Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 113

At the List of Turkish football champions site the user User:Akocsg former tournaments, which are currently not recognized by the Turkish Football Federation as football champions.

For comparison, at the other countries's list only the official recognized champions are listed. For example, the Svenska Serien winners are not recognized as Swedish Champions and therefore are not listed. Another example: The titles won at the The Football Tournament are not counted or listed at List of Danish football champions. There is no other country where former tournaments, which are currently not official by the national football federation are listed at the generel table or even shown at the "List of champions" article.

The List of Turkish football champions according the to the Turkish Football Federation: http://www.tff.org/default.aspx?pageID=379 Untill the Turkish Football Federation will make the former tournamens official or recognize the titles, the pre 1959 tournaments shouldn't be listed here.

1886kusagi (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It was discussed before in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 112#Early Turkish championships. Despite before 1959 they were not part of a professional league, what constructive plan for those trophy? A new article or just leave it in the same page in List of Turkish football champions? Matthew_hk tc 10:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It is fine to keep those in there. Even if it was organized by another organisation. It's a list of Turkish champions, not a list of Süper Lig champions. Just find a good source that the early ones were named national champions. -Koppapa (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Unlike at other countries the former ones are currently not recognized. The same example you have at the swedish list of champions. The swenska serien winners are currently not listed at the liat of champions, because they are not recognized. To list them would be misleading. Currntly only the 1957 and 1958 seasons of the Turkish Federation Cup are recognized by the TFF and not juat the Süper Lig after 1959. The former tournaments have there own articles and are listed at the turkish football records article

1886kusagi (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You just can't start an edit war over there and bag here for help. Matthew_hk tc 13:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The other party patty did not response at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. A third neutral party should decide. For years article has shown the official recognized champions. The new addition of the non recognized tournaments has been done a couple of weeks ago.

What should be listed at the list of champions article? Just the official recognized champions like at the other countries or also the unofficial ones? If we add the unofficial ones than we have to update also the swedish and danish lists. 1886kusagi (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The article is clearly about the champions of Turkey, not about the Super Lig. From what I can see the List of Swedish football champions refers to prior championships and even tournament structures. Koncorde (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

List of Swedish football champions shows nothing between 1926 and 1929, due to the dual-league system at the time. Örgryte IS won it in 1927-28 but are not listed (even though it is on the club's page, perhaps disingenuously). Nzd (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

List of Swedish football champions do not lists the winner of the Svenska Serien, although it was the highest league and are not listed at the Swedish Football Association website. Source: http://svenskfotboll.se/allsvenskan/historik/. What should be the criteria / source for the list of football champions list. The official list of the national football federations or do should we show all former tournaments, including the non-official ones?1886kusagi (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Any competition of which the winners were considered champions (by the general public). The Svenska serien says in the article (although unsourced): "Despite being the highest league, the winner of Svenska Serien did not become Swedish Champions". So it's clear why it is not included. -Koppapa (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. So tournament winners which were declared national champions can be added. Can we add the winners of the FNGI champions in Italy? http://www.rsssf.com/tablesi/ital-fngichamp.html or the first czech championships winners? http://www.rsssf.com/tablest/tsjslhist.html 1886kusagi (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The FNGI would be a parallel competition (the equivalent happened a lot in early football history). The Czech competition is complex due to the Czechoslovakia vs Czech Republic history. Rsssf even say similar to what has been explained at http://www.rsssf.com/tablest/tsjechamp.html Koncorde (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

But why should we not list parallel competitions? At the turkish example you will also find two parallel competitions and hence therefore two champions in one season (1940, 1941, 1944-1947 and 1950). 1886kusagi (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of reasons, and I can't answer for every single article that you try and call out. Not all football tournaments are equal or convey the title of a national championship. Does anyone consider the FIGC tournament part of the official football championship, probably not. Should it be listed elsewhere within a footnote or separate list, maybe, but from what I can see the list is based on the Football Federation competiton. When English football started there were dozens of leagues, and inter-league play was sporadic and often teams were registered in multiple leagues, particularly as District Vs County Vs Combination Vs Regional competitions developed. On top of which Invitational trophies and competitions also existed, and there were several "Champions" of the UK crowned (in some cases with the competitors being an established team, and the other an invitation XI)? Koncorde (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

First of all thank you for your contribution. If there isn't a defined line which "championsships" should be listed than we can just list the official recognized lists of the national football federations. 1886kusagi (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Not really. Not all associations have existed since the time a league existed. For instance a lot of former communist states had their entire leagues subsumed into entirely new competitions with their clubs often being recreated or grafted from other competitions. Similarly several of those states and others have had various mergers of leagues and competitions meaning that there is often a legitimate difference between competitive histories (this is also most prevalent with those countries whose national borders have changed such as West Germany / East Germany as the most graphic example). There are also legal and political issues, with some associations not having any right to claim historic competitions and achievements, this would not, however, necessarily invalidate those earlier competitions validity as a national championship. This is often seen where associations lost primacy through change of ownership and or rival takeover from another association (particularly common in fledgeling leagues in recent years - for instance the MLS and USFL). Koncorde (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for beeing offtopic, but you said that the FIGC tournament is not a part of the official football championship and hence therefore should not be listed. (Excuse me if i understand it that way). So the main point here is "official". Many countries had different tournaments / championships to declare a national champion. But if they are officially recognized by the national football federation than they are also listed at the list of champions article. (For example Germany, pre Bundesliga 1963). As long as those tournaments are not official recognized they cannot be listed. Otherwise we have to add the FIGC tournament, although it was a different federation. The argentine list of champions includes champions of 4 different football federations. But as i said some years ago the Argentine Football Association recognized them all.1886kusagi (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Surely the key is whether the teams were recognised as national champions at the time? If for some bizarre reason the FA closed down next summer and a new body took over English football and chose not to recognise previous Premier League winners, it would be absolute nonsense to say that Man United had never been champions of English football...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

the early football was partially a mess, such as the Hong Kong FA, have the Chinese word 總 in its Chinese name, literally "General/Terminal/Big/grand", as there was a separate (sub-)FA for ethnic Chinese only (the Hong Kong FA for ethnic Chinese and western expatriate). But as long as Hong Kong FA was for whole Hong Kong, it is logical to list champions of Hong Kong FA event, but not other event by "Hong Kong Chinese FA". It is logical to follow Sweden FA decision to recognize one of the winner of various tournaments as grand champions. Matthew_hk tc 19:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Same logic applies to Argentina. Matthew_hk tc 19:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No, what I said is that the FIGC competition isn't likely considered part of football association history, and is instead some parralel competiton, in much the same way there were dozens of leagues in England but not all confer the 'national' title or are not commonly perceived to be of the same merit. It's the difference between the World Cup, World Championships and the Olympics. All can confer a title, but for the purpose of establishing a "World Champion" it would be unlikely we'd refer to the Olympics other than to mention it's informal status prior to the first real World Cup. A list of World Champions would therefore draw from only those competitions considered at that time (or with subsequent historicity) to be representative. Koncorde (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Should i change the title to in general just "list of football champions?. According to www.rsssf.com the FNGI tournament was called Concorsi Federali di Calcio (official Italian championships) and most of football teams played for the FNGI (Italian Federation of Gymnastics) instead of FIF events. So the FNGI tournament winner was called italien champion and it was the main / bigger federation at that time. So those winners have to be included at the wikipedia article? The swedish FA recognized one winner of the various ones at that time. In Turkey, at least for now, the national federations do not recognize the old tournaments as championships and as i said there have been two parallel tournaments. Which means two different winners in one season. 1886kusagi (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are asking me to compare two distinct competitions. I repeat, and direct you to the Italy talk page to discuss it, "There are a lot of reasons, and I can't answer for every single article that you try and call out. Not all football tournaments are equal or convey the title of a national championship. Does anyone consider the FNGI tournament part of the official football championship, probably not. Should it be listed elsewhere within a footnote or separate list, maybe, but from what I can see the list is based on the Football Federation competition". Whether or not there are not parallel champions is irrelevant (Italy also has those already). Koncorde (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

In the talk page of the article List of Turkish football champions I have already shown sources which proof that the winners of both former competitions are national champions. There was also another discussion here, with a third neutral party agreeing that they should be included. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

But those competitions are currently not recognized by the turkish federation. Where is the line if the wikipedia article should list the former tournements as national champions (Turkey) or not (Italy). Retroactively many federations (Argentine, Brazil, Sweden) declared former tounament winners as national champions. But as long as they were not recognized those winners were not listed as national football champions. 1886kusagi (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

But they are even mentioned by the Federation itself. See the source which I provided in the intro text: ^[1] English translation: ...in this period which lasted until 1936 the first Turkish Championship was held in Ankara where Harbiye became champions.

And this one: ^[2]

For some very dubious reason they are not counted currently, but that doesn't change the fact that they are national championships. All other users above also agreed on this matter, so I don't see a reason to continue this discussion where every relevant point of me was confirmed. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the are currently not official and nor recognized the the federation. As i said the same happend in Argentine or Brazil. Just some years ago they have started to recognize the former tournaments. But as long as they are not official (official sources should be the major source at wikipedia) they should not be listed. 1886kusagi (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

No, And consensus is quite clearly against you. A federation doesn't need to recognise a former competition for the former competition to have taken place. Our inclusion is verifiability, which is the presence of data to support the claim - not an absence. Federation and Association websites are routinely incomplete or do not cover all eventualities and / or are subject to political / commercial decisions which an encyclopedia does not need to get into. Koncorde (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

So without beeing recognized we can now list former tournaments. Can we also update the statistics? For example Individual performances by managers or players. (titles won and goals scored)? 1886kusagi (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

That would be good. In the article Football records in Turkey the former competitions should also get their own passages, since they are all missing. The table concerning the most successful managers is also quite incomplete btw. Competitions like the Chancellor Cup, Atatürk Cup, UEFA Intertoto Cup and Spor Toto Cup are missing. Akocsg (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Was the Spor Toto an official Cup? By reading the milliyet news paper archives it lloks more like an friendly tournament like the TSYD Cup. Just beeing hold during the winter break. At my sanbox [] i've started to create an overview about the champions in just one table like you can find at the American open wheel car racing article. Both (turkish football and american open wheel) hat some years with parallel championships. What about the goalscorers? Shoiuld we change this one List of Süper Lig top scorers to first tier topscorers? 1886kusagi (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Now that you mention this, I'm not sure. So far I thought it was official, because it was organised by the TFF. I thought it was practically the Turkish League Cup, since it was played in a league cup format. And they were not only played during the winter break as far as I know, in the Turkish Wikipedia article you can look at the seasons, for example the 1970-71 season. It was played over one whole season and looks pretty serious to me. Seems just like regular league cups, which are still played in some countries, for example Portugal. So imo it should be included in the Wiki article. And concerning mackolik, there you can see again how it is unreliable and incomplete. The last season where Istanbulspor won is missing, same with the 1968 season where Besiktas won.

About the top scorer list, I saw that similar articles also generally are named after the current top division, like for example Serie A top scorers, Primera Division top scorers etc and only include them. So I think we should let it stay this way, just like the other ones. Because if it's called "Turkish top scorers" only or something like that the early championships have to be included, too.

About the table in the Turkish champions list, as I already said we have four different competitions, which were/are all played in different periods. Only the Championship and National Division were parallel for 14 years. But even there a big temporal difference exists, as the Championship started in 1924 and the National Division in 1936. It will be totally messed up. Just use the current tables and then adjust the National Division table to the Championship table. See for example the Brazilian champions list, the Soviet/Russian list (1936 and 1976 seasons), or the list of Argentine. The same standard should be used in the Turkish list. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

But the Brazilian champions list is very complicated and not chronologically, because you read it from from top to bottom and the 3rd title of Palmeiras is above the 2nd title. And Brazil had just 2 paralel season (1967 and 1968). The Soviet/Russian list do not have paralel season. Still chronologically. About the topscorers: The spanish league did not have a former tournament. 1886kusagi (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

There are two champions in one year/season in the examples I mentioned. Anyway in the Turkish list it's about two different competitions with different statuses and times. It can't be summarized in one table. The way it is now it is already visualized as parallel.

Concerning the top scorer list, I personally wouldn't change it. I don't know what the others think. If you have the data about all former championships, you might add them if you really want to. Akocsg (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

But currently they are not paralel. The first Milli Küme season (1937) is on the same level of the Türkiye Futbol Şampiyonası (1924). We just have the scorers of the Milli Küme and Federasyon kupasi. 1886kusagi (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

True but is that really important? People can easily read the years. Though of course it would be nice if it would be exactly adjusted. I already asked someone, but he didn't know how to do that. Perhaps you could ask someone who is good with technical stuff, tables etc.

Wait, with top scorers do you mean the Turkish champions list, or the article about the Süper Lig scorers?

I also wanted to ask about that actually, why do we have the managers in the champions list? Wouldn't it be better to have the top scorers there instead? Like the Russian and Brazilian list. Akocsg (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The topscorers already have an article, but there is no list about the winning managers. What kind of table do you want? 1886kusagi (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. It's not that important anyway. Concerning the tables: I meant that it would be better if the years were on the same height. Say the 1936-37 season of the National Division adjusted to the 1936 season of the Championship. But I don't know how to do that. Akocsg (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

) So this way? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:1886kusagi/sandbox 1886kusagi (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No, like this: User:Akocsg/sandbox Akocsg (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes a player is known by his first name (like Alison Lopes Ferreira, René Román, Eloi Amagat and so on) and sometimes, by two names (like Lucas Lima, David Braz, Fabrício Bruno, Matheus Jesus and so). However, @GrahamHardy insists that their sorting should be always surname, forename, thus ignoring WP:MCSTJR.

I'm here to gather some consensus (yes, again) to see if some inputs different than mine clarify how sorting works here, once and for all. MYS77 ^✉ 20:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The league is sponsored and any club that isn't a reverse team operators as a fully pro club, so I was wondering why it's not on the leagues list as fully pro league. Govvy (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Because reserve teams are not considered fully pro - hence why the Premier League 2 is also not on the list. GiantSnowman 15:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

PL2 are not laddered. Govvy (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The same principle applies. Where's your evidence that every team is fully professional anyway? GiantSnowman 16:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

1 Because under Spanish law, as far as I am aware clubs have to operate fully pro in this tier, and have done since 1990. Govvy (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That link refers to the top two tiers, i.e. literally Primera and Segunda, not the Segunda B, so it doesn't really help your case. But in general, there's no problem with fully pro leagues including reserve teams: reserve teams can play in (to name but four) the Spanish Segunda División, the German 3. Liga, the Dutch Eerste Divisie, and whatever the Portuguese second tier calls itself this week, all of which are listed as fully pro. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe the Spanish third tier is fully pro. See e.g. this ("The profssional divisions are the top two"), this ("Segunda B, the League of football part-timers"), this ("the third tier of Spanish football, a wasteland of B teams and part-time sloggers"), this ("In Spain, once you drop below Segunda 'A' to the regionally structured Segunda 'B', a large proportion of the clubs are part-time") or this ("a semi-professional league like Segunda B"). Number 57 17:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

hmm, okay, I think I have been reading conflicting articles online, nm, I did rather like this article, 1. Govvy (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, the league is not fully professional, but some clubs like Racing Santander, Real Murcia or the top ones are as professional as Segunda ones. Anyway, the RFEF forces the clubs to have at least 10 professional players. Asturkian (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no way that level can be considered fully professional, there is a huge variation in the stature of the teams, from those mentioned above like Racing, to the big clubs' reserves who will have pro contracts, to small town clubs, most of whom will work on pretty small budgets, to tiny village teams (maybe only a few in each section, but over the 4 groups that's probably at least a dozen). Crowsus (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

