caps are awarded, in which case this should be clearly indicated (with supporting ref) in the overview article and each of the tournament articles, which it isn't at present, or it is a full tournament and an alternative source will be needed for the caps since NFT doesn't list them. Similarly, the African Nations Championship is included at NFT, but it has restricted entry criteria and the teams involved have been named as 'Nigeria A' and so on in the overview article, which implies to me that appearances and goals should not be counted as full caps, but some players involved (e.g Ayoub El Kaabi) have had stats for that tournament counted on Wikipedia in their full total. Crowsus (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
On FIFA’s (dysfunctional) website, some matches in certain tournaments were considered official, while others weren’t (e.g. in a tournament with 3 GS matches, 1 SF and 1 F for a given team, maybe only 2 GS matches and the F were listed on FIFA’s website, while the other GS and the SF weren’t present). In conclusion, the situation isn’t as black and white as one might assume (either fully official or not), but FIFA seems to be more flexible regarding the status of matches, even within the same edition of a tournament. Nehme1499 (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Crowsus: If a nation travels to another country/region and has a series of friendlies (say England travels on a Southeast Asia Tour playing Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Malaysia), that isn't an official (or non-official) tournament, yet we still count those caps as full caps like any friendly. --SuperJew (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies thus far, and I especially agree with Crowsus' comment that consistency is needed. We would preferably need an evaluation of sources that are reliable in this respect, but it might be more realistic to compile a list of the tournaments where it can be accepted that players gain full caps. Geschichte (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not for us to do. We are not responsible for tallying caps for players in any capacity, we should simply be reflecting what reliable sources say. If sources don't agree, we need to say that in prose and hope that the conflicting bodies get their shit together. – PeeJay 15:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hakim Ziyech

Could an Admin please semi-protect Hakim Ziyech. He does not join Chelsea until the new season. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Kosack (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

