Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 109

Can some people please have a look at his edits, he is removing loads of runner up medals from football player articles, these are clearly honours, he is doing the same to football club articles, it doesn't matter to him if they have citations or not, he is being heavily disruptive to the project as a whole and I personally think his rights as a user should be put on review. Govvy (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Also is this a sock puppet for Davefelmer (User:Simply-the-truth)? Govvy (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

But did the project agreed that runner-up is NOT honor as i remember, or no consensus? Matthew_hk tc 13:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, the opporsite, it is an honour. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I did saw A.C. Milan and Inter Milan runner-up titles were removed by respectful editors (i don't remember i did that) Matthew_hk tc 14:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember there being any agreement that it's an honour when it comes to clubs and I almost always remove it from any club articles I edit. Number 57 14:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Same for players. If a player hasn't won anything, we shouldn't be manufacturing an honours section for them by giving them credit for the things they've been a runner-up in. That's almost as bad as weasel words. – PeeJay 14:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

From time to time, people do suggest there's a consensus for runners-up place not being an honour. Makes me wonder why the club article suggested format at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs#Honours says it contains

Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places."

My bolding, just so that people can't miss it :-) I couldn't find any discussion in the last few years that reached consensus to exclude. Perhaps I didn't look hard enough. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Just i think i did saw people claiming it had a consensus on runner-up on player article (for removing). Matthew_hk tc 15:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not leagues, not talking about leagues, just cups. Govvy (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Runner up is generally not an honour. Second Place in an Olympic Football event however would be notable. I have seen it on a lot of articles, and it doesn't typically bother me if it is included, nor does it bother me if it is removed. In the end the article should within the text somewhere always cite and reference that they were part of a losing team or similar meaning no loss of actual information takes place. I have worked with Dave Felmer to generally improve his editing over the last couple of years and he has made a genuine attempt to improve. Koncorde (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

FA Cup, League Cup, etc, have runner up medals, when you watch a final you see the loosing team collect them, this is still an honour to get, a team has to play a fair number of games to get to a final, even the little tournaments give out medals. These medals are honours, I can't believe that peeps dismiss this. I wish peeps would stop deleting them. Govvy (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that they get a medal for taking part, it is just generally not considered an "honour". An honour in many sports where a Gold, Silver or Bronze medal is handed out may qualify, but even then it is more likely part of an overall competition record (such as for Athletics) rather than being described as an "honour". An "honour" is typically, in football parlance, the winners of a tournament. Koncorde (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree as in previous discussions. Runner-up is not an honour. Kante4 (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This comes up every so often and frankly I can't understand why the majority of you are so harsh about the inclusion of runners-up/finalists/2nd place on lists. I agree that for clubs and players with a bag full of trophies it can be a bit messy and pointless to mention their near misses as well, since they won't care that much about them, but for most even to get to the final is a rare achievement, surely worth one measly line of text in an online encyclopedia to reference the competition. Yes it's not an honour in terms of a win, but a notable event nonetheless. Seems a strange attitude for all sorts of information to be included in articles, but when they come close to winning the cups they are playing for (which is the ultimate aim of professional football, other than trying to make money which they all fail at!), it doesn't merit a mention even in passing because they failed at the last, oh the shame of it. And I know you don't get medals for league runner-up but it's actually a bigger achievement than a cup final in most instances due to the effort required over the full season. Fully appreciate that you don't want the stats to get out of hand, but everyone knows what a finalist or runner-up is, so as long as the competition is notable why not mention that they made the final in X year? Only justification seems to be that it doesn't meet the definition of the word Honour, but the synonyms include (quote) "distinction, privilege, glory, tribute, kudos, cachet, prestige, fame, renown, merit, credit, importance, illustriousness, notability; respect, esteem, approbation". Some of those are equivalent to winning something, but others just indicate doing well at it. And getting to a national cup final is 'doing well'. I'm not saying the Honours section should be renamed, but in my opinion taking a slightly more flexible and less literal view of its contents would be good. Finalist ≠ F All! Rant over. Crowsus (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The information can be included, what is being said is that having it in the section called "honours" is overkill. By all means include it in the lede, or within the body with wider context, but simply being beaten at something isn't particularly an honour. Koncorde (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the consensus has always been that runner-up places werent honours. Furthermore, people trying to stuff in a ton of runner up places to clubs and players that have already won a lot makes that section of the article look a mess. See Ray Parlour's page for reference (where I only reverted non-sourced runner up places and kept the sourced winners medals). I cannot even recall removing clubs' runner up places either but if I did it was almost certainly because a club that had won 15 titles and 10 cups was also listing 17 runner up places in the league and 14 in the cup for instance, which is just unnecessary. It isnt a distinction to lose a trophy match in the same way it is to win one. And obviously I dont have a sock puppet. Please dont accuse without any proof. Davefelmer (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC) -

• WP:Football Define Honours (Footballer)

1' This should be a list of all the medals a football player has earned during a playing career.

2 This includes the top FIFA and UEFA honours winner and runner up medals.

3 This includes all major leagues and cups from the top level to all registered FA league structure clubs.

4 Europe and clubs in the rest of the world in the league structure.

5 Small friendly tournaments can also be included if they actually give out medals. (Please note that most often players don't get a medal at these events.)

6 If the citation is in the article for the event then no citation is needed on the list, however if no citation is present then no honour should be present.

hmm, my interpretation is that you list all medals a player has earned during his playing career even a runners up medal say in the FA Cup, league cup, ect. Govvy (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

On a side note does somebody want to rv his edit on Mohamed Salah for me, Salah won a friendly tournament and got a medal for this honour! which should be listed in his honours, Daveyboy also seems think Man U play cricket for some reason. Govvy (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

He means 2014 International Champions Cup which took all of about 5 seconds to search for. A friendly, not particularly notable or "honour" competition. Koncorde (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

A preseason tournament (or friendly) is not an honour. Like said above, runner-ups can be mentioned in the prose but not at the honour section. There is not much honorable about losing a final or come up second. Kante4 (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Some ppl can't take a joke, or even abide by the original rules set by the Footy project, seems you're all changing the rules on your own lack of consistent consensus which was set back in 2006, Govvy (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing humourous in trying to further attack another user because a lack of consensus exists to justify inclusion or exclusion. Guidance and opinion changes with time. 2006 is so long ago, many editors will have been in short trousers. ::::::The important thing is to avoid incivility and edit warring, and to raise a question for consensus about a subject (not a user). Koncorde (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course there is some 'honour' as a concept, obviously winning would be better but it's sport, not a fight to the death and being second best is creditable as long as the quality and quantity of the participants is also credible. Losing a final is disappointing, but not shameful. I also fail to see the logic of mentioning losing finals in the prose which is meant to summarise the important meritorious facts of the career (which you're saying runners-up events are not), but not in the honours list which is basically a side note when you want to know at a glance what they won (or, I would argue, came close to winning). Again I'm not trying to get the 'rules' changed, just pointing out how little sense they seem to make at times.Crowsus (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I really don't get whats going on, first of it's different from clubs to player articles, last time it was about the football club articles, the team doesn't get a trophy for being a runner up, so we were removing them because some editors were adding runner up on club pages. However players are different they get a runner up medals for FA Cup, League Cup and other trophies. We agreed that was fine last time to include those on player articles, now a group of you are suddenly saying, no that never happened. I've been around here for years, some editors are running around wikipedia doing their own thing, others are coming up with non-existent consensus that never happened. Others don't realise that the original rules got wiped because they sat on a different server, :/ heh. Really people, either have a rummage through old chat or simply follow what was discussed years ago, but from heaven to hell please stop coming out with new stuff that was never discussed and saying it happened. And it's not about loosing a final or not, it's about did that player get a medal, if he did it should be on the list. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

All you are doing is attacking people because they dont agree with your interpretation of the rules. Quite clearly a consenus does exist which does not favour what you interpret as one. And how can you use what was come up with in 2006 when as other editors have said, the rules and guidelines will have changed so much since then, as a basis for 2017? As for the Salah article, you cannot seriously be saying a friendly competition is an official honour. Not only has that never been the case, but are you saying we should start adding pre-season tournaments as trophies because medals were handed out? So stuff like the Emirates Cup and Audi Cup be considered the same as winning competitive silverware like the FA Cup and Premier League? Just be reasonable and stop being so aggresive. Davefelmer (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

So you admit that televise tournaments viewed by a few million on TV and another 30,000 to 60,000 people in which a football tournament contest four teams or more has no merit, yet there are articles for them? They are on many club articles honour lists, as winners, it comes with a date-time a programme, doesn't have any impact on season football. You are guilty of your own rules and I have no favour for you. Honours section for players should be a list of honours won, yet you delete them even know they are mentioned in the article often with citation. You will still delete them. Shame on you for sure. Govvy (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I genuinely can't be bothered with this. Are you saying because something has a wikiepedia page and a match programme that it is an honour? Because that is pretty far fetched. Runners-up places, especially when a player has already won a lot, are not listed as honours. And friendlies most definitely aren't. If you think these are honours and I am hence removing honours, then answer my question. Are you honestly saying we should add stuff like the Emirates Cup, Audi Cup, ICC Cup and other friendly tournaments to player and club honours? Davefelmer (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Most big clubs have expansion pages for complete honours and statistics where they should be added so as not to clutter, but for smaller clubs, yes, it should be visible on honours list if that club have won it as it maybe less honours to view through. However, player articles are different and different rules apply to player honours and most editors here haven't even listened to this aspect. Rarely has a player achieved so much to be expanded to a separate page. Runner up medals are still honours no matter what some people think. They are still counted as such and not listing them in an honours section makes that honours section on a players article incomplete and there-for will never reach GA or FA status. Govvy (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about with that GA and FA status stuff but all you have done is play the 'everyone is wrong and I'm right' card and then given unfactual information. Taking Man Utd as an example since I am most familiar with their site, it is clear that in their trophy hauls for players, no runner up places or friendly wins are listed, such as for Rooney ^[1] and Carrick ^[2], to give two examples. So they are not 'counted' by anyone, not by clubs or players. Who cares if without runner up places and friendlies a club honours section is little to view through? We shouldnt be artificially inflating honours lists to stack up a section. Davefelmer (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because Man United is incomplete and the fact you're using it, considering it's a primary source, I prefer soccerway.com myself. Have a look, he has won six Community shields, not three like their own website says. I considered their own website unreliable for medal counts and it's out of date. O and they also include runner up medals. Govvy (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

hmm, I just went through them and counted 4 shields he took part in, seems non of these websites can count anyway. Govvy (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I consider soccerway to be extraordinarily unreliable, which is a topic for another day. They basically just spam in any honour won by the club while a player is physically registered with the first team there regardless of whether said player even played in the tournament. Like you say, Rooney hasn't even partaken in 6 community shields and it is never sourced by the papers for example as him having played in that many. ^[3] Davefelmer (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it me or are the first two pictures really poor quality to be even sure it's him!! I brought this here didn't think there would be many ppl monitoring the article to read his own talk page. Govvy (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Well it does say Hutton on his shirt. Not the greatest of photos, but better than nothing... JMHamo (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

There are some freebies on flickr - , , , , . Nanonic (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

r they counted as freebies? I've seen people transfer flickr to wiki but I don't know how to do that. But often I've seen loads of copyright violations on flickr, so I am not sure I want to do that. Govvy (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep they're freebies, they're all CC-BY (see Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr for which ones we can have) and they have the EXIF data to show they're not scraped from another website. Nanonic (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy:, would this image on commons be a better candidate for the leading infobox image? There a couple other files already on commons that show his face better. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

hmm, well I don't think I like that image, I just removed two images of the article and put his Scotland one in the infobox. Govvy (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Is the page really needed? doesn't provide much! Govvy (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

LOL, how did this article go from speedy delete to one ref! Seriously no one think this article should be merged into some other article? Govvy (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think the page is relevant enough to have its own and if it doesn't need to bet deleted then at least it should be merged back into the main article. NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Are national reserve or youth teams typically considered notable per WP:FOOTYN? Malaysia national under-14 (NFDP) football team was created last year and is basically nothing more than an infobox and a roster table filled with red links for players. Seems like this might be a candidate to be redirected to Football Association of Malaysia or perhaps one of the other existing team articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-notable. I've PROD'ed the article. JMHamo (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look JMHamo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

May someone please repair the vandalism that was made at the Peñarol article? I know nothing about the club and I noted that the edits were done separately, which go back months, because I haven't been able to revert it, it's very difficult to find, I would ask for someone to be aware of the stuff done at that article, please? Thanks - TheSoccerBoy (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

All of the Bulgarian team templates include the city along with the team name, for example "Beroe Stara Zagora" and "Cherno More Varna" instead of simply "Beroe" and "Cherno More". Granted, many team names are ambiguous and listing the city is necessary -- there are more than one Levski, Botev, Lokomotiv, Sportist, Slavia, etc. But I find it very annoying for teams with unique names. After all, one doesn't write "Fulham London" or "Aston Villa Birmingham". Is there an easy and non-intrusive way to fix this? Yavorescu (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not a case of fixing it, it's a case of using the club's English language common name, which is not necessarily the club's official name or the name by which the club is called in its local language. For example, whilst PFC Cherno More Varna may be known locally as "Cherno More", it does not seem that that is what their common name is in English language sources. For example, UEFA refer to them as "PFC Cherno More Varna" (as they do similarly with all Bulgarian clubs), so my gut feel is the article is in the right place. However, if you feel any club has an English-language common name different to the current article title, then I would recommend you start a requested move and cite sources showing the preferred common name. Fenix down (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm looking for reviewers to help tackle the outstanding footy-related GA nominations. Some have been awaiting review since December last year. They are as follows:

• Keelin Winters
• Mia Hamm
• Pelé
• Harry Beadles
• Alban Lafont
• Álvaro Domínguez
• Trevor Ford
• Lewis Holtby
• Nahikari García

Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, there is a TfD discussion within the project's scope at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 5#Template:Association football positions in which you might be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Can editors please look at this article and figure out who's right? User_talk:Simione001#Mario_Shabow_youth_caps.3F Pinging @Simione001 and Manunited20: --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

And more info here: . Simione001 (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Going by the information that (Simione001) has just linked, it appears this has all been discussed before and agreed that NPL and A-League count for senior caps as they are senior competitions. To me, I think that makes the most sense as well. NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

you're correct Simione, as long as the appearances and goals quoted are for the NPL, any which are from the NYL should not be in the box.

A bit of adjustment is needed both on the lead paragraphs of both the player and club (Youth) articles, the former stated that he is a Wanderers player when both the Infobox and text confirms he has moved to the Jets, and in the latter it states they are in the NYL and may go into the NPL in future, but in reality they're going into their second season there if I read it right?

