Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 115

I don't know if I have produced a similar thread in the past regarding this (I think I have, not sure, and even if I did don't remember its outcome!), so here it goes...

Why not change names of some competitions to avoid having to lead the unsuspecting reader with stuff like "...they won the Taça da Liga (the Portuguese League Cup)"? Certes, tournaments like the Copa del Rey will not be moved to "Spanish Cup" as they are known worldwide like that, but if we have Bulgarian Cup (regarding that country, I think the article pertaining to its domestic league has been moved 7/8 times), Turkish Cup, Belgian Cup and so on, why not have "Portuguese League Cup" and "Portuguese Cup" (instead of Taça de Portugal)?

Attentively, thanks in advance --Quite A Character (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The Spanish competition is widely known as Copa del Rey in English - the others are not. We should consider moving the Portuguese one. GiantSnowman 11:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with what has been said and would definitely add the Hungarian and Romanian competitions to the list:

• Nemzeti Bajnokság I (Hungarian League), Magyar Kupa (Hungarian Cup), Szuperkupa (Hungarian Supercup)
• Liga I (Romanian League), Cupa României (Romanian Cup), and Supercupa României (Romanian Supercup).

There may be more… Cheers, Robby.is.on (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You beat me to it Robby :) I would add to the discussion the Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira. --Quite A Character (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If we can find sources that refer to those competitions by an English language name, then that would make sense. – PeeJay 19:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Belgian Cup: Belgium use three language (if counting German), it may more obvious to had a English language common name than a common name that came from three native names. Bulgarian Cup, not sure the English common name is more common or the romanization of the native name in Cyrillic is more common, but definitely not the native Cyrillic one . Turkish Cup: Turkish use latin characters but really an argument of common name. The common name was the native official name or its transliteration. Matthew_hk tc 12:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

To add one more point. Those naming should be consistent within a country. Turkish Super League^[1] was moved to Süper Lig along with Turkish Cup (at that time under different title) to Türkiye Kupası in 2008, but only the latter back to English title, which is inconsistent. Certainly German Cup^[2] is at least as common as DFB-Pokal, but Bundesliga is always Bundesliga. Same as Serie A verse Coppa Italia (not Italian Cup^[3]) Matthew_hk tc 12:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

We tread a fine line between following WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME. The same has been done with clubs (c.f. Inter Milan) in the past, and it's a very difficult and somewhat controversial issue. Is there any way of deciding which of those guidelines takes precedence. Personally, I prefer the native name when it uses the Latin alphabet, but an English alternative when another alphabet is used. – PeeJay 16:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't worry too much. There are redirects for that purpose. -Koppapa (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The slow edit war on what Inter Milan was piped to Inter, Internazionale or Inter Milan or in other case Italian Cup or Coppa Italia or German Cup is more annoying than where the article was named. The consistency of the wording in a single player article is quite enough for argument. Matthew_hk tc 23:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to link and because it's the same template (topscorer at Olympic Games) but French and English can't be link. Can you help me, please? Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done S.A. Julio (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Would the project look at the recent contributions of this editor and give an opinion on their status as trivia rather than useful information? Thanks. Britmax (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pinging editor (please make sure you do this when mentioning another user on a talk page that is not their own). Nzd (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Could someone be so kind and peer review this? It's a list article about the Turkish football champions, so it shouldn't take too long to review. It has been almost a whole month now, and still no review was done. I would like to know if there is anything I can do to still improve it, since I would like it to be a featured list. Thanks in advance. Akocsg (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Iphone5Sgold created the above stubs, which were draftified by CASSIOPEIA. Are these players notable? — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

None appear to pass WP:NFOOTY as the Cambodian League is apparently not fully-professional according to the list at WP:FPL. Number 57 23:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Number 57. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AVital_articles%2FLevel%2F5&type=revision&diff=817997161&oldid=816532104 What do you think? Where can I raport this mistake (In my opinion this is mistake) ? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I was looking over these articles and noticed that they use the MDY convention rather than the DMY (e.g. the current iteration. Granted, the United States and Canada are two of the largest countries in the federation, but they are also the only ones that use that convention, and even then not all of Canada uses it. Should the dating convention be switched to DMY? As a side note, the official website uses both formats. Jay eyem (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment this article on Talk:AFC Club Competitions Ranking#Discussion, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your input on a proposal to change the wording of point 1 of NFOOTY here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I had recently updated the stats table at the article of Mohamed Elneny see here after the subjects game in the Europa League, but afterwards I realized that the numbers in the tables do not add up. I tried going over it with a calculator, but I am having problems seeing which numbers need to be changed. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Inter&anthro, I have gone through the total and add each section and each total and corrected them. I didn't change any stats apart from the totals, so I hope the season totals are correct in themselves and it was just the adding up that was wrong. NZFC^(talk) 05:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it necessary to say in the infobox of UEFA Euro 2016 that the teams are from one confederation? Seems unnecessary and redundant, like saying the teams in Serie A come from one country. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Not needed, as it is clear. Same for the other confederations as i saw them being added there. Kante4 (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I came across a bit of a problem outside of my usual understanding, and was hoping someone here might take a look. The Elvis Kabashi article was recently edited by someone with a username identical to the subject, making a number of factual claims. One was contradicted by the source cited, but the others were unsourced. A quick search on the interwebs found multiple sites saying the same thing as Wikipedia, but I am not sure how many originated with us. If anyone here wants to take a look, it would be much appreciated. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello all, there is an ongoing TFD regarding the usage of squad templates in football tournaments. From what I thought teams participating at major tournaments deserved their own squad templates, but apparently this is not the sentiment shared by many f the !voters at said discussion. Has there been any concencus here about the usage of squad templates in football tournaments? Inter&anthro (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

In the infobox there is an honours bit, but it's set with collapsible, should that option be there? Govvy (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems fine, as long as the info is also included somewhere else in the article. MOS:COLLAPSE says we should avoid using collapsible boxes to contain article content, but if the info is included elsewhere, you should be good. – PeeJay 13:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

k, cheers for the reply. Govvy (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone point to an actual purpose for these templates? I honestly can't see one myself, and I would very much support the use of a bot to subst them all out of existence. – PeeJay 15:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree, not needed as far as i can tell. Kante4 (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary, like most of the templates in Category:Fb team templates. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It's useful and time-saving for editors when writing articles about A-League season and club pages. --SuperJew (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it though? Unless you know the code used for a particular team, which I don't think the average editor would, it makes far more sense to just write out the proper link to each team's page. It seems like you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist. – PeeJay 18:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The regular editors of the A-League season pages (that would be me and a handful more) know the codes used for each team (and it's really not hard - it's the first letter of each word in their name) and, this is from a personal view, it saves me a lot of time and energy. I don't see what the problem is with having them? --SuperJew (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not what templates are meant for. Just use a plain wikilink. I very much doubt that the amount of time you save by typing a few characters less is particularly significant. – PeeJay 21:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Very significant. Especially when you create 11 season pages every season. And yes, it is also a use for templates, like nfa and nft --SuperJew (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Templates are not meant for simple wikilinks. {{nfa}} and {{nft}} are more complex and contain a greater amount of information than a single wikilink. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No reason for using or even keeping them. Kante4 (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm with SuperJew on this, they are good to use for people like me that regular update A-League pages. Really they are getting used so what harm does it cause to keep them? NZFC^(talk) 22:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: they are basically also simple wikilinks, just condensed into one template. If we condensed all the ALeague links into one template, would that be legit? (As in {{ALeague|AU}} would give Adelaide United, {{ALeague|BR}} would give Brisbane Roar, etc..) --SuperJew (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

That would be more useful, but I would recommend subst'ing them, as we're supposed to do with {{nft}} and {{nfa}}. – PeeJay 12:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If you want, we could request on these template pages and on the task force talk page to subst them when using, and could also add them to AnomieBOT task list. Point is not to delete the templates as they are very helpful for regular editors. --SuperJew (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

FOOTYN states that one of the criteria for notability is to "Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition." Does this apply for qualifying rounds of the tournament (e.g. 2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup qualification) or just the tournament proper (i.e. 2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup). Cheers. Jay eyem (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

As is stated at the top of the section on players, WP:FOOTYN is no longer relevant for player notability. You need WP:NFOOTY. This states "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable". Both clubs involved need to be from fully professional leagues. Number 57 18:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Answers my question, thanks. Jay eyem (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It's gone buggy in the middle, but I can't see where to fix it. Govvy (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Seem bugged since this edit Special:Diff/823573211. Matthew_hk tc 00:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The bug was caused by missing "/" in one of the pair of the nowiki /nowiki code Matthew_hk tc 00:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, I was looking through that yesterday and couldn't see or work it out, Govvy (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, me and @Coderzombie: are having a discussion here regarding how the match football boxes should be. Personally I believe they should be collapsable, similar to how 2017–18 FA Cup has matches. Coder believes they should be non-collapsable, based on how 2017–18 UEFA Champions League knockout phase does it. Now some background on the Super Cup... the Super Cup is essentially India's newest domestic cup competition (so India's FA Cup). The reason I want a collapsable box is due to how literally all other domestic cup competitions (FA Cup, Copa del Rey, DFB-Pokal, Coppa Italia, FFA Cup, U.S. Open Cup, and Emperor's Cup) have it and I feel it looks and works better. CoderZombie believes that since the Super Cup has so few rounds (We start at Round of 16 and then it is straight knockout to the Final) it should be non-collapsable. He also feels that it looks better. I personally am okay with how both look but like how collapsed is better and would rather keep it in line with other domestic competitions. However, is there even a standard here for domestic cups? Clausura 2018 Copa MX uses non-collapsable matches but they have a group stage first. Basically want to establish a consensus for the future. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