National team logo in infobox

Can we put a stone on this situation once and for all? This is getting ridiculous. I don't understand the logic behind not being able to put the NT's logo on its article's infobox on the basis that logos can only be put in one article (the federation's). I understand not putting it on the fed's, the men's, men's u-23's, men's u-20's, men's u-17's, women's, women's u-20's, ecc... But putting it in the fed's, the men's and women's shouldn't be a problem. What's the point of having a "logo" parameter in the infobox if we can't put a logo there? Nehme1499 (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There’s been a lot of previous discussion about this on various talk pages that can probably be found in the archives of this talk page as well as the archives of WT:NFCC, etc. No consensus has ever seemed to have been established because no agreement on what constitutes a “parent” entity and what constitutes a “child” entity when comes to national teams has ever been agreed upon. There’s been movement and even some RFCs, but nothing definite appears to have been established. I think this partly because WP:NFCC is a community-wide policy that if changed might affect all kinds of non-free file use, not just football files.
Anyway, these days it seems that only files which are missing separate specific non-free use rationales or ones previously removed per some prior WP:FFD or WP:NFCR discussion seem to be the only file’s being removed. Most of the “missing-rationale” files are being removed by bots and that can usually be “fixed” by simply adding the required rationale. In the other cases, a file previously removed per a discussion can always be rediscussed at FFD and a new consensus established. So, things these days seem to tend to be resolved more on a case-by-case basis. Is the some file you recently came across which was removed for some reason other than the two I mentioned above?
Finally, just going to add that the fact that there’s a |logo= parameter in the infobox isn’t really relevant when it comes to non-free usage. Templates tend to be created to be used as widely as easily as possible, and there are WP:PD file’s being used in some national team articles that aren’t subject to WP:NFCC. Most infoboxes used in BLP articles also have |image= as part of their syntax, but that doesn’t mean that non-free files should be used in those BLPs. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: For some reason, JJMC89 removed the rationales for both the (Lebanese and South Korean) national teams in, respectively, File:Lebanon Football Association (LFA) logo.svg and File:Korea Football Association logo, 2020.svg per WP:NFCC#8. "Contextual significance" states that, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I mean, in the same way the Flag of Lebanon isn't paramount to the understanding of Lebanon, the LFA logo isn't a necessary attribute to understand the Lebanon national football team. Or, rather, the logo is as useful on the NT article as it is on the federation's. I don't really get the reasoning behind this. Nehme1499 (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
One possibility could actually be WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions since the files you've mentioned are svg versions and at least one comes from a source like seeklogo.com. Official vector versions created the copyright holders of logo are generally considered OK to use, but sometimes not so from other sources; that, however, has more to do with WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3b. WP:NFCC#8 is often cited as a reason for removing former logos or logos used outside of the main infobox (i.e. the body of the article) per WP:NFC#cite_note-4 or WP:NFC#CS. JJMC89 is usually pretty good at clarifying why he removes files; so, perhaps you should try asking him. You've got to try and remember that non-free use is not automatic and there are ten criteria which need to be met for each use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I uploaded both SVG files to seeklogo.com, as can be seen by the uploader username. Not sure if that changes anything. I'll try asking JJMC89 to clarify the reasons behind the removal of the files from the NT articles. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
There's also not really complete agreement on whether user-created svgs are OK to use, which is why official vector versions or official png versions seemed to be preferred instead. One other possibility could be that if this is a newer version of the team's badge, then the non-free uses of the older version might have been discussed and removed per consensus. That consensus may still be considered to be applicable if the non-free usage of the file is basically the same as before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Not to derail, but I have run into the same issue for tournament/cup final articles. Recent editions of the MLS Cup have re-used the same logo (introduced in 2015), but 2016 to 2019 had their logos removed because the non-free image cannot be used across multiple articles even with a rationale and clear reasoning. SounderBruce 06:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not really that non-free files cannot be used across multiple articles per se, but rather relevant policy encourages us to minimize non-free use as much as possible. Many reocurring events like a sports competition have specific logos for specific years, and policy encourages us to use those whenever possible. In cases where the same logo might be being used year after year, it's generally not considered OK to simply repeatedly use the file over an over per item 14 of WP:NFC#UUI. In such cases, the first season in which the logo was used (either as a result of a branding change or simply the first occurence of the event) is generally considered OK, because if there's any critical commentary about the introduction of a new logo or a change in branding, then it's likely going to be found in this article or the parent article about the event. In articles about subsequent seasons though this may not be the case and the justification for non-free use may not be as strong as a result. Look at what you did here: you bascially copied and pasted the rationale provided for 2015 verbatim for 2016, 2017 only changing the article parameter. Same source, same justification, etc. but no real indication that the same logo was actually used in 2016 or 2017. Adding a rationale is fairly easy to do, but adding a "valid" rationale is not so simple. Anyway, if you think the non-free use of the logo is justifiable in those additional articles you can re-add the rationales and then if anyone disagrees they can start a discussion about the file's use at FFD; you should try to at least provide something (a link, etc.) actually showing that the logo was also used in those other years. One thing about File:2015 MLS Cup Logo.svg is that the bottom half of it (the part without the cup) seems to consist of non-copyrightable elements (almost like a wordmark) per c:COM:TOO United States so it might be possible to find a clean version of that and upload it as {{PD-logo}}. The cup imagery itself might also be too simple for copyright, but that's not as clear. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Fraser Forster Career statistics table

Earlier tonight I updated the Career statistics table for Fraser Forster. The table was full of dashes, some of which were in the Other column eg. Newcastle United in 2007–08. As Newcastle didn't play in any other competition in this season, the dash makes sense. However others don't, eg. the League column for Newcastle in 2009–10. There's nothing on the page to explain what this edit means as Newcastle quite clearly played in the league during this season. I changed some of these dashes to zeroes and my edit was reverted by User:Mattythewhite who said they were to indicate the player was ineligible for those competitions. Having reverted his changes and explaining that it was confusing, seemed to be a personal preference and that he had left the table out of date, he reverted me again giving me permission to "update the stats *without* disrupting the established format of the table, you're more than welcome"

However the player article linked on the right hand side of this page isn't full of dashes, it uses zeroes and I've only seen a couple of editors laying out the table the way I'm being told so I would like to know which way is correct. A Well Fan (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

If the dashes are to be used then a footnote should be added. I would have been scratching my head for ages trying to work out why there were dashes in the league column...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC Position by Round