PS Hoping they have made some reforms since the article ref'd above ( 1). sounds horrific. Surprised any of them survive at all. Crowsus (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Struway2: - fair point well made re:other divisions that have mix of senior/reserve teams... GiantSnowman 10:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I am starting to think that the lower levels of Spanish football need restructuring in order to help it out. I actually think that reserve teams in the the ladder system is very damaging to the league structures and takes the importance and value out of the lower leagues. I do have a lot of opinions on the subject and that all these reserve teams should be removed, these teams take money away from the lower level teams it seems and stops any chance of the lower leagues from ever becoming fully pro and viable. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem of this PoV is that here in Spain, the success of the youth national teams is related to the fact of the reserve teams playing against "veteran" clubs. It is very difficult to change this mentality, specially with the big teams. My opinion is they should be removed from the Segunda División, it's a shame they occupy places reserved for the professional teams and they earn a lot of additional money from the TV's. E.g, now Barcelona B is not a "farm team", it is currently working like a Segunda División random team with very good players for the league like Choco Lozano or Iñigo Ruiz de Galarreta. Asturkian (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

My view is that the system works quite well, at least for the professional clubs, considering the triumphs of the national team, the youth national teams and the club sides in Europe, all of which had a decent amount of homegrown players. So on a production level, the evidence suggests that it's an effective design. And unlike other nations (England which has no B teams, and Germany which does) the attendances at many of the independent clubs aren't so high to make the inclusion of the B teams ridiculous in comparison. But I agree that bringing in players to the boost the strength of the B teams is a bit false, if the young squad is good enough to get promoted but not good enough to stay up, so be it. I believe an age cap was only introduced for B teams a few years ago, maybe that should be tightened. However the situation for the independent clubs, which I have just learned more about in this thread, has to change. Having to use professional contracts seems ridiculous, if they can afford it, fine, if not, they shouldn't be made to. The pro clubs should be paying more for the upkeep of Segunda B since most of them have reserve teams at that level. And I think the number of groups is too high. If there were 3 groups, the standard would hopefully be a bit higher, with fewer tiny village teams and probably fewer B teams making the cut. And it would bea smaller number of clubs to have to split the money between, as well as a slightly better chance of making it to Segunda A. Crowsus (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I come here to ask is there some merit to requesting that navigational templates in Category:FIFA World Cup venues navigational boxes be merged with their companion FIFA World Cup navboxes, i.e. {{2006 FIFA World Cup}} and {{2006 FIFA World Cup stadiums}}. I can understand to an extent why it might be controversial to merge {{2006 FIFA World Cup finalists}} and similar navboxes into the aforementioned navboxes, since it is a very stylised list with multiple rows, however I can't really see an argument against merging {{2006 FIFA World Cup stadiums}} into {{2006 FIFA World Cup}}, especially when the entirety of the list in {{2006 FIFA World Cup stadiums}} can fit in {{2006 FIFA World Cup}} as a "Venues" list. It would also be nice to have a "below" list with the various wikilinks to other navboxes by year, like {{2006 FIFA World Cup stadiums}} and {{2006 FIFA World Cup finalists}} respectively have. For a proof of concept, here's what my proposal would look like on {{2010 FIFA World Cup}}, {{2011 FIFA Women's World Cup}}, and {{2013 FIFA Confederations Cup}}:

PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it makes sense. No need to have numerous navboxes when one will do. This is something we should be doing more of in general – e.g. not having separate templates for league clubs, stadiums etc (i.e. merging templates like {{Football League One}}, {{Football League One venues}}, {{EFL League One managers}} etc). Number 57 11:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree, looks good to me. Kante4 (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

We probably need a consensus on a particular issue regarding many uses of {{Infobox international football competition}} in FIFA tournaments – the "date" parameter, and how dates should be presented in them, since there doesn't seem to be a consistency here. While literally all the FIFA World Cup articles format the date with day and month only, with the length of the tournament in parentheses, other FIFA tournament articles format it with day, month and year. Almost no other articles display the length of the tournament in the "date" parameter.

So here's the two questions I want to pose: 1) Should years be included in date formatting? and 2) Should tournament length be included in date formatting? I'd like to see the date not have the year included, as it is almost always mentioned at least three times beforehand: the article title, the lead sentence of the article (which displays ahead of infoboxes on mobile) and the title of the infobox. It also helps reduce the amount of text in the parameter, as month names are relatively long. This is taking into account that {{nowrap}} is often used in these cases. I'd like to see tournament length dropped as well, firstly for the same aforementioned text-shaving reason, and secondly because it doesn't seem very important to the everyday reader's understanding of the tournament. Here's the various formats, with the dates of the 2018 FIFA World Cup being used as an example:

1: 14 June – 15 July

2: 14 June – 15 July 2018

3: 14 June – 15 July (32 days)

4: 14 June – 15 July 2018 (32 days)

Pinging @GAV80:, whom I conflicted with on this issue, for his opinion.
– PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

No need for year and length. So, Option 1. Kante4 (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, 2: 14 June – 15 July 2018. If here different months, then need spaces around dash " – ". If start and finish of tournament in the same month, for example, 6–28 October 2017, then no need spaces around dash "–". And about year in date: if start and finish in different years we write years, but if same year we need also write year, because this is encyclopedia: need standard, or write year in all cases, or no write in all cases. GAV80 (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Option 1 or 3. Per MOS:DATE, the year can be omitted when there is no risk of ambiguity, i.e. "The 2012 London Olympics ran from 25 July to 12 September". There is no ambiguity in what year the 2018 FIFA World Cup takes place in. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This is incorrect example. "The 2012 London Olympics ran from 25 July to 12 September" is in one sentence. But here another situation: year in name of page, but day and month in infobox. We must write pages not only for us (I know or you know that 2018 FIFA World Cup, then "14 June – 15 July" means "14 June – 15 July 2018"), but any other user, who open page must read in infobox about full date (don't read in infobox day and month and then see name of page). GAV80 (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I highly doubt any one reads a page and doesn't read the name of the page which are in large text. --SuperJew (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The example from MOS:DATE does apply, the top of the infobox says "2018 FIFA World Cup", along with the title of the article and the opening sentence. There is no ambiguity. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

For example, is 2019 Africa Cup of Nations qualification means 2019 year? Text in the name page 2019. GAV80 (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

We are not talking about qualification though, only final tournaments. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Main tournament or qualification tournament this is football tournament. Need one standard for any tournament: without years in all pages this is wrong, then need add years in any tournaments. Why we decide write in one cases or don't write in another cases? There is date, then need write full date always. GAV80 (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If the year is clearly understood, there should be no reason to include the date. See other competitions like the 2016 Summer Olympics, 2015 Rugby World Cup, 2017 World Men's Handball Championship, and 2019 FIBA Basketball World Cup. The year is not included in the infobox for the same reason. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Your examples are not arguments. See my similar examples, Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics, 1995 Rugby World Cup, 2012 European Men's Handball Championship, 2015 FIBA Americas Women's Championship. GAV80 (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio and GAV80: Evidently, citing examples is not gonna go far for either of you, since there are many date configurations for many tournaments of all kinds on Wikipedia. We specifically want to know which confirmed date format we want for FIFA tournaments specifically. Keep the focus on weighing the pros and cons of particular date formats, instead of trying to cite articles to back up your arguments; you can be easily called out on WP:OSE.

Otherwise, I agree with Julio and SuperJew’s points. Gav, you express your frustration with the idea that the year needs to be shown for qualification tournaments, but not needed in finals tournaments. However, I don’t sympathise with the frustration. The year needs to be specified in order to make it clear that the year featured in the titles and lead is different to the year of the qualification tournament itself. As we’ve stated previously, the “date” parameter in {{Infobox international football competition}} will be read last after the article title, lead sentence, and infobox title, which will all have the year displayed. This can’t really be debated; even on mobile, these three parts of the article will always be displayed before the date in the infobox chronologically. So, there isn’t a need to make a fourth iteration of the year, especially when it clogs the infobox and foces a second line when there shouldn’t be, especially in cases of long month names like “September”, “November”, and “December”. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 00:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering re the above to see if I need to start editing the thing to the current trans-title, how long can these things usually be left before their function becomes inactive? Is there a bot currently/planned to fix this? Obviously it would affect a lot of non-English speaking articles. Crowsus (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I notice this is part of the 'gen fixes' script in AWB now. I'm going through the Spanish and Portuguese players at the moment.. Nzd (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've started picking it up in my AWB exercises as well. GiantSnowman 14:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Done on Category:Italy international footballers. But with 500+ skip, that mean either all citation were English, or i and other user failed to add |trans-title=. Matthew_hk tc 15:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Will probably be a while before the old parameter is no longer supported. Articles with the error can be found in Category:CS1 errors: deprecated parameters (which includes four other deprecated parameters). A bot for this specific task is most likely not needed currently, as AWB users and bots working on routine tasks will gradually fix the errors. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A bot is running through these now. Nzd (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

A tweet by The Football Ramble lists the following terminology: 2 = brace, 3 = hat-trick, 4 = haul, 5 = glut, 6 = double hat-trick, 7 = haul-trick. How common and established are the terms from 4 onwards? Could and should Wikipedia make use of them, for example for precision or for simpler and briefer wordings of sentences in prose? --Theurgist (talk) 08:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Not at all.

With no context for the tweet, I'm guessing they were amusing themselves making up good words for numbers of goals. Brace is established because it's an English word that means a pair of something (often game-birds). Hat-trick is standard. Haul means what someone's stolen, caught, bought or generally acquired: it doesn't imply four of anything. as definition Noun 1.2 makes clear. Glut just means a lot. Double hat-trick is understandable, because it's plain English. Haul-trick is just silly. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not - none of those terms for 4 upwards have any basis whatsoever in common usage, and "haul-trick" has clearly just been made up by the Tweeter himself (and, as noted above, sounds ludicrous). Avoid like the plague -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This post is as much of a joke as the original tweet. – PeeJay 09:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I've seen haul used in media in general for a lot of goals (not necessarily 4). I'll agree with the peeps above that these are not official terms.

I have to say that I liked even more this reply: "8 = snowman, 9 = triple hat-trick, 10 = I've suspected match fixing for the last 4 goals." --SuperJew (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

(OP) Thanks all. You know, English is not my language, and slang has never been my forte, so I decided to ask rather than do my own research. So anything above 2 is just "hat-trick", right? And how do we specify the exact number? Do we use "four-goal hat-trick", "five-goal hat-trick", etc? --Theurgist (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

No, a hat-trick is only for three goals. Anything more, don't use the term and just state the number of goals. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

But then, titles of articles such as List of Premier League hat-tricks and List of FIFA World Cup hat-tricks are technically inconsistent with their scopes, because they do include occasions where someone scored more than 3 goals. --Theurgist (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Well in those 4 or 5 goals there is a hat-trick too. --SuperJew (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

What I meant is that you wouldn't generally use the term hat-trick in prose when a player has scored more than three goals (unless, maybe, you were saying something like "he scored five goals, including a hat-trick inside the first ten minutes of the game"). If your dealing with stats, obviously anything more than 3 has 3 in it (i.e. if someone scores 5, then they have scored a hat-trick and 2 other goals). Nzd (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If you look hard enough when someone scores 5, then you can find three hat-tricks ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac: So you could call 4 a double-hat-trick? ;) --SuperJew (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@SuperJew: No, that's clearly a half snowman ;) Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

In cricket, four wickets in a row is sometimes called a double hat-trick. Never heard it used in football. Hack (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just looking for some input into a discussion I've started at Template talk:NFT player re updating the citation parameters. Tagging @GiantSnowman: and @Struway2:, you may be able to help with your experience at the Soccerbase season template. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Please an admin protect Gian Piero Ventura, is and will be lots of vandalism for a while. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for a week. Number 57 22:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I would also add protection to the Italy national football team page as well at this stage. NZFC^(talk) 22:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see quite as much vandalism there yet. Number 57 22:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts about {{2000 Connecticut Huskies men's soccer navbox}}? GiantSnowman 11:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Kante4 (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It should be a discussion about the whole category, no? --SuperJew (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete, post-haste. Last time I checked, you need more than five players to make up a football team... – PeeJay 11:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd like the advice of WP:FOOTBALL here. FC Deccan is a newly created club that plays in the third tier, state level league, of Indian football. In my opinion, it doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY. Would appreciate the comments before initiating AfD. Coderzombie (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

In England we don't discriminate against non-league club articles, if it's in the Indian ladder system and a registered club and sourced there shouldn't be a problem. Govvy (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That's another issue. There are reliable sources to mention inception etc, but not sure how many would be enough to establish notability, they'll get coverage for the games, but beyond that most of the content is from primary source. Coderzombie (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a file given to me from Senior Marketing Executive at Tottenham Hotspur, it's a *.png file of the emblem, I tried to update the svg file but it wouldn't let me, is there a way to update the file with an png? Or should I just upload it on commons? Govvy (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You can't put non-free images on commons. What is the difference between the two? The crest on the club's twitter account seems to be identical to the one we have on here. svg format is preferable, so if there's no difference, the current file should remain in place. Number 57 13:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

1 The one we are currently using shouldn't have TM (Trademark) on it, it needs removing. I am not a good graphics editor, maybe someone can fix it? Govvy (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

TM means trademark, with or without not a big problem. Matthew_hk tc 15:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, Tottenham prefer the image without, when you google "Tottenham Hotspur" you get the emblem in the box on the right about Tottenham from wikipedia, you can just notice the TM, we basically been asked by Tottenham Hotspur to fix the image to remove the TM. Govvy (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It seem intended by the original creator of the svg file, as svg file can be scale to a larger size. And the logo was indeed a registered trademark according to EU database. Wikipedia is not a place for a free host of copyrighted logo in svg size. I don't understand the logic of the club? Want wikipedia a freehost of genuine svg logo? Matthew_hk tc 15:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the email I got,

Hi Govvy, I do! The trademark hasn't expired - it is simply not used as part of the Official Club badge. I currently work as the Digital Operations Executive at Tottenham Hotspur. I'd like to make sure that the badge is amended given that it is the first 'logo' that shows on a Google image search using multiple keywords is the Wikipedia example - which is incorrect. The badge - where possible - always is displayed without the TM present on the Official Club website. Please also consult our social media channels for further examples. Hopefully my email address is evidence enough - but please feel free to email me directly at #REDACTED where I can provide more proof. I can also of course - provide you with a replacement badge.