With just about the top 16 entering I wouldn't collapse. It's hasher to the eye i find. -Koppapa (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hm, but the FFA Cup article only has one extra round and they do collapse. Also the Super Cup article will have the qualification matches on the main page instead of a separate page so we have the same number of sections as FFA Cup. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This article should be recreated, as he has now played in fully professional games (for Kilmarnock) . Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jmorrison230582: I've restored it. Number 57 20:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought it had been closed, but it hasn't been closed properly yet, could someone do that please, cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy:  Done. Eagleash (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, Govvy (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Man of the match#Requested move 5 March 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, QEDK (後 🌸 桜) 09:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Should we have something for say WP:NREFEREE, along the lines, to qualify for an article a referee must have officiated top level international match or top professional league alongside GNG?? Govvy (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Referees are not generally the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. If they meet WP:GNG, they merit articles. Hack (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, it was only a consideration, doesn't seem like many other editors are interested in doing this so I guess I just leave it! Govvy (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree GNG is sufficient here - there should be no 'automatic' notability (exception, perhaps, World Cup Final etc.) GiantSnowman 14:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I was considering two exceptions, World Cup finals and European Cup finals. Govvy (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

World Cup finals and European cup finals are stringent requirement, aren't they? How about FIFA International Referees List? Coderzombie (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a real mess with the overlapping histories of these clubs FC Boryspil, FC Borysfen Boryspil, FC Nyva Myronivka, FC CSKA Kyiv. I don't think "CSK ZSU sections" should link to Arsenal when CSKA article is there. I propose they be amended to when the clubs where called by that name to reduce overlap and not to lob the them together when they had completely different identities. Similar example was BSG Chemie Leipzig, maybe something similar here? Abcmaxx (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Most of the existing lists of foreign players who have played in specific leagues, i.e., List of foreign La Liga players, have as their inclusion criteria that the player must have made one appearance in the league. As a result, some of these lists are enormous (as many of these leagues have existed for nearly a century and may have upwards of 100 foreign players each season). Is it time to introduce more restrictive inclusion criteria (e.g., 50 or more league appearances, or even 100 or more league appearances) to winnow these lists down to a manageable size? I noticed the Ligue One list was sub-divided into several lists, but I'm not enthusiastic about that approach. I was planning on re-working the Liga MX list (it is way too large already), but don't want to do anything drastic if there is no consensus for a change. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

An option would be to separate continents. Players of X league from Europe, players X league from Asia, etc. FkpCascais (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

AGAIN, the official Portuguese Football Federation links have crashed down, my only doubt is if it's just a "thing of the moment" (temporary lack of accessibility) or a permanent one (site changing configuration),

take for example André Leão: you click in the external link in his WP page and link is dead, redirecting you to the homepage. There, you type his name in the search engine and it redirects you to the pertinent match, but you then click that link and it is ALSO dead!

Suggestions? Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You're trying to link to an English version of the website which doesn't work, just go straight to the Portuguese version stating the link is in Portuguese next to it. Govvy (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Site used to have an English version, but not anymore it seems (thus, i think most of the links are in Portuguese like you pointed out). Anyways, just clicked in Mr. Leão's entry now, and it works! Thanks for the input. --Quite A Character (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

So does Gonçalo Paciência, for example (thus, maybe it was just a momentary glitch). --Quite A Character (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL! And now links are dead again! --Quite A Character (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Portuguese football again,

there is a division category named "Portuguese Second Division players", and another called "Campeonato de Portugal players". I think they should be merged (probably keeping the name of the former because it's older), because they refer to the SAME competition (third tier).

What is your intake? Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they should be merged. GiantSnowman 19:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought the Campeonato Nacional de Seniores, which became the Campeonato de Portugal, replaced the third and fourth tiers? That's what the article says, anyway. In which case they're not the same competition so the categories shouldn't be merged? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL! Could it be possible you know more about this and i am the one who is Portuguese (and please note, i am not being sarcastic, you could be onto something)? From where i came from, the CDP (or CNS) was exclusively the third tier, after that we had the regional leagues (which is described in detail here https://www.foradejogo.net/competitionsnew.php).

In the case you are right, of course the cats should not be merged. Cheers --Quite A Character (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I know nothing. But the pt-wiki page for the CDP at pt:Campeonato de Portugal (liga) says the same as the English, that it replaced the II Divisão and III Divisão i.e. 3rd and 4th tiers. That FdJ page is very confusing, but it seems to agree that the current CdP started in the 13/14 season, and the II Divisão and III Divisão both finished in 12/13. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I am a brand new to Wilkipedia, the reason I have joined is to try & right a wrong . I am busy doing my family history on the Familysearch site, William Henry Smith bn 1906 ( Billy Smith) played for Portsmouth along with his brother John William Smith ( Jack Smith ) bn 1898. They both played in the 1934 FA Cup final for Portsmouth against Man City, the unique thing about this that in the Semi final Portsmouth beat Leicester, and in that game Billy & Jack played against one of their younger brothers Septimus Charles Smith (Sep) bn 1912. I have a photo of the 3 brothers taken before the Portsmouth / Leicester game, dont appear the be able to attach it to this article.

The wrong is that the player link for Billy Smith on the Wilkepedia information on the 1934 Cup Final takes you to William Harris Smith (Bill Smith) who never played at that level in football. At 74 years of age although quite good on a computer I know I dont have the ability to correct the information, I have tried to attach a photo of the 3 brothers to this missive with no success.

regards Shackyr (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Shackyr: Thanks for this, I've changed the link. It doesn't look like we currently have an article for William Henry Smith, so this is now a redlink. Nzd (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Created. Nzd (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Shackyr: FYI, I've also knocked one up for Joe, so you have the set now — Jack, Tom, Billy, Joe and Sep. That's quite a family! Nzd (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I note they play in Serie C which according to the list of professional leagues, that level is on it. But before I put a whole lot of work into a player article, I want to Make sure if a player is capped for AC Mestre, then they will pass WP:NFOOTY NZFC^(talk) 09:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Serie C is classed as a fully-professional league, so a Mestre player playing in a competitive first-team game against another team from another FPL (ie Serie C) would be notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok brilliant, thanks Giant. Wanted to make sure before I started the article. NZFC^(talk) 09:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Do we need this in 2018 AFC Champions League? Diff:, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a fan of adding assists, even more when it is unsourced. Kante4 (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Same goes for clean sheets... GiantSnowman 09:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems clear sheet source: , but fails WP:NOTSTATS and it is a non-notable section. Assist is unsourced and non-notable, fails WP:NOTSTATS. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Kante4 (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi to all. I noted that in Europa League pages that the name "Zenit Saint Petersburg" is used but the club officially names itself as FC Zenit so shouldn't we use only "Zenit" as the name in all the competition pages? The official club is FC Zenit only. Cricket246 (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I would support that, there are no other major Zenits (at least, none more prominent than the other Rangers and Celtics, but the Glasgow prefix is correctly not applied to them). Crowsus (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The article is FC Zenit Saint Petersburg, so we shouldd use that. GiantSnowman 09:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That's my query. The article needs to be named FC Zenit as that is the official name the club uses. We can't divert from the actual name that the club actually has. Cricket246 (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Then you need to WP:RM to see if there is consensus to change the article name. GiantSnowman 09:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I please be helped by someone to do it?? I am not too conversant with the process yet so any help would be much appreciated. Cricket246 (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cricket246: - please see RM, please add your reasons why it should be moved. GiantSnowman 09:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I've just wasted 10 mins of the my life wading through the arguments for the two names. @Cricket246:, by all means have a go, but I'd suggest having a read through that first to see what you might be up against. Having said that, 6 years have passed since the original debate and no other Zenits have come to prominence, so contributors may be more keen on the idea of the shorter name than they were then. Crowsus (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as my knowledge goes, the Club calls itself as FC Zenit so I thought that would be the most accurate... Let's see what other members suggest!! Cricket246 (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking up there right now. Cricket246 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

What's the standard for player lists on club articles? I thought I'd seen something about having defined criteria, but can't find it now. Is there something footy-specific or is there a catch-all policy? I was going to replace this with a link to the players category but wanted to justify doing so by pointing to the relevant policy/guideline. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Basically there needs to be some kind of defining criteria for the list - e.g. players that won international caps whilst at the club, made over 100 appearances etc. A list of "notable" players is not generally deemed acceptable as the criteria is too nebulous. IMO a link to the category in a See also section is the way to go (and one to the manager category if it exists). Number 57 22:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That list definitely needs to go, there is clearly no inclusion criterion and it is clearly (as often happens) just a list of "those former players that one editor happened to think of on a given day", given that there are only 13 names listed and yet in the relevant category there are nearly 200 players...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I quite like (naturally) the Bradford City A.F.C.#Former players layout... GiantSnowman 08:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fine when you have one reference like that (though I'm not sure what his inclusion criteria is), but what about clubs that don't have that or have more than one lists like that (do you add both lists? only players on both lists?). Players with international caps can be fine for lesser quality leagues who don't have a lot of internationals, but in the Premier League for example it'll include over half of the players in the club's history and be unmanageable. I think the best is either not to have such a section, or to have the inclusion criteria be over an amount of appearances for the club (say 100). --SuperJew (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This is all we have to my knowledge as guidance. It's a bit vague but still helpful. I normally take the following view on these:

1. No inclusion criteria at all - remove on sight
2. Inclusion criteria but red linked players / lack of refs confirming players meet criteria - remove players that can't be readily confirmed
3. Unclear inclusion criteria (such as "popular with fans") - remove on sight as p.o.v.
4. Clear inclusion criteria - leave as is.