I think we might need to have an RfC for this, I got a note on my talk page from REDMAN 2019 about removing the tables on other pages after my comments at Talk:2019–20 Premier League#Positions by Round and he got reverted on other pages even know we don't seem to want it on the premier league season pages. Seems to me we need a more clear statement and weather we have Position by Round on season pages at all. Govvy (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  • If it's properly sourced, I have no problem adding it. Typically these can veer into WP:OR. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    • We'll never get round the old question of "when was round X?" For example, as of today in League One, teams have played everywhere from 26 to 30 games. Peterborough have played 30 games and are 3rd, so that means that their position at "round 30" is third, right? However it's entirely possible that any one of a number of teams below them could wind up in third at the point when they have played 30 games. We can't list both as having been 3rd at "round 30", thus the whole thing descends into nonsense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree that if properly sourced they are a reasonable addition. I think the round has to be treated as the table after the end of the scheduled dates for the round. If round 30 of the PL ends with a Monday game, then the league positions after that game are used, even if some clubs have played less games. If we try and adjust so each team has played 30 games, do we use the points after they have played 30 games or use the postponed game when it is eventially played (which could be months). This becomes impossible to source unless you have an official PL round-by-round using that method.   Jts1882 | talk  13:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you can find a table published on any given date with Fortuna Sittard in last place this season, apart from after matchday one when they were joint 17th (I don't see that either) [[9]] You could solve this by replacing the large table with 18 smaller ones to make it more realistic. Round 4 Fortuna Sittard (and five other clubs) should be between round 7 and round 8. Cattivi (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree that such tables are usually unnecessary, and can lead to confusion and/or mistakes (such as that Eredivisie article). The only website I'm aware of that does the round-by-round correctly is kicker, where the "misplaced fixtures" are only counted in the nearest round to which the match is actually played. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I really can't see how you can properly source a Position by Round table, There are some good points how it can be miss-leading information. Most websites will have the standing points based table anyway. Don't some of you not think Position by Round is really overkill on statistics? Govvy (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Personally I am on the side of the position by round is slightly overkill much like the match results per weekend like someone been consistently adding in the 2019–20 Eredivisie. HawkAussie (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me make a couple of remarks on this subjecy.

  1. A select few people discussing this topic I don't consider to be a concensus. If you want to reach a proper consensus at least have the decency to inform all active editors of league pages that a discussion on that matter is taking place.
  2. @Cattivi: I can easily fiind a table showing FOR last after round 4. The source is clearly mentioned below the table.
  3. @S.A. Julio: There's only confusion if you choose to ignore the source mentioned below the table and instead pick an inaccurate source as Kicker. A table which doesn't show all teams with the same number of matches played, disqualifies as a round table by definition.
  4. For those who call PBR tables overkill. What about "player of the month"? In 10 years from now, will there be more than a handful of people, if anyone at all, who care about which player became player of the month in January 2020 in the Premier league? I don't think so. Furthermore, it's a reward which is purely based on commercial interests. So some of you have a problem with a PBR table, but have no ptoblem with an advertisement table?
  5. What about "kit manufacturer" and "shirt sponsor"? Are they in any way relevant for the outcome of a league? Again basically free advertisement. If that kind of info is needed, it doesn't belong on a league page but on a team/club (in the season) page.

Why is this page even called Wikiproject football. Did one of you ever run a project? A project requires a bit more. All I see is a select few discussing details of matters as loose parts. A proper general goal, scope, frame, description etc etc what a league page, a club page, a season page, a player page etc etc should be like, is missing. And yes, I know of all the "template" pages.

Take the page WP:WikiProject Football/League season, I would call it a very basic draft. To mention some things, any information on the "why" of DO's and DONT's is missing, the statistics section is not yet defined and goal scorers is apparently not a statistic since it's mentioned separate. And most important, the status of the page is "proposal".

A proper setup for this page could be a top-down approach:

  • Define which sections should be present like e.g. title, introduction, teams, standings, etc etc. Define whether sections are mandatory or optional, which can be tier dependant. E.g. top scorers mandatory for tier 1-2 and optional for tier 3 and lower. Motivate why sections should be there (and also, if relevant, sections which should not be there), basically a summary of the discussions which resulted in the section list.
  • Indicate which sections which have subsections, e.g. statistics. Again all motivated.
  • Define which info should be present in each (sub)section, each in the standings section tean name, matches played, matches won etc etc. And again motivated.
  • Define the order in which info should be present in each (sub)section, e.g. team nane before points obtained.
  • Define the representation method of info, table, text, graph.
  • Define the format/syntax, if applicable, of info/data. E.g. like is done for the article title.
  • And once you know what you want, why you want it, how you want it to look like etc etc you decide on how to implement it, module, template, text etc etc.