Govvy (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, just a free rider on the advertising effect of wikipedia. Matthew_hk tc 16:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't understand that comment, Govvy (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

i am not sure wikipedia had policy on replacing svg to png, but the staff just want wikipedia to host a clean svg copyrighted version of the logo for the google hit. May be require to ask the relevant image wikiproject, is that intentional to add tm to the svg by wikipedia policy, or removable. Matthew_hk tc 16:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A vandal on Balkans Cup made me noticed that the citations actually refer to the football team tournament as Balkan Cup (without s), same as the defunct pre-WWII Balkan Cup. So any idea on renaming both? Matthew_hk tc 09:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

With the existence of BVA Cup, better turn Balkan Cup page to dab? Matthew_hk tc 09:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

In Serbian, Craotian, Slovenian etc. they're both called the same, "Balkanski", as adjective for Balkan. Linhart (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Morning all, I've seen on a handful of footy pages that a Trivia Section is included. I'm not sure what the current position is on these and if it is still appropriate to include it? Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

See WP:TRIVIA, which states simply "Trivia sections should be avoided." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Basically, if the content can be worked into another section then it should be. If it can't be worked in anywhere else then it probably doesn't belong in the article anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The guy was born in England yet represents US for football, I just wanted to clarify what date format we should be using on him, I prefer dmy which is how it was, but the latest editor changed it all to American format for an Englishman representing US, no evidence he has a greencard either! Govvy (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

As long as it's consistent throughout the article, I don't have a real problem with either. But if I had to choose I'd probably go with mdy (US format) as his main sporting nationality is American and that's the reason for the notability of his page. --SuperJew (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

hmm, okay, cheers, Govvy (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the opposite. He passed WP:NFOOTY for his Sheffield United appearances before becoming an American international. As someone born in the UK and who has spent his entire career in the UK, I'd say DMY makes more sense, as does calling him a footballer rather than soccer player. Number 57 19:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to stick with British English formats, it's more universal than American English. Govvy (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree we should use UK formats. Born in England, lived his entire life here, and entire career here. GiantSnowman 11:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree aswell. Kante4 (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been asked before. Is it appropriate for a player to be included in an "XX F.C. players" category if they haven't registered an appearance for that club? For example, Charlie Walker is in the Arsenal F.C. players category. Although he was registered to the club (and probably played for the reserves), he never made a first-team appearance. I'm not sure I have an opinion either way, I just wanted to make sure for consistency. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the consensus is to include players in club categories once they sign (regardless of if they make an appearance or not) and in league categories only once they make an appearance in the league. --SuperJew (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if they're contracted to a club, then they're a player of that club. Number 57 16:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Follow-up question: Is there a line in terms of youth players? I notice that former West Ham youths Joe Benjamin and John Terry appear in the West Ham United F.C. players category, but by this logic Sol Campbell and Jonjo Shelvey should also be included. Thanks again. Nzd (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I would normally exclude middle man club in Italy (those sign lots of players and sold them to lower division in co-ownership on the same day). For those middle man club of South American players, may be helpful or may be not include them. (for example, signing a player and immediately loan them to Europe or Mexico or back to Brazil) Matthew_hk tc 11:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If a player has been contracted with a club - whether youth or senior, whether they played or not, whether 'middle man' (whatever on earth that is) or not - then they should be included in the category. GiantSnowman 11:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks GiantSnowman, that seems unambiguous enough! (for the record, a good example of a middle-man club arrangement is Jonathan Calleri, who is registered to Deportivo Maldonado even though there was never any intention for him to ever play for them). Cheers, Nzd (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, For middle man, some middleman information just don't even shown in the player article, for example, Thiago Siva transfer fee was channeled to Tombense Futebol Clube, Keirrison to Desportivo Brasil, Juan Jesus to Coimbra Esporte Clube, did it need that accuracy ? Matthew_hk tc 12:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If they have been contracted, then the article/infobox should reflect that. GiantSnowman 12:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is a reasonable approach for situations where a club registers a player for a moment of time as a tax-planning technique. According to this article, several Brazilian clubs transferred player registrations to Deportivo Maldonado to take advantage of beneficial tax rules in Uruguay when they ultimately agreed transfers to European clubs. If the infobox is supposed to summarize a footballer's "playing career" at a glance, I don't see why it is helpful in any way to identify these people as Deportivo Maldonado's players. I agree that the infobox should indicate where a player was contracted to a club without appearing in the league (e.g., training with the reserves) but these player registration's merely represent a tax fiction. Jogurney (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that it would be benificial to record such an arrangement, with the circumstances explained in the prose. Ultimately, we have to go with what the sources tell us, which, in the case of Calleri last season, was that he was on loan to WH from Deportivo Maldonado. There's no other way you can really express it in the infobox, as it was a loan. Categories are another matter and I'm (still) not sure I have an opinion either way. Nzd (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but as this article indicates these players are not actually playing for Deportivo Maldonado - the ownership of their registration rights is purely for financial reasons. I would oppose inclusion of these footballers in the Deportivo Maldonado players category. Jogurney (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

How about Category:Deportivo Maldonado pretend players? :) These refs should go in a section on the club article at some point. Nzd (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Loans deal from these middle man were acceptable to add to infobox to show the "loan", or the middleman club was widely reported. However, for Hulk (footballer), C.A. Rentistas was only show in official financial document, which we did not even known the Japanese clubs did bought the player outright or not, as it was unsourced. To me ignore all middleman club more practical, as those middleman information was hard to complete and not reflecting playing career much. Matthew_hk tc 23:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I think I have an opinion about the categories now :) If, per GiantSnowman, we are going with the hard rule that any player contracted to a club is added to the club cat, then middle-men clubs should be included, with the proviso that the arrangement is reported/referenced, per Matthew_hk. If we aren't doing that, then by omission we are making a judgement on that arrangement (which you could argue is a sort of original research). The more complicated arrangements that Matthew_hk describes are, well, more complicated, but we do ultimately have to go with what the sources tell us, so if there are no reliable sources that mention the arrangement, then neither do we.

I have added the two players I mentioned (Sol Campbell and Jonjo Shelvey) to the West Ham cat. We'll see if it prompts any objections. I guess the only complaint might be about what constitutes a contract, but players can sign schoolboy forms from the age of 9 so I suppose that's a contract.

I also have another somewhat related query about former incarnations of clubs. In talking with @Egghead06:, I am removing Category:West Ham United F.C. players where the player only played for West Ham's forerunner Thames Ironworks. The Thames Ironworks F.C. players category is currently a subcat of the West Ham players cat. However, there is an inconsistency over at Category:Dagenham F.C. players, which has a See also, rather than being a subcat of Category:Dagenham & Redbridge F.C. players (this was a merge of clubs, rather than a rename/reincorporation, but I think the principle is the same). Is there a standard for this type of thing? Thanks, Nzd (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

What's the deal with the Thames Ironworks/West Ham United name change? Was it just a name change or was it something else? I'm struggling to see why there are separate categories for what is essentially (it seems to me) the same club. – PeeJay 12:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Technically, Thames Ironworks resigned from the league and were dissolved. The new club was then formed as a new entity. Nzd (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec) There's actually two separate articles for Thames Ironworks and West Ham. The former says (admittedly unsourced) "At the end of June, Thames Ironworks F.C. resigned from the Southern League and were officially wound up. On 5 July 1900 they reformed under the new name of West Ham United and accepted an offer of the Southern League place left vacant by Thames Ironworks." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Yes, that article is on my list. There are general references at the end, but I need to convert those to inline citations. I have those books too. Nzd (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

So West Ham United was formed by the same people who previously ran the Thames Ironworks club and then played at the same ground. Are those the only links between them? I view this as being similar to the way Chester City FC was wound up and Chester FC formed in its place. They play at the same ground and most of the same people are involved, but I wouldn't make Category:Chester City F.C. players a sub-category of the Chester FC players category. – PeeJay 13:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Thanks, that looks like a good example. Given other precedents, I'll remove the subcat link and add a See also. Nzd (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Going back to the issue of middle-man clubs, I have added Jonathan Calleri to Category:Deportivo Maldonado players and added some text to the article which I think is careful enough. I realise the discussion above seems not to indicate a definite consensus on this issue though, so this is me being bold. Any further opinions would be welcome. Nzd (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

loan player in the cat may be useful, may be not, but putting Juan, Thiago Silva in the cat of the club that acted as middle man for transfer fee or whatever purpose, seem not useful. Matthew_hk tc 14:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Please take a look at the thread at Talk:Juventus F.C.#Doping case so far between User:Wim Kostrowicki, who persistently adds claims from a single, somewhat biased, source using contentious words per WP:LABEL such as "controversial", and claims such as "practically certain" and "very probable" at 1996 UEFA Champions League Final#Controversy, and User:Dantetheperuvian who claims with several sources the dismissal of investigations surrounding this have been dropped since 2007. Does this warrant mention, and if so, definitely not in the lead, and info regarding the dismissal of these claims should also be mentioned. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

A trial's verdict is a fact and a source with encyclopedic value, a claim dismissed by three Italian courts (Corte d'Appello in 2005, Corte di Cassazione in 2007 and by CONI in all three sporting trial's degrees since 2004 to 2007), not.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the trial was somewhat conclusive, but the controversy still existed. You can't just paint over it and pretend the accusations never happened. We should mention it and also the fact that the accusations were dismissed in equal/proportionate measure. – PeeJay 15:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Controversy with who or what? Supporter's POV are irrelevant for encyclopedic purposes and there was never a legal action by UEFA, Ajax or another club for that (the first two have petsonnel in the courts). The trials were for Juve between 1994 to 1998 and in Juventus FC:Talk I cited the latest two with pages in which was stated it, please read it. If CONI and two courts of three in ordinary trial said that there was not doping with epo, you don't add a claim that was rejected at sporting and ordinary justice level by that courts. In the real world is punished do it. For the rest, I agree with User:Vaselineeeeeeee.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dantetheperuvian: To try and save this from an edit war, we can probably add it, but in lighter terms, ie. no need to list a dozen players and say unencyclopedic things like “practically certain” in that style. Then use the several sources you have to refute this when it was dismissed. I see PeeJay’s point that the controversy did exist and therefore may warrant inclusion, but again, maybe a compromise can be reached. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: The courts discussed about Juve from 1994 to 1998, not about a single cup to had won or lost. With re-writte the case in Juve article according the verdicts with reliave and neutral souces (imho in history of Juve article due its main article is over 125 kb. of weight) is enough. The "controversy" must be between some journalist that don't know / don't want know anything about the trials verdicts and between fans that discuss about anything, most if they are rivals, lovers or haters, but at institutional level, not.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If there's no controversy, why was this even discussed in the courts? I know you love Juventus and you hate seeing bad stuff said about them, but the controversy exists and must be discussed in the relevant articles. – PeeJay 20:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

A 'somewhat biased source'? What the hell are you talking about Vaseline? The Independent is a serious newspaper and there are many other reliable sources saying similar things. Also, the words 'practically certain' are not used by me, but is a quote from the hematologist who testified in the court case. Read more carefully before you make comments about this. This kind of POV, especially from Dantetheperuvian, is simply unacceptable and is making Wikipedia worse every day. The entire section of my addition consist of quotes and factual descriptions of what happened. Read it for yourself:

Although Juventus won the final, the victory remains controversial because of accusations of doping use.[47] The Juventus team has been accused of using EPO and the matter went to trial in Turin in 2004. Club doctor Riccardo Agricola was given a suspended prison sentence for providing performance enhancing drugs, specifically EPO, to the players, but he was acquitted on appeal the following year. Leading hematologist Giuseppe d'Onofrio said that it was "practically certain" that midfielders Antonio Conte and Alessio Tacchinardi had taken EPO to overcome brief bouts of anaemia, and that it was "very probable" that seven other players - Alessandro Birindelli, Alessandro Del Piero, Didier Deschamps, Manuel Dimas, Paolo Montero, Gianluca Pessotto and Moreno Torricelli - had taken EPO in small doses.[48]

The entire content is descriptive: '...because of accusations', '...has been accused of', '...the matter went to trial', '...said' etc. Disagreeing with a factual description, now THAT'S unencyclopedic! Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: If someone accuses you of something wrong and a court textually dismisses it, that's not something that is discussed, it's a legal fact and generally should not appear on the criminal record certificates that I know of, but if You want to tell it here as "controversy", according Wikipedia guidelines both sides must be treated equally and the text must be equidistant and neutral, is not obviously unbalanced towards the accusation as in the Dutch user's text using a markedly tendentious article and another which shamelessly declares "on one's side" insisting on omitting the courts' verdicts about the accusations. I remind you that the judgments in the last instance constitute the "legal truth" (which is encyclopedic to dispense with Wikipedia as long as this is verifiable with official documents) and after that the entire case was declared res judicata, so the "controversy" legally ends.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. This was never a "doping case" and the reasons I put in the same place that I added the verdicts about this. That's enough to reformulate the entire paragraph. The relevant article is that about the club not that of a competition which was never discussed in court and its organizer never questioned its legitimacy.

Um, that's not how it works. If a court dismisses a case (or finds the defendant not guilty), that doesn't stop people from discussing the content of the case. You simply say there was a trial (or a court proceeding of some kind) and the person was found not guilty (or the case was dismissed). You don't simply sweep it under the rug like it never happened. If something is discussed in court, there must be sufficient evidence to warrant that discussion in the first place. – PeeJay 22:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not written that "nothing happened", I said that all that text is unbalanced in favor of the accusation and the case is not well formulated being is based on biased articles. Obviously everyone can say/discuss about whatever argument, as well as anyone can prosecute that person for defamation. Sentences do not exist for pleasure.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

By deleting the text, you are essentially claiming that nothing happened. If the text is bad, make it better, don't just delete it. – PeeJay 01:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello all. Please stop reverting back and forth.

Wim Kostrowicki added the content to 1995–96 UEFA Champions League on 05:07, 8 November 2017‎, to Juventus F.C. on 03:56, 19 October 2017, Antonio Conte on 03:15, 11 November 2017, and 1996 UEFA Champions League Final on 03:56, 19 October 2017. The content was immediately controversial, disputed, and removed.

Per WP:BRD, the content should remain out of the article until consensus is reached that it should be in the article. That is how things work at Wikipedia.

It is appreciated that you are using the talk pages.

Now, rather than editors just reverting back and forth while arguing why the content should be there or not, here is a good plan:

1. Get consensus here that, per WP:BRD, the content ought to remain out until this is resolved.

2. Argue about whether or not to restore the content.

This eliminates the back and forth reverting.

If you have a good reason why we should not follow the customary BRD, please say, otherwise, follow it. Okay?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I've always agreed with that, that's what I first said at the Juve talk page. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the thread.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

(Just posting my comment from the doping thread from the Juventus page) Although similar accusations have been made against several other teams and players without substantial proof, in thise case I personally don't think that there is actually a problem with adding the information to either the Juventus or History of Juventus articles, as the matter actually went to trial, and as there was initially some controversy in the news and media over the club's victories during that period, until Agricola and the club's staff and players were later acquitted. I'm not certain how relevant it is to the Champions League finals articles of that period, or whether it's worth mentioning at all in the articles of certain Juventus players of the time, as no players were actually charged, and Agricola and the club were later acquitted of all charges and no move was ever made to revoke those titles; I had actually already mentioned this briefly in Del Piero's article, but only because he was one of the players who was particularly singled out because of his dramatic weight gain during that period, when he really put on significant muscle mass, so I don't think anything else needs to be mentioned there. If this information is added to the article, however, it is pivotal that it should be done in a neutral manner, with accurate and reliable sources, no biased language (the initial proposed additions were not impartial; furthermore, they were not entirely accurate either, as they mentioned that the 1996 Champions League victory was controversial because of the doping allegations, when some of the players who were accused of being given banned substances – namely Montero, Dimas, and Birindelli – were not actually squad members until later), and mentioning all the facts surrounding the case, such as the accusations that were first made, the initial conviction, and the later acquittal. There are some inconsistencies with those sources listed from the Independent however, although I'm sure there are certainly better sources floating around, especially in Italian. I know some people feel very strongly regarding this matter, so I would like to have everyone's opinion on this. I hope this is of some help. Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to invite more discussion at the AfD for Zaneta Wyne. --SuperJew (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Have edited this page regularly, only new of this weird developments four years later or so (well, i guess it's better late than never). Málaga sold the player to Apollon Limassol per source from official web (#10), but then the following Dutch source says they LOANED him to Waregem; could it be some percentage of rights still held by the Spaniards?

The most tricky part: Sampdoria/Apollon/Viitorul, who held the player when? Any help/assistance would be welcome, article has been significantly improved, but I'd be very deserving of a wiki-scolding were i to leave misleading/false info in the article.

Sorry for any inconvenience (for the readers but especially Mr. Olinga), thank you very much for whatever can be provided --Quite A Character (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sampdoria: transfer rumour, can't be verified the actual signing of the contract, but worth mentioning if it was supported by secondary source. Many Italian club were unable to register new signing due to non-EU new signing quota. The only way to verify it, was appeared on the WP:primary source, the official transfer list or the club's financial report, or club statement, or did appeared in the newspaper with photo from press release. Martín Cáceres's Lazio link was wiped entirely. Matthew_hk tc 07:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sampdoria did have a press release regarding Olinga. http://www.sampdoria.it/u-c-sampdoria-comunicato-stampa-dell11-aprile-2016/ not using google translate yet, but seem the wording regarding the footballer's career with Sampdoria, as a collapsed signing? Matthew_hk tc 07:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Italian: mancato accordo economico tra le parti, did not have an agreement on a transfer at all. Matthew_hk tc 07:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Some IP has added these flags 5 years ago to the name field of each player in the team's section. They aren't used anywhere else. It has been brought up in the talk section. They were removed a couple of months ago but a user who seems to edit a lot in this article has reinstated them since (as "vandalism").

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spain_women%27s_national_football_team&oldid=810830891#Team

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_women%27s_national_football_team#Team

The issue is that no other national team has these flags (not even Spain's men's team) and it isn't even possible to determine them as there's no Andalusian passport that would tell us that player X has to have an Andalusian flag, etc. This seems completely arbitrary.