And I wish the A League clubs had named their reserve teams something else, 'youth' to most of people means juvenile competions and setups which operate separately from the adult sections. Crowsus (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I've rectified the first two concerns. With regards to the third, i agree. Some users have suggested creating separate articles for the NPL sides eg. Melbourne City FC NPL however this hasn't been standardized and is still under discussion. Simione001 (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with having separate articles is that there isn't that much info about either of them, and also it's essentially the same team, just at different times of the year they play in different leagues (the National Youth League and the National Premier Leagues). --SuperJew (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@SuperJew: - I think that the NPL supersedes the NYL league (its a higher level) so perhaps all the youth articles should be changed removing the word "youth" from the title and replacing it with NPL eg. Western Sydney Wanderers FC NPL, Adelaide United FC NPL. Besides isn't the FFA planning on scrapping the NYL at some point? Simione001 (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It does seem that way Simione001, especially after the recent talks of closing the CoE, but don't want to be accused of crystal balling ;0 --SuperJew (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something, he's still at the Wanderers. They still have a game left in the 2017 AFC Champions League and he may well play in it. I've gone ahead and made that change. Macosal (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

On a very moot technical point. He's not going to play any more league games with the Wanderers, which is the only stat in the infobox. --SuperJew (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that semi-professional sides from semi-professional leagues are included at all in the infobox. That said, I'm not familiar with the structures of these leagues, and I may be way off here, but could the NYL stats not be included in "Other" in a career statistics table at the bottom (which this page doesn't yet have) as is done with play-off matches, and other like/lesser matches and competitions. The NPL stats will then be reflected in the infobox and the NYL stats won't be lost because they are captured below? Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Liam E. Bekker @ SuperJew @--NeilN Exactly right! how can semi professional league caps be included in the actual senior caps? I already mentioned that and it has been ignored.. i think it does not belong in the infobox and instead maybe somewhere else on the page. i hope there is a vote on this because this will confuse everyone around the world if all the A league players have youth caps in the info box .--manunited20 (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Well its not youth football and you haven't been ignored hence the discussion we currently having. The National Premier Leagues is a senior mens competition. It is the second tier of Australia association football as per Australian soccer league system. How can one say that senior football should not be listed under senior football in the infobox? I would however strongly suggest that the name of the team is changed removing the the word youth and replacing it with NPL eg. Western Sydney Wanderers FC Youth changed to Western Sydney Wanderers FC NPL to avoid confusion about it being youth football when in fact its senior football. Simione001 (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not including senior caps from semi-pro leagues is a silly idea. GiantSnowman 06:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I could probably have worded my previous comment better. I have no issue with the NPL stats even though they're semi-pro. The NYL's structure is different though and it seems to me like it's closer to the U23 League with the Premier League than a senior reserve league like in France or Germany. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

That's correct however its a non-issue because the NYL caps is not presently displayed under senior career in the infobox on Mario Shabow's article or on any other article. Simione001 (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, alright, I'm finally with you now. Could they not have given these teams better names!? It does seem then to be like the reserve leagues of Germany and France which are included in the infobox. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Youth players only play for the youth squad that's the whole point of having a youth team for the wanderers and the other A league clubs but anyways as mentioned the name should be changed or something is got to be done about the fact that people are posting up Youth caps on the senior infobox. .--manunited20 (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It's no differnt than DeAndre Yedlin caps for the Seattle U-23 team. I've made a bold edit and gone ahead and changed all the teams names to better reflect what they are. Simione001 (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Simione001 that's more appropriate than using the word youth. thanks, hope there wont be anymore issues regarding this matter. .--manunited20 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Would somebody mind taking a look at Dudley Lincoln Steinwall? Most of the article reads like something you'd find on a personal website and may actually be a copyvio. Steinwell would seem to be notable for a stand-alone article based up his playing career per WP:NFOOTY, but the sources cited are not very good. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

He's notable. I've removed the nonsense. GiantSnowman 09:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Kosack (talk · contribs) has used this sentence structure for a number of articles on Welsh football players:

"NAME was a Welsh professional footballer and Wales international"

My problem is that i) it contains two WP:EASTEREGG links, and ii) its ungrammatical, since the sentence should logically be able to be rewritten as: "NAME was a Wales international". Kosack has reverted several attempts I have made to fix the easter egg links, and to make the sentence more grammatical. He claims that this is standard formatting in articles about football players. He has linked to this wikiproject, stating that this lead sentence format is a guideline created by this wikiproject. My question is this: Is this standard formatting in articles about football players, as sanctioned by this wikiproject? If so, isn't it grammatically incorrect to write "NAME was a Welsh professional footballer and Wales international"? LK (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Lawrencekhoo has attempted to rearrange the whole sentence at Trevor Ford with his edits, not just the Wales international part as he claims, and one of his attempted "fixes" left it as "who played for Wales international." The user also claims that linking footballer to association football qualifies as an WP:EASTEREGG, despite it being used in the actual WP:Football MOS which I repeatedly linked too. Kosack (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I notice also that he has again changed the page without waiting for a discussion and has left the opening sentence with a non-existent link. Kosack (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Kosack, with respect your suggested wording isn't great. I've had a go at changing it, I (obviously) think it's better as it a) has more detail and b) flows better. GiantSnowman 09:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It isn't EASTEREGG to link the single word for a sportsperson to the sport they play. Association football is the term used for our article about the sport whose common name in British English is football, so that's the sensible alternative. This article uses British English, so it should use BritEng terminology. If the name for their occupation, in this case footballer, had an article on here that applied solely to soccer football, I dare say we'd use that instead.

(TL;DR warning) "Trevor Ford was a Wales international" is a grammatical sentence in British English. "International" is a noun meaning "a player who has taken part in an international game or contest", and "Wales" is a noun used attributively, as a pre-modifier. On its own, it's a sentence that lacks context, but following on from a clause that identifies the sport, it's fine. Common usage in BritEng is inconsistent about whether it uses the country name or its adjectival inflection. The noun form clearly implies "international representing country-name" whereas the adjectival form carries an implication of civil nationality, but in practice it uses whichever sounds more comfortable. See Noun adjunct#Use when an adjectivally inflected alternative is available. Either Wales or Welsh would work for me, but I'm not Welsh. If we were talking England, it'd definitely be "England international" rather than English.

IMO, GiantSnowman's version does improve the flow; it needs to repeat the "for" before the national team: ... who played as a centre-forward for Swansea Town, ... Newport County and Romford, as well as for the Welsh national team. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input both. I'm happy for the page to be improved upon of course, my issue was only that the changes made by the user were not improvements, as well incorrect use of the WP:EASTEREGG guidelines, in my view. I tried to take the user to talk pages on two occasions with no luck and he instead decided to bring it here instead of discuss it further. Kosack (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You really should read the WP:EASTEREGG guideline carefully, as you keep on saying that they don't apply, whereas a plain reading of the guidelines show that they do. The examples they give are very similar to the links that you wish to keep. Even for footballer to association football, which is relatively innocous, the guidelines would suggest "professional footballer" to association football. However, Wales international to Wales national football team is an obvious violation, LK (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Um, no it isn't. Anyone reading an article about a footballer from Wales would be expecting a Wales international link to go to the Wales national football team page and nowhere else. Is there a hidden meaning/interpretation there? No. Would the reference still be understood if printed? Yes. So, not an Easter Egg at all and an appropriate link in the context, although the common format is for the intro to say 'played for [ClubA] and [ClubB], and [Country]' OR 'played for [ClubA] and [ClubB] and the [Country] national team', of which the latter is obviously the most unambiguous.Crowsus (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Crowsus. The formats he has provided are most common and solve the grammatical issues raised. Definitely not WP:EASTEREGG either. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

What Crowsus and Liam E. Bekker said. You choose to misinterpret the guideline. It certainly wouldn't advise expanding the linked wording from "footballer" to "professional footballer" in such a case. A reader seeing the simple word "footballer" linked in the opening sentence would expect an article about a player of football or an article about the sport of football: a reader seeing "professional footballer" linked would expect somthing more specifically about professional football. Expanding the linked wording in this example would make the link more rather than less EASTEREGG. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The repetitive structure of many article ledes is quite confusing. Lots of ex-footballers in particular end up a complete mess once they engage in a secondary career such as coaching; at which point tenses change and Wales/Welsh was / is become ungrammatical in the existing format. Koncorde (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Both of these pages talk about the same Angolan player, with the latter being the most accurate one. Can someone merge/move/fix these? MYS77 ^✉ 12:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

With the title at Rúben Gouveia? Hack (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me the correct spelling. --SuperJew (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sports notability guideline#WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

That discussion seems to at least partially centre on one thing I've never understood in all my time on WP. You have at least one person saying "A subject that passes WP:NSPORTS is presumed to pass WP:GNG. [....] A subject still needs to pass GNG to be considered "notable."" So, if we have subject-specific guidelines but then even if a subject passes that it still needs to pass the GNG to be notable, why have the subject-specifics in the first place? Why not just go straight to the GNG......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's version of notability, all notable people have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. For contemporary footballers in most countries that speak European languages, proving this should be pretty easy. Hack (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Instead of white, I think the color should be changed. For example article Michel Platini use |header-color=lavender instead. Hddty. (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello there. Before these get going properly, can I make a plea to stop the weird style that has crept into outgoing transfers on the majority of these pages? I'm talking about this...

More information Date from, Position ...

Date from	Position	Nationality	Name	To	Fee	Ref.
1 July 2016	CF		Jeremy Balmy	Le Havre [a]	Released
1 July 2016	CF		Jamie Calvin	Kings Langley [b]	Released
1 July 2016	CF		Josh Cooke	Continental Star [c]	Released
1 July 2016	CM		Lee Marshall	Bath City [d]	Released

Close

I don't get what those footnotes are for - they basically repeat what we've already told the user in the table. And because we use the formal release date in the first column we miss the chance to offer a sense of when the club did their business (did they release early in the window, late, in stages etc.).

If I do say so myself, I do prefer the way I've done it with Watford. See...

More information Date, Player ...

Date[a]	Player	Transferred to[b]	Fee	Ref
28 May 2016	Miguel Layún	Porto	£6,000,000
3 June 2016	Joel Ekstrand	Bristol City	Free transfer (Released)
10 August 2016	Essaïd Belkalem	Orléans	Free transfer (Released)
31 August 2016	Sean Murray	Swindon Town	Free transfer

Close

I've trimmed just to use an example of each type of departure (sale, release, mutual consent release and free transfer - there's theoretically a "). Also removed the refs for space - there's two for Ekstrand and Belkalem, one for release and one for new club.

Thoughts on both approaches? There's definitely refinements that could be made to the Watford one too. I know trying to adopt a single style on these pages is a fool's errand, but it would be nice to iron out a few things... Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd say having teams they moved to is only relevant if it is a direct transfer or if it is clear the release was triggered so the player can move (like mutual consent releases and the player moves the next day). If a player is released to make room in the salary cap or had a fight with the coach or whatever reason the club wanted to cut him, and then signs with a new club a few months later, that's not relevant. Also, something we started in the A-League transfer parts last season: when the move is to another club in the same league (or even country) or when the player is the nationality of the league, it seems unnecessary to have those flag icons. When we removed all the Aussie flags in the A-League transfer page it really cut down loading time and it's still clearly&easily understandable. --SuperJew (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

And I'd also that position is an important parameter to include in transfers. --SuperJew (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't make sense to have a column listing the new club and then a footnote saying that he joined that club.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I've raised this issue here before (shortly into the 16/17 season ). It bugs me when the new club is listed in the "Transferred to" column at all for players who are released. It suggests a link between the two clubs for the transfer that doesn't exist, and a footnote doesn't counter this. If we want to give the reader access to the player's future career without them having to click on the player's article, then a footnote "player subsequently signed for club x" is acceptable, but the "Transferred to" column should still show "Released". The reverse also applies. Signing a released player is exactly that - no link to the player's old club exists, so the "Transferred from" column should say "Free agent" again with a footnote for ease of continuity for the reader. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

For mine, a happy medium is often to look at the date of contract expiry (for many European players, 1 July). Often, players are announced as "released" but in fact their contract still runs its course before expiring. Therefore I think any new club before that time ought to be listed, but not if they remain unsigned on the actual date of expiry. Macosal (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It depends whether a player was released and then later joined their new club, or whether they were released to join the new club (i.e. a free transfer). That's an important distinction. But agree there's no need for column and footnotes. GiantSnowman 17:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

How do we usually determine a player's nationality if they previously played for a country at youth level that they were eligible to represent through family, but refused a call-up because they no longer wanted to represent them and want to play for their home country instead, however, they haven't played for their home country yet? Many thanks in advance. LTFC 95 (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Any example? Makes it easier. Kante4 (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

My question was based on Cameron McGeehan, who was born in England and played for Northern Ireland at youth level, but expressed a desire to represent England as the reason for rejecting the under-21 call-up. The question was prompted by a user changing his flag icon from Northern Ireland to England in the club squad list. LTFC 95 (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

In terms of how we word their article, the McGeehan one does it correctly by stating "has played for Northern Ireland" (unarguable fact) rather than saying "he is Northern Irish" or "he is English" (inherently PoV). Obviously, with a squad list, we're forced some way down the PoV road. My understanding of eligibility rules is that when a player has represented one country and wishes to switch to another, they need official approval from FIFA before they can do so. I would only change the flag if we actually have sources stating that official permission to switch has been granted. It's a bit like a pre-contract, in effect; the player might have agreed to play for a new team, but until their registration has been transferred, they still "belong" to their original team. Jellyman (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Similar edit war also on Franco Vázquez, keep on removing "Italian footballer" or "played for Italy national football team" by ip users. I think it is correct to state his youth caps and leaving refuse to play in another sentence. Matthew_hk tc 22:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello there, I've noticed that the Blue Stars/FIFA Youth Cup is an does not have any individual articles of any edition in the past, for example: 2016 Blue Stars/FIFA Youth Cup. I am planning to create these articles from its first edition in 1939 to the upcoming one this year, just wanted to know if it would be notable, because it would be a shame that I would create all these articles just for them to be deleted, I have some reliable sources such as the FIFA statistics and the RSSSF statistics. I'll leave it to you guys so you can decide if it would be a good idea or not, and if there is any doubt, just let me know. TheSoccerBoy (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you show where individual tournaments have gained significant coverage outside of stat sites? Fenix down (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

1 - I don't know where did i go wrong whilst (trying to) perform(ing) a cleanup after someone added the ref to the box, the explanatory notes here say that if something like that occurs it's because there is no content between the "ref" tags. Well, there is methinks...

2 - The same user added an international career section for this player. Surely, stranger things have happened, but do you think the I. Diallo mentioned in that source is this guy? Playing in an under-20 competition At FOURTEEN YEARS of age?!

Attentively, thank you very much in advance --85.242.133.151 (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks User:Matthew hk, happy editing! --85.242.133.151 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been having some discussion with Struway2 about where is best to target this redirect, after I changed it from pointing towards Formation (association football)#2–3–5 (Pyramid) to Midfielder#Wing half. My reasoning for this is that the former article is about formations and I felt it would be better pointing to something about positions. Struway's concern is that the new target doesn't contain enough relevant information to tell anyone what a half back is (or was). I think we both agree that the main problem is that – as it stands – there isn't any particularly useful place to redirect to, due to the dearth of information we have on historical positions as opposed to modern inventions like "false nines" etc. Struway has suggested Association football positions#Centre-back as an alternative, as it makes some mention of the half back line. Any other ideas? Jellyman (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

To my mind it would be misleading for half back to point to centre back as I agree broadly with the 2-3-5 description that this was the historic midfield line (in the days when attack was very much the best form of defence!), so to indicate that half backs played the same position as modern day central defenders would be false, although they did more defending than modern central midfielders. I did a bit of the relevant text in the Defender and Midfielder articles following the Wing Half merge but I fully agree it's quite weak/vague. I have the Inverting The Pyramid book in the the house, just one book but very respected, if you want I will try to get some good quotations from it about half back vs midfielder vs defender evolution? If that implies that half back would be best categorised as a Defender in modern terms I'd be very happy to point to that article, but I think there needs to be some evidence to contradict what's stated describing half backs as midfielders at present (as I interpret it, anyway).Crowsus (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I certainly don't think half back should be characterised as a defender in modern terms, or as anything else in modern terms. I suggested linking to the last paragraph of Association football positions#Centre-back, which mentions the half-back line and includes a link to 2-3-5, as the least worst alternative to linking directly to the 2-3-5 section. My original reasoning for linking to that, was although it isn't an individual position article, it did and does give some explanation of what a half back did. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I go swimming on Fridays and my lift came before I could finish my train of thought. Probably what we need is either a half back article with content, or a paragraph in Association football positions that talks about historical positions, or a section in Midfielder about the half-back position, both wing- and centre-half. As there seems to be a trend away from individual position articles, perhaps the latter would work best. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

An editor keeps trying to insert a friendly as an official honour for Mohamed Salah. This despite the fact that in a recent thread on this page he brought up whether someone would like to revert my removal of the friendly to which the consensus stood that a friendly wasnt an honour. The issue of whether it is sourced or not doesnt matter here (you wouldnt list the Emirates Cup or ICC Cup for players for example just because they were sourced). I keep trying to explain but he keeps reverting with no explanation so can someone look into it and/or do the revert for me so we do not get into an edit war? Davefelmer (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a tournament which gives out medals to players and he won the tournament with his team. If the definition of an honour is receiving a medal then a medal is an honour. And Salah's one is sourced. What's with you, you are a highly disruptive editor, I reported you here before, I have reported you to arv, you haven't changed your spots for sure. You're not interested in contributing to the project, you haven't ever done any constructive edits as far as I can see, your only removing content, I've seen you remove content that's even sourced on a number of articles. Instead of going to find the citation yourself which I do and most other editors do, you'd rather remove it. There-for I suggest you go find something away from wikipedia and stop wasting everyones time trying to clean up your mess. Govvy (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, you both need to stop edit warring before you get blocked. Secondly, Govvy please keep civil. Thirdly, I don't think it should be included if it's a friendly tournament. GiantSnowman 08:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It should NOT be included as it is a friendly tournament. Kante4 (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It's still a tournament that give medals out, what is the honours section for if not to list the honours a player receives throughout his career, I am sick and tired of people saying that tournaments are not honours, this Dave guy went and removed all the Inter Toto Cup medals and thats is a progressive tournament for a UEFA Cup place, which also has honours. He removed a multitude of post WW2 tournaments and medals, blanked some of the history from articles, it's not just me, he edit warred with User:Mountaincirque removing a load of work he did on articles, some editors didn't like how he removed parts of from Aston Villa and Man U articles. He removes all the bad shit you see on his talk page, you have a look through his contribution history. Friendly Tournaments is just a saying, we have FA Charity Shield in England, There are summer tournaments that offer an honour to clubs and many of them don't give out medals to players, a club win a small honour in the summer, then you go and remove it, it's like denying that tournament ever existed. People are starting to lack common sense around here, If a player win a tournament, cup or league, it should be listed. Govvy (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not it gives out medals, it's whether or not it's notable enough to be included. 09:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