Now I don't claim the list above is complete or what it should be. It's just a quick example. Also, alltho you use a top-down approach, it's okay to have the bottom in mind. E.g. for a standings table the module "sports table" most likely will be used. However, that doesn't mean you can skip the higher levels. You still gotta think about it. Maybe it will even result in making changes to the module. But most important, there will be a motivation.

The what and why can be on different pages. In that way "newcomers" can read on the what page what to do without a need to spit thru the why's. The why's are links to seperate pages, and only need to be read if someone is interested.

And most important of all, if a real project will be started, all current editors of league pages should be informed so the only reason for not participating is by choice, and not for not knowing. What ever the outcome, it should be put up for a vote, so we end up with a template which is not just a proposal but the current consensus. On each league page there could be a link to the consensus template so editors of the future are directly informed. And that's why it's important to have the why's, so we don't need to do same discussion over and over again.

What isn't correct for sure is a handful of people discussing something over here, thinking they established a general consensus when the majority of editors didn't even know a discussion took place.

I don't have the time to run a project as indicated, but I'm more than happy to participate in it. If a consensus is established in that way I'm also more than happy to accept that consensus. What I don't consider acceptable is a select few who, in my opinion, partly use false argunents, and think they established a general consensus. It's a consensus, but not a general consensus. It's only a consensus between the select few. --Sb008 (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sb008: How could the WorldFootball table be deemed accurate when there was never a single moment in time that this table existed (after which matches were completed). Going back to revise the table, after the matchday has already been completed, makes no sense and distorts the chronological progression of teams (hence why notes were included such as at 2015–16 La Liga#Positions by round). Kicker's website is one of the few which retains the chronological standings. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The worldfootball.net is only accurate for Eredivisie 2019-2020 tables round 1-3 and round 8-. round 4-7 is hypothetical, how would the table have looked if matches were played at a different date. Cattivi (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@S.A. Julio and Cattivi: The table for the Eredivisie is correct because it's what it claims to be, a table which defines positions by round and not like the spanish table one which defines positions by date. Maybe we should put both varities on a league page, by round and by date. Before someone panics, that's not a serious proposal. --Sb008 (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
"Positions by round" refers to the positions of teams following the conclusion of the normally scheduled round. When matches are played outside of their scheduled rounds, the WorldFootball table has no value, as this is only a hypothetical table which never actually existed. Such information is of no use to readers. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
And there more options, like prose, not every piece of information needs to be in a table. Cattivi (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The table makes more sense for something like footy or NFL where following the conclusion of the round, every team will almost certainly have played the same amount of games with the exception of a scheduled byes. I still think information may be useful in some contexts, but again it needs to be properly sourced and not hypothetical. SportingFlyer T·C 12:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
In general, I think what we need is a vote to determine if the position by round stays or is removed from all seasonal threads. That way we will have a determined thought process. HawkAussie (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Will just add my 2 shekels in (though most of it has been said in one form or another): I think to have or not have this table should be consistent across the soccer seasons, and having that written in the MoS with a link to the discussion once consensus is reached is a good plan. Anyways, such a table should be by the original scheduling of the rounds, so if one match is postponed outside the round's original date window, it should be "included" in the dates of the round it is played in, and a note to the effect should be written (as was done here). Also, on a side note (it's less relevant to this specific discussion and I would like to see a general discussion about it), I agree with Sb008 that the MoS should show the consensus reached in the project, and linking to the talks is great to avoid repeated questions (I can think for example right off about this question and about the question of whether to include assists for example). The MoS should also be kept updated with the changes of consensus - the page hasn't been really edited since March 2015 and parts of it aren't updated - for example the note If there are two separate championships played over the course of one season (for example, in many Latin American countries with their Apertura/Clausura system) OR the season is decided by a knock-out tournament after the conclusion of the regular season (e.g. Major League Soccer, Australian A-League), the word "season" should be attached to the title. was challenged in an RM with a (at least local) consensus emerging that the note should be changed and is incorrect, but nothing was done with it. --SuperJew (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
"Anyways, such a table should be by the original scheduling of the rounds, so if one match is postponed outside the round's original date window, it should be included in the dates of the round it is played in" - apologies if this is me being dumb, but don't the two bits I have highlighted directly contradict each other.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Apologies if it was unclear (was writing on the go). My meaning is that the rounds should be by the original date window, as is done in the 2017-18 A-League example I linked above. For example: If the original scheduling of the rounds has round 5 on 6-9 Feb 2020, round 6 on 13-16 Feb 2020, and round 7 on 20-23 Feb 2020, the positions shown for rounds 5,6,7 on the "positions by round" table should be the state of the league ladder as of 9 Feb, 16 Feb, and 23 Feb respectively, regardless of if one match is postponed due to circumstances (such as natural or man-made) --SuperJew (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Cool, that makes sense now and I am glad that is what you meant. To my mind, constructing a table based on the points accrued when each team had played (say) 20 games, even if in one team's case that was on 3 December and in another's not till 4 January is blatant OR.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The Eredivisie table makes no sense, as this table never existed as mentioned above. Kante4 (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