With the last one though, I normally look at the length of the list. A criterion such as "played 50 games" might be OK, but if this generates a list of 50 players then that's probably not good enough. The point of such lists is they should be restrictive so only the most notable players are called out. It goes without saying that it is preferable to not have such lists at all and instead discuss players in sourced prose in the history section of the club article. Fenix down (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

What about where there are criteria but they are woefully poorly applied? As an example, at one time this was added to the Margate F.C. article. There are nearly 300 former Margate players who meet just the "played in a fully pro league" criterion, so to my mind adding a section with that criterion but only listing two players is worse than having nothing at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - that is what categories are for... GiantSnowman 11:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I don't agree. These kinds of lists always potentially will be missing players (yes, the case you brought is an extreme), so I think it's better to have an "incomplete" tag. --SuperJew (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@SuperJew: but for 'played professionally' as the criteria, what's the point of having a list of every player who has an article? That's what categories are for... GiantSnowman 12:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Sorry if I wasn't clear, my critic was against deciding if a criterion is a good criterion based on it's upkeep. I agree that the "played professionally" criteria is to broad to be a good criterion (as is "represented a national team" as I said earlier). I'd say something like "played over X games for the clubs" could be a good criterion. --SuperJew (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed the Orlando Pirates list, and have been reverted by @Greenman:... GiantSnowman 11:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Surely criteria not defined by WP editors is best - e.g. "Hall Of Fame" lists. I thought that this was already the consensus view. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - some external decision (preferably official from the club) is the best. In the absence of that, then a simple

Main article: List of X F.C. players

and is sufficient.GiantSnowman 12:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there is no justification for having a list with criteria that are effectively "every player with an article". Getting rid of any such lists would potentially also address the issue of whether players need to be notable for their achievements at the club in question or just generally. This particularly applies to non-league clubs - if a player had a lengthy but relatively unremarkable professional career but then made one appearance for a non-league club at the age of 38, would they really be considered a notable player for the non-league club........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I personally think that 50 games isn't that much and a lot of players can do that, setting it too over 100 games for one club, for notability reasons is better in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I do it exactly as Fenix down wxplained. In all articles I edited those sections, I replace vague "famous players" lists with "Players with national team appearances" lists usually sourcing them with either national-football-teams.com or fifa.com. When the cases are of major clubs with too many internationals, a further criterium of number of league appearances is added. I think club articles from leagues appliying this method had been working fine regarding this "Former players" sections. All this of course for clubs dont having an already published former players list by some author or club website itself. FkpCascais (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, on the 2017–18 New Zealand Football Championship, there is a complete list with results and fixutres. I am sure we had that discussion before but i am unable to find those. A simple results table would be better and is always the case looking around the leagues. Kante4 (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Since the 2006-2007 season, the fixtures have always been in the NZFC articles, there have never been individual team season articles (as far as I'm aware) as the league just isn't big enough to justify it. I'm not sure if there is a process where you don't have fixtures in competition season articles but I would hate to see this information removed from these ones personally and believe they should be allowed to stay to capture the history of the league. NZFC^(talk) 09:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree they have a place in competition season articles, but for the sake of space they should be presented in the usual matrix format. We normally only use the format currently being used for cup competitions. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It's fine not to have the full fixture and results list on leagues that have season articles for each club, but as the NZFC league's clubs don't have season articles (not notable enough per WP:NSEASONS), I support having the full fixture and results on the league season page. --SuperJew (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the discussion Kante4 is referencing refers to leagues that have season articles for each club, and the main argument was to reduce duplicity. --SuperJew (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I just say it is overkill and the "normal" results table should be used. Kante4 (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, only the results table should be used. Listing every single league fixture (bar the final series) is excessive and violates WP:NOTSTATS. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTSTATS talks about "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics." I don't think it's unexplainable or excessive anymore than a Tournament Cup Page. As the league isn't notable enough to have individual season articles per team, this is a good way to capture game results for the league. It provides the reader better information than just the results table will do. The other articles that have just a results table given as examples are bigger leagues. If they want, the reader can find the individual game results by then going to a clubs article, they can't do that for the NZFC league here. NZFC^(talk) 16:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Another point, it's not like we don't have other articles that capture all the fixtures and results like 2017–18 FA Cup so it's not really stats or excessive problem, we do capture that information. The difference here is you can't really have a season article for teams in the NZFC so it's good to be able to capture it in the league article instead. NZFC^(talk) 18:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine to have them listed this way, especially as the league doesn't qualify for club season articles. Yes, results grids are simpler, but they don't tell the reader in which order the games were played, so I don't think this violates NOTSTATS. Number 57 19:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

What I purpose is if the clubs in the league can meet WP:NSEASONS then the fixtures aren't required in the league article as they will be on the club ones and the results table is fine in the league article. If the league isn't notable enough to warrant club season articles, then having fixtures in the article in collapse boxes is fine. NZFC^(talk) 05:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a distinction between domestic league and cup competitions. Given the cumulative nature of league competitions, along with the larger number of matches, there is not as much emphasis on specific results, hence why a full fixture list is unnecessary. On the other hand, knockout cup competitions have far greater emphasis on individual matches. Given the reasoning, should all 1,606 matches in the 2017–18 Regionalliga be listed? Whether or not there are individual club season articles for teams in the league should not matter. Wikipedia is not a stat directory, these league articles are not meant to be a comprehensive listing of fixtures and results. If people need this information they can use external links. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: You could argue the same thing about cup competitions (especially the group stages). --SuperJew (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Julio did hit on that by saying "have far greater emphasis on individual matches" and "along with the larger number of matches, there is not as much emphasis on specific results" in which majority of groups are usually 3-5 teams and thus 2-8 games long for each team (usually 6) and thus each game can have a significant impact. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, out of courtesy to other editors, those that have a problem with honours can they please raise points on the talk page of an article to allow other editors who have that player on their watchlist a chance to go find citations and fix any issues. Next and more importantly, a fair few times, I do see sourcing for honours in the main body of text, there are citations there. This is therefore no reason what so ever to remove honours from the list of honours a player has when they have clearly got citations in the article. Thank you. Govvy (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP...stuff needs directly citing, a reference elsewhere in the article isn't sufficient. GiantSnowman 09:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Umm, it's not hard to pick up an citation and copy it across!! Govvy (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not if you don't know where it is...! Plus the burden should be on those adding the information to source it from the very start, that's kind of basic. GiantSnowman 09:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

heh, generally it's next to the sentence where that information is at, yes it can be annoying to find on big articles, but citations are generally well place and sometimes they are at the bottom of articles when they have been used multiple times in the {{reflist}}. I don't mean to be rude GSnowman, but I feel you have some bad habits at times. I don't know how many football players I have on my watchlist, but it would be much appreciated if there are issues to raise them on a talk page first before removing something so at least I have some time to go and find the citations. I am off to work soon, so... time, removing stuff from an article that's possible legit doesn't help anyone in the long term. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Compare the current version with the proposed version.

While I agree that a year such as "2014" and the designation "World Cup final" are sufficient to uniquely identify a match, I think finals of the World Cup and the European Championship shouldn't get less emphasis than other matches.

If approved, the proposed design shall be applied to other templates of the category as well. --Theurgist (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, there is no consistent naming scheme for articles under the group "other matches", hence why some template format the names using in this manner for consistency. The notability for these matches also often involve the teams in question, unlike final matches, which most often are notable just for being the deciding match. World Cup and continental finals have a consistent naming scheme, allowing for only the years to be needed, which is simpler to read. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Should also be noted for club templates (e.g. Celtic) the number of notable final matches is quite large, so spelling out the results in all cases would be unwieldy. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with S.A. Julio and Jmorrison230582 above. These templates are designed for navigation: the simpler we can make the process, the better it is for the user. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree aswell. Good as it was. Kante4 (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Also agreed. The reasons not to change far outweigh the potential benefits. – PeeJay 10:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Without sounding like a parrot, I also agree. No need to change - makes it harder to navigate. GiantSnowman 10:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Some of the league tables like Template:2017–18 La Liga table use Nowrap in the QR column and others like Template:2017–18 Premier League table do not. Is this simply a question of personal preference or is there some guideline for help in determining which should be used? I have a preference, but not a strong one. More important than any preference, I think there needs to be consistency. Equineducklings (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be used in all cases, as otherwise the tables can end up being distorted by some rows spreading over two or more lines at certain screenwidths. Number 57 22:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a parameter such as | res_col_nowrap = yes could be added to Module:Sports table to prevent the results column from wrapping if desired. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Is a player who played Asian Games regarded as passing WP:NFOOTBALL? See Yousuf Sifat, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Did he actually play though? Not listed at NFT. GiantSnowman 11:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

He did play, as shown on his Soccerway profile, but the football tournament at the Asian Games is for under-23 teams (hence him not showing up at NFT). As such, these matches are not FIFA-recognised full internationals and don't confer notability. Jellyman (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Jelly. I posted this article to AfD. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It was an adult/ full international tournament (1960s, 1970s?) but in recent year it was under-23 in order to match the Olympics. Unless he played the club match as fully professional footballer, or other source and interview to prove his GNG, he is non-notable. Matthew_hk tc 11:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, the player played 2014 Asian Games per article given source. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hhhhhkohhhhh: I never judged the fact that he capped for the under-23 national team or not, but no source for his fully professional club career. Matthew_hk tc 12:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw Stevenage appointed a new manager in Dino Maamria, but I was curious if anyone can recognise the cup he is holding in the picture on Stevenage website Cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It has nPower ribbons on, so must be to do with the EFL between 2010 and 2013. This would suggest that it is the trophy for winning the League Two play-offs, which Stevenage did in 2011 while he was their coach.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Damn, beat me to it - from my quick review, the only time he has been with a club recently that won an honour was indeed tevenage's League Two play-off win. Makes sense they would use a photo from their own records as well. GiantSnowman 11:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

k, cheers, there was no honours list on his article so I was curious what it was. I was also wondering if the Tunisian President Cup should be added or not. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Another question, can you add honours down for a coaching staff at a club? If so how should that be represented? Because tend to only list Managers and players. Govvy (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence he won a medal or similar? A picture with the trophy is not sufficient... GiantSnowman 12:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In the photo in question he is actually wearing a medal........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, not enough... GiantSnowman 12:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is photographic evidence of him wearing a medal not good enough?? Govvy (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Because people like to pose with trophies/medals they haven't won? There are enough issues with editors adding that player have won trophies they haven't, let's not even get on to backroom staff... GiantSnowman 13:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Images in this gallery confirm that is what the trophy is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