But not for a friendly tournament, simple as that. We had the discussion before. Calm down and move on... Kante4 (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not an "honour". By all means mention that as part of a pretty season competition they won a friendly tournament within his career, but honours is meant to be for actual real competitive honours. Koncorde (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

What are you on about not a real competitive honour? It's not FIFA 16, it's a real football game played by four teams in a small tournament 1. 2. You might say friendly tournament but it's still a tournament, with an honour at the end of it, there is no harm in listing these honours, if anything you might do more harm to an article by not listing it, these tournaments can have impacts on player careers from injury to showcasing a players talent. There is plenty of validity to these tournaments and whats annoying is I am only using Salah as an example, I am more upset by the mass removal of honours, they get citations in an article, then people remove them from the list saying no citation even know there is citation in the article. I would think that winning something means something. I look towards the casual reader who will load up an article, they don't always want to read the whole thing, they want to see the key points of a players career, one of the key points is having the list of honours correct, the list is a version of notes what a player has won. Regardless of a friendly tournament or not, you must having it correct, if not you are failing the casual reader. Govvy (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes if you want to include it in the article, mention that he won it in the body while giving note to its pre season status. It doesnt have to be excluded altogether but it is not an official honour. And stop with your absolute fabrications. If you want to make things up, with edit histories and all it really only makes you look even more a fool. Haven't removed sourced content beyond the likes of what wiki deems as not needed for a section (i.e. friendlies in honours lists), haven't touched any intertoto medals so have no clue what you're on about there, no editors raised any dispute from the Aston Villa page when the only change I did there was remove some unsourced content and I didnt even go on the Man Utd page. And claiming friendly tournaments are just a saying has got to be one of the most bizarre things I've ever read. The difference between the Uhren and Emirates Cups and the Charity Shield is that the CS is an official, competitive fixture and the others are not. There is no need to spam pre season and other unofficial tournaments on honours pages. Davefelmer (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Get over it and move on. Friendly tournaments are no honours. Kante4 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I came around this list article thought I bring to the attention of the project. It might need a few peeps to look at it, seems to be no clear indication of who should qualify for the list, no explanation for the list or citations. It clearly needs help. Govvy (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The topic is notable but it needs burning down and starting again. It's been like that since creation in 2008. GiantSnowman 07:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I've started to convert the list into a table which reflects a standard inclusion criteria (played a minimum of 50 competitive matches). I found one fantastic player database on Belgian football, but it doesn't cover the play-offs, cups or European competitions, so the list will need some work to gather/source that data. Jogurney (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Is that bsdb.be? 213.156.121.92 (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Correct. The site requires registration, but it's free. It's also a Flemish-language website, however it is easy to understand and navigate if you use Google Translate or a similar tool. Jogurney (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

BSDB always used to include those games. I haven't been on since they updated the website a few months ago and deleted all the old accounts but it's a shame if they've got rid of all that stuff. BigDom (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. I figured out how to navigate to find them - if you click on a player's season by season data, you can find playoffs, cup/supercup, European and international matches. Unfortunately, I haven't found a summary so it looks like you have to add them manually. Jogurney (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed a link to List of naturalised Equatoguinean international football players which was deleted in December. Just wondering if an admin could check to see if there was any meaningful content in this article. Hack (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks a bit weird, it was deleted by @Fram: as an attack page. To be honest, I'm not sure why. This is much more than a list, there is substantial sourced prose covering the naturalization of players who had no real right to represent Equatorial Guinea. It's a controversial area, but a widely reported issue. there seems to be a reasonable amount of unreferenced content which should be removed, but I think there is a case to be made that it has received sufficient coverage that a separate article expanding on this could be made. Would be interested in Fram's thoughts, as I have not reviewed the refs in detail, so don't want to do anything rash. Fenix down (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

An article on the subject can certainly be made, but most of the page consisted of a long list of unsourced supposedly naturalised players, added by a user who had created multiple pages on individual players which contained serious BLP violations about their naturalizations and the reasons for them. It was part of a very problematic set of articles accusing some people of outright fraud without reliable sources. Starting again from scratch and avoiding the previous problems is by far the safest option here. Fram (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fram, I wasn't aware of the history of contributing editors. @Hack: if this is something you are interested in working on, I would be happy to restore the article to your userspace with the unsourced players excised. Fenix down (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fenix down: sure that'd be great. Would you be able to email me the unsourced players' names so that I could verify the veracity of the claims? Hack (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I'll try to do that today. Fenix down (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I was just looking at Ardiles, he is in a lot of categories, I thought we talked about some of the expat cats before, just wanted someone to double check they are all okay. Govvy (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, obviously he played and managed in several different countries so a lot of applicable categories there. Crowsus (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I do get confused at times by all the cats, maybe its a dyslexic thing! Govvy (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Noticed that the 2014 FA Cup has been removed from Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain's honours section by User:Davefelmer as he was not in the matchday squad for the final. I think the FA gives out 30 medals to all winning teams so he may still have got one? I know that he was in the stadium during the final and was one of the players who lifted the trophy on the podium, and he played in and scored in previous rounds. Just wondering whether there is a source that shows he didn't get any medal. Thanks, Hashim-afc (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It is the same principle for why several editors have reverted attempts to give Welbeck a medal for a an FA Cup final he wasnt in the squad for as well. In English football you typically do not get a medal if not in the squad for a final. Him being at the parade means nothing in this instance. Davefelmer (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Totally incorrect, in English football you get a medal for competing in both quarter and semi-finals if you miss the final through injury. You also get a medal for completing a certain number of games in that competition. Govvy (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: I understand the logic but are you sure it's actually true? When I said Chamberlain lifted the trophy, I didn't mean the parade the day after, I mean he was actually at Wembley for the final and went up with the rest of the players to lift the trophy after full time. Assuming they handed out the medals at Wembley, and assuming that the club was given 30 medals which I think is the norm, I think it might be quite likely he got one. Do you have a source that shows only players in the match day squad get a medal or shows that Chamberlain didn't get one? Thanks. Hashim-afc (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying that he got one? Kante4 (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep, we can't/don't assume based on who did or did not play in whatever number of matches during a competition that they got a medal. We need reliable sources which explicitly say he did. GiantSnowman 07:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that we cannot assume he got a medal based on guesswork. Also, I think most people would interpret the appearance of the FA Cup in a players' honours as an indication that he was actually in the team that won the cup, not just that he received a medal. As you note, clubs are given 30 medals to hand out as they wish. They could theoretically give one to the tea-lady - would that really mean she could claim to have "won the FA Cup"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Another extreme theoretical example: a player comes on as a 90th minute substitute in the third round but the following day dies in a car crash. The club goes on to win the FA Cup and gives a medal to his partner as a mark of respect. Would we say that that player "won the FA Cup".........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

TBH, if we are going to apply the criterion of "the honour is based on who physically received a medal", then I'm pretty sure we don't technically have a source for any given year that confirms that the players who played in the final actually received a medal. Obviously it's pretty certain that they did, but I doubt we'd find a source to confirm it. Personally I think using "he received a physical medal" as the criterion is nuts, and the only sensible criterion to use is the players who played in the actual final..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

OTOH, wouldn't you say that winning a cup (or a premiership) is a result of a series of games, and not only the final? If a key player is responsible for the majority of goals to help the team through the round of 32, round of 16, quarter-final and semi-final but then misses the final due to injury, would you say he didn't help contribute to winning the cup? All in all, it seems even a bit bizarre to give team awards to individual players, no? --SuperJew (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You make a valid point, however by that argument it could be said that we should simply list the cup as an "honour" for every player who played in any match in the tournament, no matter how large or small their contribution, which would certainly solve the "did he/didn't he receive a medal" issue but seems to be a different argument again..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

IMO, the best thing would be to keep team awards (winning a cup, a league, etc.) on the clubs' pages and individual awards (golden boot, MVP, player of the season) on players' pages. --SuperJew (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

In 2010-11 season premier league clubs had to adjust to the new rules set that they must provide and register a senior squad of 25 men and the rest should be young players from the academy. In result of that, honours were also set to 25 to 30 medals in top tier cup competitions to reflect this. Followed by the rules being a player must play a valid number of games (2 or more) in a cup and either or also play in quarter and semi-finals for either a runners up medal or a winners medal. You people should be able to use this information to clarify and work out who gets a medal. If you follow the rules set by the FA under UEFA guidance then it really shouldn't be that hard to work it out. Govvy (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with consensus, need source to show he won one rather than source he didnt. Govvy, where did you get the idea that you get a medal for playing a quarter or semi? source please Davefelmer (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

He isn't Dave. He's saying the FA awards the winners and losers a certain number of medals, and they can hand them out to anyone they like so long as they have met a qualifying criteria (such as playing in earlier rounds). Historically it used to be only the team present on the day, but when clubs started playing youth squads in earlier rounds some concessions have been made to honour their efforts. How official the process is I don't know. A source would be required. Asking the team is usually a rather painless way to do this. Koncorde (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Koncorde

I was looking at Arsenal's last two FA Cup's on youtube, what I thought was interesting is that non of the players were giving any medals, I don't know what happened there if they got delayed or had to wait a few hours to received them. You can verify with previous competitions on youtube who got a medal by looking at the video on youtube, but for those two FA Cup finals, without seeing a medal around a players neck it can be a lot harder to work it out. Heh, other than emailing an open letter to Arsenal asking who got what, I don't see a way around it. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that limiting honours on a player's page to the 'final match day 18' seems to be an editorial stance with little to back it up. We all know that the likelihood Oxlade-Chamberlain in 2014 and Danny Welbeck in 2015 received medals from Arsenal is incredibly high and I would argue that they deserve the honour listed if they played in prior rounds in any case. Someone could write to the club but then that wouldn't technically be a verifiable source (not in the public domain).

I'm an inclusionist. Were Welbeck and Chamberlain part of Arsenal's 2014 & 15 FA Cup winning squads: undoubtedly yes, were they major contributors in the competitions, with Welbeck scoring the winner against Manchester United in the 2015 quarter finals: yes, apparently they don't hold the honour though on their pages though despite both lifting the trophy as they were injured on the final day - where is playing in the final stated as a criterion for holding the honour? If someone who doesn't know much about football comes across these articles and wonders "did Welbeck win the FA Cup with Arsenal in 2015 and Chamberlain in 2014?" then I currently do not think they have the correct information on their pages. Mountain^cirque 10:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You write whats called an Open letter, where their reply should be an open reply, they can post it in the news part of their website. Or write your email post your email here and the reply here. Govvy (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Archive 109/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Football.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Football, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Could Šakir Redžepi's article be protected from editing by anonymous users? I've had to revert several edits from different IP addresses attempting to portray that Redžepi played for Samsunspor in Turkey as well as adding fraudulent statistics for his time in Finland. The Turkish FA database reference I've added also gets removed every time these changes are made. Fmurto (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fmurto: - revert, warn, report. As far as I can see, you have not told these IPs why their edits are wrong. Also not enough recent disruption to merit protection, sorry. GiantSnowman 17:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The same changes have been made 25 times from 22 differing addresses, I may have missed some going through the edit history since December 2015 when this first started. I certainly won't be tending to this page in the future when someone who changes their IP enough times for this to be deliberate wants to pad this guy's career statistics. Fmurto (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It's low level vandalism that can be dealt with as it is, by reverting and (if necessary) blocking. See WP:PREEMPTIVE; protecting for this kind of minor vandalism, that pops up every few days/weeks, is not needed. GiantSnowman 20:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There has been some disagreement regarding the inclusion of the Kit history section in this article and whether or not this violates WP:NOTGALLERY. The issue was broached on the Nigeria national football team page when such a section was removed by GiantSnowman citing this rule. In my interpretation, this statute refers specifically to externally linked media and images. No reference exists governing the existence of internally generated reference items, such as which was removed from the Nigeria national football team page. I have since reverted the removal until such a time as there is a greater consensus on the issue across all similar articles. Precedents exists for similar, and more substantial sections, on other national team pages:

Germany national football team
England national football team
Brazil national football team
United States men's national soccer team
Portugal national football team
Colombia national football team- History of the Colombia national football team

These are a portion of examples obtained after only a few minutes of searching. If anyone feels that this is incorrect then I feel that this should be definitively determined here where it can be clarified and consensus can be reached; at that point such sections can be removed from every national team page which currently contain one. Until such time, the edits on the Nigeria national football team should be left alone. This page should not be the testing ground for the application of statute interpretation while existing precedents on other national team articles continue to exist unmolested. If such an interpretation is found to have consensus and is applied across all similar pages, then I will be happy to remove the section myself and submit to the determination of fellow editors on this site. It is my sole interest that any subsequent interpretations of the rules be applied fairly and universally. I am considering a Request for Comment in order to gain consensus should this issue require immediate resolution unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 23:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think these should not be included on club/national team articles per WP:NOTGALLERY. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 09:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

First off, let me apologize if my tone sometimes verges on confrontational. I have spent many hours editing the page in question in an attempt to bring it up to the standards of some of the very excellent articles that I have listed above.

With that said, WP:NOTGALLERY is very specific as to the types of content that it addresses; External links or Internet directories, Internal links, Public domain or other source material, and Photographs or media files. The section removed from this article does not fall under any of these categories, except by a very loose interpretation under one of those headings.

In addition, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it is established that WP:SSEFAR or precedent in usage should be considered. "Non-fiction literature, such as encyclopedias, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred. Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that it should be followed elsewhere. Whether a given instance of something can serve as a precedent for some other instance must be decided by way of consensus."

In this particular instance, we are not simply discussing a singular instance that sets precedent, but rather a generally accepted practice that spans many, if not most, of the articles in this project. Keep in mind that every article that I have listed and more will require the same sections to be removed should this edit be upheld. Information that many editors on this project have worked hard to compile and create. Many of these articles have already undergone review without issue for years with the same sections in place. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 15:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a weird one for me. When I did the West Ham history for instance I included important kit changes, but positioned them as part of each historical section so they had context. At the time I considered doing a similar thing, but really whether a shirt was stripey claret or just claret is really not particularly interesting or relevant. Same goes for most of the kit sections. As part of the team history, or tournament record, yes Linda makes sense. But a year in year fractional kit change seems ott. However, only my opinion and I have no objection to them existing (although I would prefer context and sources). Koncorde (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your response here and I understand your opinion but I have to request a bit of clarification. It seems that you have issues of aesthetic quality regarding how they are used, but do not object to their existence. But I have to ask your opinion as to whether you feel that they fall under WP:NOTGALLERY. Structural quality can then be reassessed and improved with coordinated efforts and assistance from you and others here. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 17:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say NOTGALLERY is not relevant. A bigger issue is that they are not notable, not referenced with sources, and the justification for inclusion is OTHERSTUFF at the moment. They can improve an article with their inclusion, but not convinced by the current way it is being done. Koncorde (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You posted on my talk page about my opinion, I think if done right you could have a kit history page on it's own, which would explain each change, what materials were used to show the evolution of how sports wear and technology helped to improve football today. However regarding Nigeria national football team it wasn't anywhere near as neat and tidy as the other examples you provided. You certainly don't need to provide the same kit further down the page for current which is already in the infobox, that's just overkill. If it was like German or Brazilian examples that's far more acceptable. However I still think they are overkill, I personally think separate articles are the way forward with only a few specific kit changes that actually might of had an impact for a national team winning year. Govvy (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