Others are complaining about this user regarding compliance with MOS:FLAG in other articles, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lagarto-spock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016%E2%80%9317_Primera_Divisi%C3%B3n_(women)#Flags 92.196.30.218 (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: The situation was discussed before in Regional flags at Spanish articles, seem the user keep on violating MOS:flag. Any admin want to intervene ? (despite the reverts such as special:diff/785816441 and special:diff/784907990 were in June and not further removal by other user (until today) so no further revert by the same user) Matthew_hk tc 12:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

As you reported, the Regional flags issue is extended to the Spanish football league and cup season articles, and also to the regional teams (see Basque Country women's national football team). Asturkian (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been working on Chris Kinnears article, even know some ppl want to delete it, I found this story on the web, 1. I thought it quite funny and interesting, I was wondering if anyone know how to find the Mail article online that the hammers page is referencing. Govvy (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you not aware that the Daily Mail is pretty much banned from use as a source on Wikipedia, and is particularly unusable on BLPs? Number 57 22:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a source from the 1970s which was more reliable, it's from the 1990s which the Daily Mail has a problem, deleting Daily Mail as a source from it's inception to 1980s is wrong, it was reliable then. Govvy (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This is an inherent problem with this old managers and players, ppl seem to break right into he fails NFooty and GNG, while failing to do any research, the guy was a trainee at West Ham United then he went to Tottenham Hotspur as a player, I am doing research here, and ppl want to delete a player who could have possibly played for a top flight club. Govvy (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

We've deleted dozens if not hundreds of players who were signed to top division teams as youngsters but never played for the first team (if you mean you still think he may have made a first team appearance for either club, he does not have appeared to have played for either; he has no listing on Neil Brown's database and is not included in either West Ham or Spurs all-time player listings). Number 57 23:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I found him on the bench for the London Challange Cup on this page for West Ham, 1, but I am not sure how on the books he was at West Ham, there does seem to be a lot of missing information. Govvy (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"It's a source from the 1970s" - the website is quite clearly referring to an article which may talk about something which occurred in the 1970s but which was published in 2002...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

hmm, well I copied the article to my user space to work on there if it gets deleted. I sent an email to Dover Athletic, see what response I get if any. Govvy (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You shouldn't copy it - we need to actually move the page so as to maintain the history. I have closed the AFD and moved the page to User:Govvy/Chris Kinnear. GiantSnowman 15:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Didn't know you could move pages like that into user spaces, I will have to remember for next time. Govvy (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

As much as I hate to defend such a loathsome paper, I think context needs to be taken into account. With regard to sports coverage, the DM actually has a pretty good record, and Martin Samuel has won Sports Writer of the Year/Sports Journalist of the Year multiple times while with the paper. Clearly it has a seedy side, but we have a general rule about tabloids on BLPs anyway. I wouldn't see an issue with a DM report on a pre-match presser though (which was the case in this instance).

Cite is "Drayton, John (6 December 2002). "I Threw out My Prized Boots from Icon Bobby". Daily Mail. London. Retrieved 20 November 2017 – via Highbeam Research." BTW.. Nzd (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking through the sourcing page for the project and I'm wondering if there is a list of sources complied somewhere that are generally considered NON-reliable e.g. transfermarkt. Does such a list exist? Jay eyem (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As it happens, I've just made a start on something. It's at a very early stage at the moment, but I was thinking that we could incorporate something like this into the page linked above. I agree, it would be really useful to have a listing of those sites the project considers reliable (or not). Nzd (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I am endeavouring to make some constructive edits on the Kenny Burns article. User Jmorrison230582 is insistent on being disruptive to these edits:-

a) Jmorrison230582 insists on removing the sectioning I have added b) I left a message on the talk page for user Jmorrison230582 as follows. User Jmorrison230582 replied with the total comment of:

"I know what I am doing"

Jmorrison230582 then proceeded to ignore my request to think calmly before undoing edits and again removed the sectioning. The sectioning I am attempting to add is based on wikipedia practice of a section per club where there is sufficient content. For a player as distinguished as Burns, there is more than sufficient content to justify more than the solitary section of "Playing career" asserted by Jmorrison230582.

c) User Jmorrison230582 deleted the conversation on Kenny Burns that I had added to his talk page.

d) I added the inuse tag to indicate that the article is undergoing a major edit. User Jmorrison230582 deleted that tag and again insisted on reverting to the layout on which Jmorrison230582 insists. This is disrespectful to wikipedia and wikipedia editors.

I regret to say this is typical of the sort of experience I regret to have encountered from Jmorrison230582 before insisting everyone else is wrong.

Can I request the views of others on this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.149.195 (talk • contribs)

The edit you are insisting on using has terrible spelling "whoem", poor grammar "he won the 1977-78 Football League title winning the FWA Player of the Year award that same season" and used separate sections for one sentence of text. That's why it was reverted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say Jmorrison230582 appears to be largely in the right here. The changes you made were very poor in terms of spelling and grammar. I would have the Honours section as a top level heading though. Number 57 16:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree that Jmorrison230582 is right in that case. Kante4 (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There's certainly no need for a separate heading for a section that only comprises one sentence..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with comments above, wasn't an improvement. Not sure message should have been removed from the talk page though? That can inflame these situations. Crowsus (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Quick comment, it was removed from the user's own talk page, not the talk page of the article itself. Jay eyem (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jay eyem,

"it was removed from the user's own talk page, not the talk page of the article itself."

Correct statement.

Hi all,

Thanks everyone who replied on this and for the constructive tone in doing so. If I may add further and ask for further comment:-

1) Would it not be better for wikipedia if user Jmorrison230582 adopted a more constructive and collaborative approach and tone? For example instead or repeatedly just undoing other work:-

a) "The edit you are insisting on using has terrible spelling "whoem""

Is it not obvious 'whoem' is just a typo? Would it not be more constructive / collaborative just to fix the typo?

b) "he won the 1977-78 Football League title winning the FWA Player of the Year award that same season"

Would it not be more constructive / collaborative just to improve the grammar?

c) "used separate sections for one sentence of text."

Does that mean it is optimal to have all the text under a single heading? Sub sections for which there was a lesser amount of text could be grouped together such as Rangers & Birmingham City and also those later in his career. Burns' time at e.g. Forest especially and Birmingham City justify individual sections.

d) Are abrupt comments such as "I know what I am doing" and using profanity constructive and collaborative and in the right spirit of wikipedia?

e) Is adding the inuse tag not an indication that some serious enhancement to the article is in the works? Abrupt edit warring to remove the edit that added the inuse tag is disrsepectful to the constructive intent for which the inuse tag was added. There are ways in wikipedia to constructively communicate and collaborate with other people.

Is there not an onus on experienced wikipedia editors to set the right example not just in terms of wikipedia policy of content change but also in attitude, tone and spirit of collaboration?

Hi Jmorrison230582,

2) Why was it necessary for you to remove the comments I added to your talk page re Kenny Burns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.148.227 (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2017

The whole point of my edit was to fix the problems you had introduced to the article (poor spelling, grammar and inappropriate use of section breaks). You must have lived a very sheltered life if you are at all offended by the use of "pisspoor". Finally, users are free to remove whatever comments are made on their own talk page (WP:OWNTALK). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sheltered life or not, that's no reason to act uncivil. Jay eyem (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please restore the sourced details (full name, date of birth) to the article Doug Smith (footballer, born 1937)? A new editor who says they are a relative of Smith's keeps changing it to what they claim is the correct details from his birth certificate. I've tried to explain to them why this isn't satisfactory, but as I've already reverted it twice last night, I don't want to do so a third time. Thanks. Jellyman (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

relative may be both WP:primary source (or able to access it) and WP:COI, but football fans is not and something else. I am not sure actually showing the birth certificate via OTRS would help or not, but even the secondary source is wrong, it seem wikipedia is not a place to publish the research on the real date without any external citation. Matthew_hk tc 08:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I think providing the birth certificate via OTRS is an appropriate way of dealing with it (it won't be referenced in the article, but a note can be added in the article code referring to a certain OTRS ticket). Incidentally I was dealing with a player last year and had his passport to do some work for him. His full name was not the same as what is detailed in his infobox, which is sourced to Hugman. Number 57 16:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Just in case he is a real relatives and not a relatives of a namesake. Just like the case of Etrit Berisha, some user, even a sport website from Albania, using a namesake's citizenship ceremony document (without published DOB), to support the claim of middle name and ineligible to play for Albania between X & Y year. Matthew_hk tc 18:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris and SuperJew: I bring this issue up here after seeing Chris' edits (mainly about removing links for countries) in Australia women's national soccer team results (2010–19) (among many others) contested by SuperJew, who insists that these links are useful. More personally, I also reverted Chris' changes in 2015–16 Athletic Bilbao season, citing those Templates' instructions, which currently suggest linking. Please be noticed that WP:OVERLINKING discourages us from linking well-known locations (including countries), and Chris' point is we should only link the stadia and cities, with which I actually agree, but I would like to reach a consensus here and change the Templates' instructions before taking action. Everyone, please have some words. Thanks :) Centaur271188 (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If I'm reading the template documentaion correctly, it currently has nothing to say explicitly about whether locations should be linked, but all the examples do in fact link everything. I suspect this practice dates from the days before we started to link intelligently rather than just routinely linking everything without thinking about which links were really useful. Perhaps a note could be added to the template documentation to remind editors that linking should be in line with policy at WP:OVERLINKING. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Also summon Matilda Maniac who briefly discussed this in Talk:Australia women's national soccer team results (2010–19), and S.A. Julio who currently has the most recent edit on those Templates. Hopefully you can join us. :) Centaur271188 (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said to Chris in this discussion: What is the line dividing the well-known locations from the not well-known location? --SuperJew (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@SuperJew: In Australia women's national soccer team results (2010–19), Chris has eventually taken a more thorough approach and unlinked all countries. Therefore I think your argument about 'arbitrariness' is no longer relevant. Do you have another one? Centaur271188 (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

In most cases linking to countries should be avoided, as it provides little added benefit. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

As Chris' changes seem to rely on unlinking only some of the countries/cities, I would say it is relevant. (even in the last edit Tokyo was unlinked and the rest of the cities were linked). Anyways, regarding linking countries I can only see an advantage in it and no disadvantage. Furthermore, going back to old, stable pages which will most likely not be updated, and rocking them for such a minor issue is a waste of everyone's time. --SuperJew (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The MOS exists for a reason, links are meant to be useful and aid the reader's understanding of the article being linked from. There is no contextually important reason to link the countries, which results in attention being drawn away from more relevant links in an article. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure there is. If a fan wants to go to an away game with his team, getting an overview of the country and info about it is contextually important. --SuperJew (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not understand what such needs have anything to do with 'contextual importance'. Are we talking about football boxes or guide books? Even if someone wants to find out more about the venues, we still have links for cities. @S.A. Julio: Do you think that we should add some notes on those Templates to remind everyone about WP:OVERLINKING? Centaur271188 (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of collapsed football boxes violates WP:ACCESSIBILITY where the hidden information is not included elsewhere in the article. Personally, it's incredibly frustrating when you're trying to find collapsed information – for example, finding links. Hack (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hack: Agree, this issue is indeed worth discussing, but I think we should do it in another section. :) Centaur271188 (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The latest afd that has popped up is Tyler Matas, but I normally review Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues for the leagues notability, however I am confused if the new Philippine league is pro or not and it seems to be missing from the list. I am not sure about this and would appreciate if someone could maybe fix the list. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The league would certainly appear to be fully professional from the sources I've looked at, which refer minimum and maximum salary rules, although I can't find an explicit statement that it is. This report from last year says, "The clubs participating in the Philippines Football League will become professional clubs, compared to all other clubs under the PFF which are amateur clubs. According to FIFA definition, a professional player is one whose monthly income from playing football alone is sufficient to cover comfortable living expenses for one month..." Jellyman (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

A source presented here suggested that whilst there certainly have been endeavours to reach full professionalism, in practice this was not progressing smoothly. Hapy to revisit if there are more up to date sources supporting the claim, but I am not sure that the league as it stands is sufficiently professional for FPL status. Fenix down (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I uploaded on Commons a photograph of Brown tussling with the Italian defender Sandro Salvadore during Great Britain - Italy at the 1960 football olympic tournament. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 14:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Just canvassing opinions on the above website (link here) which has pen portraits for early 20th century players whose postcards they sell. Obviously it's not an academic source, but usually has a concise description of the player's career which I have found to be as accurate as anything else (that is, if I was checking something dubious from another source which is considered reliable for wiki purposes, Vintage Footballers would be consistent in having the same possible error as the other site, so looks to be pretty well researched). However, in most cases I have been able to get the same info elsewhere so don't remember ever having used it as a reference. Crowsus (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The first one I looked at was this one, and the biographical info is a straight copy and paste from WP, which doesn't look too promising..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hah, well can't really argue with that one! You should hopefully be flattered that they liked and trusted your bio so much! And I presume you're satisfied that it's correct, so another accurate pen portrait for them! But, um, yeah... Please be assured there are many others which aren't sourced from here or any other such blatant plagiarism that I have seen! Or I wouldn't have asked and would simply use the original source! Crowsus (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I see that at club article outline page it states "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." There has been a debate about whether derby wins should be included. This is happening at several MLS articles where an editor is removing derbies. I'm not sure if they should be included. Also, there is an unusual three-team derby, the Cascadia Cup, that is a much higher-profile derby, both with the teams involved, but also with the press. Regardless, would this be an exception? Finally, the editor was removing pre-season tournaments. Not watching here so please ping me if you want me to respond to something. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Derbies and pre-season tournaments should not be included. GiantSnowman 08:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree, no derbies or friendly tournaments. Kante4 (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thirded (if that's even a word). I personally don't think second places are honours either. Number 57 09:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I've never heard of listing derbies as an honour, that sounds ridiculous, as for friendly tournaments, I am not against it if you title them under friendly tournaments. But some of these honours in American soccer are put together between just two teams, I don't think these should be listed. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a problem that I faced on it.wiki while dealing with the articles of those clubs with a small number of trophies like i.e. Roma, Napoli, Fiorentina, etc. which editors always stuff of runner-up and third places (when they don't create whole pages of pointless palmarès related to friendly tournaments, see here). IMHO minor trophies (reserve squad championship, lower leagues win, 2nd places, youth titles) shouldn't be part of the club's palmarès. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 14:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

No need for friendlies or derbies, can refer to an article on the Derby in question if it's sufficiently notable. I am definitely an advocate for including runners-up briefly, I was reverted recently for trying to add those as a single line (Runners-up: 13 times or whatever it was) to the Man United honours article, not going to argue the point in that's instance particularly since it is a featured article, but in general I think it's more useful than harmful to mention these very succinctly (definitely not as prominently as wins of course!) as it helps to reinforce the club's strength, even the best can't win everything but if they won a lot and came very close many other times, that demonstrates their consistent strength particularly when the opposition is also strong and there's not many trophies to be won between them. But maybe that's just me, I don't have a 'winning is everything' mentality.Crowsus (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out there was never any consensus to remove friendly tournament trophies from club articles, the consensus previously talked about was for player articles. At the same time I would like to point you all to: List of Real Madrid C.F. honours. Because of the quantity of honours the club has it was expanded to it's own page, the friendly tournaments are listed on it. I see nothing wrong with the page. Govvy (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Some season articles from various teams currently have statto.com references on there but when someone clicks on them, just like what I did just now, tells them that statto is not accessible. This leads me to think that the domain would not qualify to pass WP:RS as the content would not be accessible to verify details on the lead sections of season articles on various clubs. Thanks, Iggy (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Problem with Statto is that it dies a lot, they probably need to update their servers. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Although it was a self-published source, it probably would have become RS in time, because it used Soccerdata's databases, meaning its sources were absolutely reliable, and it was increasingly used by club historians and the media. However, the publisher died last year, according to Tony Brown here.

Anyone who's been using it on current season articles must have just copypasted their sources from the previous season, because it hasn't been up for more than a year. Archive copies exist for some of its pages.