We all know that the long-established naming convention for player categories is Category:CLUB players e.g. Category:Arsenal F.C. players, Category:FC Barcelona players. @BrownHairedGirl: has an issue with this, citing Category:Footballers in Spain by club (which is just largely wrong and needs rectifying) and cricket examples of Category:Cricketers by team (the issue with cricket, of course, is that 'Hampshire' can refer to many things and therefore 'Hampshire players' is ambiguous, whereas 'Hampshire cricketers' is not). That does not apply to football, and does not apply to many other sports, see e.g. Category:National Basketball Association players by club and Category:National Football League players by team etc. etc. Can somebody please therefore explain to BHG (and also @Armbrust: who was involved in the discussion at WP:CFDS) that the standard naming convention for association football player categories by club is indeed Category:CLUB players? GiantSnowman 11:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please can someone explain to @GiantSnowman that many a) football teams are part of multi-sport clubs, so e.g. Category:FC Barcelona players is just as ambiguous as 'Hampshire players'; b) that "footballers‎" is only 4 characters longer than "players"; c) that ambiguous cat names lead to miscategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Except, of course, the article on FC Barcelona is about the football club, not the sports club - no Category:FC Barcelona players is clearly about the footballers...hence why we also have @FC Barcelona Bàsquet players: for basketball players etc. GiantSnowman 11:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I think FC already means football (or in other language, A.C. calcio) so it is redundant to use footballers. Despite S.S. in S.S. Lazio means sports club , but the club mainly know for football section only. The tricky part was Turkish club (or may be Greece, Spain and Portugal). Instead of using Galatasaray S.K. (football) players, it seem more tidy to use Galatasaray S.K. footballers, despite SOME of the article of the Turkish football club are now under "the name of the sports club" + "(football)" suffix, which it would be a nightmare that if the cat had to 100% follow the article namespace, which would make some club use Galatasaray S.K. (football) players and some were under Beşiktaş J.K. players. So either all cat in one country use footballers, or all cat in one country use players, or all cat in all country use footballers only. Matthew_hk tc 11:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree to use 'footballers' where the club is disambuguated (like Galatasary) but if a club is not then we should use 'players', regardless of country. GiantSnowman 12:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

it should be consistent among one cat tree, which some cat of Spanish club used players and some used footballers, but most of them (99%?) was known for football section only, and without the problem of consistent with article namespace, not sure why some used footballers and some used players. Matthew_hk tc 13:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see why Spanish categories should use 'footballers' rather than 'players' given that all of the articles are about the football teams, not the wider sports clb (if applicable)... GiantSnowman 15:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It was also my understanding that our convention was to always use "players" except in cases where the football club was not the primary topic for the sports club. Number 57 17:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, would it then be appropriate to move Category:FC Bayern Munich footballers to Category:FC Bayern Munich players? S.A. Julio (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because 'FC Bayern Munich' is an article about the football team... GiantSnowman 09:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, the category is now listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 20#Category:FC Bayern Munich footballers. The basketball side is know as FC Bayern Munich Basketball, so there shouldn't be any confusion. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought there was consensus not to have these? There are thousands in Category:Fb team templates... GiantSnowman 14:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, these should be deleted. The issue is that the team templates cannot be easily substituted until all the templates in Category:Fb templates which rely on these support direct wikilinks (instead of calling the team templates). Once this is done, the templates can be converted to wikilinks and substituted. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we should clear some unused Fb template and the rest should be disclosed then delete. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I was looking at the huge staff list on the page, so was curious about the sourcing, other than knowing a few staff and the board of directors at the club, I can't find any staff list at their official site and I am not sure we should be using linkedIn as a source. Should the lists be removed? Govvy (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

LinkedIn should not be used (WP:BLPPRIMARY) and any unsourced list of people should be removed. GiantSnowman 13:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

As should lists of non-notable people in relatively minor roles (WP:NOTDIRECTORY) whether sourced or not. As should unsourced nationalities of people in otherwise sourced staff lists (WP:BLP). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought as much about LinkedIn as a source and I went a bit ruthless on the article, hope no one minds that! Govvy (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

See here (permalink). A note below the tables says, "Serhiy Fedorov (#3) was injured before the start of the tournament. His replacement, Vyacheslav Shevchuk was also injured shortly after arriving as a replacement. Oleksandr Yatsenko was then called up, and sat on the bench for the last two matches." No source is cited.

In the main table, Yatsenko is listed under #3, while an additional subtable beneath it contains only one entry: Shevchuk, again under #3. At Template:Ukraine squad 2006 FIFA World Cup, they are both listed under position #3, which reads "Shevchuk (Yatsenko)". Neither the tables nor the template mention Fedorov.

At FIFA's website, the profile of Yatsenko (they romanize it as Iatsenko) indicates that he has appeared in the 2006 World Cup. In the Ukrainian squad list, he is there under #3. He is also listed as an unused substitute in the reports of all five (not just "the last two") matches involving Ukraine: v Spain, v Saudi Arabia, v Tunisia, v Switzerland, v Italy.

On the other hand, Shevchuk's profile doesn't treat him as having appeared in the World Cup, nor is he listed in the squad list or in any match report. I wasn't able to find a profile of Fedorov's. He is only mentioned in some qualification match reports, such as this one, and when there's a link under his name, it leads to nowhere. I did, however, find "Overview of all Player Replacements" (for 2006), which states that Fedorov was replaced by Yatsenko, and makes no mention of Shevchuk. Remember that per our article, Fedorov was replaced by Shevchuk, who in turn was replaced by Yatsenko.

Then there's the squad list at RSSSF.com, where there's only Fedorov (they use the Russian version of the name, Fyodorov), and no Shevchuk or Yatsenko. There's also the warning: "below are the squad lists as submitted by the May 15 FIFA deadline; various changes happened since which have not yet been included here."

The information in our article is probably correct, but it isn't implied by the sources. And as we know, the information on Wikipedia must be both correct and properly sourced. --Theurgist (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Based on the above, Yatsenko and Yatsenko only should be listed at 2006 FIFA World Cup squads and {{Ukraine squad 2006 FIFA World Cup}}. GiantSnowman 10:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

We seem to be listing all of them together regardless of the club a player was at, should they not be separated in to each club per heading to show that these honours was won why that player was at that club? Govvy (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There should be a separate sublist for each club spell for clarity, even if the trophies are the same as the previous club. Only difference is, no need to link to the competitions more than once.Crowsus (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

One look at Cristiano Ronaldo individual honours, just one massive list, you need to have a really good look to work out what club he was with to work out who he won that one trophy with!! Govvy (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Well to be honest I don't know the rule for the individual wins (should have read your post better, I thought you were referring to team honours, woops), and Ronaldo has an exceptionally long list, but surely logic should apply and they should be split by team again, after all he was playing in a team to win them. Only problem could be where a period spans two spells, e.g I haven't checked but probably the year he moved to Madrid included a few awards? Maybe that's why it hasn't been split, to avoid disputes in that area. Crowsus (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're talking trophies won while part of a team then clubbing them together makes sense. If we are referring to "Golden Boot" or "PFA Player of the Year" then these are individual and not necessarily associated with the team he was at. Splitting those awards per team makes it far more difficult to see how many times a single award has been won. For clarity, for competition specific awards they could be grouped that way (so National Awards, International Awards, Premier League, Champions League) but sub-grouping those then into clubs would be very unwieldy. Koncorde (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyone know if the issue with the above (they have moved the historic reports to new addresses, rendering all the existing links useless) is temporary? I'm aware that S.A. Julio has been fixing the links for the more important finals etc, and The Replicator has been dealing with issues for current articles. I don't suppose UEFA has given any explanation? Obviously not to us at Wikipedia but maybe a general statement about changing their site? I have an article pending a GA review at some point in the the future which has 40+ specific UEFA links. The only thing worse than to fix them all to a new url, would be to do it and then find that the links have been repaired (or redirected etc) and there was no need to change it! So any info to indicate their plans would be a great help. No doubt there are several other editors in a similar position. Crowsus (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

A long term solution should be replaced them with webarchive (wayback machine, website and may be archive.is), unless UEFA.com add robox.txt to disable the display of such archive. Every time UEFA.com changed their interface there is some link need to reroute to the new url. Some link under the domain http://en.archive.uefa.com was already forever unaccessible due to previous site renew and then the shut down of that subdomain. Matthew_hk tc 16:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would suggest archiving URLs just to be safe. A tool such as the IABot Management Interface makes archiving links on a page very simple (just select "Add archives to all non-dead references" before running it). I don't believe the recent changes affect news articles, mainly match reports after UEFA.com implemented a new interface which adjusts how matches are linked. I went through all of the European Cup finals with AWB, but there are still many more which need to be fixed. Even reports from last season's Champions League are currently broken. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we need those final articles in Category:Empress's Cup and in Category:Emperor's Cup? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Not sure if the Emperor's Cup warrants one maybe, but they do not offer any more information than the season article (2017 i checked). Kante4 (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kante4: If someone agree to nominate to delete these, please go ahead, thank you. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd just redirect them to the main articles on the tournament for now (merging any useful information), and if they're restored, take them all to AfD. Number 57 21:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

And those in Category:J.League Cup and in Category:Nadeshiko League Cup. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Please feel free to take them to AfD if you would like to do it, thank you. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

And in Category:JSL Cup, thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

For the New Caledonia national team, I think we should use the combined Kanak and French flag as used by FIFA from 2017? onwards. ( New Caledonia) to match what FIFA displays. However do the New Caledonia team actually uses a combined flag in actual matches or display both the Kanak and French flag? Before that afaik the New Caledonia football team just used the French flag even after the Kanak flag was made co-official with the French flag.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The combined flag (confirmed here by FIFA) should be listed at Flag of New Caledonia. Can't find any photos of what flag is used for matches. GiantSnowman 14:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The flag was used at the matches of the 2017 FIFA U-17 World Cup, should this now be the default when calling {{fb|NCL}}? S.A. Julio (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