First off, thanks for replying. That particular edit was a change from the original setup that I had used when I originally posted the kits on the article a few months ago. It was an attempt to lower the impact of the images so that it could fall under a collapsible menu but it needed a proper heading so I chose to emulate the Columbia team article. Since all of the kits listed were equally predecessors to the current one, I followed that article's example of using the current kit as the header and the rest listed under the collapsible menu. As I said before, I can accept input regarding how the items are set up, I just want to be able to operate under a clear and consistent set of guidelines. Wikipedia policy, not structure, is the reason that was given for their removal in the first place. My goal is to provide an article that fans of the Nigerian national team can be proud of and can stand up to the best articles in this project, after which I can spread the experience gained towards wider improvements across articles that are/were similarly under-serviced. But it would be helpful to me if my contributions are assessed under a consistent set of guidelines, otherwise I have no idea what I can do nor can I then advise newer editors when I observe errors that they make because I can't count on the consistency of the policies as I understand them. And I'm not a new user here myself. There are already many novice editors that have begun editing there and so it's hard enough to fix syntax issues, create new templates and correct grammar (as well as monitor and try to communicate with, advise and work with some users who have a documented history of actual policy violations and have been blocked by other project administrators in the past. I would add that when the deletion was made, rationale was sent to the talk page of one such user rather than to myself. As I am the one who actually created the section, it would have been more valid to send notification to me. I find myself wondering if said user's history played a part in the revision because GiantSnowman assumed that he had been the one editing it.) when I have to spend the same amount of time looking over my shoulder when content that I spent time researching and building gets removed; especially when I have taken care to model it after well-rated existing context. So if it needs improvement, I can accept that and I welcome constructive criticism and outside vetting. But citing policy that doesn't seem to apply, and then isn't enforced elsewhere is where I take issue. That simply is unfair and counterproductive, in my opinion. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 19:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I would also add that I am considering starting a separate history page for the article to which many of the associated tables and list items can be moved since they would carry greater relevance there, however I feel that the original article needs to be more fully fleshed out and improved structurally before doing so. I am slowly building in that direction, however it should be able to exist with the kit table on the main article until that time per existing precedent. As I've stated before, guidance and assistance in that direction is welcome, but i need this issue resolved so that I can move forward. It seems that, thus far, consensus is moving in the direction that this is not an inherent violation of WP:NOTGALLERY but I will wait for more replies to better gauge the opinion of project contributors. I thank you all for taking the time to comment on this discussion. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 19:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Stand alone articles about kits are not notable, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Bradford City kits. GiantSnowman 16:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a section within an article so I do not see the relevance here. My suggestion was for a history page which would include a kit section as well as other tables of relevance. Nothing in my previous post suggested a "stand-alone kit article". unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 05:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to get a feel for your view on the original topic. I can't say if WP:NOBLANKING should have tabled any editing prior to this discussion, but I feel that it is reasonable to request some type of amicable resolution as to how we can move forward. Focusing on the question of WP:NOTGALLERY; so far consensus is that it holds no bearing on the section that was removed. I would entertain suggestions as to how best to move forward with the article, but the original question requires resolution. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 06:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Stand alone kit sections are also not notable. "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of [...] images". What purpose does having a wall of green kits serve, how is that notable for an encyclopedia? GiantSnowman 06:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman. No historical kits per WP:NOTGALLERY, it serves no useful purpose and makes the article ugly. JMHamo (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Also agree with GS that there is no need for historical kit sections. The only time that I can see that there would be a need to do this would be when there was a material change in the appearance of kit such as here for Cardiff City but with clear sourced prose showing that the kit change was significant and received coverage in third party sources. Fenix down (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that it's unnecessary. From the discussion above, I think some people are taking a very letter-of-the-law approach to the meaning of WP:NOTGALLERY. We're not in a court here. Even if the precise wording of the policy doesn't specifically refer to these types of images, I think that the spirit of it applies to galleries of any sort. Jellyman (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Completely agree Jellyman, in this instance I see no real difference between the notion of photograph / media file as described in point 4 of NOTGALLERY and a recreation of a kit using available templates. Fenix down (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I do think it's overkill on team kits, I tend to agree with GSnowman, I don't think every little kit change is that notable, just the major kit changes. I did have a thought, more of a suggestion, is there an article on Evolution of the football kit? Might be an interesting article. Govvy (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with all above. There's no significant differences between all the Nigeria kits (or any other team's kit) to make them worth putting into a gallery. I do think that perhaps we need to have better coverage of each national team's history, whereby perhaps each two- or four-year period would be covered by a single article (so as to cover qualification for the World Cup and their continental competition), and then we could put the kits in there, as we have done for individual club seasons, but that's perhaps a different discussion. – PeeJay 13:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"is there an article on Evolution of the football kit?" - see Kit (association football), a Featured Article, which contains extensive information on the evolution of kits down the years..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Govvy, have a little excerpt on the article about the kit. Kits usually play a big part of a teams identity and image, although they rarely are independently notable. No need for the whole scale image galleries but a few image of the kits in the article wouldn't hurt. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Unak78: clear consensus there to remove the kit sections - do you agree? GiantSnowman 07:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree - no need for a gallery of images of kits which are all broadly speaking the same -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree to that we shouldn't have big kit galleries. Govvy (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I have no issue with this so long as they're removed from all articles containing them including the ones that I have listed above. If we're going to have a standing consensus on this issue, then it needs to be applied universally. Otherwise it's difficult to know what manner of structure follows established consensus when constructing a page and this will come up again. By not removing those sections from all articles, it sets the precedent that such practice is condoned. And if it is condoned under certain circumstances but not all circumstances, then clarification needs to be established unequivocally as to what those are. If this is done, then I have no further objections. Otherwise we should revisit the issue to understand why no further changes have taken place. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 19:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to add, that even in many of the opinions on this page, certain caveats are referenced which adds ambiguity to the nature of certain kit references, such as changes between particular kits being notable enough to be included. Who makes that assessment and what specific details falls under the definition of "significant changes". Also more than one person has suggested topical or periodical use of kit images, but without a clear suggestion of any particular structure. Does this mean that some kit galleries will be waved because they include iterations that are deemed significant enough to warrant inclusion? I believe that some reference to this issue should be made on the front page of WP:FOOTY with a summary of what has been discussed here as well as specific guidelines as to what is going to be allowed and what is not. The most frustrating aspect of editing on Wikipedia is this persistent ambiguity as well as the imperfect, and often relative, understanding of WP guidelines between individual projects on Wikipedia and even how perception of these issues differs between broader projects and the sub-projects that exist within them. This needs to change and a good start would be making certain that an issue such as this doesn't simply get archived without affirmative documentation becoming included within the project page for reference purposes as well as any agreed upon exceptions. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 19:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Out of interest, do you feel it would be justifiable to add a specific kit alongside a text section for a tournament? For example, the Nigeria kits at USA94 were a fairly unique design, so would it be OK to add a box with that kit and a simple caption e.g 'kit worn by the team at the 1994 world cup'?Crowsus (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This isn't strictly a football question but concerns football articles. I was at Celtic Park yesterday and there are currently some large banners of the Lisbon Lions players, as well as permanent banners of club legends through the years (unfortunately this installation isn't shown on the stadium article yet, but obviously you can find it online). I took photos of some of these with the intention of adding them to Commons and then onto articles with no image (e.g Bobby Murdoch). But is it OK to do this? It would be my own submission and I would be captioning it as 'player X on commemorative banner at Celtic Park' or whatever rather than trying to pretend it was a picture I took/owned in the first instance, but it is a photo of a photo in a sense albeit in a public place. Just wanted some guidance on this so I don't waste my time uploading stuff that's not permitted. Thanks.Crowsus (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Are we saying you took photos of existing public artwork? In which case, same rules as exist for statues, artwork or similar. Koncorde (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it is public artwork, yes, but wasn't sure if it was different due to being from photographs rather than illustrations, statue etc.

My experience if this is no you can't upload them. I fell foul of this a few years ago when I uploaded some pictures of giant banners which where at the Boleyn Ground and were images of Bobby Moore and Trevor Brooking. Basically you can't upload images of images as you don't hold the copyright to the image which you are making an image of. You might get away with it if the person was dead but not if an existing free to use image already existed on Commons as was the case with Bobby Moore.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, I might try one then and see if there is any objection. I know there are folk that patrol for unsuitable images. In fact I'll do two, Murdoch and Jimmy Quinn, both are deceased and the latter for 70 years. No images on Commons currently. If they have to be deleted, fair enough. Feel free to flag them up for review if you're involved in that sort of thing, I'm not trying to ignore the copyright issues.Crowsus (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, just in case my comment was misinterpreted. We are not allowed to express any claim to the copyright, or violate the rights of the copyright holder. For instance, if you take a photograph of a football player standing in front of a picture of himself we can happily release the image into the public domain as our own creation...but by doing so violate the attribution of the background image. As such we should attribute the copyright appropriately and / or seek a free domain alternative. However a photograph of a display of copyright images such as this for instance would be and has been considered reasonable use in the past for the purpose of demonstrating something. In the end, depends on intent and quality / completeness. Something reproduced 100% in entirety is more likely to fall foul of any distribution rules. Koncorde (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I left a comment on Talk:Superleague Greece a couple of weeks ago, but didn't get an answer, so I'm trying it here. Could there be any reason why the three titles of Aris wouldn't be included in the Performance by Club and Performance by City sections of Superleague Greece? 83.80.18.68 (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The table only includes titles won since the 1959–60 season. Aris' titles were all prior to that. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

About the short name for Gimnàstic de Tarragona, I ask you this following some edits of @Aikclaes: at the 2016–17 Segunda División season article. Before starting a "war of edits", I want to read your opinion:

• Gimnàstic is the formal name and it is used until today in every reference to the team at this Wikipedia.
• Nàstic, despite being a nickname like Atleti, Barça or Boro, is used in the club's official accounts, in articles of the most important newspapers (but only in few of them in the standings and result tables) and also in the club's profile at La Liga website.

So, which name is more appropiate to use? I call also @MYS77: as Nàstic is one of his favourite teams. Asturkian (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be Gimnàstic. Kante4 (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed it should be Gimnàstic. GiantSnowman 17:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you please state the reasons behind your opinions? Aikclaes (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with Asturkian that "Gymnàstic" is the formal name. "Club Gimnàstic de Tarragona S.A.D." is the formal name. "Gimnastic" is one short form, "Nàstic" another. If "Gimnàstic was the formal short form, how come it is nowhere to be seen on the club's own website? Aikclaes (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

After browsing several Spanish websites with standings and results, I also don't agree with Asturkian that "only a few" of them use the short form "Nástic". There was roughly as many instances of "Nàstic" as there were of "Gimnástic". Aikclaes (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Earlier I started a discussion about this issues on the talk page of the club. I don't where it is most appropriate, here or there. Aikclaes (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia, and we don't use nicknames. That's why we have FC Barcelona, not Barca; and Manchester United F.C., not Man Utd... GiantSnowman 20:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Comparing "Nàstic" to "Barça" or "Boro" isn't really valid because "Nàstic" is the most common way of referring to the club in both news articles and on the club's webpage. My point is that "Nàstic" has therefore stopped being just a nickname, and become the standard way of referring to the club. Wikipedia should reflect that. Aikclaes (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Nàstic is in common use even in a fairly formal sense, but it would probably be better to stick with Gimnàstic in articles, possibly excepting player bios where the full name has already been stated. That is unless the instruction is for 'Gimnàstic de Tarragona' to be used every time, there is no need for that as no other club uses that name.Crowsus (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

My club refers to themselves by their nickname ('The Bantams') throughout their website and social media, as do many other teams. That does not mean we replicate it here. We are an encyclopedia! GiantSnowman 08:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• As everyone above already replied, the correct name in here should be "Gimnàstic". Nàstic is a nickname to their fans/media, not a "formal name" to use in an encyclopedia. MYS77 ^✉ 22:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I was going to create an article on the 1,000 club, managers who have managed over 1,000 games in English football. I then noticed the above article so went to update it. However I found the LMA list men here, who according to their Wikipedia stats have NOT managed 1,000 games. Such as Len Ashurst, Wikipedia stats say 788, the LMA says Ashurst, born in Liverpool in 1939, is a member of the LMA Hall of Fame having taken charge of over 1000 matches. The others the LMA say have reached 1,000 are Dave Bassett (980), Steve Coppell (1,004 but including 15 in India), Roy Hodgson (586), and Lawrie McMenemy (986). Does anyone have any ideas why?--EchetusXe 20:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

If you look at Roy Hodgson for example, and compare the "Managerial statistics" table to the infobox, it seems the "Managerial statistics" table isn't up-to-date at all, only including half the clubs he was a manager of. --SuperJew (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Would it not be sensible to have the final column a citation one where you link to another website to support the information? Govvy (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Worth noting that List of football managers with most games doesn't contain even a single source. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Also the article will need re-naming. GiantSnowman 09:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

A proper update would need to be done on the statistics with reliable sources. I also agree with GiantSnowman that the page needs to be renamed. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, user/admin GiantSnowman removes all external links on the grounds they add NOTHING to article. Fair enough, even if ZEROZERO is user-generated, FORADEJOGO is not and it's quite useful for guys like this, he played ages in Portugal. So, pray do tell, FDJ is even useless as a reference in the body of article?

If the storyline did not contain one single ref I concur with you, you add every right to remove it. Attentively --193.137.135.2 (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, read and retain WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:EL... GiantSnowman 12:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I fear you are missing my point here, kind fellow user... OK, we remove the external links because they add nothing to article (according to you and/or others), I get that. But can't we even use them as references? And what about NFT.com (which you also removed in Mr. Alves' article)? That's unreliable too? --193.137.135.2 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

He didn't remove the NFT.com EL, because it's already in the article as a source for the international goals table (not that it does source most of that table, but that's by the by). If FDJ is a source for article content, format it up as a reference and place it after the relevant content in the normal way. Or if it's a source for infobox content, either format it up and put it after the infobox stats it verifies, or write a sentence in the lead saying he played for <list of clubs> and put the reference after that sentence, or create a subsection in the References section headed Infobox stats, as at Paul Harding (association footballer)#References, and put it there.

Personally, I wouldn't remove a detailed stats resource such as FDJ if it's only being used an an external link: WP:ELYES point 3 does allow that sort of thing. BUT if it's being used as a source for content, it has to be treated like any other reference and not placed in External links. Back when we all started this, it used to be standard practice to source your infobox from an Ext link stats page: standards change. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I've got a couple of requests for any admin who may be kind enough to fullfil them.

1) I created a draft for Patrick Cutrone, who made his senior debut for Milan yesterday. However, the main-space page is currently salted, so I need one of you guys to move it there for me, please.

2) Milan is apparently on the verge of signing Mateo Musacchio and as usual, IPs don't understand they have to wait for an official announcement before updating the page. I've already made three reverts in a few hours, so... semi-protection for a week or two, maybe?

Thanks. Luxic (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Luxic: Done on both counts. Cheers, Number 57 18:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Are we doing this Template:New Zealand Women's Football Team Current Roster now? As included in Ria Percival and others? Is there precedent or consensus anywhere? Created by user Plasticbike who appears well intentioned. I would suggest unnecessary as there will already be a link to the NFT page with the current squad, and the templates are likely to be left behind as players are included and left out of squads over different match windows. ClubOranje^T 23:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No precedent as far as I can see, and no good reason either. National teams are no longer current as soon as the international window closes, and national coaches can select an entirely different group the next time out if they choose, so I don't see any benefit of this kind of template. – PeeJay 23:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. There is no need for it. Kante4 (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, though I can't find the previous discussion. In any case, national team squads are far too transient for a current squad template to be useful. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be taken to TFD. GiantSnowman 07:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I've taken that template out of the world. with so few majors in womens NT football, I suppose it still makes more sense to roster per FIFA tourneyStotheR

Just posted on the talk page there, but more likely to get an answer here. Why is this team's name (and others in Germany, it seems) prefixed by a "1."? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Means it was the first football club to be founded in that city: see Bundesliga (in English). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Great answer, thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Always wondered that myself - and really interesting article about German club names, thanks @Struway2:! GiantSnowman 13:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the German formatting for 'first', see 1. Bundesliga etc. The names are spoken as "Erste F C Kaiserlautern" or whatever, rather than "Eins F C Kaiserlautern".Crowsus (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Do many teams that weren't first use these numbers? Hack (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The short answer is No, because there's no bragging rights about being the second or later team in a city. They will just not mention the fact.Crowsus (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, my time is limited so could anyone take a look at the article creations from User:Fussbolfan. I seriously doubt the notability for articles like

• RK Steel FC
• Domestic average home attendances of football clubs
• Sports clubs on social media
• FAME FC
• 2014-15 Karachi Football League

and so on... Qed237 (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Giorgos Koudas, a Greek international initially retired from international football in 1982 but was brought out of retirement 13 years later to play in his own testimonial game, a FIFA recognised friendly (i.e. still included on the FIFA.com website) against Yugoslavia. Now, someone has previously added that detail to his infobox but someone else removed it. With that match included he has (probably) the longest distance between his international debut and his final international game (nearly 28 years!). I think that would make a nice 'DYK', however the inclusion of the match against Yugoslavia may be considered contentious, what do others think? TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If verifiable it should at least be on his page as it is interesting, but my quick search only showed a couple of YouTube videos (which I haven't watched) and The untold story of Giorgio Koudas which doesn't mention it. Most of the other early links are wikiscrapes. NFT doesn't list it either. Giorgos Koudas oesn't even give a blip on Fifa.com search. ClubOranje^T 23:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Koudas mentions the match in a radio interview (in Greek) which is online here. Jogurney (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I also found a Greek newspaper article from the day before the match which identifies the Greece and Yugoslavia squads. Jogurney (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is a newspaper match report which confirms he started the match (and was substituted in the 25th minute). Jogurney (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

FIFA.com reports the GRE-YUG match on 19 September 1995 as an "A" international on its website. Jogurney (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Was there any significance to him going off at 25 minutes? Did the opposition kick the ball out? Hack (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I found a better article which states that he was substituted in the 19th minute. It also mentions that it was an official FIFA-recognized match and Koudas set several records by appearing. No mention of why he left the match early (other than stating his appearance was "symbolic" because it was a testimonial match). Jogurney (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The Asia Trophy FLC nom has now been opened for several weeks now but hasn't received any comments so far. If a couple of you from our football community can give it a quick look and some input, that would be would be much appreciated. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Tell me, for a general reader that comes to wikipedia and looks at the statistics for games and goals, and wonder why you haven't added the 3 loan spells to the final subtotal row. I tried to explain to Matty that row will look wrong to most people, it doesn't add up because you're excluding the three loan spells at Tottenham, there will be editors coming along and wasting their time making it look correct for someone to revert hard work. The table I did before had a subtotal row after the Tottenham loan spells, but now removed, the table doesn't look right, I don't understand why on earth you need a whole row for U23 when that one stats can be combined into the main season row with a footnote. At the moment in my opinion the table feels wrong, doesn't work for the general reader in it's current format. Govvy (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The format of stats tables was recently challenged. The discussion resulted in consensus that the formatting should remain as it is. Consensus was also established in August/September last year that U23 appearances in the EFL Trophy are presented in this way. LTFC 95 (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion was had on similar issues to the above, and while a solution was not found, consensus was *not* reached. See discussion here. I have seen tables included in both formats, and while I prefer subtotals for loan spells, this is not always agreed upon. Unless a solution can be found to the issues raised in the original discussion I don't think much can be added here. As for the U23's, I'm not sure when it was agreed to include them but I may have missed that discussion. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion about U23 EFL Trophy appearances can be found here. LTFC 95 (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I read through that discussion, from what I gather because the loans spanned three season there should be a sub-total row for it. But I have some dyslexia and it can be hard for me to understand these tables sometimes, for multiple loan spells there should be sub-total row, as for a single season? Any why are some loan spells not with the grouped club parent club? Surely the grouping should be parented? Govvy (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No, there should not be a subtotal row. He was loaned to different clubs. Kante4 (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Liam E. Bekker: - if consensus wasn't reached, then it does not matter - the status quo remains ie current formatting. GiantSnowman 06:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

When Darlington F.C. was bought out of administration in May 2012, the new ownership didn't enter into a CVA, which meant the FA were obliged to treat the resulting entity as a "new club" with a new playing name, Darlington 1883. There was a quite sensible discussion at the time, archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 69#Darlington F.C., about whether we should have a new article for the new club or continue with the old one, which concluded that two was probably best for now. It was mentioned that the articles might be merged in the future if reliable sources regarded the "new club" as a continuation of the old, viewed from a historical rather than a news perspective.