11v11.com does much of what Statto did, and is the website of the Association of Football Statisticians, so is WP:RS: its major failing is that it claims to be complete but isn't. What I hadn't known, which I learnt from the message linked above, is that you can get a league table as of any date from the free-access sections of ENFA.co.uk. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Since F.C. Felgueiras was c&p to FC Felgueiras, i'm requesting histmerge. But another problem emerged. All article of Portuguese football club seem choosing F.C., S.C. instead of without dot counterpart, should i move the page after the histmerge and request unconversational move of category AGAIN (which was moved from F.C. to FC today)? Matthew_hk tc 19:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I've history merged it to the F.C. version as that seems to be the convention for Portuguese clubs. Number 57 19:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Could someone from FOOTY take a look at Glasgow Gladiators Powerchair FC and assess it? It's newly created (possibly by a person or persons connected to the team) and it does not appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It guess might be notable as a "wheelchair football team", but I am not sure if there any specific guidelines for such teams. I did find this, but again I'm not sure if even something such as the Scottish Powerchair Football Association is Wikipedia notable. There's also this and this which may be helpful in showing notability, but which can most likely be used to cite article content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

An editor suggested at WT:RFC that I ask for help here. I'm uncertain how to proceed further with resolving the dispute we have about the club's history. What is the correct course of action? (My first request from July was archived unanswered.) Thanks in advance. Yavorescu (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_110#Regional_flags_at_Spanish_articles and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_113#Community_flags_in_Spanish_women.27s_national_football_team.2C_.23Team_section

I will report to ANI, just to drop a note to anyone willing to join the discussion. Matthew_hk tc 12:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It starts to become funny because @Lagarto-spock: mentions "vandalism" for removing the autonomous flags according to the manual of style. Asturkian (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and undid their revisions. At what point does it become vandalism when they continue to change this? Jay eyem (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi are articles such as List of Albania international footballers born outside Albania apporpirate? There has been a history of deleting them (see 1, 2, 3). Has there any discussion on this WikiTalk concerning the topic? Inter&anthro (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

There’s a difference between the ones that were deleted being “...played for other national teams”, and the ones in question being “...born outside of the national team country”. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say no. GiantSnowman 09:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

As above, no. I can barely tolerate so many categories, never mind listicles too.Koncorde (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it still under AfD! It got deleted and overturned, but the AfD is still on the page, should it be closed as no-consensus? Or is the AfD still active on it? I am confused for sure!! Govvy (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy: yes the AFD is active. It was relisted and restarted due to the deletion review discussion. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

At UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying Group G, in the match Albania v Bulgaria, Duro's goal from free-kick has been credited to Radostin Kishishev as an owngoal. But the UEFA source (which is also used at football box) indicates that Duro is the goalscorer, although the shot took a deflection. Ronaldo scored a similar goal vs Atletico and it was awarded to him. National football teams has credited the goal to Duro aswell. What should we do? IMO we should credit the goal to Duro as it was his shot in the first place. -- Sadsadas, (talk) 1 December 2017, 18:32.

stick to UEFA match report (in PDF format for club, but not sure they published in that format in national game), but not live score of UEFA.com. Matthew_hk tc 00:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Many of you use Article Alerts to get notified of discussions (PRODs and AfD in particular). However, due to our limit resources (one bot coder), not a whole lot of work can be done on Article Alerts to expand and maintain the bot. If the coder gets run over by a bus, then it's quite possible this tool would become unavailable in the future.

There's currently a proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey for the WMF to take over the project, and make it both more robust / less likely to crash / have better support for new features. But one of the main things is that with a full team behind Article Alerts, this could also be ported to other languages!

So if you make use of Article Alerts and want to keep using it and see it ported to other languages, please go and support the proposal. And advertise it to the other football projects in other languages too to let them know this exists, otherwise they might miss out on this feature! Thanks in advance! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The Philippine national football team will participate in a friendly tournament, the CTFA International Tournament this December 2017. The problem is this isn't the "full national team", with the squad comprising of under-22 standouts but this isn't the Olympic or one of the youth teams either since it contains a handful of senior players. The players satisfies the FIFA eligibility rules too to play for the country (all have Filipino heritage, none played for another senior team in a competitive match). The Philippine Football Federation named Marlon Maro as head coach of this national team, only for this tournament. Coach Thomas Dooley remains coach.

The matches involved are listed in the FIFA website but it was pointed out to me that the matches of the Hong Kong Olympic team at the 2010 Long Teng Cup was listed by FIFA. However the PFF itself has explicitly stated that the matches of the national team at the CTFA tournament are Tier 1 "A" international matches. According to FIFA regulations FIFA Regulations, a Tier 1 "A" match involved matches between two "A" teams (or first teams; not youth teams) of its member associations. So how does FIFA treat this Philippine "second" team exactly.?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This report Rappler suggest the squad is technically the senior team with players comprising of players from the lesser clubs playing in the Philippines Football League rather than powerhouse Global, Ceres, etc. The PFF was supposed to send the U22 team but sent the senior team with a different coaching staff.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems as this is indeed a different Filipino team with a different coaching staff, but at the same time many players that were called up such as Yannick Tuason, Phil Younghusband, James Younghusband, Ruben Doctora, Ángel Guirado etc are all well over 22 so this certainly isn't a youth team. On a similar note is the Philippines match against Taiwan today classified as an FIFA-recognized international match? While it means little the game was listed as a "friendly" on soccerway. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This situation is messy, the PFF treats this a game of the senior team but I got engaged in a dispute with FilFootyGuy on my and their talk page if the games of the national team are a "full A international" or not and how to list the head coach of the team in the page. They insists that this is a "B team" and not the "full national side". They argue that the FIFA website for fixtures can be unreliable. (The Hong Kong side which participated in the 2010 Long Teng Cup are a U23 side which FIFA lists). But my argument is that the PFF itself said that the matches are "Tier 1, A" matches. Normally federations would send a youth team or an official "B" team to tournaments in similar cases but the PFF seems to have sent a less powered senior team with a different coaching staff than usual.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Glasgow Gladiators Powerchair FC#Kit images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Football

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 12:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Can't get the Dabsolver to connect to wikipedia (using Chrome) - pops the OAuth authorisation window, but the Authorise button either does nothing or causes the script to fail. Gricehead (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why you are getting those problems. Probably worth asking at WikiProject Disambiguation.— Rod ^talk 13:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be working via the "get credentials" method anyway. Thanks. Gricehead (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.— Rod ^talk 08:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2014–15 A-League National Youth League#Pseudo-headings. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

First of all, there shouldn't be a results section with all fixtures. Kante4 (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute regarding if the 2017 FIFA U-20 World Cup Final should have a separate article. The event is notable in and of itself. and is independently sourced. The article was unilaterally merged at the end of October, with no discussion or debate. The article on its own meets WP:GNG, and is as notable many other football finals. This is a major international tournament final, simply being a youth competition does not detract from it being notable. Sport and politics (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

If the subject of the article passes WP:GNG than it passes WP:GNG, that's all there is to it. However it seems that a lot of the present sources and citations in the article are WP:ROUTINE, the article could benefit from additional citations and expanded content. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There was enough coverage at the time to pass GNG I can't see a problem with it, as for S.A. Julio, he should of discussed it on the talk page instead of deleting and redirect, that sets a bad president! Govvy (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"should have"/"should've" and "precedent", please. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: Insulting me for my bad English? You Trump'ed me there! You're setting a bad President!! Govvy (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Most of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE, and the notability of the match is questionable. Articles for finals of senior tournaments is one thing, but it seems highly unnecessary for youth levels. Any relevant information can be included in the parent article (which is the case for this instance, as most of the content is duplicated). S.A. Julio (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The article passes GNG and therefore passes for having its own article. It is far more than simply routine. There has also not been any showing of how this is only routine. The article stands on its own and passes the inclusion threshold. Sport and politics (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Under-age tournament do not need a seperate article. Kante4 (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Reason please? Sport and politics (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The final does not pass WP:SPORTSEVENT, as a youth tournament is not a top-level competition. Most of the coverage seems fairly routine by the English press on the tournament and their youth team. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It does though pass WP:GNG. Sport and politics (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Also these are equivalent to College bowl games which are specifically mentioned in the WP:SPORTSEVENT criteria. There are no reasons given other than WP:IDONTLIKE, relating to this article. Sport and politics (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we need separate articles for finals of this tournament. In fact I think we have far too many threadbare articles on tournament finals and would like to see the vast majority merged back into the main articles. I also don't think GNG is a killer argument for a separate article – the final is part of the tournament and it could be argued that coverage of the final is simply part of the coverage of the tournament. Number 57 23:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment - per WP:SPORTSEVENT the final of the tournament is considered inherently notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how this meets that criteria, even thought it's incredibly poorly and vaguely worded. Number 57 21:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to say I don't really see how WP:SPORTSEVENT works in favor of keeping the article. Maybe under the fourth bulletpoint, but then what exactly is notable about this match itself? This seems more like a WP:NOPAGE kind of situation. Is there any reason this specific match should be an exception? Jay eyem (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

There a plenty of articles for finals from Super Cup games to the FIFA Cup Final. This is the final of a major sports tournament, and is an international tournament. It received international coverage, and passes GNG. Either there are articles for them all or none. otherwise where is the line drawn? Sport and politics (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say drawing the line at youth competitions seems pretty reasonable, these are not "major" tournaments. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah unless it is otherwise notable in its own right a la the 2009 Republic of Ireland v France football matches I don't see it as necessary to include a separate page for youth tournament cup finals. Plus Super Cups, however pointless they may be, generally only constitute a final which is why they have their own articles. I agree, I'm not sure I would call these "major" tournaments. Jay eyem (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A youth tournament is not a major competition. Kante4 (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Any reasons why it is not notable, other than just a statement that it is not. I fail to see how a super cup game is more inherently notable than a FIFA organised world tournament final. Anyway this article passes GNG. I think a wider discussion on separate final articles is needed. As this has drifted from the original topic. Sport and politics (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, in England it had pretty good coverage on the news due to the fact that England finally won something in football. There is a part of the article Reaction in England. That could easily be expanded on, like we have on film articles and computer games, critical response, or media coverage section. Govvy (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please continue a wider discussion here. Sport and politics (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Should we use CITY, COUNTRY or CITY, STATE, COUNTRY in the infobox for Brazilian players?

For an example, Neymar has Mogi das Cruzes, Brazil (city, country) while Kaká has Gama, DF, Brazil (city, state, country). I've seen some American "soccer" players and they all have the state in their infoboxes. Should we use this default in Brazilian footballers too? All states can be abbreviated (São Paulo is SP, Mato Grosso do Sul is MS and so on). MYS77 ^✉ 14:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the article name is, display that, e.g. put "Macapá" and not "Macapá, Amapá", or put "Rio Branco, Acre". GiantSnowman 15:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

City and country for me. Never got the "state" thing. Kante4 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I have always included the state and believe that is the most helpful approach. There are many cities in both nations that can only be distinguished by state (e.g., Birmingham, Lincoln, Entre Rios, or Vitória). Jogurney (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I would use the two-letter abbreviation for the state as well. These are generally well-known and with a piped wikilink, the reader can easily confirm the state name if they don't immediately recognize the abbreviation. Jogurney (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Never been something I've had to deal with, but I would say it is helpful to include state codes for huge countries like Brazil and USA which have multiples of the same town name, and where the states are well known and defined and have abbreviations which are also used in mnay contexts. Don't think there's any need to include the state/county in smaller countries in Europe, but obviously if it's a multi-use town name the state should be mentioned in the bio for clarification.Crowsus (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that is very reasonable. In both countries, states are prominent (e.g., Brazilian state football competitions have similar importance to the national competitions, and birthplace is often referred to by state rather than city with the exception of large well-known cities). There are also plenty of Brazilian footballers who have common names which incorporate their state of birth (e.g., Juninho Cearense or Marcos Paraná). Jogurney (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I would also say you could drop the country, as it's clear from the fact that "X is a Brazilian footballer". --SuperJew (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to include the state, there is no good reason to abbreviate it. Most people reading these articles have no reason to know the difference between RS, RN and RJ. Hack (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

An unrelated but similar question is why we use Wales, England or Northern Ireland in the infobox place names rather than United Kingdom. Outside of this project, there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus, but articles like Kenneth Branagh do use UK and the constituent nation (Northern Ireland). Jogurney (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Emma Thompson's article skips England completely - preferring London, UK. Jogurney (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I await a more technical answer, but I think it might be to do with the status of the UK home nations in football, where they exist in a much more prominent way than in other areas of life, and it's more important/useful to state than 'UK', while virtually everyone should already know that England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland are in the UK so no real need to include it.Crowsus (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• I, like @Kante4, always preferred the city, country approach. That's why there's a wikilink to the city, if you want to know more you just visit it :) MYS77 ^✉ 16:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem is, some Brazilian cities have their namesake inside Brazil. Matthew_hk tc 18:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe it is better to put the city and state in the case of countries where it fits. Napleabeau (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• So, SuperJew, Crowsus, Napleabeau and Jogurney believe that city, state (piped), country is the best approach. I and Kante4 believe the best way is city, country. GiantSnowman provided a different approach, while Matthew_hk did not tell what is the approach he likes the most. I would say that city, state, country is the winning approach here, should we wait for more inputs? MYS77 ^✉ 23:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe give it until 24 hours since your original post just to give a few more an opportunity to contribute if they were doing other things today? Crowsus (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd personally say city, country. For reoccurring city names, all you'd need to do is click the city once and you'll be able to see which one it is; isn't that the point of linking to it? R96Skinner (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I prefer if it need to tell the difference between two namesake, or the suburb was too "non-notable", sub-country level political unit should be used, and all the time the US place used the state, so did Australia (no one know Acton or Nedlands is, but Acton, ACT or Nedlands, WA would have some sense to other people in Australia. Matthew_hk tc 01:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Late to the party. My preference would be city, piped state, country. In case of cities requiring disambiguation, I should be able to see which city it is without having to click. Adding the state does that, and piping the state makes it neater in my opinion. Gricehead (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The piped business only works with people knowledgeable with the shortcuts. Personally, I would know all of Aussie states shortcuts, maybe about half of American states and that's about it. --SuperJew (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - don't pipe the state. The abbreviations would be meaningless to most people outside Brazil -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Just coming into the discussion, but I think the states should be kept, with exeptions of the obvious (São Paulo, New York City, Rio de Janeiro etc.) especially in big countries there are a lot of names that are frequently used, so using the states/provinces/districts etc. can be helpful. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles must in and of themselves pass the criteria for General Notability, and if the article does that then it warrants an article. This is because if that is passed then an article will survive a deletion discussion, and met the general inclusion criteria to be on Wikipedia. Are there though any circumstances where general notability will not be met, that an tournament final will be inherently notable? Sport and politics (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I think another thing to consider is that separate articles are not necessary when the content could quite easily be included in the tournament article, as the finals are part of the tournament. Realistically, separate articles should only be created when the tournament article exceeds the maximum recommended size. For example, there's no reason as far as I can see (except inertia) that 1998 Football League Cup Final needs to be separated out from 1997–98 Football League Cup; why make the reader click through to another article when the information can be presented in one go. Number 57 13:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I do tend to agree with Number 57, final articles should only be allowed if they had the coverage, critical response from the media. Finals that stand out of the crowd. I have seen a couple of cases in different parts of the football project, I actually feel some of the football hooligan articles should be merged into club pages or into a supporter article's instead of being separate articles. One example is Baby Squad for Leicester , Govvy (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with these sentiments. Just because something is notable enough to be covered by Wikipedia, it shouldn't necessarily follow that it should have its own article, but unfortunately many editors seem obsessed with standalone articles for every person / thing / event / idea for their own sake, regardless of how short, when they could often be put better into context by merging with a broader topic. Jellyman (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree that there's no automatic entitlement for a final to have its own article. It needs the coverage ton justify it. GiantSnowman 15:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:NOPAGE is relevant here. It just isn't necessary for this particular final to have its own page. I personally don't think it meets the fourth bullet point of WP:SPORTSEVENT either. Jay eyem (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I assume this is related to the earlier posting about the youth world cup final. I'm primarily addressing that, but my argument remains for other similar tournaments. Jay eyem (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi all,

I've tried to improve the Chris Woods article that had issues re numerous:-

• unsourced points
• POVs
• long rambling sentence rather than concise shorter sentences

This has led to an edit war from which it seems the other editor:-

• uses a single point of alleged contention to do a block undo of edits to multiple points
• seems determined to make Woods being understudy to Peter Shilton such a significant point that it should be listed in the intro
• wants to remove mention of the Adrian Sprott goal that knocked caused one of the biggest upsets in Scottish Cup history. The goal also brought to an end the 1196 minutes without conceding a goal mentioned in the article
• is removing sources