As it's what FIFA are using, then yes. GiantSnowman 08:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

What order should it be in? Should the clubs be alphabetical order or the managers? I think I would prefer the clubs to be. Govvy (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think alphabetical order by club would make most sense. – PeeJay 13:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree to organsie by club. GiantSnowman 13:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

k, have changed it to club order, not sure if all the managers are correct and up to date on it know. Govvy (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I also support the order being alphabetical order by club. However, this would also need to be implemented at Template:Premier League managers, Template:EFL Championship managers, Template:EFL League One managers, Template:National League managers, Template:National League North managers and Template:National League South managers. LTFC 95 (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

hmm, should we be having National League North and South? National League and above under notability? Govvy (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'll try again, do ppl think we need Template:National League North managers and Template:National League South managers? I think we should keep the templates for professional leagues and all the ones below that get rid of. Comments ppl? Govvy (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep them, in my opinion: each has double figures of blue links, so they're useful enough for navigational purposes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

As Struway2 points out, they are a useful aid to navigation. Club squad templates and league managers templates concerning leagues or clubs below professional leagues can be kept so long as they have a sufficient number of blue links, which both currently do. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry‎ needs more votes at good topic candidates to see if contains all the articles needed for the topic. I know nothing of the topic so do not feel comfortable voting, would any of you be able to take a look? Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 21:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Is the list of football matches on the article overkill? Govvy (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Definitely. GiantSnowman 17:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, as per WP:NOTSTATS, and it's also unsourced. I'll remove it. Jellyman (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

k, cheers, Govvy (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I have opened an RfC regarding a contentious statement within the lead section of the Cristiano Ronaldo article. Contributions are welcome on the talk page. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I have been expanding Bobby Ferguson (footballer, born 1938) to try to get it on RD. Only bone of contention is that the article has him being born in Dudley, in the West Midlands. This detailed obituary in the East Anglia Daily Times says he was born in "Dudley, County Durham". I can find no reference of this place on Wikipedia or Google. If it did somehow exist, it would make sense as Ferguson began his career at Newcastle - Duncan Edwards may have gone from Dudley to the north as a teenager but he was magnitudes better than Ferguson. Does anyone have any solution to this conundrum? Harambe Walks (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

My guess is that they mean what is now Dudley, North Tyneside, a former colliery village near Newcastle. Perhaps county boundaries changed? Anyway, I have always heard him described as a north-easterner. Number 57 23:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The Newcastle Chronicle states Dudley Northumberland, which I think is the same colliery village as mentioned above. Number 57 23:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Number 57 thanks for that information. Yes, the county demarcations can cause significant pain when we try to explain where some people were born. I think it's logical to take the Newcastle Chronicle's word over that of the EADT (may have confabulated him with Robson, who was definitely from County Durham). I'm very surprised that in 15 years of Wikipedia they still haven't even made a stub on Dudley, Tyne and Wear Harambe Walks (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The always reliable Vision of Britain hasn't got much to say about the place, so maybe not so surprising it doesn't have an article. They have it as North Tyneside/Northumberland - http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/24532 Nzd (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I noticed on the UEFA Women's u17 qualification page that Netherlands women's national under-17 football team team redirects to Netherlands senior squad, I then deleted the redirect, but got reverted two times.. I am not sure if I did it correctly either or what is wrong, but as far as I know, U17 teams have nothing to do with Senior squads. This makes zero sense, that's like redirecting Germany's senior squad to France's u20 squad, as they also have nothing to do with each other. I suspect the person who made it just wanted to get rid of the red link, but shouldn't it rather be a red link than linked to a a senior squad page? I find it very misleading. I would love some help here if possible. Csknowitall (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem is you can't delete a redirect by blanking the page, as you did – that means any links to it would still be there, but anyone clicking on them will be sent to an empty page, which is an even bigger waste of time. If you want to delete a redirect properly, it has to be nominated and discussed at WP:RFD. The only other options would be to actually create an article on the team, or redirect to a different target. As it stands, many women's under-17 national teams do not yet have articles, and as far as I can see it's been standard practice in these cases to redirect to the senior team. Yes, of course they aren't the same team and it's not absolutely ideal, but it's the closest related thing on which we do have an article as yet. Hopefully these articles will get created at some point, in which case the links to the name will become more useful. Jellyman (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If you have created an article that is sourced and you want to move it to a page that has a redirect on it you have to use G6 {{Db-g6|rationale=reason}} on that page before you can move anything. You need to explain clearly in the rationale that you have an article to move there otherwise admins won't be able to help you. Govvy (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

See a conversation on my talk page between Jiten D and me. Basically, it's about matches that are retroactively forfeited by one team and awarded to the other team. Original scorers in such matches should (obviously) not be counted any longer, but FIFA's website nevertheless continues to count the players' goals and appearances in the matches in question, although its match reports do state the awarded scorelines rather than the original ones. How shall we proceed? By the way, here's "Laws of the Game 2017/18", and here's "2018 FIFA World Cup Russia™ - Regulations" for reference. Note that I won't be available for a few days starting right now because I'll be travelling abroad; I'll be happy with any solution you may work out until I'm back. --Theurgist (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The display of football matches has recently changed and has turned into something really awkward, messy and inconvenient... Can someone please see to it? Cricket246 (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Any kind of link to what you mean? Kante4 (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I assume it has to do with recent changes to Template:Football box, though a specific example should be provided Cricket246. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The stadium name, attendance and referee name has been stuffed towards the extreme left in the mobile version and that has made it incredibly clumsy! What was the change in the template?? Cricket246 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Checking on my phone, looks normal to me. Kante4 (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I has been sorted now... Matt Fitzpatrick fixed it quickly!! Cricket246 (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, project members. The article Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo was deleted last year, but I've resurrected the topic in the form of Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo, since the artist has created a second bust depicting Ronaldo. I invite WikiProject participants to either make further improvements to the draft, or contribute to this discussion, where I've pinged all editors who were involved in last year's deletion and merge discussions. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 FIFA Club World Cup
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 FIFA World Cup (2nd nomination)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 OFC Champions League
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 AFC Champions League
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 AFC Cup

Happy funny day! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JS Kabylie in Africa? Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Only observation I would make about the JS Kabylie arrive is that the title isn't very clear. Would it not be better as JS Kabylie in international competitions or similar? Obviously the article is itself has merit IMO. Crowsus (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't help being colour blind, can someone please review what I wrote on the talk page there and fix the article for me thanks. Govvy (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder that articles shouldn't have reams of historical kits per WP:NOTGALLERY. Not suitable for a separate article either per AfD consensus. GiantSnowman 15:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I was doing some work on Dean Austin and in the cat's at the bottom there is temporary maintenance holdings. What is that all about and how do you get rid of it? Some guy asked the same question on my talk page but he didn't ask here. Govvy (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There might be a wider issue, as it's just started appearing on Darren Moore as well. There are many, many articles in Category:Temporary maintenance holdings and there shouldn't be - I'll raise it at VPT. GiantSnowman 13:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's disappearing now from some of my watchlist articles. I guess it's on its way to being fixed. Govvy (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Recently I've seen a lot of edits regarding to numbers in the infobox, especially when it comes to the following:

Roque Mesa and Unai Núñez are two players that represent Sevilla FC and Athletic Bilbao, respectively, and both use different numbers in La Liga and UEFA Champions League/UEFA Europa League. Roque uses #7 in the league and #51 in the UCL, while Unai uses #12 in the league and #30 in the UEL.

Should we keep both numbers in the infobox, or should we just stick to the league numbers and leave the rest to a special section in the season article? I opted to the the second one with Santos FC's season articles, where I added a section called "Copa Libertadores squad" and listed all players in the Fs squad type and their official numbers for the Brasileirão in their "Squad information" section.

Anyways, what's the correct approach in this case? MYS77 ^✉ 02:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

League numbers only, I think. GiantSnowman 07:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say league numbers in the infobox, as the infobox caps+goals are only for the league. --SuperJew (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should be league numbers only in the infobox. LTFC 95 (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

League only. Kante4 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Could maybe have a note next to the league number explaining the other number for Europe, but certainly in the case of Núñez they are already out of the competition and I doubt he will use that number again (and they don't look like qualifiying next season) so its kind of old news. Mesa is still involved but possibly only til next week, so again it could probably be let slide with notes in the relevant club season articles (I am aware this is on the Athletic article already). Crowsus (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw 165.225.96.86 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) spilit league history from Singapore Premier League while K League 1 isn't. What do you think? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The split is completely about-face. The article should have been re-named, to the S League, and a new article for the Singapore Premier League created, if that is what is to happen. Right now, we have one article for one season, and S League is completely destroyed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted them and protected the redirect. They basically seem to be attempting to make a cut and paste move, which isn't allowed under Wikipedia licencing. I've also restored the content they've deleted in various places. Number 57 13:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not a new league, it's a re-brand. GiantSnowman 13:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I am asking on behalf of WP:AfC for some help regarding Football related drafts that are being made by User:Das osmnezz; and due to his ban from creating mainspace articles, has created well over 100 drafts regarding football (Usually obscure players). These are usually either easy promotions (IE, they pass WP:FOOTY, or rejections on notability guidelines). However, as there are so many total drafts for the people at AfC (it's around 5% of all drafts currently), if I could ask for a little help (either by joining up at WP:AfC; and getting the script for moving articles, moving the articles that do pass WP:NFOOTY, or simply pinging me to articles that do/do not meet guidelines and I'll promote them).