Yesterday, User:Dfcfozz posted at Talk:Darlington F.C.#Name Change that the FA had agreed to 1883 playing under the Darlington F.C. name for 2017/18 (ref), and was wondering what to do with the two articles. Given that, is this the time to merge the two? or if not, then what? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's time to merge. It's a Newport County situation – they played as Newport A.F.C. for several years after reforming before adopting their former name. Numerous sources talk about them "reverting" to or "restoring the old name, which wouldn't be the case if they were viewed as a new club. Number 57 20:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Have the FA agreed that the new entity can claim the history of the old? If not, I'm not sure the articles should be merged at this point.Crowsus (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure that the FA generally opines publicly on that sort of thing, unless there are disputes like the Wimbledon case. But the NonLeague Paper article that Number57 linked above says

Director Jonathan Jowett, who has been liaising on a regular basis with the FA in recent months, told the club's website: "This is fantastic news for our fans and formally re-establishes our historic connection. I would like to thank the FA for accepting our application and the arguments we made in favour of reverting to our traditional playing name of Darlington FC."

which implies they don't have a problem with it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this would be the appropriate time to merge the two articles. LTFC 95 (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please "have a go" at this player's chart of statistics (below, not the infobox)? I don't know what is causing it to display shabbily...

Attentively, thanks in advance --85.242.133.151 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Kante4 (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Easier than i thought, oh well... Thank you very much User:Kante4! --85.242.133.151 (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Could an Admin please semi protect Bernardo Silva. The silly season has just begun. JMHamo (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

at least he was signed already. Look at the vandal and rumour in Ivan Perišić. i bet reaching 100 useless edit within this week. Matthew_hk tc 18:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy:, @Davefelmer:, @Koncorde:, @ChrisTheDude:, @Hashim-afc:, @Kante4:, @GiantSnowman:, @SuperJew:: so I found time to write to Arsenal as a couple of you suggested in our discussion on medals for Arsenal players earlier this month:

QUOTE: From: REDACTED <REDACTED>, cc: REDACTED <REDACTED>

Many thanks for your enquiry and the nearest thing to an official public record of honours won by individual players is really the club handbook, published at the start of each season, which is put together by our match day programme team and that quotes Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain with an F.A. Cup Winners medal in both 2014 and 2015 and Danny Welbeck as having a winners medal in 2015. I hope this answers your enquiry and thanks again for your interest.

Best wishes, REDACTED, Historian.

Arsenal Football Club PLC Registered in England and Wales. Registration No 109244 Registered Office: Highbury House, 75 Drayton Park, London N5 1BU

So what are thoughts on using the Arsenal club handbooks as published references and as we have official correspondence from the club historian confirming both players received medals? Mountain^cirque 12:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Are we going to be doing this for every club which wins a trophy so we can reference individual winners of a team award? --SuperJew (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is most sources indicate who was in the winning team, and therefore who received a medal or were considered part of the team for the perspective of receiving a medal. However where a player doesn't appear in the final, there are no sources indicating whether they did or did not. On that basis finding a suitable source would be invaluable. Mountaincirque has proved how it is relatively practical to query and receive not only verification from the team, but also an indication of where such sources can be found. Koncorde (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Well we now have a source from the club that shows Chamberlain and Welbeck did receive medals. And there are no sources that state that they did not. So I think it's quite clear that the trophies should indeed be listed in the honours section of the player's respective pages. Hashim-afc (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

To answer @SuperJew: I realise this is not a very sustainable solution. It seems to me that this kind of 'investigation' is only needed for trophies that do not have squad lists, e.g. the Champions League and Premier League have submitted lists of all players and we know the rules regarding their award. There are cups though like the FA Cup and Europa League who award a set number of medals to be distributed as clubs see fit to both staff and players. This information is harder to come by but is likely published in official primary sources such as the club handbook noted above. My view is that the club handbook should be considered a suitable published reference to add in this case. To follow on, in an additional email the historian noted: " [I] have spoken to our website team and I’m told they are revamping things over the summer and I’ve suggested that perhaps individual honours could be added to players write ups and it appears that may well be done, so hopefully that should be addressed in the very near future." This would presumably make it easier at least in the case of Arsenal to see who was awarded a medal in future. I'm happy to discuss further and I'm not normally an Arsenal editor so I don't want to jump in and make edits/references without more consensus/discussion. Mountain^cirque 13:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, do NOT post people's email addresses. Secondly, the club is not a third-party source, which is ideally what we need to confirm the information. GiantSnowman 19:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, redact away. I'm slightly bemused as to why the Arsenal club historian must remain anonymous but I'll go with it. My understanding of the talk page guidelines was that it was personal details of other editors that were to be avoided. I had informed said historian that their response would be used to inform a current ongoing debate so he/she was fully aware.

Secondly, to confirm, are you suggesting that Arsenal writing and printing a book with the names of all FA Cup medal awardees is not suitable to be referenced to tell us who the club decided to award a medal? We need a newspaper\book to reprint that before we can count it? I realise primary sources are not ideal and not to be used in all cases but they have their place for facts like this surely that are unlikely to be reported elsewhere? Mountain^cirque 19:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a rather illiberal misinterpretation of primary sources GS, to quote WP:PRIMARY "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source". A published book by Arsenal about who they gave a medal to has to be about the most authoritative source that could possibly exist, and no additional interpretation is taking place. Koncorde (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I told you to email them and you certainly got a response, printed material isn't run through primary and secondary sources, that's mainly for links from the web those rules. Govvy (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy:, @Davefelmer:, @Koncorde:, @ChrisTheDude:, @Mountaincirque:, @Kante4:, @GiantSnowman:, @SuperJew: What about Thierry Henry? At the moment, the 2002 and 2003 FA Cups are listed in the honours section of his page and the 2005 cup is not listed. He missed the 2005 final due to injury but played in previous rounds of the competition. Similar situation to Welbeck and Chamberlain, so what should we do about that? Contact the club again? Hashim-afc (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

First of all, why don't you get a copy of the club handbook and review it before doing any changes before you have even seen it. Govvy (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the exact reason why I think it's not feasible to include these team awards on individual players' pages. If even in the case of a famous, well known and well documented club like Arsenal we are having to assess on an individual basis, and contacting the club for every player, how much worse will it be for smaller, less well documented clubs? --SuperJew (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

What are you on about? This is an individual player award the same as it has ever been. It took a relatively small amount of effort to cite something that was unclear. For instance, per yesterdays Cup final all that is required is for someone to have a copy of said handbook to verify the medal winners for Arsenal beyond the match-day squad. We know the match-day squad did (easy) and there will be dozens of sources for that. We are just looking for those who likely would never have the Cup added to their profile / awards. It is apparently £5 and appears to be a valuable resource and source with an awful lot more information. In the end I purchased West Ham books in order to provide sources and citations for obscure historical elements of the club history that I cannot possibly know, and that modern era newspapers and websites hold no records in many cases. This is not some intense undertaking.

Where no book is available, asking the club for clarification is no intense undertaking either. It isn't "person by person". It's title/cup win by cup win, of which there are very few.

If you don't want to include, by all means don't include, but if people wish to include and improve the accuracy of wikipedia then we have outlined a very easily achieved process and series of sources. This is no more arduous than any other number of things I can think of (such as player statistics, heights, competition history etc). They all had to start somewhere. Koncorde (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion I don't think we could possibly get a more reliable source than the club themselves as to who got a medal for a competition. Great work Mountain on getting in touch! I would think this is more than enough to attribute medals to the Arsenal players. Davefelmer (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Well it seems to me that we have general consensus from this discussion to use the Arsenal Club Handbooks for 2014 and 2015 to attribute medals to Oxlade-Chamberlain for 2014 and Welbeck for 2015. The references would be as follows:^[1][2] Reference away!

UEFA.com seems not to recognize Intertoto Cup. What do you think about this?--Dipralb (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Nanonic (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone else think we're perhaps a little too restrictive with what can go in the 'Teams managed' section of {{Infobox football biography}}? So often now, players don't just go into management or even coaching – Edwin van der Sar is the CEO of Ajax now, for crying out loud – so to limit the record of their careers to just management jobs seems a little harsh. InB4, I don't think we should list any old jobs like punditry or even presenting (c.f. Gary Lineker), but if the subject stays involved directly with the operation of a football club, shouldn't that be listed in the infobox, whether it be as a scout, youth coach or manager? – PeeJay 21:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I think in principle it's a good idea, but we may need to consider an alternative title for the section? Or possibly a better option, have another section for "Post-playing career" that could cover both non-managerial coaching and non-coaching roles like scouting or business roles. Could restrict it to roles that involve being employed by a club or national team? Number 57 22:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

may have, given people turn to scout, goalkeeping coach, member of the board of directors, vice-president, team manager and other roles. But it should specify the exact position, or otherwise confuse people. Matthew_hk tc 13:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

For sure. After all, we do that for assistant managers now. – PeeJay 15:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

just grouping assistant manager and manager in one parameter (youth coach may be?) but a separate parameter for other position, or mirroring the practice in Kakha Kaladze, putting the role CEO and member of the board of directors in the parameter "boards" and embed two infobox (person and football people). Matthew_hk tc 15:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

done two example for Pavel Nedvěd and Javier Zanetti Matthew_hk tc 15:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the board stuff should stay in the football infobox, since they're technically still in football. – PeeJay 15:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think that sort of thing would need more control than we have active editors to keep it in check. The infobox isn't supposed to replace the article. The well-watched big names, fine, embed in Infobox person, or whatever; the majority of pages, with three lines of prose, no watchers, created in the belief that nothing in the infobox need be sourced, are another matter. We have enough already with the managers section being filled with CVs (multiple instances of <clubname (coach)> when what most of them mean is a couple of months of one-morning-a-week working with the U16s).

In cases where all you want is a former player's current football-related job, use the |currentclub= parameter; that's what it's for, per the documentation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Blending two info boxes in the case of Kakha Kaladze is fine as he has a notable career as a politician. Those other two is just clutter in the infobox. Being a director of a company and being on a board are not inherently notable. Every footballer has something else before or after their playing career, but stick with infobox football biography for footballers that are only notable for football. ClubOranje^T 23:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think footballer infobox (or any sports related) were special case in infobox, as in company/organization case, their MoS were discouraging two many item in one parameter, such as encourage listing subsidiaries in a separate list. But in sports case, since long time ago we moved on from using<br/> to |clubs1=...|clubs2= parameters, and club of footballer and manager were time exclusive, the timeline works. But it may getting nosense for other occupation, such as people can be part of few different unrelated companies as directors (board of directors) at the same time. In other case, for president/prime minster of a country, the timeline style was back, plus succession and who is the head of state (for prime minster case). So, the question is, is that notable to incorporate a timeline style non-playing position to infobox, or just use |currentclub= parameter or Infobox person. Matthew_hk tc 19:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Struway2. It is better to leave it all out of the infobox. Just leave playing career and teams managed as it is/was/was intended to be. The infobox is a summary of their notable football career. Start putting all sorts of other football related or not stuff in there it will get out of hand. There are already a bunch of articles where people have put in 'youth coach', 'assistant reserve coach' 'manager of some almost non-notable amateur club' and other non notable roles. Ledley King became a club ambassador; doesn't mean it is infobox worthy. Noah Hickey is on the board for Wellington Phoenix, should that be added. Frank van Hattum was Chairman of CapitalFootball, went on to be on the board of NZ Football, then Chairman of NZFootball; should all that go in infobox? Some of these guys have been on the board or several clubs or football bodies over the years. If you look hard enough you will find ex-players that became the club groundsman - still football related and for the club. Where do you draw the line. That sort of stuff can go in the article proper. Keep the infobox for what it is designed to achieve; give a snapshot of their on-field career. ClubOranje^T 23:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Struway and ClubOranje; I also think the 'manager career' section of the infobox should be for managerial appointments only, not any other non-playing role. GiantSnowman 06:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Then why not change the parameters? We don't have to stick to managerial roles just because that's what the parameter is called. After all, some prominent managers have had more notable careers as coaches before taking up management of their teams (e.g. Paul Clement, René Meulensteen, etc.) – PeeJay 09:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

But where do we draw the line? GiantSnowman 09:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

With jobs not associated with a specific football club. Any coaching job, I believe, deserves to be mentioned, as does any administrative/executive role we can source. – PeeJay 18:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Then embed approach? In some day some footballer would became president of XYZ FA (and other sort of notable role, a role that pass GNG alone if he is not a former footballer), then using infobox likes Michel Platini? Matthew_hk tc 08:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the Struway consensus. I'd only have non-managerial roles in the infobox as a rare exception, such as Peter Taylor (footballer, born 1928), who was seen as almost a co-manager with Brian Clough. A lot of the time coaches and assistant and such can have a minimal role.--EchetusXe 14:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Their role may be minimal within football as a whole, but it's still a part of that person's history within the game. Maybe I'm taking too much inspiration from {{Infobox NFL biography}}, but they include a person's entire history within the game, whether it be as a player, coach, executive or administrator. I certainly don't think any of this should detract from the prose portion of the article, but it can certainly help a reader if they only need a person's timeline at a glance, rather than having to decipher a wall of text for relevant dates/clubs/roles. – PeeJay 09:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Third string goalkeeper Emil Audero earned his first professional cap last Saturday for Juventus. His page has been created before in the past when it was against guidelines and seems permanently deleted due to WP:SALT or other. Can an admin please amend this? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Done. Number 57 20:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at this guy and take measures. -BlameRuiner (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted. Number 57 11:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

what a sadcase, it would have taken a fair bit of time to cause that nuisance. The 90s aren't even the period in question in the whole tedious 'are Rangers the same club, have they cheated to titles' etc debate. Crowsus (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Worst of all, he clearly thought Falkirk is the article on the football club. Doofus. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The recent friendly played by an experimental Italian national team of emerging players (see 1, 2 and 3) appears not to be an official one. This news from La Stampa states that "Il test amichevole contro San Marino non mette in gioco punti per scalare il ranking Fifa", meaning that the game at issue doesn't count towards the FIFA World Rankings like official friendlies do. Besides, this game is not to be found in the list of games on the official FIGC website (here, as you can see the last game displayed is the friendly against the Netherlands in March) as well as on the FIFA website (here, once again Italy – Netherlands being the last game). Should we undo the international statistics that have been updated on the footballers that played yesterday (i.e., Gianluca Lapadula scoring a hat-trick)? --Tanonero (msg) 11:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this match should not be included in stats. For what is worth, even on the Italian Wiki they chose to disregard it. It's a bit odd, because the game did look like a full "A" international (at least to me watching on TV), but I guess that not counting towards the FIFA ranking is a dead giveaway. Luxic (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I performed a page move in this person's page, as there is this other page i also moved. Yes, the former is now a manager, but he was previously a top flight player, i thus think the move was mandatory so i embraced WP:BOLD.