Is anyone able to help please by taking a calm and sensible look at the article? Any help is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.188.69 (talk • contribs) 7 December 2017 01:34 (UTC)

1. Do you seriously think that the two words "43 cap" are sufficient to sum up his international career?
2. I have restored and re-written the mention of Sprott. Best wishes 92.26.167.46 (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

On the top of the talk page it says it received a peer review which is now archived, but it's redlinked, so I was wondering where the archive is, if someone could fix it. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy: this is the version immediately before the archive message was added by a bot. That gives me the impression that the peer review might not actually have happened? I can't find anything in the archives. Eagleash (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It was located here. Wikipedia:Peer review/APOEL F.C./archive1. Matthew_hk tc 10:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Must have gone right past it somehow! Eagleash (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was interesting in reading it, because I thought Apoel was a decent article when I read it yesterday. Govvy (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note the new talk page discussion, which follows recent edits and my reversions. I imagine this issue has been discussed at great length in the past, but this is a new proposal so I am inviting further discussion on behalf of the IP user. Nzd (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Then there are articles back to 2001, do they all pass NSeason? Is it not overkill of information? Govvy (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

They should be grouped together, per England national football team results (2000–19) etc. GiantSnowman 14:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've seen the English one before, I thought the South Korea setup was overly done. Govvy (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

An IP added "the" the Lede and I accepted the edit. I can't remember whether or not y'all approve of that, and I'm off to bed so I thought I'd leave a message there. I dealth with this on another FC nearly a year ago, so I apologise for forgetting which style is correct. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 03:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

PS Your MOS doesn't mention it. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

FOOTY may or may not, but it's not necessary. Removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Some of them look like they have been ripped straight from Birmingham City website, yet it looks like they passed on an email, but the ticker about the email is behind a password section of wikimedia, I find it odd, because we never use club images like that due to copyright laws. I was wondering how many people have looked into it. Govvy (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The images were approved as per this discussion. LTFC 95 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

What LTFC 95 said. I wish more clubs would release basic profile photos. They're ideal for the many players who have either no infobox image or one that doesn't show what they actually look like. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Never seen that before, it still didn't feel right. How verified was he? Govvy (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons are pretty fussy about licensing. The uploader had to get the copyright holders, which presumably were either the clubs or the shirt sponsors, to send in to Commons, from an email address clearly identifiable as that of the rightsholder, their confirmation that those specific images were free to use and that they understood exactly what free to use meant. If it hadn't been genuine, the rightsholders would have been down on us like a ton of bricks: the odd image may slip by, but three full squads sharing the same shirt sponsor aren't going to go unnoticed... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

k, I guess I leave it at that, interesting that I never noticed it before, Govvy (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice of the clubs to do that. I was in contact with Ipswich about releasing some player photos into the public domain and they claimed they don't own the rights to them... Number 57 15:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Rights technically belong to the photographer - silly of the club not to sort that when getting photos done! GiantSnowman 16:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Smart of the shirt sponsors, too. TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Just as a 'heads up'...

There seems to be an anomaly with the template in that where the N Brown page URL has the player No. of 11 or 12, the template does not seem to work correctly. The code also says 'htm' rather than 'html' and the N Brown page displays differently. Examples are Frank Parsons (English footballer) here and Tom Vansittart here. When changing an EL to the template, we ought to check that it is working correctly. I have notified the editor who created the template... (although it was some time ago they seem to still be active). If anyone can fix the template 'code' would be appreciated. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It isn't all the 11s: see e.g. Bill Blackshaw, whose url does have the html suffix and tabular layout. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No, should have made it clear it doesn't always happen. And it's more often '12' than otherwise. Eagleash (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup, this was highlighted while I was doing an AWB run. I don't think I've broken any other links (apart from the one Eagleash reverted), but I'm checking the others. Given that Struway has noted the extension difference isn't the case for all the 11s/12s, I would suggest that, if possible, something like an "extension=htm" parameter would be the best option. Anyone good at templates? Nzd (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I have received a reply from the template author:-

"... It appears the domain directories player11 & player12 have pages with the .htm extension. If this is the case then supplying the .htm in the ID field will ensure '.html' is not appended. I have updated the template documentation with a third example..."

It looks like it works OK now. Eagleash (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I've had to revert the fix for now as it was causing formatting issues when used as an extlink (removing the bullet even though the asterisk is there in edit mode). I've let the editor know. Nzd (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This has now been fixed so you can now link to pages with the .htm extension per the above advice. Nzd (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

To quote the first line on the page "best male footballer in the world for 2017." I don't think it's a world honour is it? If you always look at the lists it's for players that play in Europe, so shouldn't the first line be "best male footballer in Europe"? Govvy (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Next section says: "The Ballon d'Or is an annual football award presented by France Football. It has been awarded since 1956, although between 2010 and 2015, an agreement was made with FIFA and the award was temporarily merged with the FIFA World Player of the Year, and known as the FIFA Ballon d'Or, but the partnership was ended in 2016 and the award been reversed back to Ballon d'Or while FIFA also renamed its traditional award. Conceived by sports writer Gabriel Hanot, the Ballon d'Or award honours the male player deemed to have performed the best over the previous year, based on voting by football journalists. Originally, only European players were in contention for the Ballon d'Or: in 1995 the award was expanded to include all players at European clubs and in 2007 to all players from around the world" Kante4 (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's been a world award since 2007, see this. GiantSnowman 16:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought when it split back from FIFA it was Europe only. Hmm, well, it had clubs only from Europe for 2017, there seems a few irregularities on the page, such as, Stating 32 nominees, only listing 30, none from clubs outside of Europe. Govvy (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That's because none of the players outside Europe are in the top 30 in the world. – PeeJay 22:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking for some sleuthing help here. This afternoon I've removed information from Victor Mendy that stated he played in a friendly for Senegal against Iran on 1 April 2009. There was no inline source to the statement, however it was present in the infobox with approriate timestamp update, suggesting this isn't pure vandalism of the normal kind. It's also present in fr.wiki.

There is no reference to Victor in the national-football-teams.com entry for the game in question , but in the External links section of the article is a link to Victor's (now dead) personal site. In a 2009 archive of that site it is discussed (in French) that he played 80 minutes of the match.

The national-football-teams site references Frédéric Mendy (footballer, born 1981) as starting and playing 68 minutes, so there's a possibility of a mistake there.

I understand that we should accept a WP:RS such as national-football-teams over a primary source such as victormendy.com, hence the removal, but has anyone got access to other sources on this matter? I'm happy to put the information back if so. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Soccerway says it was Frederic Mendy. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Soccerway is a reliable source, but sometimes they make mistake. I sent some link to the primary source of CBF match report, they are happy to correct it. I am not suggesting Soccerway was wrong again this time, but may be the availability of the third source , would make it 2:13:0, would be better. The "primary source" of footballer website did not count. Sometimes the url is the real name of the footballer, but the owner is not. Anyway , for primary source, or set up by impersonator, is not quite reliable as other secondary source. Matthew_hk tc 18:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC) fixed typo 01:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, Metz may announced the players with international duty and their performance. It may be used as source despite in between primary and secondary source. Matthew_hk tc 18:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

RSSSF have Frederic. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone with rollback rights undo the edits made at Kyle Fisher? Thanks! Jay eyem (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ 🙂 Robby.is.on (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jay eyem: If you use Twinkle you can roll back without the need for additional rights. Nzd (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Good to know, cheers! Jay eyem (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking for opinions at Talk:UAE Arabian Gulf League, thanks.--Bijanii (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've initiated a discussion about conflicting sources on Owen Coyle's birthplace here. Jellyman (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Could a moderator please review the recent move of the Gulf Cup of Nations article as well as each edition's article by User:Hashim-afc? Thank you.--Bijanii (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bijanii: Hi Bijanii. All official sources state the name as Arabian Gulf Cup (Arabic: كأس الخليج العربي, Kass Al-Khaleej Al-Arabi) or the shortened form Gulf Cup. Zero official sources state it as Gulf Cup of Nations. Only some English news websites do this, likely due to the fact that it was the name on Wikipedia. Not even Arabic news sites uses this name.^[1][2] The official sources I am talking about are the official Gulf Cup website,^[3], the official AGCFF Twitter page,^[4], the official logo of the tournament has "Arabian Gulf Cup" written in both Arabic and English.^[5] Furthermore, the full name of the AGCFF (organisers of tournament) is "إتحاد كأس الخليج العربي لكرة القدم‎", the 'AGC' part of their name in bold is Arabian Gulf Cup. So it is quite clear that this is the competition's official name. As for the individual seasons, the Gulf Cup seasons are named in numbers, similar to the UFC or Wrestlemania numbering each edition. The sources for this are plentiful, the official Gulf Cup website,^[6], the official AGCFF Twitter,^[7] and many many Arab news sites such as: ^{[8][9][10][11][12][13]}. And also the tournament's logo. As said before, no official source calls it Gulf Cup of Nations, only some English news sites. Hope I explained clearly. Hashim-afc (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Should List of English football transfers winter 2017–18 and the other list of winter transfers be started up yet? The January transfer window in European football is pretty close to being started up again. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't see why not, if there was project sandbox start it there, do we even have a project page sandbox? Govvy (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

If there is deal also signed and waiting to be effective on 1 January 2018 (for international) and ? (for domestic), why not? The only thing may need to sort out was , may be avoiding the word "winter". The list will be fine in WP:RS by the existence of BBC and Sky. Matthew_hk tc 14:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

If anyone's looking for something to do (ha!), I've just posted a list of articles that need attention within Category:English footballers to the England task force talk page. All are currently very basic stubs. Many have had content removed as unreferenced, which could be retrieved from the edit history if appropriate references are found. Others were created as one-line stubs in the first place and have had no attention since. Cross-posting here as I'm not sure how many have that page watchlisted. Nzd (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The name change request for the Talk:UAE Arabian Gulf League has been reopened.--Bijanii (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I want to know whether a manager's stint as an assistant manager should be included in the infobox of the article of the manager (as in case of Julio Bañuelos)? RRD (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, it usually is. See for example: David Bettoni, Joan Barbarà, and Steve Bould. --SuperJew (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I usually remove youth/assistant. Maybe need discussion? Kante4 (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It certainly does need discussion. The infobox instructions state: "Please do not list positions other than team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career", which is hopelessly vague and subjective. I'd prefer not to include them at all, as it would lead to some boxes becoming ridiculously bloated. An infobox is for key information; stuff about jobs as a youth coach or whatever can be kept for the article body. Jellyman (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup, and we had a "discussion" before somewhere but i don't know if anyone participated or the result. -.- But you are correct, some boxes would be full. Just manager of the first team and that's it. No youth/assistant. Kante4 (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

In Germany for example, also second teams can play in a fully professional league (3. Liga), so I would add the managerial position of such teams also to the list, but I would also exclude youth teams. --Jaellee (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the same principle as for players — we include reserve teams stats in the infobox for those countries where reserve teams play in the senior league, but not those in purely reserve / youth competitions. Jellyman (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think assistant roles are important enough to be included. Is that infobox instructions based on any consensus anyway?-BlameRuiner (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jellyman: We do list youth teams and years for players, just not the caps+goals. --SuperJew (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I was referring to the circumstances in which we include them in the main career bit, apologies for being unclear. Jellyman (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Some of these players end up as coaches at a club, but not a big role, I remove them from that slot on infoboxes, the other one that annoys me is some people putting the sporting director of a club in the manager position in the infobox. I will remove that also. Govvy (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

In Talk:Harry Roberts (footballer, born 1906)#Data there is a hint to wrong data of life. -- Jesi (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Should we be using it? Often I have realised they use 175cm as a default placement for the height of football players, when often this can be incorrect for the actual height of the player. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I have searched a few random players which height details are different from the 175, on Toby Alderweireld, the Spurs reference and the premierleague.com one show different results. And Leon Britton's height on the premierleague.com appears to be a few cms taller than the Swansea Official website. I am not sure if premierleague.com would be WP:RS as if we have 175cm as a default placement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iggy the Swan (talk • contribs) 2017-12-16T13:47:12 (UTC)

Nobody else interested in this problem? Govvy (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If there are such issues, then we should not use it. Plenty of alternative sources out there for heights (Soccerway tends to be good). GiantSnowman 12:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The SFA have updated their website. The numeric codes don't seem to have been changed, but the links have been shortened from old format to new format. Not sure how to fix this at Template:SFA player/doc. The good news is that we can use the template for players with other squads (youth, women) as the base format is the same, with just the numeric code changing (e.g. Gemma Fay). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed Our template has now been updated. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Updated manager statistics, but won't let me change amount of matches played. Put in new Win/Draw/Loss/Percentage. can't change the amount of matches played Any help? Cheesy McGee (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Cheesy McGee, 19 Dec 2017Cheesy McGee (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure i understand what you want but what about Template:WDL? Kante4 (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The number of matches played are calculated based on the number of wins, draws and losses. So you don't need to enter in the number of matches played. Exxy (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Are all the managerial statistics tables on the Jupp Heynckes article necessary? Typically, most managers have one table summarising their managerial record. I don't recall any other managers with such detailed statistics on their articles, having 14 different tables seems excessive and like a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Pinging Crowsus, who left a message on the talk page regarding this as well, and Kingjeff, who added the tables. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

One table and that's it. That is too much. Kante4 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not needed, defintely WP:NOTSTATS. One table only for managers. GiantSnowman 19:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Heh, I can't even remember adding that, only two months ago as well. From the timestamp, looks like it was a quiet moment at work about 6am so obviously not fully awake. Anyway, I do think it's a valid point. The 'two spells table' in particular is just a copy of what's above, doesn't add anything new at all, let alone excessive statistics.Crowsus (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a note: I removed the ones i could find. Kante4 (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Every time there's been a request to move Inter Milan to another location, usually to Internazionale, but occasionally to F.C. Internazionale Milano or FC Internazionale Milano. Now I have an editor claiming that we can pipe to the title we have agreed is not the common name in English. I would like to run AWB to remove any possible piping and leave only Inter Milan. I'm not wearing my flame resistant shorts, so be kind. Ping me when the discussion ends or if there's a direct question to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I would support renaming per every other club article (including Italian ones), but most particularly the precedent at Sporting CP. If we used "common names" on football clubs, then the article titles for every other club are wrong. Nzd (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever suggested moving Inter Milan to Internazionale, and if that's what you think, I can perhaps see why you've always !voted against the move. Regardless, as long as the link goes to the right place and the pipe doesn't leave the link looking like an Easter egg, I don't see any problem with piping to Internazionale or any other title. – PeeJay 14:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You could be correct. The page was previously nominated to be moved.