First of all, sorry I haven't replied earlier since I started this as work this week has been extremely busy! As for 2019–20 Eredivisie posted above by HawkAussie Position by Round and Results by Round, that's just overkill on the same type of information. I think we need to have a poll over this so. Govvy (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Poll

This poll is regarding have Position by Round and similar styled tabled content on season pages. Per WP:NOSTATS, and What Wikipedia is not also points to have limited amount of this style of content.

  • Vote Yes if you wish to continue to allow Position by Round on pages.
  • Vote No if you wish to not include these tables on season pages.

Yes

No

  • No - to including PoR on season pages. Govvy (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No - unnecessary statistical overkill -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No - At the end of the day, this really comes down to two things, one would be relevant to that particular seasonal article and two is anyone going to be interested to see who was the leader after that particular round. My thoughts, the PoR is really something that could be seen as overkill and the results section does that job well enough already. So I will be voting no. HawkAussie (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No - Quite simply I don't see the value of it, plus it's an arbitary stat dependent on who played who when, and there's the problem of different teams having played different numbers of games on any given date. Cjwilky (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No - It's cruft and can't be consistently applied across all teams due to postponement and rearrangement of matches. – PeeJay 21:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • no - Cruft, which generally pushes for more Cruft. Matches aren't even played like this, there are always games in hand. An end of season table is all that is needed. Everything else can be stated in prose. These sorts of tables are sometimes people's way of not writing prose. I'm against that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No - As we see in the Eredivisie article, we would assume how a table would look if we take a game from week 4 into account, which was played 20 weeks later. That's OR and not how it works. In nearly every league there are games postponed, moved back... So it makes no sense to have them as it can't be sourced correctly. Kante4 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No- Per everyone above. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No - Agree with reasons above. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No - Per PeeJay2K3 and Kante4, postponements results in not all teams playing the same amount of matches at the end of a block of fixtures. The 2019–20 FA WSL is a clearer example than the 2019–20 Premier League when a few teams have games in hand on others with the postponed matches still have not been rearranged. When one match in the WSL was postponed earlier on in the season (the third game) and is set to play near the end in May, the two team's positions are lower than what it would be if it went ahead as scheduled. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No as they're almost always OR, and as per above, totally meaningless if teams have played different number of games (as many English League One and Two teams have, for example). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Kenny Coker

Can someone give some level of protection to Kenny Coker? Multiple sources say he played for Bowers and Pitsea and the person editing probably falls under WP:COI. Cheers. JSWHU (Talk page) 18:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have added a reply at the editor's Talk page in the hope that they will engage. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

ACN 2019

At the last Africa Cup of Nations Tunisia took 4th place, for which, according to the tournament regulations, 30 diplomas are relied on. Should I mention this in the "awards" or in the "international career" of players who played in the tournament? David Cok 121 (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Neither as only the top three would be recognised in the awards section of the that particular player article, I sure someone else will explain it better HawkAussie (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 14#Alex Brown (footballer born 1879)

Hello WikiProject Football,

Hoping participants in this WikiProject can help with the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 14#Alex Brown (footballer born 1879). Participants (including myself) are trying to figure out if Sandy Brown (footballer, born 1877) and the subject formerly at Alex Brown (footballer born 1879) are the same person or two different people.