Now, for a technical accident (also in the former, i did not edit anything in the latter other then the aforementioned page move): the page move seems to have caused some of the external links to be displayed shabbily. I do not know where i went wrong, can someone please fix the section where due?

Attentively, sorry for any inconvenience --Quite A Character (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably just me being stupid, but I can't see any difference. Perhaps if you explained what's wrong... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Like magic! Last time i checked it, links #2 and #4 contained some strange (and defitinely undue!) symbology. Not anymore... Thanks for the input anyway, cheers also --Quite A Character (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Just wikidata need time to catch up with English wiki. Some external links were now managed by wikidata. Matthew_hk tc 18:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I had a student create the article US Womens Soccer lawsuit, but it could definitely use some TLC. This isn't really in my area of interest (the class is over and the student hasn't edited since), so I was wondering if anyone here would be interested in improving the page.

Thanks! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the complaint to the EEOC was made after a court ruled that the extension of CBA between US Soccer and the players on the Women's National Team through the end of 2016 was valid - the article really doesn't make that clear. It also dedicates only one sentence to the court's ruling (and none on the EEOC's ruling), so there is undue coverage of the plaintiff's complaint (I didn't see any mention of US Soccer's response, so I added one line with a reference). It may meet the general notability guideline, but it's in quite a state at the moment. Jogurney (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

After doing some work on the article, I believe it doesn't really merit a stand-alone article. Should it be merged into U.S. Women's National Team Players Association which itself is only notable through coverage of the wage discrimination charge and CBA negotiations/litigation? I'm not sure, but the men's team has a stand-alone article. Jogurney (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If you are interested in Wikidata as well, there is a proposal from some football-related web service to do data ingestion in Wikidata >> d:Wikidata:Project chat#Soccer data for wikidata. --XXN, 21:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@XXN: That link doesn't work. Number 57 21:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: thanks; forgot to add IW prefix. Fixed. --XXN, 23:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we get consensus that Huddersfield Town A.F.C.#Popular chants should be removed completely. I don't want to remove it and start an edit war... Thank you JMHamo (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, get rid. Unsourced, not encyclopedic IMO, and most of it isn't about "popular chants" anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree, there's no need for it to be included. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted it. The ridiculous thing is that that section used to be a separate article in its own right! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Can someone who has a knowledge of Indian football and definitions of what constitutes a derby match offer some opinions and guidance at the talk page. There is an edit war going on about how many derbies have been played and what constitutes a match to be regarded as a derby - is it league meetings only? Cup games? etc. Thanks Nthep (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war going on (which appears to happen reasonably frequently) here. It seems that there are periodic wars on this without any attempt to discuss on the team page. Can anyone tell me why it is appropriate to have a list of supposedly notable matches with no clear inclusion criteria and no sourced prose discussing them. We don't have lists of notable players without inclusion criteria so why matches? We don't have these in other articles and I am at a loss as to why these should be considered notable in themselves? Would be good to gain some sort of consensus here to keep / revert to stop these wars happening. Fenix down (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Without any criteria as to what makes these matches notable this is original research, and so shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw this mentioned at WP:AN and found the section had been reinserted. There were no references justifying inclusion of the specific matches - the entire section was unreferenced, which to me is decisive; if one or more references can be found supporting the choices, I'd probably change my mind. I've left a fuller statement on the article talk page; the section there linked here. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It was under page protection, but that dropped, maybe it should be back on for a much longer period, his article does seem to get vandalised a lot recently. Govvy (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 06:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I see Category:UEFA Champions League winning players & Category:UEFA Europa League winning players has been added to many player articles but there is already Category:UEFA European Championship-winning players and Category:UEFA European Championship-winning captains, should the first two be deleted? Thoughts? JMHamo (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Aren't the first two about the club tournament and the last two about the UEFA Euro? Kante4 (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep, they're different categories - though why is the captain category notable? GiantSnowman 06:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Does not see why it is, maybe remove that one? Kante4 (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sean Ago created this page as a translation of it:Rigorista. Its title will have to be changed, as 'penaltier' is not a word used in English. However, as a list/compilation of footballers who are most proficient at penalties, it could amount to something. Is this a niche that needs filling, and would anybody be willing to give the article a bit of TLC? — Quasar G. 21:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It's probably not worth a separate article. GiantSnowman 06:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitely agree -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree that it doesn't warrant its own page. It's interesting though and could perhaps be incorporated into Penalty kick (association football). Liam E. Bekker (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: SuperJew is right (below). The page focuses predominantly on Italian football. Some of the statistics are outdated as well. With that in mind, I don't think it is general or accurate enough to merge with Penalty kick (association football). I'd say delete. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me to be Italian-biased. --SuperJew (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete or merge. Kante4 (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems Italian-biased 'cause I translated from Italian version (the only on Wikipedia): I don't have English statistics on my disposal (Premier League, for example). Maybe the sections about UEFA competitions and perfect penalty can be moved where Liam E. Bekker says. --Sean Ago (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I've stopped from going into an edit war on 2016–17 Ukrainian Second League about a comment that is being placed in the Comments section of the standings dealing with if a team is eligible for promotion. This is the case for reserve team (–2) teams. I have tagged a Cite needed template for this since the team is not in a position for promotion. Can I get some feedback about this comment and whether it is necessary if the team is not to be promoted? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• The references to the official regulation were added to the page. Many other similar standings use this feature, see 2016–17 Russian National Football League or 2016–17 Segunda División for example. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The question is whether they are necessary given that teams are not in a position of promotion. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Does the trivia really need to be included in the standings? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Last column in the standings always is used for different promotion/relegation notes and comments. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Then why was this just introduced this season? In the earlier season of Segunda División this kind of trivia is not there but taken for grant. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you add the explanatory note and ref at the bottom under the table, then it will be clear to anyone who doesn't already know that any -2 teams can't get promoted, regardless of their position at that point. You could even add the ref against any such teams as well to make it even more obvious. I see you are both at 5 reverts over this! Crowsus (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I've stopped reverting per comments like this. The OP indicated that similar standings have this. But this looks like it is introduced this season. For instance the 2014–15 Segunda División B does not have any special notation regarding -2 teams. So in terms of consistency why is this trivia needed? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's important. In instances where the –2 ends in a promotion spot the lay person who doesn't follow football that closely would want to know why they weren't promoted. I would even go so far as to say an explanatory not should be included to explain why they are ineligible. It might not have been used before but we should always look for ways to improve and I think this is such an improvement. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, in the case the FC Inhulets-2 Petrove, they did not finish in a position where they could get promoted in the first place. Secondly, the OP, went out of their way to add the comment for Inhulets-2 in the standings but did failed to add one for FC Illichivets-2 Mariupol for consistency which also completed in the competition. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

There should be a note, even when they are not in a position to be promoted. Kante4 (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

In the actual standings, which is only noted in the past if a team has been denied promotion or relegated because the senior team was relegated from one level above the team - or a note outside the standings which make a general comment of the potential promotion/relegation possibilities? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Andrusha, read the regulations with more attention. Note, FC Illichivets-2 Mariupol is eligible for promotion to the First League due to their base club promotion to the Premier League. So, Inhulets-2 is ineligible only. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The point is that both teams were eligible for promotion during the season and both failed to qualify for promotion. Also Inhulets-2 is ineligible for promotion because they did not finish in the positions in the league competition which allowed for promotion. Or is that not worth pointing out? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

In this case, reserve team promotion depends on their base team promotion (or relegation) also, not only on their personal place, so such non-standard standings situation deserves the notes and comments anyway. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It did not matter in this case - FC Inhulets Petrove performance was not the reason Inhulets-2 was ineligible for promotion. It was status-quo. They simply were positioned in a place which would not allow for promotion. Spelling out all the promotion/relegation possibilities if they were to happen is nonsense. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you want, as of now? Remove the notes? But already three other users have said to you, it's important and explanatory notes are needed. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Notes YES outside in the notes section - but NOT in the standings table unless it was the primary reason of ineligibility which is NOT the case. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer the short note "ineligible for promotion" in the right column of the table with a notelink to more descriptions below. As it was done with points deduction or "(+) new" notes for debutants (btw it uses only in UKR leagues articles, I don't know why). 185.59.158.22 (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Really bizarre table, I went ahead and cleaned it up to make it consistent with other league standing tables. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Good work. Nice table now. Please fix 2016–17 Ukrainian First League and 2017–18 Ukrainian First League also. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done S.A. Julio (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Just looked at the "old" table. What a terrible one. Kante4 (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't stop there - There are 24 other seasons in of similar formats. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the first reversion i performed in this footballer's article, i was in the right no? It is quite useful/additional info that a player passed their medical with their new club, if one can source it, i believe.

If not (in Mr. Musacchio's case if the mention of him signing a contract at Milan is quite enough), sorry for any inconvenience and please re-revert. Attentively (P.S. i have notified fellow user Luxic about this thread) --Quite A Character (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is significant enough to mention. From the fact that he signed it can be assumed that he passed medical, there's no need to specifically mention it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

But if it was the last round of La Liga? Matthew_hk tc 18:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment, I'm afraid. The debate is over whether we need to state that a player who signed for a new club passed a medical (I don't believe it is). In that context what does "if it was the last round of La Liga" mean? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I think he's referring to this edit he made, which was reverted as well. I think it could be reinstated, except for the part mentioning the medicals, obviously. Luxic (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

trivial but interesting that some club start to transfer their player before season end, so is that notable. In Rodrigo Bentancur's case, the option must be activated before 20 April. Matthew_hk tc 09:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The stuff written by Matthew reads, verbatim: "Musacchio played his last game for Villarreal on 7 May 2017. On the same day that Villarreal played the last round of the season, Musacchio flied to Milan for his medicals to conclude a transfer to A.C. Milan.". What exactly does this contribute to article? --Quite A Character (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

wiki article was fully of trivia, such as date of debut. But why not last game? Matthew_hk tc 10:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Date of club/country debut, some career highlights, injury problems, etc. Please, do tell where do you see the trivia. Last game for Villarreal then immediately flying to Milan to sign a contract? Irrelevant, but that's just my opinion of course. --Quite A Character (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

He played his last game in early May, trivial but interesting he certainly not call-up to the last round of the season to fly to Milan. Matthew_hk tc 20:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Ponyo has just removed two completely valid categories in this player's article ("Cypriot people of Portuguese descent" and ESPECIALLY "Cypriot footballers"), citing a lack of sources. I may be dealing in this period of my life with some eyesight problems, but still enough to see references #1, #2 and #3 source the categories (i.e. if he was called up - and subsequently featured in two matches - by the Cyprus national football team he had to be forcibly a naturalized Cypriot citizen), with the addition of the NFT.com external link.

I can't really see how my edit was wrong, but if it was sorry for any inconvenience (to said user, which has been notified of this thread, and in general) and do re-revert. Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Some Brazilian footballer was removed from Equatorial Guinean footballers cat, as well as East Timorese. Not sure it was discussed before, footballers were sorted by their national team, if none, then their place of birth and/or place they grow up and had nationality (So if players actually ineligible to that national team and earned caps, and then exposed by FIFA, and then their passport for their adoptive country were canceled, how could wikipedian classified them?)

The interesting case in Renato Margaça was, his eligibility to Cyprus (so far only two caps in friendlies). He can't eligible to Cyprus unless dual nationalities at the time he represented Portugal. But so far as he had caps, it is logical to keep him in Cypriot footballers cat. Matthew_hk tc 20:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that the ethnic/descent categories were removed according to our policies regarding such categorization, specifically WP:BLPCAT. In order for the categories to be included they must be supported by reliably sourced article content.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this template being used in the club infoboxes, is this overkill? I don't like the way it works in position field, it repeats the same league from the field above and the numbering, 02/20 or 06/24 ect. I think it's poor representing the data. Govvy (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Have a look in the archives... there was a discussion about it here when it was suggested. From what I remember, the aim was to make it easier to update at the end of seasons and make sure that all teams would get updated and not only the ones with more fans. --SuperJew (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy: If you're talking about it repeating the league in last season's performance (e.g. Premier League, 2/20) then this is how infoboxes are meant to represent last season's position. Take a look at (e.g.) Arsenal F.C., Juventus F.C., AFC Ajax etc. I was bold in changing the format from "2nd" to "2/20" when I updated last season's position, but that's because I felt giving context on the relative position would be helpful. This can be changed if people don't like it; either we can go back to simply the position (which I don't feel is very helpful, especially in leagues lower down the pyramid where there can be as few as 14 clubs) or it could be changed to e.g. 2nd of 20. Open to suggestions. Cheers, Number 57 18:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Have to say that 2/20 or whatever is really not needed, and looks odd for me. And repeating the league again makes no sense. When they are promoted/relegated then, of course it should be there but not if they finished 1-15 or so. Kante4 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The league has always been repeated to make it clear which league the club were in. Number 57 18:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Which is indicated just one line above. Overkill for me. Kante4 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

IMO, it's fine and looks worse without it. Number 57 19:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

For me it looks "worse" having it repeated. Agree to disagree. Kante4 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It's just, the format 2/20 to 2nd, you're reading an encyclopaedia, when you write a sentence you general don't write "The 2 men went into a bar" you write "the two men went into a bar" as for the infoboxes, we should be using 2nd 3rd and 4th, to be correct. Govvy (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, so how about "2nd of 20" to give the context? Without the number of teams in the league, it's pretty meaningless (10th in a 12 team league is rather difference to 10th in a 24 team league). Number 57 19:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The amount of teams in the league is not important enough to gace it in there. Just the position is enough for me. Kante4 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I am with Kante4 on this, You don't even need to repeat the league again in my view, keep the numbering simple, you don't really need to say how many teams were in the league, only needs to be said if a team was promoted or relegated. Govvy (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm just trying to work out how the number of teams in the league is not important. Is there not a difference in finishing 10th in a 12 team league and in a 24 team league? Number 57 19:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, no or not big enough to have it in there. Kante4 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, well I have to say, I couldn't possibly disagree more with you; there's clearly a huge difference. Number 57 19:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Like i said, agree to disagree. Not important enough to have it listed in my view. Kante4 (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Number 57 that the relative position is important. Finishing 2nd out of 2 teams is substantially different to finishing 2nd out of 50 teams (yes that is a slightly extreme example). --SuperJew (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Including the number of teams is an improvement, but wording it "2nd of 20" would be much better than "2/20". Personally, I prefer the league division to be included whether it's the same as in the previous season or not, for consistency and clarity. The infobox is an at-a-glance appreciation of the basics of the club, and if last season's result is understandable without having to look at the line above to see what the division is, then IMO it's easier and clearer for the reader. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

My main pain was the numbering, 2nd of 20 should be the format. Govvy (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it till tomorrow morning for more comments, and if there isn't any strong opposition, then I'll change the format. Cheers, Number 57 20:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

While you're at it... where the league division is repeated, it doesn't look quite so intrusive, and is more MoS-compliant, if the second occurrence isn't wikilinked. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Before I start please stop this rollout, this is very short term discussion, by a small discussion currently amongst a small number of editors. I am not saying this is not enough for a consensus, though, but it does seem to be being rushed out in the middle of the night. The main issue I have with this is that it is clunky, reduces access to wikipedia, is overkill, and is necessary. It is simply a template for the sake of it where none is needed. I cannot see how this is of benefit to the pages, I also cannot see what the overall aim of this template is. This discussion should be running for at least a week to enable contributions. The main issue I have with the template is there is zero need for it, and the addition of the number of teams in the league is redundant. There is as has been pointed out no difference between finishing 10th in a league of 20 or a league of 24. it is just clutter cruft. this template is just there for the sake of it and reduces access to wikipedia, and makes the pages worse nto better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sport and politics (talk • contribs) 23:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

As I've already tried to explain to you at least twice, this isn't a roll out – the updater was added months ago. The aim of the template was to (a) make it easier to update all the finishing positions much more easily than editing hundreds of articles and (b) to ensure that all clubs got updated as many didn't, especially lower down the leagues. It's not clutter or cruft. Your issue with the finishing position is a separate matter, and your example about being 10th in a 20 or 24 team ignores the fact that finishing 19th in a 20 team league is very different to finishing 24th. Number 57 23:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The relegated teams and promoted teams have that qualifier added to them, and if not they should do, this gets round the issue of distinguishing relegated and promoted teams.and no 19th position is 19th position weather it is in a league of 19 or 190.Sport and politics (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I've already made the point several times that the size of the league is important context especially given the huge range of sizes in them, so I'm not going to keep repeating that. However, presumably you're aware that in some leagues you can finish bottom of the table but not get relegated? Number 57 23:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