• RM, F.C. Internazionale Milano → Inter Milan, No consensus, 7 March 2012, Talk:Inter Milan/Archive 1#Requested move
• RM, F.C. Internazionale Milano → Inter Milan, Moved, 14 June 2012, Talk:Inter Milan/Archive 1#Requested Move: F.C. Internazionale Milano → Inter Milan
• RM, Inter Milan → F.C. Internazionale Milano, Not moved, 8 March 2013, Talk:Inter Milan/Archive 2#Requested move 3
• RM, Inter Milan → F.C. Internazionale Milano, Not moved, 12 January 2015, Talk:Inter Milan/Archive 3#Requested move 12 January 2015
• RM, Inter Milan → F.C. Internazionale Milano, Not moved, 13 July 2015, Talk:Inter_Milan/Archive_3#Requested_move_5_July_2015

But the request remains and the common name has been upheld every time. We don't pipe endonums of other foreign-language clubs, why this one (or other Italian clubs as listed above). I'd be happy to apply the unpiped exonym as requested above. I don't understand why we occasionally allow endonyms for some clubs and not others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Inter Milan is a title that falls within the guidelines of common names for article titles. The Sporting CP consensus was that this article title is the common name. So, indeed the articles for every other football club are currently wrong.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it should remain Inter Milan per COMMONNAME guidelines and the others redirecting. Govvy (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I think a lot of editors fail to understand that WP:COMMONNAME is only one of the five article title conventions and not one that overrides all others. "Inter Milan" is contrary to WP:CONSISTENCY, as virtually all other football club articles consist of the clubs' proper name with initials (see the contents of Category:Football clubs in Italy), so the current title is out of sync with our de facto naming convention for football clubs. Number 57 17:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Well that and a lot of news services just use Internazionale. Govvy (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Well a lot of news services use Bayern München on occasion as well. So if we're saying it's OK to use endonyms over exonyms, I'm all behind correcting that glaring error instead of the Inter Milan piping. Which shall it be? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There isn't a FOOTY guideline for article titles. No proper discussion either. What does exist is the Wikipedia guideline on article titles, which in a nutshell states: "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent". Imposing the institutional titles of football clubs is not recognizable, not natural, and certainly not concise. Precision is also debatable as many of these institutions are actually sports clubs, not just football clubs. Particularly in those cases, it would make more sense to have the common name redirect to the well-known sports team of that club (such as the football team), while the longer (more formal) title would be reserved for the club as a multi-sports institution. As for consistency, that sole point cannot override the other four points that the common name guide clearly supports.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 20:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR: If this is such a consistent issue and interpretations differ, then perhaps we should develop a FOOTY guideline on article titles.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 20:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty much only an issue with this one club (and has become something of a sore point because it stands out). Otherwise we virtually always use the proper name of clubs. It's not a formalised naming convention (I'm not sure there's any point for such a specific subset of articles), but it's a de facto one given how long titles have been set this way (well over a decade) and the uniformity of its implementation. Number 57 20:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget Boca Juniors, which was moved from CA Boca Juniors a while back. Also, we have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams), which was drawn up a while back for this exact reason. – PeeJay 22:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

For the consistency. Sporting CP was the only team in the cat without dot. But it look more serious in Inter Milan that without F.C.. For the guideline, Inter Milan certainly fall in the part "widely use in the English media", which in that case , I would understand why Red Star is used, instead of the transliteration of non-Latin character (but Italian language use Latin). Inter Milan was a spacial case that it was a short name and the only one with translation to English, other Italian club retained that full name even Mantova, Sudtirol, Padova, Venezia had their city in different English spelling. Did "F.C. Internazionale Milano" confuse people to NOT recognize it as "Inter Milan"? May be not, but even move the namespace back to F.C. Internazionale Milano, piping to "Internazionale" or "Inter Milan", may be the real problem. The current argument was piped to "Internazionale" or unpipe it, to me both way is ok, as there is no other club recognisable as "Internazionale" (except Inter, Internacional), just like Sporting CP, seem there is no need to call it Sporting Lisbon to make it "the Sporting", but just Sporting is sufficient. However, by abuse of Google hit to support the argument, certainly "Inter Milan" was widely used. Matthew_hk tc 00:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Goal.com use Inter and Internazionale, espn used Inter Milan and Internazionale interchangeably. Thus starting an edit war on the piping thing, seem unnecessary. Matthew_hk tc 02:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @MarshalN20: that there should be a guideline for club names and piping. It wouldn't hurt to codify the national representation rules there as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Walter Görlitz. The presented sports teams naming convention still leaves gaps and inconsistencies. For example, should Atlético Madrid and Alianza Lima have the "Club" in front of their names, since that is the "official name"? Why is the de excluded from the Atlético title? Also, why does the prefix in FC Barcelona have no periods, but the suffix in Barcelona S.C. does have periods? I also continue considering that multi-sports clubs remain a complicated subject. How can we properly create an encyclopedia entry of FC Barcelona as a multi-sports institution? There's even a table within that article which indicates the "Active departments of FC Barcelona". However, the FC Barcelona article is only about the football club, and not about FC Barcelona as a multi-sports club. This seriously needs to be clarified and resolved.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

In relation to multi-sport clubs, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies. There's nothing stopping us having an article on the sports club as a whole, but it does not need to be at the primary location. GiantSnowman 15:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: PRIMARY relates to content in articles, not the naming of them. WP:COMMONNAME applies to the naming of articles, but I think the underlying point is the same: "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)." However, the issue is that if we are using the COMMONNAME that PRIMARY sources provide for articles, why in the world would we allow alternate names to be piped in at a later time? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I think User:GiantSnowman may have meant WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. – PeeJay 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I did indeed, thanks @PeeJay2K3: - I've edited accordingly. GiantSnowman 16:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

For the codify thing. It was in fact had a de facto coding in each league for the namespace, La Liga used common name instead of full name (except the expansion of abb. A.C., C.D., F.C.), so it was Deportivo de La Coruña (without club) and Atlético Madrid (without "de" and "Club"). May be there is some doubt to drop C.F. from Real Madrid or not from the namespace, but certainly keep in F.C. Barcelona, and drop it when piping.

For Serie A and Italian club, except i can't find source to support the abb. of the "B.C." in Atalanta B.C., all club except Inter Milan, were the full name that common abb. F.C., A.C., F.B.C., A.S., S.S. (that FIGC had its own document to specify the coding, such as the meaning of "Pol." came from) were not expanded. For consistency, Inter Milan should belongs to F.C. Internazionale Milano, and pipe to Inter Milan or even Internazionale, Inter (the common names) depends on the nationality of the footballer. (some Uruguayan footballer were piped to River Plate only for the Montevideo club, as well as Nacional)

For other league, U.D. Leiria was preferred but often piped to União de Leiria, so did Vitória S.C. and Vitória F.C.. The inconsistency were CP and FC (without dot) for FC Porto and Sporting CP, so what "coding" actually the project want to form , when the last two move were supported by the member? May be all common name and inferior to consistency? Matthew_hk tc 06:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Came across this the other night – a few of this season's non-league Scottish football articles are having content removed by IPs, due to them not being updated or correct. Just a heads up for vigilance from the project. Regards, Craig(talk) 20:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Arabian Gulf Cup#Name change regarding the name of the competition (Arabian Gulf Cup versus Gulf Cup of Nations); additional input from interested editors would be helpful. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am very new to Wikipedia editing and new to the whole process. So far any updates I have made to pages have not been challenged, or have been quickly resolved.. up to now. I have a disagreement with an established wiki editor Number57. I can see his impact and valuable work across numerous club Wiki pages. In particular I can see how he has been largely responsible for several Wiki pages of Southern Combination League teams, e.g. Arundel and Lancing. There are others that do not follow his editing style, e.g. Eastbourne Town. This is fine (of course) however I notice one area of clear discrepancy between his opinion and most others, an area that we cannot agree upon.

It concerns how to record honours when a league and/or division has changed name. It is not a new league, just a rebranding. What I usually see for non-league club is the honour described using the title it had when it was won. However, on the pages such Arundel, the editor Number57 does not use this convention. From 1920 to 2015, there existed the Sussex County League. From 1983, it had three divisions - One, Two and Three. From 2015, the league was renamed the Southern Combination League, and the three divisions correspondingly rebranded Premier Division, Division One and Division Two. These changes are simply relabelling, both of us agree with this.

However, Arundel won the Sussex County League Division One in 1957–58, 1958–59, 1986–87, plus the Sussex County League Division Cup in 1976-77. That is mentioned in their club history section on its Wiki page. However, Number57 has chosen to describe these honours as Southern Combination honours which I strongly disagree with for two reasons. 1. The Southern Combination name only came into existence from 2015-16. Arundel won the Sussex County League (Division One). 2. Although they have been transcribed from Sussex County League to Southern Combination League honours, the division names have not been similarly updated.

Surely, they must be written as Southern Combination Premier league champions (using today's names) or written in the old names of Sussex County League Division One champions. What is currently written in neither one or the other.

My preference is to retain the original league and division names (as for Eastbourne Town, and teams from the South Eastern Counties league, e.g. Whitstable, where their honours are still listed as the Kent League). I suspect the Arundel programme would mention that the club won the Sussex County League.

Sorry if you all think this point is trivial. However, from scanning dozens of Wiki pages for football clubs, I only see the style of (half) converting the honours on pages highly influenced by Number57. We are not going to agree on this point so as advised I have written to the wider community. Although a novice, the lack of consistency bugs me across the various pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.205.61 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The TL:DR version of this is: If a league changes name, should the league be listed under its current or former name in the Honours section in club articles if the club is still in said league. This has come up at Arundel F.C. – the club are currently members of the Southern Combination, which was formerly called the Sussex County League. The honours were won at the time the league was under the former name. IMO as the club are still in the same league, it should be listed as Southern Combination to avoid confusing readers. The IP obviously holds the opposite view.

As far as I'm aware this has sort of been discussed before, but concerning instances when honours were won under both names (in which case I believe consensus was to use the modern name) or where the club has since left the league (again I think it was agreed to refer to the name at the time). I'm not sure there is any clarify over what happens when the club is still in the same league. Number 57 17:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I would lean to the old name, but it's tricky. Can't we just put both names in there with a "/"? Kante4 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the brief summary of my point! The issue with putting both names in there with a / is more complicated since the name of the division has changed as the same time as that of the league. So if you write Southern Combination / Sussex County League, their corresponding division names would be Premier Division / Division One. One of my main points is that as currently written, the honour reads Southern Combination - Division One which is undeniably incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.205.61 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

i.e. the honour must be Sussex County League - Division One (original title when won), or if you DO decide to use the new name, the honour must be Southern Combination - Premier Division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.205.61 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If I saw a Sussex team having won the Southern Combination 50 years ago, I'd assume it meant the Southern Counties Combination... See Southern Combination Challenge Cup and other competitions mentioned in that article.

I have no knowledge of any consensus to use historically inaccurate names, or for the name used to depend on the club's current status. At first glance, neither sounds particularly likely. Using the historically accurate name for a competition as we do in prose, or as we do when listing clubs in historical league tables, would be internally consistent, and would make sense to me (not that that counts for much).

If there's potential for confusion, clarify. Add a bracketed (level 2) for Football League Second Division/Football League Division One/Football League Championship/EFL Championship, or a bracketed (renamed Southern Combination Premier Division in 2015), or wikilink to the current name.

I've indented the anon's post: you do that by adding colons before the text, one more than used in the previous post. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on indentation. Having done more scanning of Wikipedia, I have seen that the convention of using the modern name for a league and then applying that retrospectively is essentially only used by Number 57. (I also see that Number 57 is a prolific editor of Wiki football club pages which makes me cautious to discuss his influence critically). About 50% of the Southern Combination Premier team's pages use the 'Number 57' approach, plus a couple in the Southern Counties East League - Canterbury and Erith - which have also been edited by Number 57. He has been using this approach for years it seems so I guess he was not happy to change it when I mentioned it. However, it means that the pages are clearly different depending on whether or not he has significantly influenced them. Sorry, I am not trying to be provocative, it just does not make sense to impose modern names retrospectively in the way he has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.205.61 (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue with using the old name if the team is still in the same league is that there is potential to cause confusion for the reader when they compare the introduction and the honours section. And doing so would also create inconsistency with clubs that have won the league under the current name or both names – e.g. Greenwich Borough F.C. who won the same league under the names Kent League and the Southern Counties East League. If consensus is against my view, I have no problem going through articles and renaming the honours where they haven't been won under the current name. However, it seems a bit silly to do so if it's only going to be changed back again when the club wins an honour under the league's modern name. Number 57 19:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point about grouping together honours won under different names that are, in reality, the same honour. The Greenwich Borough is a good example, I agree. However, in that case I would use the "/" approach suggested earlier in this thread and seen at the Portsmouth F.C page, under their honours section. The football league clubs (in the top four tiers) have pages that use this approach well. As the Arundel page currently stands, one can read the honours as Southern Combination - Division One. This is totally incorrect, they won the Sussex County League Division One, or if you want to convert to the modern name, Southern Combination - Premier Division. My suggestion would be one of the following:

1. Use only the names of honours at the time they were won, which in the Greenwich case would have the Kent League honour listed separately from the Southern Counties East league title.

OR

2. Combine the old and new league/division names as for the Portsmouth F.C page.

In any case, until you get the scenario that a club has won the same honour under different names, I would only use the original name. Then you could combine honours for teams like Greenwich as displayed on the Portsmouth page.

A final point tonight, the 2017 Non-League Directory entry for Greenwich Borough lists their honours including Kent League 1986-87, 1987-88, Southern Counties East League 2015-16. This remains the conventional way of summarising honours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.205.61 (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I know I am a newcomer to Wiki editing (don't even have a username) but I am most certainly not a newcomer to non-league football, and can match Number 57's two degrees. So far my experience of Wiki editing is as follows. I add or correct content on a site 'moderated' by Number 57, he promptly undoes my work. If I complain and change it back, I have instigated an editing war and will get blocked. So, I take my argument to this area as recommended. I then argue for FACTS, i.e. Arundel won the Sussex County League Division One in 1957-58 - a fact supported by the Non-League Directory, the highly regarded site http://www.fchd.info/ and the actual Arundel website. However, since Number 57 wrote his 'fact' first - not supported anywhere on the web - his opinion usurps facts backed up with references. It is not the first time he has promptly removed information from a club Wiki page which I also referenced accurately from the club's website. So my conclusion is that writing your information first, and/or being established Wiki author (with possibly some friends in the moderation circles) usurps facts referenced from highly regarded sources. This is not a case of Number 57's information superseding mine, but a undeniable case of his information usurping actual facts. If this is how Wiki works, don't worry I will stay well away of trying to correct the significant number of errors I see across football club Wiki pages (e.g. the history pages on some Wiki pages being vastly different from those on the actual club website). It is clear how things work round here, not much more than a kangaroo court. At least now I know that no information on Wikipedia football club pages can be trusted unless it directly links to a clearly reliable reference. Otherwise, it is just the subjective opinion of the person who entered it first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.56.171 (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

For clarification, I removed a reference that the IP added from this page on the club website, which is simply lifted wholesale from the history section of the Arundel F.C. article with a single sentence added regarding the 2013 flood. As a result, it is not an acceptable reference. Number 57 14:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am still waiting for you to provide a reference that states that Arundel won the Southern Combination Division One in 1957-58. Things should work both ways if this page is truly collaborative, which it is not. You are basically Qc'ing your own work on dozens of Wiki football club pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.56.171 (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I personally don't think it's appropriate for us to use the new name for the league unless the team has won it again since the renaming. For example, Shakhtar Donetsk have won the UEFA Cup, but they've never won the Europa League, so it wouldn't be right to refer to that competition as the Europa League in their honours list. – PeeJay 22:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with PeeJay. I'd favour using the name as it was when they last won it, grouping previous incarnations, but adding a footnote along the lines of "the competition was known as xx between 19xx–19xx and xx between 19xx–19xx. It is now known as xx" Nzd (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello there,

@Quidster4040: has added Melvin Smith's retroactive national soccer champions from 1858 to 1904 to the {{NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Champion navbox}}. Smith himself says that the first intercollegiate soccer game was in 1905, so why Smith thinks it right to name 50 national champions before that date is perplexing. No big deal I guess, but the Princeton, Rutgers, and Yale teams from 1869 onward are considered American football teams, not Association football teams. So at least 8 teams in this template not only are redlinks, they did not exist in real life either. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, @Mnnlaxer: his research varies, but my sources was based on this article of his from 2011, where he described this pre-regulation of the game of early college soccer adopted by London Football Association codes (association football), where he says "he kicking game of foot-ball became known as the association game when American colleges began to use the London Football Association code written in 1863. No carrying of the ball was allowed. By the end of 1905, many big city American newspapers began to use the term ‘socker’, or ‘soccer’ for association football game descriptions.". That's why I went ahead and added the champions of the year prior to ISFA/ISFL, but I'm willing to bet since there was a lot of muddled history with rugby, soccer and American football much older records overlap. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I saw that page, but there is still the question as to why Smith did list those teams, and whether listing Princeton's 1870's teams as national soccer champs in the template is the right choice. I leave the second question up to this project to decide. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mnnlaxer: one option I suppose is since there is only scattered information is that they can just be a section for college soccer champions in the List of American and Canadian soccer champions or, if that list is getting too long, creating a new list specifically for college soccer and variations of association football prior to ISFA regulations. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion, I hope other project members chime in. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this appropriate? Examples are Joe Cockroft and John Brown (footballer, born 1915). It doesn't seem to be common practice to include these clubs in infoboxes. Nzd (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It looks a bit odd with our rules because they will have never played an official league match during their wartime guest spell(s), but these were legitimate moves. More flexibility was given in the transfer system because players would be primarily serving in military functions, and would be moved around the UK a lot. They would then play as a guest for a club local to that posting. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. No, these aren't official matches of the national leagues, but they were organised league competitions of a sort and we do include non-League stats etc. when we have them available, so I think there is a case for their inclusion. I agree that their use at present is very inconsistent, so some consensus would be nice. Jellyman (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they should be included in the infobox. GiantSnowman 12:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input guys. I had been leaning the other way on the basis that they wouldn't have been registered to any of those clubs, but I suppose it does make sense to include other clubs that they are known to have played for. I do see some consequences if this is going to be put into effect though.