Thanks in advance for any help with this. Steel1943 (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Football squad player#Redesign RfC

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Football squad player#Redesign RfC. User:Trialpears (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon will be taking place in March. There are a few thousand football stubs, in various subcategories of Category:British sport stubs (I can help you find them if needed). Feel free to sign up if interested, there are prizes available. You can compete even if you do not want a prize, it is a nice friendly competition to expand out some of our shortest articles. Hope to see you there! Kees08 (Talk) 20:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

RSN topic of interest

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rocket Robin Soccer in Toronto rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com May be of interest to the group as it deals with the sport and many teams in Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC Position by Round deadline?

Do we have an actual deadline for the yes-no poll for the "RfC Position by Round" section - I see almost equal support on both possible answers after the opening vote 9 days ago. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't put a time down till it has to be closed, I kinda put it forward and was hoping someone else who isn't impartial and not project related maybe close it. Govvy (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Don’t we need one of those administrator types to close this? Isn’t that a part of administration?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't it need to be marked as an {{rfc}} if you are hoping for external input on this? Spike 'em (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijani club titles

Hi Everyone,

Is there any particular reason why many Azerbaijani club titles contain homoglyphs and are not written in their native language (e.g. Keşla FK, Gabala FK, Sabail FK, Zira FK, etc.)? And then, we have Turkish clubs written in Turkish which belongs to the same language family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:6E0E:7FFD:3CA2:9158:1DE:3EB8 (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Because we base our article titles on the way teams are referred to in English, per WP:NCST. For example, one of those clubs refers to itself as Gabala (see here), so we do the same. Can you provide any examples of Turkish clubs that don't do this? – PeeJay 11:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
That's what I meant, but it should be either Gabala SC/FC (in English) or Qəbələ İK/FK (in Azerbaijani), not this current mixture of both. Same for other clubs as well. 2603:9000:6E0E:7FFD:3CA2:9158:1DE:3EB8 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
in future, instead of a heated argument over an edit war, it is much better to simply ask a question as to how we should be handling these sorts of things. We can point to a consensus, or gain a new one. Starting an argument is not the way forward. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Niko Kovac honours

Hey all, once again @Walter Görlitz: has attempted to start an edit war with me and even warned me on my talk page for my edits on Niko Kovač honours section as a Bayern Munich player. As per wikipedia protocol/standards, I moved the Intercontinental Cup trophy he won as a Bayern player underneath the two domestic trophies (Bundesliga & DFB Pokal) so that it's properly ordered as league title; cup title; international title; regardless of year won. Walter disagrees with me, keeps reverting these edits, and says I am in the wrong. He has even deleted my comments from the page when I tried to discuss the matter there without involving others. This type of reaction from Walter is nothing new and is very frustrating. Would love some people to weigh in here and explain the ordering of titles in honours sections. Thanks everyone in advance for your help and input. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh for crying out loud. You started the edit war. I just continued what you started. You moved the "international" honour after the domestic honour, breaking the chronological order of the honours, and did so without explanation. I reverted based on the unexplained change. I then reverted you after you did explain as it needed WP:PSEUDOHEADings. You then essentially told me to fuck off and die, so instead, I fixed the section in question. The edit history shows the facts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Update: looks like he has realized he was wrong and has even gone as far as to put sub-sections of Domestic and International honours in Niko's Bayern Munich honours which is also not commonplace and too much and of course took a subtle dig at me in the edit summary... Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
No I did not realize I was wrong, I correctly institutionalized your preference. It is not defined at the template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
It does not require pseudoheadings and it's not my preference. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
If you cannot provide the MoS or guideline that stipulates that "domestic titles go before international titles", it is your preference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually, if you refer to that template, you will see that there are no pseudo-headings, as you retro-actively included on Niko's page. Furthermore, you will see that league championships are positioned ahead of cup titles, regardless of year won. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't prefer that, simply placating you. You're at four reverts now. Care to self-revert? First at 2020-02-19T15:26:25, then 2020-02-19T21:02:09‎, then 2020-02-19T21:34:41‎, then the series started at 2020-02-19T23:27:29‎. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Moving from my talk page