League size is not relevant as an issue, it is simply just unnecessary cruft. I am fully aware that in some leagues relegation does not occur, I am also aware that you can win a league and not get promoted, so league finishing position is league finishing position, it is what it is 19 of 19 it is still 19th, in the same way 19 of 38 is still 19th. Sport and politics (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

One is finishing bottom of the league, one is finishing in mid-table – these are clearly different outcomes to a club's season. But anyway, let's see if there's any further input from other editors to move this along rather than repeating the same points ad infinitum. Number 57 23:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It is still exactly the same position, and that position is 19th, regardless. Sport and politics (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

One thing I noticed about this, and almost every other Wiki page with regards to step 6 of the English non-League pyramid, is that the Isthmian League North Division and Isthmian League South Division are still being referred to as Isthmian League Division One North/South. This changed at the beginning of last season. --Jimbo^[online] 11:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jimbo online: Happy to change it in the updater if you can point me to something that confirms the name change. All it needs is the league names being amended here. Cheers, Number 57 11:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: Their website refers to them as North Division and South Division. I saw one of the board members ranting in a closed group the other week about it still being known as Division One North/South. They haven't done much to promote it or make sure all clubs unilaterally use the same phrasing – every club webmaster seems to call it something different! --Jimbo^[online] 15:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jimbo online: Cheers. Given that it's not really been adopted elsewhere (the Non-League Club Directory, Footballwebpages and Non-League Matters all still use Division One North), do you think it's worth making the change, or would it just confuse readers (could be a WP:COMMONNAME issue?). Number 57 15:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: I had that WP:COMMONNAME inner-debate and thought it's not exactly a million miles away from it's current name. Although, thinking about it, it's probably best to hold off for the time being, see who the new sponsors are and do a mass change then when the Ryman-sponsorship is no more? The Isthmian League will surely make a press release clarifying names. --Jimbo^[online] 16:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: In the case of Chelsea F.C., couldn't it just say "Premier League, Champions"? Rather than "Premier League, 1st of 20 (champions)" which is kind of long and unnecessary I think. Hashim-afc (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It's always said the position (i.e. 1st). Also, 1st doesn't mean champions in some countries where they have play-off systems. Number 57 22:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you please keep an eye on Sead Kolašinac. In my opinion the deal has not been completely done "Subject to the completion of all regulatory processes, the defender will start pre-season training in July. JMHamo (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. (international) transfer window was opened for free agent, but he will be free agent on 1 July 2017 technically. Matthew_hk tc 18:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

An editor put down that Bentaleb got goal of the season in Germany, do they give an honour out for that in Germany or should it just be removed? Govvy (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It's referenced to the Bundesliga official site... GiantSnowman 17:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw that, my problem is that it didn't say it was an honour, that he was just voted goal of the season by the public. Govvy (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This should be a line in his biography, not an entry in the honours section. Articles are meant to be mostly prose rather than arbitrary lists. BigDom (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys. Since it's that time of year when a lot of work is being done setting things up for the new northern hemisphere season, can I gently request that people create any categories that they add to articles? You shouldn't leave categories as red links anyway (per WP:REDNOT, but it makes categories harder to find and in particular it stops maintenance bots doing their work if they can't "see" a category in the hierarchy. However, I have created some templates to make such categories a wee bit quicker to create. {{Navseasoncats}} adds a navigation bar to any category with a year, season or decade in the name - it automatically works things out rather than needing any parameters. And if you're creating categories such as Category:Azerbaijani football clubs 2017–18 season then all you need to use is {{Clubseasoncat}}, which automagically adds a navbar, portals and categories, again without needing to be told any parameters. One minor gotcha is that it adds a link to Ruritanian football - in most cases this redirects to Football in Ruritania but in a few cases the appropriate redirect hasn't been set up. I have added these templates to any current-season cats I see and in some cases I've taken them back to 2010 or so, but there's a job there for someone to apply them to all the earlier categories.... Le Deluge (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Just wondered what is the precedent for a Managers nationality/flagicon? Darije Kalezic is classed as Bosnian-Swiss born and wasn't sure in Football do we use the place he was born or his Nationality. As his parents were guest workers in Switzerland when he was born, but they moved back to the Balkans and was raised in Yugoslavia. To make it more complicated apparently he is a Dutch national. NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I think Bosnian is the right way to go. From his article it seems he just happened to be born in Switzerland as his parents were working there, but he grew up in Bosnia. --SuperJew (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

At the Derbí barceloní section it is written

Also in the 1960s and 1970s, while FC Barcelona acted as an integrating force for Catalonia's new arrivals from poorer regions of Spain expecting to find a better life, Espanyol drew their support mainly from sectors close to the regime such as policemen, military officers, civil servants and career fascists.[173]

In 1918, Espanyol started a counter-petition against autonomy, which at that time had become a pertinent issue.[168] Later on, an Espanyol supporter group would join the Falangists in the Spanish Civil War, siding with the fascists. Despite these differences in ideology, the derbi has always been more relevant to Espanyol supporters than Barcelona ones due to the difference in objectives. In recent years the rivalry has become less political, as Espanyol translated its official name and anthem from Spanish to Catalan.

I think this lacks of neutrality as it describe FCB as the "good" and its rival(s) "the bad and fascist one(s)", and at least must be better sourced (it currently cites only a magazine of 1997 and a ¿book? called "Ball, Phil") for keeping that. Asturkian (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this doesn't sound neutral to me. You cannot stereotype a group of supporters of a club, and in any case, who they were has no real meaning to the rivalry itself. Nor does the part about it being more relevant to Espanyol, that sounds like opinion more than anything. Maybe we should look for some better sources that describe the rivalry instead of those. Davefelmer (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You won't easily find a more reliable source on Spanish football than Phil Ball's Morbo. More scientific works can be found on Google Scholar, but those are of course not freely accessible. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Reliable source or not, I feel that part of the content in it does not really apply to a football derby and is more bringing in a non-neutral viewpoint to portray one club worse than another. Davefelmer (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on {{AFC Ajax Board}}? GiantSnowman 17:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Does everything a nav-box needs to do. RTB. ReallyThinBread (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Taking the examples of Eduardo Berizzo and Pablo Calandria, how does one go about proposing that the O'Higgins champions squad templates are deleted? It is overkill, is it not?

I brought this to the forum's attention one or two years ago as i did not know where to write, the darn templates are still there... Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• On an unrelated note, can someone understand what is going on in the reference #2 at Iván Díaz (footballer, born 1978)? I look, look and look, can't see what's wrong... --Quite A Character (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

In the edit window, can you really not see a random character between L' and Escala in the title? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You can take them to WP:TfD. I think we agreed a long time ago not to have templates like this, otherwise Ryan Giggs' article would have loads. Number 57 09:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the template input, will write there now. User:Struway2: I give up mate (regarding Mr. Díaz's article), I can't see anything wrong :( If you can, could you be a sport and please fix it? Cheers --Quite A Character (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Added both O'Higgins templates in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 8. Now you guys can decide whether they should be deleted or not. MYS77 ^✉ 14:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Is 2017 International U-15 Football Tournament (Vietnam) notable? Qed237 (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so, no reliable sources enough to pass WP:GNG. MYS77 ^✉ 18:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I had been adding a bit to Gaizka Mendieta. At present the Middlesbrough period states 2004—2008 which was the expiry of his contract, however he played his last game in December 2006 (and sat idle for 18 months!) so should the box state 2004—2006? This is would appear to be more consistent with the start dates for the years: if they made their debut in the March of the 2016—17 season, the box states 2017— (as far as I understand it?). Apologies if this is already clarified elsewhere, if so please point me to it.Crowsus (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Standard is to have years at the club, from when they join to when they leave. If you look around you'll find a number of players who have 0 appearances for some clubs, or only 1 or 2 appearances over several years. So 2004—2008 is correct for this guy. For any player made their debut in the March of the 2016—17 season and the box states 2017—, thye probably joined in the January window. ClubOranje^T 22:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

See the infobox documentation: A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The Serie A article and numerous others say "The club [Juventus] is also the only one in the world to have won all possible official continental competitions and the world title". Haven't Manchester United now achieved that too? They never won the UEFA Intertoto Cup but that doesn't exist anymore and wasn't much of a tournament anyway.--EchetusXe 09:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Intertoto Cup was promoted as a major tournament although short-lived it had TV coverage and sponsorship, I am not sure Man U ever qualified for it because their level was far higher. I wouldn't count Man United as having won everything know. Govvy (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

In either case, I'd think you'd want a reference, and then go by what the reference says. --SuperJew (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The sources that make the claim for Juventus have died unfortunately. It's a bit of an odd one to include a UEFA Cup pre-qualification tournament as an "all possible continental competitions", when it was a voluntary back-door into a bigger competition in a very narrow window, but they also won the Intercontinental Cup which is also included as part of the claim per a special category created for just themselves, and for some reason excluding a list of teams that have won 4 of the trophies (leaps from 3 to 5). Seperately, it's an odd article on its own with different definitions of having "won it all" between Team and Players / Manager. Koncorde (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that sentence factually untrue since Juventus have never won the FIFA Club World Cup, which is a seperate competition from the Intercontinental Cup that they won twice? Technically, they have never "all" the continental competitions nor the current world title. Davefelmer (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The sentence claims "all possible continental competitions". Club World Cup is not a "continental" competition. Intercontinental Cup is regarded a confederation competition by UEFA despite having co-organised it with CONMEBOL, but it was not a "continental competition" having been disputed in Europe, South America and Asia (Japan). In a strict sense, UEFA competitions are not "European competitions" but "Eurasian competitions" cups because UEFA has 7 members who are geographically, historically and culturally are related with Asia and not with Europe (Israel, Georgia, Turkey, and others). Mass media often calls confederation competitions as "continental competitions" however only in Africa, South America and Oceania (except Australia) do not participate teams from other continents.--Danteilperuaviano (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is UEFA Club Competitions, they have very carefully stated that they are the only ones to have won every "Confederation" competition. This is based on the UEFA statistics page saying the below:

• UEFA club competitions: These are the official statistics considered valid for communicating official records in UEFA club competitions defined as the European Champion Clubs' Cup, the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, the UEFA Cup, the UEFA Super Cup (from the 1973 competition), the UEFA Intertoto Cup and the European/South American Cup. The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is not regarded as a UEFA competition but statistics are separately included for information purposes.

This immediately rules out the FIFA organised Club World Cup. Similarly, for the managerial "won it all claims" whoever created / edited article carefully excised the Inter-toto:

• The Intertoto Cup, competition per clubs recognised by the main football organisation in Europe since 1995, is not included in this list.

I can find no sources to re-inforce the claim now (archived or otherwise) as stated by an independent source, but it remains factually true - if really odd. It would be like a team being the only one to win every division in England in their history, and counting both the First Division and Premier League as unique competitions, meaning if you didn't win it by 1992 you can't do so now (given the list of defunct competitions UEFA sanctioned but is neglecting). Koncorde (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

[...] Not only that, with Paris having won the defunct UEFA Cup Winners' Cup and UEFA Intertoto Cup, victories in the UEFA Champions League and subsequent UEFA Super Cup would leave them a UEFA Europa League triumph away from emulating Juventus as the only team to have lifted all of UEFA's current and past men's club trophies. according this. UEFA men's club competition are 6 according official press-kit, Juventus have won all 6. It may be uncomfortable, but it is a fact.--Danteilperuaviano (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I take the opportunity of this talk page for asking you about the manual of style at women's season articles. For example, the many differences between 2016–17 La Liga and women's La Liga: regional flags, teams with FC, CD, UD, etc, ranking with more than 10 players and so more. I want to ask you about a consensus of how to manage this articles and if there is a need to clean up them. Thank you. Asturkian (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I've recently been looking at these articles and my idea is to completely remodel the tables of the page, to create a cleaner, simpler view, I used Eibar as a demonstration:

BEFORE:

Eibar

Manager: José Luis Mendilibar (3rd season)

In:

Out:

More information No., Pos. ...

No. Pos. Nation Player 1 GK  ESP Yoel Rodríguez (previously on loan from Valencia)

No. Pos. Nation Player 24 MF  ESP Adrián González (to Málaga)

Close

AFTER:

Eibar

Manager: José Luis Mendilibar (3rd season)

In

More information Date, Player ...

Date	Player	From	Type	Fee	Ref
23 May 2017	Yoel Rodríguez	Valencia	Transfer	€750K

Close

Out

More information Date, Player ...

Date	Player	To	Type	Fee	Ref
23 May 2017	Adrián González	Málaga	Transfer

Close

I really need your approval as quick as possible, to know if this will be a good or bad decision, my edit will positively make the article more organized (in my opinion) TheSoccerBoy (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the style of List of English football transfers summer 2017, but your suggestion indeed improves the current looks of the article, @TheSoccerBoy. MYS77 ^✉ 19:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I support the change.--EchetusXe 22:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me.Crowsus (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but I would also like to second MYS77's opinion that following the format of List of English football transfers summer 2017 would be even better. – PeeJay 22:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Your proposal would improve that page for sure, but I also prefer the style of List of English football transfers summer 2017 (per MYS77). I don't see the need to list in/out of each club separately; it becomes confusing as any player switching clubs within spain gets listed twice. The England version is more concise and tidy overall. ClubOranje^T 22:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

i'm not sure the style spamming flag in English list is ok. May be just flag for foreign club? (in Spain no such problem in UK that have 4 "nations") Matthew_hk tc 07:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what the issue is Matthew_hk. The English list has flags only for non-English (foreign) clubs just as you suggested. --SuperJew (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

i mean no flag other than non-Spanish for the Spanish list. Not comment to English list using flags even for Scotland (consider dual eligibility, clubs play crossborder, too many thing to discuss). Matthew_hk tc 12:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Just wondering whether the pages I've listed below are notable enough for their own pages? I can understand the need for individual pages for the three divisions of the EFL (EFL Championship, EFL League One and EFL League Two), but I'm not sure we need individual pages for the following non-league competitions -

Catered for by the page at National League

• National League (division) (information covered in main page)
• National League North (information covered in main page)
• National League South (information covered in main page)

Catered for by the page at Northern Premier League

• Northern Premier League Premier Division (information covered in main page + no references)
• Northern Premier League Division One North (information covered in main page + no references)
• Northern Premier League Division One South (information covered in main page + no references)

The Isthmian League and Southern Football League don't have individual pages for their divisions (see Isthmian League Division One North for example), so I'm not sure why the NPL does.

Also, the pages at Northern Premier League Challenge Cup, Northern Premier League President's Cup, Northern Premier League Chairman's Cup, Peter Swales Shield all seem like they could be merged into the main NPL page (I'd do it if required)

Catered for by the page at Northern Football League

• Northern League Challenge Cup (information covered in main page)

Kivo (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Conference Premier/North/South, I am unsure. However, I definitely don't think so for the NPL/Southern/Isthmian leagues and definitely not for their league cups; all that's needed is a list of winners of all cups/divisions on the league's article. Number 57 13:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - was unsure on the National League divisions - but I'll get round to merging the NPL pages and Northern League Challenge Cup. Kivo (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This edit made me wonder whether per WP:COMMONNAME we should move the article to FC Union Berlin. I'm no expert on sources for German football teams though. And should we reflect what the English language sources say or the German language ones or both? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No. While the name Union Berlin is used frequently, both in English and German, it is also a colloquialism. It's the same reason we retain the F.C. extension on articles like Manchester United F.C.. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the current name should not be changed. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Just out of badness, I'm going to mention Inter Milan at this point... Crowsus (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, we don't use common name for football club articles, we use the formal name for consistency's sake. This is equal to common name in terms of rationales for article title so can't be overruled by it. Number 57 16:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not being stupid deliberately, but what can't be over-ruled by COMMONNAME? Struggling to follow your argument. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries. There are five key naming criteria – of which common name is one and consistency another. My point was that common name is not the most important naming criteria and does not trump consistency. Number 57 09:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah thanks, helpful. I need a refresher on the policy. I'll go do some reading. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The 'Inter Milan' RM decision was an outrage tbh. GiantSnowman 17:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As an outsider, could I suggest this is just a subset of the wider problem of geographical names in general. Where the rule is that we use the "original" name in general (we don't try to translate Strasbourg into Roadburgh for instance) - but there are a handful of cities which are so well known that their names effectively have English translations, Wien, Moskva and so on. So I'd suggest that

1) if Wikipedia uses an English translation for the city article, then the club article should in general use the same form of the city name unless there is overwhelming usage to the contrary (Roma is the only one that comes to mind)

So no PFC CSKA Moskva (and personally I'd have Rapid Wien at Rapid Vienna). That's a question of consistency with the rest of Wikipedia as well as a nod to WP:COMMONNAME. And I'd add some kind of objective test to determine the WP:COMMONNAME in English. These handful of globally recognised clubs have achieved that recognition (and COMMONNAMEs) through playing in international competitions. So I'd impose a filter :

2) A WP:COMMONNAME will only be considered (but not mandated) for clubs that have played at least 3 (5?,10?) times in the final stages of their main continental championship. Clubs that have not reached that level will only use the formal name.