The discussion is here, and thank you in advance if anyone can help. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Seconding the request for help We have a well meaning editor who is mass producing drafts primarily about football players. But he has had chronic issues in the past with article quality and notability such that I found it necessary to require him to submit any new work as drafts at AfC. Unfortunately he is also a one man content creation machine and this is starting to put some strain over there. We are looking for a long term solution that will allow this editor to continue to contribute w/o adversely effecting AfC. Please join the discussion here. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect to the editors of this article, but the introduction to Gianluigi Buffon's article is ridiculous and needs to be summarised much more briefly. Just look at how clean it is on the Italian wikipedia (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianluigi_Buffon) and compare it with the mess we have here.

The season sub-sections are even worse. This is just from the 2017–18 section:

"Buffon's absence through injury meant that he would not equal Paolo Maldini's all-time Serie A appearance record at the end of the 2017–18 season; regarding the record, ahead of his 40th birthday, he commented: "At times it’s best not to force things. You should also know how to be happy with what you’ve got. I think I've had many records in my career and if this record were to remain with Paolo, I'd be happy, because he is someone who really deserves it." He also added that he had not yet decided if this would be his final season of his career."

"After almost two months on the sidelines due to injury, Buffon returned to action on 30 January 2018, two days after his 40th birthday, keeping a clean sheet and saving a penalty from Alejandro Gómez to secure a 1–0 away win over Atalanta in the first leg of the Coppa Italia semi-finals; this was his first Coppa Italia appearance in over five years, while his penalty save was the 30th of his career, excluding those made in shoot-outs, and his first ever in regulation time in the competition."

None of this is relevant and just seems like a big fan of Buffon trying to cram every little bit of information into his article. It's unreadable.Danieletorino2 (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - we are an encyclopaedia, not a sports almanac. We do not need every single detail of every single game, goal, clean sheet etc. GiantSnowman 15:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I tagged the lede - it's of rediculous length. It's a current GA, but if it were nominated for re-clarification, it wouldn't pass. it needs cutting. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Heh, it just goes on and on! Crowsus (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I tagged the lede, and it got removed because it was "less than 4 paragraphs". The whole article features way to much information. I recommend starting a discussion on the talk page of the article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Even the GA version has a more extensive and detailed lede than required. Lots of micro-data. Koncorde (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is a talk page issue now. GiantSnowman 13:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Have raised a talk page discussion, but looking around at a few other obvious player pages, and it seems the expansion of these sort of overly detailed sections are growing. We may need to revisit the MOS and provide a structure for this? Or at least some brief concepts, because a list of "won league in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, won cup in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, won the european cup in 2015, 2017, won the treble in 2011, 2012, won the double" is poor stylistically, which is what some of the pages are drifting into. Koncorde (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, where Daniele hails Buffon's lead at the Italian wiki compared to here, on the project page, is strange. The Italian wiki is clean? By clean, does he mean sparse and lacking information? It has little to no mention of summarizing his debuts and his career other than his awards in the last paragraph. Anyway, I really do not see much wrong with the lead. Yes, at times it may be a little wordy, but I think it is structured well given how much has happened throughout Buffon's career. The first three paragraphs are comparable in length to Ronaldo's, the last paragraph is the only place I can see we could cut as there may be mention of too many awards. I agree the first quote from his article you gave may not be necessary, but the second where it was his first Coppa Italia in 5 years as well as his 30th penalty save, don't tell me that is not notable. I've made some changes to some of the wording detailed at his talk page. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be notable, it may not need to be such detail in the lead. The lead should summarise, not re-list every achievement. Koncorde (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me give you an important piece of advice, less is more. Buffon's introduction, let alone the rest of the article is unreadable in it's current state. The introduction should give a basic introduction to the article, not be an entire article within itself. Aesthetically it's just a wall of text and to compare it to Ronaldo's introduction is ridiculous. The point at which you can't remove any information should be the ideal length.Danieletorino2 (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Ronaldo article is a narrative with strong grammatical structure. It may also be too long, may even be too granular at times, but it is nowhere as convoluted as Buffon's currently. People aren't raising concerns for no reason. Koncorde (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me for pointing this out, but the title of the article seems ever so long winded! Can we not figure a way to shorten the name? Govvy (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - we don't need both "ground" and "stadium" and I'm pretty sure we don't need "football" in there twice.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we even need it at all? It's a rather WP:NOTNEWS type article. Number 57 13:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Well we have List of football stadiums in England, which has a bit on it about development under the list, not sure how up to date it is, the one I mentioned above seemed quite extensive may have some value to wiki. Govvy (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

hmm, about the article? I can see where you're coming from is it possible to merge some of the content into List of football stadiums in England? Govvy (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

While the information presented here is well-sourced, I think it's just too overly complex for a football article and doesn't really mean anything to someone who has no background in finance.

From the A.C. Milan history section:

"Fininvest, the holding company of the club also signed a preliminary agreement with Bee Taechaubol to sell 48% stake of the club for €480 million in 2015,[32] after a net loss of €91.3 million in 2014 financial year and subsequent financial contribution from Fininvest.[33] However, the deal collapsed. On 5 August 2016, a new preliminary agreement was signed with a Chinese investment management company Sino-Europe Sports Investment Management Changxing Co., Ltd. (Chinese: 中欧体育投资管理长兴有限公司), which Fininvest sold 99.93% stake of Milan for about €520 million, plus the refurbishment of the club financial debt of €220 million.[34] (A further €90 million credit line from Fininvest was added to the valuation as the new debt was occurred between 1 July 2016 and the closing date).[35] 0.07% stake of the club were retained by other shareholders. On 13 April 2017, the deal was completed and Rossoneri Sport Investment Lux became the new direct parent company of the club."

From the A.S. Roma history section:

"The new intermediate holding company, NEEP Roma Holding, was 60% owned by American's "AS Roma SPV, LLC" and the rest (40%) was retained by the creditor of Sensi, UniCredit. In turn, NEEP owned all shares held previously by Sensi (about 67%) with the rest free float in the stock market. UniCredit later disinvested NEEP Roma Holding to sell to "AS Roma SPV, LLC" and Pallotta."

The Inter Milan article should also be noted as it just goes on and on for several paragraphs. What do you guys think should be done? I only ever see this kind of stuff on the Italian club articles which really aren't maintained well.Danieletorino2 (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This is WP:OR, and furthermore is simply not needed. GiantSnowman 08:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

At first it looked a little fragmented in wording, but it makes perfect sense to me, I don't really see OR, it's sourced, however do readers need market values and dealings of club shares on a club article? This is an encyclopaedia, not a financial website. Govvy (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it is OR, given that it's one user's reading of primary financial records. I could do the same at Companies House for English clubs. Doesn't make it accpetable/notable. GiantSnowman 10:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this editor is from Hong Kong and he's added a ton of financial sources for player transfers, which is great. However, I don't know if English is his first language as there's a lot of problems with the structure. It's also really jarring reading the history of these clubs and then suddenly getting all this information about credit lines and deinvesting.Danieletorino2 (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I was reading through the Corporate section on Inter Milan, I really don't think the reader needs to know all of that and the financial statements table below, that should be removed in my opinion. I am starting to think get rid of the who lot! What would be cool know is to have Deloitte rankings in the infobox for the top clubs. Govvy (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Those paragraph in Italian clubs was mixed with outdated Deloitte Football Money League citation and press release and CONSOB. For secondary source those figure were sufficiently quoted by La Gazzetta dello Sport and more fan-based news portal such as Milanlive, also, direct quoting primary source for routine fact and figure is not a WP:OR, but making interpretation based on raw figure are WP:OR. For some claim on "financial blackhole" certainly it can be improved by more citation, which are readily available in the web. Matthew_hk tc 12:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this aggregate HTH CS Universitatea Craiova league record by opponent was discussed as Wikipedia:NSTATS or not? Unlike the HTH stats in derby articles, this kind of HTH record of all league opponent seem unnecessary and NSTATS. Matthew_hk tc 06:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

also for the whole articles in Romanian football club league records by opponent Matthew_hk tc 06:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

is that too soon for these?

• 2018–19 Serie A
• 2018–19 Premier League
• 2018–19 Bundesliga

Unlike 2018–19 UEFA Champions League which had the citation and event that really will happen in 2018-19 season, other article was just c&p of previous season and the information of team that secured the spot by not mathematically relegated . Matthew_hk tc 19:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

If a team secures a spot, no problem with having those. Kante4 (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

If the articles are properly sourced and teams already have a spot in the league, then I don't see an issue with TOOSOON. These seasons aren't that far off, and most of the remaining spots will be filled in just over a month. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio, Kante4, and Matthew hk: We have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Bangladesh Football Premier League at the end of 2017. But I saw these article having some sources, so I didn't see any issuses to delete. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hhhhhkohhhhh: 2018 Bangladesh Football Premier League did not existed BTW, only 2017–18 and 2018–19.