• Including wartime guest appearances is not currently the norm. There probably are others but the two articles I linked to above are the only ones I've come across. So there's quite a lot of work there.
• Most of the information we have about wartime guest appearances is vague mentions. We don't generally have any stats (and where we do they are almost certainly incomplete). We'd probably have to include a note on the entries to that effect.
• Given the above, we wouldn't be able to order the entries chronologically. Also, a lot of players would have played for more than one club at the same time (Peter Doherty for instance), so an alphabetical list is probably the way to go unless we have something else to go on.

These aren't reasons for not following through, but I thought they were worth noting. While I'm on the subject, I've actually been thinking of creating an article about this. If anyone has any decent sources they can suggest, please pass them on. Nzd (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the decision, it should be consistent across the whole project. Unlike the inconsistencies displayed at Stan Mortensen and Stanley Matthews !! RossRSmith (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Are there any Admins about that can semi-protect Cenk Tosun. Everton transfer rumours! Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It would be good to have some more input for a proposal to delete the articles on all the top division seasons in Bahrain. Cheers, Number 57 16:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

36.66.232.210 (talk · contribs) appears to have vandalized a lot of Indonesian football team articles back in March. I've reverted on PPSM Kartika Nusantara but there are probably a lot more than need looking at, and Indonesian football isn't a topic I know anything about. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Felipe Melo was attacked by dozen of IP from Indonesia due to a transfer rumour, plus probably a proxy/VPN that hosted in an (probably) static IP by HK ISP WTT HK, seem it was unpatroled for Indonesia football. Probably there is more hoax by different IP. Matthew_hk tc 13:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

And again Vincenzo Montella was vandalized by an Indonesian ip. Matthew_hk tc 17:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on the consensus by moderators on Talk:UAE Arabian Gulf League, it would be nice if we could have consistency with using unsponsored tournament names for the UAE Pro-League. The UAE League Cup and UAE Super Cup should also be restored accordingly, thank you.--Bijanii (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This goes to the heart of the persistent renaming of the League Cup. I don't care who sponsors it. The cup is the League Cup. Koncorde (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I've suggested taking the UAE Arabian Gulf League RM to WP:Move review as I think it was quite clearly closed in error. Number 57 13:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The article name should not include sponsors, but that move request has canvass issuses and so many people were canvassed into !voting there, so that discussion is not very fair. I suggest move request should be held again a few months later. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on whether or not player retirements count as transfers? I'm talking about pages like List of Spanish football transfers summer 2016 and List of German football transfers summer 2017 as examples, but I've also looked through some English and Italian pages and didn't find retirements counted. Jay eyem (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn’t add retirements to those lists. However, I would list them in club season articles (e.g. Ryan Giggs’ listing in 2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season). – PeeJay 19:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I personally, usually added them. They are not technically a transfer but they are a change in the squad, But I dont know honestly what the consensus about this is, or even if there is one. FkpCascais (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Technically, a retirement is the same thing as club releasing a player as a free agent. I agree with FkpCascais that they should count. Some older players often spend a summer (or winter) waiting for a good contract and may or may not retire depending on offers received. What do you do if a player decided to retire retroactively after failing to find a club? Go back and remove him from list of transfers? It makes no sense at all. --BlameRuiner (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I also have a similar question about players being transferred to "Unattached" as a way of stating that they've just been released on a free transfer. I've seen that on a few articles as well, and I'm not a big fan of that. Curious to know what that consensus is as well. Thanks for the responses so far. Jay eyem (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay. Don't think retirement should be counted as a transfer. Entirely different - one means career finished, the other going from one club to another in continuation of career. RossRSmith (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Retirements are counted in summary reports of transfer activity that I use, e.g. Keith Lasley in this summer 2017 Scottish Premiership list compiled by the BBC (he retired as a Motherwell player and became their assistant manager). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps it is the heading or terminology which needs to be changed. Two bank managers who have a change in their status would not be listed under same summary heading if one retired from work, and the other transferred to a branch in another city, would they ? RossRSmith (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

They are not transfers in the same way that most people would immediately associate (I.e. between two teams). I can understand them being marked on a team season as released to free agency, but on a list of transfers the argument is less sound. Koncorde (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Going back to first principles, what do we mean by a "transfer"? Each player is registered with the national FA, and that registration is transferred if he moves to another club (or returned to the FA if released). If a player retires, the registration is cancelled, in the same way as if he is released. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say it's not a transfer unless there's a club in the "To" column, so really it should just be a list of signings. Releases and retirements aren't transfers by any typical definition I've heard. – PeeJay 14:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

For the purposes of these lists, I have always counted them as transfers, mostly because the sources I was working from also did. Retirements and releases are generally included in the Bundesliga's official list of transfers, and kicker's transferticker. The value of these lists, including ours, is in tracking squad changes. The vast majority of these are going to be transfers in the habitual sense of the word, hence the title, but other squad changes are also in the scope of these lists when consider their purpose. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems the main focus of this discussion is the meaning of the word "transfer". The main question which should be asked is what is the point of the list? As I understand, and which seems supported by editor's comments here and by similar lists in the media, the list is to centralize the changes to squad lists during the transfer windows. Is it technically a "transfer"? Honestly, not to fussed. If someone is really concerned by it, imo the more correct way to go is to suggest renaming the page to something like "Changes to squad lists". --SuperJew (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

To my mind, the purpose of these lists is not to record all transactions made by clubs, but simply to provide a list of signings during a period with the ability to sort numerically by date and fee, and alphabetically by player and club names. If people want a club-by-club list of transfers, I would advise them to go to the club's season article for the relevant period. – PeeJay 19:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Jay eyem, For Italian list, as the creator and contributor of several editions of the list (i did not edit recent editions much), i could tell "retirement" was excluded, just due to setting a narrower scope to limit the length of the list, (the original scope with transfer that involved the first team of either Serie A or B; so loanee from Serie A clubs to Serie C, that never played for the first team of their mother club, were all excluded, not sure the current creator had picked up that scope or not). Technically, retirement is an entry of "out" section, so did free agent (in the older formatting, the list was broke down into club as level 2, and in and out as level 3 titles/subsection), but it would make the list very long. Matthew_hk tc 18:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I think transfer should include both out and in, but retirement is only out. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I do a lot of editing on the 2017–18 New Zealand Football Championship article. A recent game between Auckland City and Tasman United has been overturned because of Auckland fielding an ineligible player . The original result was a 3-1 win to Auckland so will change to 3-0 to Tasman. I'm ok changing the table, league positions etc but am wondering how I record it for the match? Just change it too 3-0 or keep the original goal scorers and have an update some how? I'd like to do this myself so I can learn how to do it, so if you have an example I can use/copy off, that would be great. Also what happens about leading goal scorers? An Auckland player scored twice in the match and was equal top scorer in the league, does he forfeit those goals as well? Thanks in advance for your help for me to make these edits myself. NZFC^(talk) 01:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

From a stats point of view the original game didn't happen, so the result would be voided and goals scored would not count in player totals. 1999–2000 Football League Cup#Quarter-finals might help. The West Ham v Aston Villa game was actually replayed, but the principle is the same (the original game was voided because of an ineligible player), and the scorers in the first game (Ian Taylor, Frank Lampard, Dion Dublin and Paolo Di Canio) had their goals struck from the record. Nzd (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

For WP:NOTABILITY purposes: is the Nigerian Professional Football League notable/fully professional? If not, this article must be erased as he played no competitive games for Kilmarnock, am I correct in this assumption?

Also, neither NFT.com nor SOCCERWAY.com show any NPL appearances, I am just assuming the player has had a number of them due to his age and his international status, I have no solid proof other than this "hunch".

Attentively, happy 2018 --Quite A Character (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Quite A Character Yes, it's listed on WP:FPL as fully professional. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't think being a full Nigeria international might make him notable, then? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

What a screwup User:Struway2 from my part, indeed :( --Quite A Character (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Why was this article blocked from editing until October 2019 by User:Samsara? Looking at the edit history, there was some low-scale vandalism last October, but hardly enough to effectively block all edits by unregistered users for the foreseeable future. Is it possible to have the block removed? If this is some policy, surely it should apply to all Premiership clubs. 78.147.171.154 (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you'll find all clubs in the Premiership have semi-restrictions on them to only allow edits from auto-confirmed users. This is to stop random one of IP users vandalising the articles. You'll find you will be able to edit the articles once you have either made 10 edits or been on here for four days. NZFC^(talk) 11:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

NZ Footballs Conscience IP addresses can't become confirmed, so can never edit semi-protected articles. But the IP can create an account, then they'll be able to edit after 4 days and 10 edits. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Oops my mistake, thanks for the correction Joseph2302. NZFC^(talk) 11:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand all that, but why does this not apply to ALL Premier League clubs? Currently, only about half are semi-protected. 78.147.171.154 (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Because pages are only protected if they need to be, we don't have blanket rules for protecting articles. They are protected as and when they are needed to be. If they haven't got the semi-protection, they can't have been vandalised a lot. NZFC^(talk) 12:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the current club of Sandro Wagner (for example) is obviously Hoffenheim. But it is already a correct information that he will leave Hoffenheim when 2017 ends and join Bayern Munich when 2018 begins. So this should already be added to the infobox. Like it was to this article before the transfer window opened in June. Since when is it not ok to add the next club to the infobox (but NOT change the current club) before the transfer window opens? It was ok for a long time in Wikipedia. This leads to senseless edit wars because people don't get why a future transfer shouldn't be added to the infobox after the contract is signed. --2003:6:5328:6522:A898:6AA6:12CB:2607 (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It’s never been okay, but people did it anyway and there are more people out there willing to ignore rules than there are of us who want to enforce them. Until a player is officially registered with his new club (which can’t happen until the transfer window opens), the infobox shouldn’t be updated, and the future transfer should be acknowledged in the article prose instead. – PeeJay 19:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I've always known it as PeeJay says it is, never understood why though. As you say, the current club part is self-explanatory but I don't see why the senior career part needs to go without the information. The "–" (e.g. 2017–) is there to state when a player joined to when he/she left. If a player has a future transfer fully agreed, then we know when he/she will be leaving - so putting 2017–2018 (e.g.) would make it clear for a reader to see a future transfer rather than having to scroll down the page to see a sentence or two about a future transfer. R96Skinner (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

If former club of the player has no more games before the window (Hoffenheim certainly hasn't), then there's no logical reason to hold back infobox update, really. --BlameRuiner (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

What Peejay said. The point is that this is an encyclopedia that relies on verifiability with reference to reliable published sources. If we update the infobox to show the player at a new club when all the sources say they aren't joining until the transfer window opens, we're going against all the principles of how this encyclopedia is supposed to work. Personally, I don't update an infobox until the player does complete their transfer, but I do put a sentence very high up the lead section that says they will join their new club whenever it is, and a hidden note in the infobox saying not until... And then if people change it, explain why we do it like that. It usually works, after a few explanations (or threats) and if it doesn't, there's WP:RFPP. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"If we update the infobox to show the player at a new club when all the sources say they aren't joining until the transfer window opens" – I feel that doesn't address the points mentioned by the OP, R96Skinner and BlameRuiner: If the currentclub parameter in the infobox (and the lede also for that matter) still has the current club (in Wagner's case Hoffenheim), then we are not "showing the player at a new club." Why should it be problematic to add information where the player will play in the future to the infobox when the transfer has been agreed? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Because an agreement between two clubs is not the same as a registration with the (relevent) football association and is therefore not official. Until the clubs are able to complete the transfer officially, it hasn't happened. We can only relay what has happened (the agreement to transfer), not what we expect is going to happen, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nzd (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep a classic example of that happen to my local team when Alex Jones was announced as signed for the Wellington Phoenix but it all fell through because the National body stuffed up the paperwork. There seems to be this rush to be the first to announce it on Wikipedia forgetting that it doesn't break the news and instead reports the facts. Until everything is sign, sealed and delivered, we shouldn't be updating information. NZFC^(talk) 10:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that 2010–11 Nemzeti Bajnokság II but it's a rugby season. Same thing about 2009–10 Nemzeti Bajnokság II season. They are in a football template. There are mistakes on the template. Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC) {{Nemzeti Bajnokság II seasons}}

fixed by move the rugby season to "right" title (since i did not know their naming convention) Matthew_hk tc 14:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to fix the naming convention in this cat: Rugby union leagues in Hungary Matthew_hk tc 14:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC) fixed 14:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, i haven't check the incoming link of the two namespace, probably there were mis-targeted. Anyone have time could check them. Matthew_hk tc 14:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I have made a minor change to the lead paragraphs of each of these articles, changing "the greatest player" to "one of the greatest players" for each of them because they were making claims that appeared mutually-exclusive to some readers. I have explained these changes further on each talk page (Talk:Lionel_Messi#Lead_section, Talk:Diego_Maradona#lead_section, and Talk:Pelé#Lead_section, respectively). I have opened three separate discussions instead of one centralized one here because there may be differing reasons for each to revert, modify, or support the change. I am notifying the affected/interested community here so no-one is left out of the discussion. Thank you all for your time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing un-encyclopedic about saying that many in the sport consider [x] to be the greatest of all time on multiple pages. We're not saying that all of them are the greatest or even that all of them are considered the greatest by most, just by many. And they are all considered by many people (whose opinions on this matter) to be the greatest of all time. That's factual, logical, encyclopedic, and very, very relevant to their respective articles.

Just as an idea, would it make sense to create an article on this topic? Something like Greatest football player of all time where we can discuss all of them, which "greatest" accolades they've received, which people think which person is the greatest, etc.? -- irn (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks silly for Wikipedia to be descending into a debate that is non-factual and entirely opinion-based which has no answer. How do you propose to sort those whose opinions on this matter? Only coaches, only "respected" sports journalists? How do we define "respected"? Do we consider every opinion on "the greatest" to matter? Do we start having strings of citations to Quora and onefootballforum and ESPN fan sites? There's no logical cut-off for where one opinion is acceptable and citable and another isn't so we might as well acknowledge them all and equally aacknowledge the unsolvable di-tri-qua-quin-whatever-lemma. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure which part you're replying to, but in each article, we had a statement along the lines of "[x] is considered by many within the sport to be the greatest of all time." In each article, that statement is well-sourced. In each article, it is true. We are not descending into any sort of debate; we are reporting what is in reliable sources about the subject of the article. The question about whether that statement belongs in any given article can be held on that article's talk page, but there's literally no logical reason we can't say that Pelé is considered the greatest by many, Maradona is considered the greatest by many, and Messi is considered the greatest by many.

When we say "one of the greatest", that's far too vague. One of how many? The top 100? 1000? And we run into the exact same problem that you raise regarding sourcing. By changing the wording, you're not solving the problem; you're just making it less clear. There are only a small handful of people who are considered by many within the sport to be the greatest of all time, and it makes sense for each of them to report that. -- irn (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Although technically "a debate that is non-factual and entirely opinion-based which has no answer", an article such as Irn proposes would surely only be our equivalent to something like List of films considered the best, which has existed quite happily for ages............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:, apparently I'm arguing against consensus and should stop tilting at windmills. In the research I did before I altered the three articles I found sources for Cruyff, Messi, Maradona, Pelé, Ronaldinho, and Ronaldo that call them the best of all time and did not see anything that indicated why one should be considered well-sourced and another not. Calling any selection or sub-selection "regarded as the best" did not appear aligned with the sourcing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)