I've reverted twice not four times. Please revert my edits again if you wish to pursue an edit war. I won't be bullied by you. You can refer to wikiproject talk page as I will not address this matter on my or your talk page anymore. Rupert1904 (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rupert1904: I never wrote that you reverted me four times. I simply wrote that you made four reverts. According to WP:3RR, "an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."
2020-02-19T15:26:25 - changed the order, that undid another editor's action, so revert 1.
2020-02-19T21:02:09‎ - "incorrect; domestic titles go before international titles", You think this is your first revert, but based on the definition it is revert 2.
2020-02-19T23:27:29‎ - "please no more reverts; this is now the correct format with Bundesliga, DFB Pokal, and then Intercontinental Cup trophy" which is revert 3.
2020-02-19T23:27:29 - "no pseudo-headings", this is revert 4, and even if you count reverting me, you're at 3 here. An additional sequence of edits follows.
In contrast: this was not a revert as it added additional content so I am at two reverts.
Since your last word when you left this on my talk page was I will not address this matter on my or your talk page anymore, I've move your misunderstanding from my talk page to this space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
While I'm not trying to bully you, I would really appreciate you not being misinformed. I have no intention of reverting that again, but then again, you've still not provided a guideline or MoS to support your claim. I don't want the PSEUDOHEAD there either, I want it chronological and the PSEUDOHEAD was a compromise. It appears you're not interested in compromise or communicating so enjoy the WP:BATTLEGROUND you create. Ping me if you want me to continue to educate you in how Wikipedia works. I'm happy to continue this mentorship process.Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
So then you would have already been at four reverts before me. Thanks Walter. Let's let the other folks weigh in now. Rupert1904 (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Counting is clearly not your strong suit. I made two reverts and one edit. You made four reverts (changes). Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
You crack me up. Also, @Walter Görlitz:, please let me know when I "told you to fuck off and die". You are not only misinformed on the rules but totally outrageous and impossible to deal with. Rupert1904 (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad you find not know what constitutes an actual revert vs an edit, not being able to count and hyperbole humorous. It might save when someone with less patience than I have meets you in an alley after you've pissed them off for similar. You can refer to wikiproject talk page as I will not address this matter on my or your talk page anymore. [10] Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think anyone cares about your petty edit war, but suggesting that someone may be beaten up because of their edits on here is extreme bad faith and I'd suggest you remove them. Spike 'em (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
That's not what I wrote. It's the editor's attitude that will result in the thrashing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I know that you didn't personally threaten them, but your fantasy that someone might get beaten up over a simple content dispute is still worrying. Spike 'em (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest checking the MoS and for anything which is unclear from it, asking for input at that talkpage. --SuperJew (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Chronological is not the most common. Never has been. Obvious examples such as Ronaldo, Pele etc. I don't want to be drawn into another Walter battleground. Koncorde (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The typical order should be [domestic_league], [domestic_cup1], [domestic_cup2]...[domestic_cupN], [domestic_supercup], [continental_cup1], [continental_cup2]...[continental_cupN], [continental_supercup], [global_cup1], [global_cup2]...[global_cupN], [other_cup]. Not sure where anyone would have got the idea that it's supposed to be chronological. Just another case of Walter playing Billy Big-Bollocks. – PeeJay 12:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it make more sense to put the continental/global cups above the domestic ones? In my opinion, winning a Champions League is more relevant than winning N La Ligas/Serie As etc. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that it should go from the smallest scale to the largest (i.e. national, continental, international). – PeeJay 14:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with any order, as long as we specify it in the Manual of Style. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree with PeeJay. Domestic and after that International. Surely not chronological. Kante4 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Most often I've seen honours listed chronologically, just popping up on the list when that player won something. When there are a lot of honours on a page they seem to get sorted out per order PeeJay said. Walter Görlitz you seem to rub a lot of people up the wrong way, this has been discussed with your attitude towards other editors before. Just because you try and remove every spat at your talk page also doesn't help your case, this constant edit-war with other users, I strongly suggest you stop adding edit-war notices to other editors talk pages, discuss these issues out instead of throwing more wood on to the fire. Govvy (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I've proposed to standardize the honours order in the MoS talk page. If you agree, or have any objections, write it there so that we can take care of this issue ASAP. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_129&oldid=1256387460"