The concern was the only true information of those 2018-19 articles were those team that "secured" the spot. The article should start at May not April that have 10 rounds left in this season. Matthew_hk tc 11:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: Yes! At that time, article is 2017 and 2018, and 2017 has 3 round left that played in 2018, so I moved to 2017–18. And author think 2018 is the next season, so they create 2018 season, but no source, so I sent articles to AfD (NzD has nominated PROD, but his reason is improper and I want a community comment). Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

How about this? 2018–19 Chelsea F.C. season? Matthew_hk tc 12:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Will send to AfD. BTW, we also have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 Iraq FA Cup. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

So where is the line of WP:TOOSOON acutally? From my NPR feed, there is 2025 Africa Cup of Nations.... Matthew_hk tc 06:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw this article while looking at the Did you know nominations page, and I took a brief look at the article. I'm not exactly sure if the subject is notable since only one source in the article specifically covers it, while other sources only seem to mention it in passing. As I'm not an expert on Association football, I'm leaving this message here to get opinions from editors who are more familiar with the subject matter. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this topic should be merged into Football pitch (which is where corner flag redirects to). It's such an obscure topic that clearly only serves to clarify a common pub quiz question. – PeeJay 08:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed it's not separately notable, and should be merged. GiantSnowman 09:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors of WP:FOOTBALL, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangular corner flags in English football. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Beatbo (talk · contribs) keep put the logo of the league in 2018 Liga 1 like he did here and here. Is it really necessary? Because all league that I looked up like 2017–18 Serie A, 2017–18 Bundesliga, 2017–18 Premier League, and 2017–18 La Liga didn't have it and I don't wanna involved in an edit war. What do you all think of that? Wira rhea (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Depends on the logo. It should not be spamming Non-free media to child article, which Serie A logo, as I remember, was Non-free. Not sure about other league. Matthew_hk tc 09:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. File:GOJEK Liga 1 logo.png and File:Gojek Traveloka Liga 1 logo.png is non-free logo depends on it's category. So it can't use in another article can it? Wira rhea (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see policy WP:NFCCP. But do not use it in league season page while use in league main season page. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I already told him in league season talk page to not put it in league season page. I hope he understands it. Wira rhea (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, can someone please help me verify whether this Scotland U20s match actually took place? The match is counted as an appearance on some Scottish FA player profiles, yet there are no stats for this match. After not finding other sources on this match, I suspect that it never took place. Many thanks in advance. LTFC 95 (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it not this one? which ended 4–0 rather than the 0–0 shown at the clearly incomplete SFA page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That appears to be the one, thank you. My only concern is the line-up is not included in that source. Is it right to assume the line-up on the SFA page is correct? LTFC 95 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@LTFC 95: I'm sorry, I never saw your question. There's a teamsheet here on the Herald website. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Struway2: Sorry for the late response. Thank you for finding a source for the teamsheet and clearing up the confusion. LTFC 95 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the confusion is because it was a game between a Scotland under-20 team (warming up for that year's World Cup) and a Northern Ireland under-21 team, i.e. the teams had different age restrictions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi! See WT:NOT#WP:NOTGALLERY, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Kingsley Coman#2015-16 Serie A title?. Just because Coman played one game in Serie A before his move to Bayern Munich, does it mean he is included as part of Juventus' league title that 2015-16 season? The German and Italian Wikipedias seem to think so. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

https://int.soccerway.com/players/kingsley-coman/265385/ on his page already says just one. The Italian and German wiki was tampered with by the same IP, and has since been reverted. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Fernando Llorente left Juve on I think the same day, and seems to be credited with the same honour. It seems to depend on the interpretation on when a medal has been earned, which seems to vary in general from country to country, and also between editors on here. Crowsus (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure the medal system of Italy, but in the past in this project there is the tug of war on honor . The conclusion was it should "based on actual medal received " and the interpretation of the rule of guaranteed medal winner, plus may be reliable source. So Eduardo Carvalho was interpreted as no honor, despite the citation Metro did not provide the actual answer (yes or no medal received?) in the main text, just saying Chelsea may have enough spare medal for player that below that number of game played (10 games for guaranteed medal as i remember ? which Eduardo had no cap). These kind of interpretation get worse, as player that don't even play in Supercoppa Italiana, due to a citation that saying all squad member would receive a Supercoppa Italiana medal, thus player such as Álvaro Morata was listed for this honor. Back to the criteria, if medal is the essential element, case such as Claudio Bravo is bold enough to include it, as he was on the bench and receive the medal in the post-match UCL ceremony, as well as primary source (youtube video) as a proof. For Coman , i think list that honor if there is citation, as 1 game did not show he was part of the squad. Matthew_hk tc 12:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

So says User:Trovatore here, here and here. Not sure why the German champions are being singled-out for this honour and others are not, but I'm sure there's a valid reason somewhere. Perhaps we can hear Trovatore out and understand what he's on about as I requested. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

My understanding of the outcome of the football wars, many years ago, is that "football" in Wikipedia encompasses all codes, and does not single out any particular one as the owner of the name. Once context is established, then "football" by itself is fine, but at first reference one should say association football or American football or Australian rules football or whichever one you mean.

I am not singling out FC Bayern Munich; this is just a correction I make from time to time when I happen to notice that it has been overlooked or piped. --Trovatore (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I think if the users are looking at these articles, you are pretty safe to just use the term football. Unless there is some sort of policy, I don't think these should be changed. Plus it is linked to association football and piped as football, so if the user really wanted to find out what type of football it was, they could click that link or hover over it. NZFC^(talk) 23:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If that is the rule, then it should also be the rule on American football articles. Either rule would be OK, if consistently applied to all codes. But the more informative rule would be the one I stated. --Trovatore (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Your talking difference between US and UK English really, and I note that they link to American Football because the article is called American Football that they link too. As for USA football (soccer) clubs, they link to the Association football page but then pipe them to soccer for American users. Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean we should be changing how football articles are written. NZFC^(talk) 23:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, ENGVAR is a very general guideline. There were specific arguments about the word "football". Case in point — when you say "football articles", are you talking specifically about association football articles?

Because what I'm talking about is all football articles, not just association. I think, whatever rule is chosen, it should apply equally to all codes. --Trovatore (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. While they insist on calling it the world game where I live, soccer fans frequently astound me with their insularity and ignorance. This is the case even within my own country, where there are four professional sports called football by their fans. Where I live the word "football" means Australian Rules Football. This context crap is just that, crap. I was brought up with football meaning one thing, and it's not soccer. I read widely, and every time I see the word football I am forced to to wonder which form is being discussed. I know and will readily acknowledge there are other codes called football, and when I write for or speak to a broader audience I always make sure I make it 100% clear right from the start which code I'm referring to. It annoys the crap out of me that many soccer fans apparently cannot or will not do the same. Wikipedia should be at its literary best in this area, and always make it clear too. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't mind adding (or rather not piping) association football into club articles to make it clear to everyone. But it gets a bit clumsy if we are expected to do so for players too, as then it would become "Hairy Hoofy is a professional association footballer" which reads poorly IMO, and a lot of the articles are disambiguated to "Hairy Hoofy (footballer)" etc, should we then be changing all of those? Crowsus (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec) In my ideal world I would prefer association football player to footballer, but I'm not as picky about that one, partly because American football players are usually not called "footballers". I don't really know whether the term is used for other codes. --Trovatore (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

How would you fix the Australian situation, where it is common to see "John Doe is an Australian footballer...."? First, tell me which sport he plays? HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

SBS use football for association football (source: https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/). Certainly the word football is shared with Aussie-rule football but association football and Aussie-rule football are both simply called football and most of the time Aussie-rule is stated. (Too bad Australian Football League is Aussie rule.) Sometime avoid confusion soccer and AFL are used as people only concern world soccer and national aussie rule respectively (source: https://www.smh.com.au/sport) Matthew_hk tc 03:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

For the specific piping, it is fine to pipe German association football club to just football club and NOT association football (soccer) club. It is not necessary to include all content of UK-English and US-English terminology for all speaker and reader of English-variant , and Australian association footballer are already piped to Australian football (soccer) player. WP:ENGVAR is a guideline, but also blockable for stubborn Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Matthew_hk tc 03:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that it is "fine" to pipe it to just "football", at least at first reference. Note WP:COMMONALITY; language should be clear to readers of all English varieties.

Now, once the context is established, fine, just say football after that; no objection. But at first reference, we should call out the specific code. --Trovatore (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, SBS calls the round ball game football, but Wikipedia sees it differently. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). And there's good reason why the Australian Football League is Aussie Rules. It has effectively used the name football since 1858, before the round ball game was codified. Be aware too that fans of rugby league (and sometimes rugby union) call their codes football in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to specify the football code unless it's ambiguous. So for Australians, use 'AFL' or 'Australian rules footballer' or 'soccer' or 'association football player' or whatever the hell you want. For David Beckham and FC Bayern Munich and just about every other article, use 'footballer'. GiantSnowman 07:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

As I already said above, I grew up with "football" exclusively meaning Australian rules football. Local media and conversation reinforce that view every day. Whenever I see the word, that is what I first think of. Sure, subsequent context usually tells me when I'm wrong, but there is no doubt the word is almost always ambiguous to me. So, whose judgement of ambiguity do we use? HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

For articles related to Australia, we use the 'average Australian' who will be confused by the multiple meanings of 'football' (AFL, soccer, rugby). That does not apply to England, France, Germany etc. GiantSnowman 08:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have some news for you. Australians read article about other countries! This includes England, France, Germany etc. HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

So are we going to edit the article every time (to change the wording/date format etc.) based on who reads it? Absolute tosh. We have a status quo, it's not perfect but it works, leave it alone. GiantSnowman 08:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You have changed your argument. It now appears to be "It's all too hard." I have some sympathy for that view. But let's not pretend "football" can really be unambiguous to everybody in any article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I haven't. I am saying you cannot cater for every reader, so you cater for the location of the subject. ENGVAR. We use US terms/dates for US articles, UK for UK, Aus for Aus etc. GiantSnowman 09:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Your argument HAS changed, because I have pointed out that you cannot use the principle of "no need to specify the football code unless it's ambiguous". Almost every article will be ambiguous to somebody when they first read it. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Well then why do we pipe anything? GiantSnowman 10:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

In Australia Association Football was used for Australian Rules as well in the past. Cattivi (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow. That's a new one to me. Of course, the Victorian Football Association was established in 1877 to play Australian rules football. HiLo48 (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The argument is Australian and Australian English is not the dormant user of English-language and no need to change German football club to German football (soccer) club or German association football club just for Australians and Americans, just stubborn change of UK-English to American-English was blockable as disruptive editing (any sort of such unnecessary change, e.g. insist UK spelling in article related to America and vice versa; or those dmy mdy change). The MoS Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) was for football (soccer) article that related to Australia, such as Australian football competition, footballer, coach, etc. Germany is remotely related to Australia as well as most English-speaking source use football (Singapore, Hong Kong, UK, Ireland, India, etc except America and may be Australia) and wikipedia is not a place of your personal experience. The discussion should be ended long ago. Matthew_hk tc 12:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Look, I understand that, when you're talking about Germany and you say "football", you probably mean association football. Not always, but usually.