Yes it's arbitrary, but it's not subjective, it's either/or. It allows the globally famous clubs to end up at Bayern Munich etc without having to debate COMMONNAMEs for every minor club that is barely known outside its own country. Hey, someone had to mention Bayern. <g> Le Deluge (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a terrible idea. We need consistency in football club naming and using common names for some clubs but not others would be a complete mess. Number 57 16:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

English is inconsistent with a small handful of cities like Moskva and Muenchen - and Wikipedia reflects that usage. Thus WP:COMMONNAME does kinda trump consistency, and I can explain why. Think of people looking for the Microsoft guy. For every 1 person who looks up William Henry Gates III, 999 will look up Bill Gates. Now there is "consistency", in that the person who types in William Henry Gates III will get to the right article, via a redirect. But that redirect causes additional load on the Wikipedia servers, and makes things slower for the reader. So would you rather have 999 readers getting a slower experience and putting more load on the Wikipedia servers, or 1 reader doing the same? That's the logic behind WP:COMMONNAME. To be honest for less popular articles the differences aren't that significant, for more popular ones it does matter. Out of interest, let's forget football for a moment. Would you have the city articles at Muenchen and Milano, or Munich and Milan? What advantage would be gained by the former?Le Deluge (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Funsho Bamgboye's article reads like a fantastic advertisement from his agent. A bunch of transfer rumours to big European clubs, and a quote that makes him seem like the second coming of Maradona. I wonder how many more players with less than 5 professional appearances have similar articles on this wiki.

Also, I would suggest having a look at how the Italian wiki handles football. The standard is so much ridiculously higher because not every player with 3 appearances in a professional league warrants an article. There's no bias to a single league, and all of the players have up to date statistics. On here it seems to be all about quantity over quality, unless they play in England, in which case youth players seem to have more detailed wikis than players that have won the World Cup.Danieletorino2 (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

First it was Pedro Caixinha (THREE MONTHS after signing, vandalism still rampant), then Bruno Alves and now turn for new projected signing Daniel Candeias. Pityful, pityful and pathetic.

I know what I would do were I an admin, but (un)fortunately I am not. What can be done, in your opinion? Taking Alves' article as an example: his page was protected, the protection was lifted and the vandalism resumed immediately after!

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Look like ducking, never trigger 3 edits/warning in Bruno Alves case, and then another account. May be SPI? Matthew_hk tc 17:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Impossible in my opinion, lots of IPs, lots of vandals. Not only one person. --Quite A Character (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a lot of morons that support the Big 3 in Portugal, but thankfully most of them stay off the English wiki with their nonsense (although I have seen a decent amount on the Sporting club page and it's the only one on my list!). Rangers and Celtic fans are among the worst for it I'm afraid! I'm quite certain it will be multiple persons as well.Crowsus (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed, Candeias signed (of course, the manager signing all his compatriots, FOUR Portuguese players in ONE or TWO WEEKS! Will there be any Scottish players in the squad when the transfer window closes?!) and article was immediately submitted to (more, it had already in the past week) gut-wrenching vandalism. Page protection anyone? --Quite A Character (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• Newsflash: and Caixinha and Alves are also STILL being given "the full treatment", i imagine Dálcio and Fábio Cardoso as well, never edited there. --Quite A Character (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? Kante4 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has edited Caixinha for two days... GiantSnowman 16:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, GS, had not noticed that. But when they did edit what do they do? VANDALIZE and big time! Thanks User:Kante4, have already filled a report there. --Quite A Character (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The article and the FIFA report both say that Michael Schjønberg of Denmark took a penalty during the shootout even though he was on the bench and was never brought on during the match. Either there's a mistake or, perhaps, the tournament had unusual rules that allowed unused substitutes to take penalties.

The article also says that Luis García of Mexico was brought off during the match and then took a penalty during the shootout, but the FIFA report says it was Zague, not García, who got substituted. And also the Mexicans who took penalties are listed in different orders in the article and the FIFA report.

What shall we do? --Theurgist (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The penalty takers and order in the article seems to be correct per video of the match, unsure about Mexico's substitution though. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I came across the same contradictions while creating said article, and yes, also double checked penalties order with video. As for the Zague sub, it looks like a mistake on my part, as no other report support the Garcia substitution. I'm gonna go ahead and change it to Zague. --BlameRuiner (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Although I have looked for it, I'm sure I missed it somewhere. I feel like I understand club season notability (WP:NSEASONS). I have been unable to find, or have overlooked the guidelines for league season notability. Sorry, for what I'm sure is a repeat question. Equineducklings (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as England is concerned, we have league season articles for all the leagues in which every club is deemed notable (e.g. down to level 10). Number 57 13:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be confirmed by WP:FOOTYN, under the "League notbaility" section. Though, I'm not sure whether or not it is meant to apply to individual seasons as well. Luxic (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if it was meant to apply to league season either, but I would say that it has and will. Whether using club notability or league notability, it ends up leading to the same conclusion. I asked the question after seeing some weak second tier articles from some smaller countries (no table, results, or anything expected in a season article). I wasn't sure if I should look into the deletion process or contacting the creator(s) and hope they are willing to improve them. Guess I know now. Thanks. Equineducklings (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I just watched it on BBC Two, that's major coverage for these players, where are we on notability guidelines for players? Kyle Walker-Peters was just created by somebody, I wasn't sure to keep it to improve due to what people people say or should it be deleted? Govvy (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Being on TV does not confer notability. WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL still apply. GiantSnowman 12:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Point to the fact they won it, it will get national newspaper coverage, so, guess we should get GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL. GiantSnowman 12:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The first thing to do is to create a separate article for the final itself, then move on the the individual 30 (or so) players on the team sheets. Sport and politics (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

In 2015 Serbia won it. Are there articles for all the Serbian players from that game? Would you argue that there should be for them without WP:BIAS. Pretty sure the Serbian papers would have given their local heroes the same amount of coverage. Or were their articles deleted as WP:BIO1E?. .As it happens they have all played professionally so pass NFOOTY anyway, as have the players from the several previous tournament winners, and indeed the majority of most squads. Walker-Peters is a bit of an anomaly in this squad as he hasn't yet crossed the white line, but it is one of those cases where if you wait until the furore dies down you'll probably find he plays in the league cup come October and the problem goes away without the need for arguments. And if he doesn't play within a couple of months we can then have the discussion about whether it is GNG "sustained" or "in depth" coverage ClubOranje^T 10:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday I posted several articles like this: 2016–17 FC Barcelona Femení season, 2016–17 FC Bayern Munich Frauen season, 2016–17 Olympique Lyonnais Féminin season and 2016–17 Valencia CF Femenino season. I wasn't too sure at first since I thought it might get deleted, but since I saw others with teams such as Manchester City WFC and Chelsea LFC being fine I thought it would be OK (WSL isn't fully professional either, I believe?). Today Bayern's got a speedy deletion and it turns out the topic had been deleted nearly one year ago along wirh other Frauen Bundesliga teams' seasons. Oh my God, I really should have asked before because that was a ton of work.

I really feel like ranting about how unfair I find this, but I'll try to be practical. Isn't there any way out? Like:

• Giving them an annex to the team's main article status? Like es:Anexo:Recopa de Europa 1960-61 and such in the Spanish wiki. I wish it could be this one, but I won't get my hopes up...

• Including them as a section in the club's season article, like 2016–17 FC Bayern Munich season? But this would exclude notable independent clubs such as Frankfurt, Turbine, Umea and former Duisburg, which have won over half the editions of the Champions League, so I don't really like the idea.

Or since WP:NSEASONS says In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article,

• Posting all of a team's seasons through a decade in a single article, like FC Bayern Frauen seasons in the 2010s? And linking it in the FC Bayern Munich seasons template as 2015–16 · 2016–17 etc.

• Posting all of the individual seasons within a league season in a single article, like 2016–17 Frauen Bundesliga club seasons? And linking it in the 2016–17 in European women's football (UEFA) template as Club seasons / England * France * Germany etc. I'd like it better the other way because it would show the team's progression through years.

We're talking about the top teams in the women's football scene and I think it's obvious this is notable information within the women's game even if their national championships aren't fully professional. So while I wish they could get individual season articles, if it can't be because of the project's criteria I hope the gap can be filled through a compromise like these. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

There is also Australia. Category:W-League_(Australia)_seasons_by_club. Anyway, Lyon for example are a fully professional team, considered best in the world by many. So I guess their seasons surely meet GNG even if the league is not fully pro. Same for top German and English teams. I'd just keep those articles. NSEASONS wants a lot of prose though. For now there is basically just stats inside. The other options you list don't work out I think.-Koppapa (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd echo Koppapa's comments, focus on providing sourced prose discussing the season rather than simply producing a lot of stats and you are more likely to clearly indicate GNG rather than relying on NSEASONS. I'm happy to restore to your userspace any articles that are speedied if you think you can do this. Fenix down (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try my best. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added a season review to 2016–17 FC Bayern Munich Frauen season, is it okay like this? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bayern article you created has already been deleted under a different name, and I'm not sure much has changed. I think a more useful article at the moment would be List of FC Bayern Munich (women) seasons, as the FC Bayern Munich (women) article currently lacks historical seasonal information. Also please note that article titles should follow the parent's name, i.e. 2016–17 FC Bayern Munich (women) season, 2016–17 Valencia Féminas CF season, 2016–17 FC Barcelona (women) season, etc. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

About that topic, I think the (women) titles are rather vague, specially since many football clubs have sections in other sports. Why not use the names used officially by the club? By the way, I believe Valencia Féminas CF is out of date. That name was used in the first season of the team (2009–10) but nowadays the official name is Valencia CF Femenino / VCF Femenino. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not start a WP:RM if "Valencia CF Femenino" is the proper name? Using that name just for the title of the season article doesn't solve the issue. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

For the time being I changed the title to 2016–17 Valencia CF (women) season. I also added a season review, abridged the statistics and deleted the regional flags. Is it okay this way? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: In order to address the CSD tag, the article 2016–17 FC Bayern Munich Frauen season has been userfied while it is being discussed and/or improved. It can be found at User:Pakhtakorienne/2016–17 FC Bayern Munich Frauen season. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

So if there's no strong opposition, can it be posted again when it's finished? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Since there has been no more discussion since I'm thinking about reposting the article, is that okay? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the league is not professional (part of the reason why it was deleted previously). S.A. Julio (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

So not even teams at the top of women's football and as professional as any NWSL team like Olympique Lyonnais could have it? Applying the male football's standards like that makes no sense, you can't portray the levels of relevance in women's football accurately on that criterion. If the team's season has extensive coverage in the national press, I see no reason why it shouldn't be compiled. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, if this isn't accepted by the community, how about including each season's transfers, squad, results and statistics in the team's main page in collapsed tables, like this? It wouldn't take much space and it'd be left to the reader's choice to see them or not. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

More information Statistics, No. ...

Statistics
No.	Pos.	Nat.	Player	Games		Goals	Disciplinary record
				Pl.	St.
2	DF		Lewandowski, Gina	21	21	2	1	0	0
3	DF		van der Gragt, Stefanie	9	9	0	2	0	0
4	FW		Rolfö, Fridolina	5	3	0	0	0	0
5	DF		Abbé, Caroline	15	10	2	1	0	0
6	DF		Baunach, Katharina	12	6	1	1	0	0
7	MF		Behringer, Melanie	20	20	5	6	0	0
8	MF		Leupolz, Melanie	10	5	0	0	0	0
9	MF		Bürki, Vanessa	7	3	1	0	0	0
10	FW		Miedema, Vivianne	22	21	14	2	0	0
11	MF		Lotzen, Lena	2	1	1	0	0	0
13	MF		Iwabuchi, Mana	3	2	0	0	0	0
14	MF		Romert, Sarah	3	0	0	0	0	0
15	DF		Holstad Berge, Nora	15	13	1	0	0	0
18	FW		Evans, Lisa	15	13	0	0	0	0
19	DF		Wenninger, Carina	19	14	2	3	0	0
20	DF		Maier, Leonie	17	15	0	2	1	0
21	MF		Laudehr, Simone	7	6	1	2	0	0
22	DF		Faißt, Verena	11	10	0	1	0	0
25	DF		Schnaderbeck, Viktoria	12	12	0	0	0	0
27	MF		Gerhardt, Anna	9	2	1	0	0	0
29	FW		Rolser, Nicole	16	10	3	1	0	0
31	GK		Zinsberger, Manuela	10	10	0	0	0	0
32	GK		Korpela, Tinja-Riikka	12	12	0	0	0	0
33	MF		Däbrtz, Sara	22	21	1	2	0	0
35	MF		Wieder, Verena	2	0	0	0	0	0
36	MF		Lohmann, Sydney	3	2	0	0	0	0
	FW		Slipčević, Ivana	1	1	0	0	0	0

Close

What is your guys' take on including goals conceded in the infobox as was done with Anton Mitryushkin. I've never seen that elsewhere and I'm not sure how accurate it is given how hard goalkeeping stats are to come by. It's also not clear to the lay-reader that the (-number) under goals reflects goals conceded. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hell no. Kante4 (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before and it's always a no. Perhaps we need to have a page where things like this are listed to point people to? Number 57 13:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

They do that on the Italian Wiki, but I'm not a fan. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of it either. Thanks for removing it from the page Number 57. As for the second part of your response, something like a Frequently Asked Questions section on the project page wouldn't be a bad idea. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (again) No! I'd gone ahead and removed it and left a link to this disc in the ES, but '57' was a bit quicker than me! Eagleash (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If we did do such a thing, then what would we do with these guys? And yeah a consensus FAQ would be great (provided of course that it'll be well established that it's not set in stone and the points on it can still be subject to renewed discussion and change) --SuperJew (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not - impossible to source for 90% of goalkeepers so would just result in vast amounts of missing data all over WP -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

confuse other people if the goalkeeper was also a pk taker. And definitively poorly sourced for most of the world (i knew Italy made it a standard for some stats site, but not rest of the world) Matthew_hk tc 11:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello all. Please see this AfD discussion which is about a cricketer but has ramifications for all small sports articles which might not meet GNG. There has been consensus at the village pump to effect that NSPORTS should be superseded by GNG instead of being an alternative as at present. Note that the wording of NSPORTS has not changed, however, despite this consensus. As you will imagine, only a small number of editors took part in the pump discussion and yet their consensus could have far-reaching implications, certainly a heap of trouble as in the case of Baseer, for all sports projects. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

A proposal to try and address the problem has been raised at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Proposal re_GNG/SSC_relationship. Please join in. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Personally I feel that the article in question may have caused irritation as it was initially a stub, then when you expanded it, all the info (which seems excessive for a player who has played so little, to be honest) comes from a single, specialist source. Are there no Indian newspapers which mention him which would boost his claim for Notability considerably? Never had to do research on an Indian subject so no idea how much of their media is (a) online; and (b) written in English or in a script/language that can easily be searched for. I have to say, I think that football articles which fail to make the NFOOTY rules are generally noticed and dealt with, but the crossover with GNG is much easier to control, as the coverage of football so much greater than for cricket. There are probably a fair number of players whose mentions in the media would see them added as per normal GNG if they related to persons in another field, but because they haven't met the NFOOTY stipulations regarding pro leagues etc, they are not being created. So it is the FOOTY factor which is the trigger and finding relevant info to prove GNG is not a problem. Crowsus (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no problem with English cricketers either but, as you say, this cricketer is in India. The article cites two sources, both of which are reliable and widely used by WP. One of the problems is the evident urgency which the deletionists insist on deploying (and why?). We have numerous Indian editors and it is possible that one of them might, in due course, find something in an Indian publication. Just because that is not readily to hand is not a reason to say the article must go now. Anyway, that is digression. The place to discuss all of this is at NSPORTS itself. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there any standard or convention about this? Some articles use the name used by the club, like Olympique Lyonnais Féminin, FC Zürich Frauen or Atlético Madrid Féminas (thought the later is outdated, Atlético uses Femenino nowadays). While many others are titled (women) or to a lesser degree (ladies). Which apart of being something of an unnecessary foreign body in the title brings the issue of capitalising or not. For example, Olympique de Marseille (women) and FC Bayern Munich (Women) give nothing, you need to write Olympique de Marseille (Women) and FC Bayern Munich (women). And why call Barcelona's team FC Barcelona (women) instead of FC Barcelona Femení when their other sections are titled FC Barcelona Bàsquet, FC Barcelona Handbol, FC Barcelona Hoquei and the like?

Wouldn't it be better to title them with the word used officially by the club, like Olympique de Marseille Féminines and FC Bayern Munich Frauen and redirect (women), (Women), (women's football), (Women's football), (ladies), (Ladies)... titles to them? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)