But do all readers understand that? What harm does it do to call out the code at first reference? It seems to be uniformly done for American football teams. --Trovatore (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Most do, and for the few who don't, the link is present. That's what I stated in an edit summary there. This is not an WP:EASTEREGG, it's correct use of linking and the common name. American and Canadian football teams need the clarity because it's even confusing in those two countries which term is being used. That's not really the case with the sport in other locations. I have also seen it called gridiron football in those locations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't agree that there's anything confusing about calling the San Francisco 49ers a "football team", at least for readers who have comparable knowledge to what you're assuming for Germany. People who are sufficiently internationally aware to know that "football" in Germany means association football, should also be aware that in the States it means American football.

As for links, links are not sufficient to establish context. They are sufficient to give background, but the reader needs to have notice that there's background they need to know. --Trovatore (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC on the question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Specifying_the_code_of_football_at_first_reference_in_team_articles. --Trovatore (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

A policy discussion? Probably not the right place for it, but let's see. I've restored the Bayern article until that discussion has concluded. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Specifying_the_code_of_football_at_first_reference_in_team_articles. Apparently it's "not an RFC"; I haven't followed up the link to find out why it's not. --Trovatore (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

What is there to merge? It's completely unsourced, can we not just delete and redirect the name to Dream Team (TV series)? Govvy (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: If you think no context can merge to retarget page, feel free to redirect to target page directly. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I tried to redirect, I don't see anything appropriate to merge, but got reverted! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

To be fair there are very few sources to the Dream Team (TV series) page itself, adding a whole new swathe of unsourced information would not be useful. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why Dream Team (series 9) exists either to be honest. There's only one episode in the list Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Didn't notice series pages, but you guys agree that there is nothing to merge? Govvy (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There is some information on there that would be appropriate, unfortunately there are no sources so I'd be reluctant to add it to the destination page. at most you could summarise the whole article in a paragraph, and some of that is probably needed in the destination page, but given the lack of sources I'd agree that a redirect is best.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The whole article needed cleanup (And there is a tonne of players that are supposedly to be merged), so I've added some more references to the main article.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I think most if not all of season 9 is on Youtube, but not sure I can put myself through watching it again. Gricehead (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am still at work, don't have a lot of time to sort this lot of articles out. Hope someone else can step up on this, cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Bringing a discussion I and SuperJew have been having to a wider audience. The question is whether A-League teams' youth players should be listed in their squad navboxes. For background: in addition to the up to 23 senior contracted players at each club, players from clubs' youth teams are also eligible to play in the A-League. These players frequently make appearances in matchday squads and when they do they are assigned a squad number which they retain for the season, including some players who play for the first team week-in week-out. The debate is whether to include these players who do have numbers and have played first team football in the navboxes. Any thoughts welcome. Macosal (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought it would be pretty obvious that any player who has a squad number and an article should be included in the navbox template.

If they've got a first-team number, include them. GiantSnowman 12:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree with including those with first-team squad numbers/appearances. R96Skinner (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding that as far as I know they are not assigned a permanent squad number, but rather a temporary one. Also, as far as I know, in Australian sport leagues, youth players are not automatically eligible for playing for the first team but have to be promoted. See here for our previous discussion for a full background. --SuperJew (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect on both counts. Re eligibility, "Players on a club's Y-League roster are also eligible to participate in the A-League" (source). As for the numbers, there is an overwhelming number of examples to suggest that once a player takes an A-League number, that number is theirs and theirs alone (which makes sense). You have failed to provide a single example where this is not the case. E.g. Rahmat Akbari: no senior contract, 13 appearances in the matchday squad, number 25 on every occasion. Was this just a coincidence? And was it a coincidence no other Brisbane Roar player has worn number 25 this season? That is clearly a foolhardy argument. I can go through and list every youth player and what number they have worn every time if you'd like but that seems like such an effort to prove the obvious fact that these players have a number which remains theirs for the entirety of the season. This is not controversial or complicated... Macosal (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello all, Conor Masterson's AfD has been closed as No Consensus, which I believe is wrong. Do you think it's worth bring to a Deletion Review (DRV)? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@JMHamo: I think it is wrong. It is better to relist again. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned the article a while back about the list of matches, I've been reverted twice, I don't want to break the 3RR rule. Govvy (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals. Bermicourt (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Association football

Portal:Romanian football

And much more obsolete portals. Matthew_hk tc 12:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Could I get some advice about adding wartime appearances/goals to the Career statistics table please? I once again have Joe Cockroft in mind, as I'm in the process of creating a table for him.

For the 1939-40 season, where League records were expunged, I tend to put 0 in the League column and add a note to say how many appearances were made before the season was called off (this is so as to not affect the totals).

In Cockroft's case, he then made wartime appearances in two different competitions, the League South and the War Cup, neither of which count as official first-team caps but would be good to record in some way.

Options as I see them:

• add League South to the League column but omit these from totals
• add both competitions to the Other column and break them down in a note
• Omit these seasons from the table and mention the stats in prose

The other problem is that, while I have full stats for his wartime games with West Ham, games played for Sheffield Wednesday are less complete (at least to me). If only the WH games were included, the totals would be skewed (although I may be able to cover that in a note).

I'm happy to go along with whatever is standard/preferable. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I can only repeat my comment responding at the time to your earlier ref to Cockroft - "Whatever the decision, it should be consistent across the whole project. Unlike the inconsistencies displayed at Stan Mortensen and Stanley Matthews." Personally, I would rather omit the seasons from the table and mention the stats in the prose. For example, having a separate section header "Wartime Career" like the one in Mortensen's article works quite well, but the Matthews article has his wartime matches "lost" among general text. RossRSmith (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree not to include any wartime stats in the infobox or career stats table, given their 'unofficial' nature. Mention as a separate section in the prose instead - and maybe consider a separate, war stats only table? GiantSnowman 09:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go with that. Although I've now come across an inconsistency between the source I was using for the Wednesday season stats, which gives a total of 86 apps, and Joyce, Hugman, (and others), which give 87, so I need to reconcile that before I actually add the table.. Nzd (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Just one last thing before I can get this up. Could someone with ENFA access possibly check the FA Cup/other apps for Cockroft for his one season at Sheffield United? I have 12 League apps, but according to Vintage Footballers, he made 14 in total. I just need confirmation of whether the other two were FA Cup, which should be available on ENFA via Clubs → Sheffield Utd → Season Players → 1948/49. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but when a player has only ever represented one or more academies, does that entitle them to have the category of their parent club added? E.g. Liam Millar has played for Liverpool's Academy, but never (yet) their first team, yet he has Category:Liverpool F.C. players as a category. I'm not fussed either way but just wanted to know where we drew the line these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I brought this up a while ago and the consensus was that they should be included. However, a more recent discussion was slightly less conclusive. Nzd (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That's what comes of having the same discussion umpteen times. Long-time consensus is that being "on the books of" a club is enough to be placed in the category. Some people don't like it, as is usually the case, but there's never yet been any consensus for change. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

In view of the above, I have also added a Fulham category for Mr Miller. Crowsus (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all, I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTY presumes notable "Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA". This cites page 8 of FIFA "Regulations Governing International Matches". Page 8 of the Regulations merely states: "For the purpose of these regulations, a tier 1 International Match shall mean any International Match in which both of the teams participating are the “A” Representative Teams of the Members concerned, or an International Match involving a Scratch Team." This appears to reference just a member country's national team, but has been cited when a player appears with a professional team in a confederation cup. What exactly is meant by a "Tier 1 International Match"? Could someone clarify NFOOTY or the reference note? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpclod (talk • contribs) 2018-04-16T02:14:49 (UTC)

I think that paragraph in NFOOTY, just means player with full international cap for their countries, but playing in a non-fully-professional league, are still notable. Other full professional player but without any international cap, are notable. Matthew_hk tc 02:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This provision should not be cited for club competitions; as you noted, a "Tier 1 International Match" is a match between two national associations. Jogurney (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

How is this an honour? It's been listed in Harry Kanes individual honours, should it be removed or not? Govvy (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Not an honour, should be removed. Davefelmer (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I generally remove it on sight. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

k, I sometimes see these added to top player articles, Govvy (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, was just wondering: Is there an automated tool for creating line-up diagrams, or is it simply done by hand in Inkscape? –IagoQnsi (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@IagoQnsi: They are almost always made manually in Inkscape. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: Huh, I just assumed they were made automatically since they have such a consistent work. I recently got access to Toolforge, so I think I might try my hand at building a generator tool... Anyway thanks for the info. –IagoQnsi (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyone willing to nominate the deletion of those obsolete template and fix those article that was using that template? Also it seem the noinclude went wrong and the template transcluded the cat to the article that was using the template. Matthew_hk tc 12:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Doing...--posting to TfD. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done please see

1. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 14
2. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 15
3. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 16
4. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 17

Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought it had been previousy established that they are not, yet an editor has been going around adding friendlies to trophy tables on certain articles, such as in List of FA and league honours won by men's clubs where he added the Football League 100th Championship Challenge and the Premier League Asia Trophy alongside the Premier League and FA Cup. He is also trying to say that the Asia Trophy is in fact not a friendly tournament and could in fact be an official honour, which I find rather silly as it is a known pre-season event with no official status as shown by many sources ^[1]http://www.espn.com/soccer/blog-football-asia/story/3003614/premier-league-plans-two-asia-tournaments-ahead-of-next-season-source</ref>^[2][3][4]. He has also been trying to add the 100th Championship Challenge to the Liverpool honours page with no actual sources to back it up, while the club website itself doesnt list it as an honour despite listing even youth team titles and no mainstream trophy count i.e. the BBC and SKY include it in their tables either.^[5][6] We've been going in circles on the issue and dont seem to be getting anywhere (obviously I dont think they should be included) so I was wondering whether others could come in and give their input. Davefelmer (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The frustrating thing is that the lines are blurring. The International Champions Cup is a fairly big competition now, when you consider the teams involved, but I can't think of anyone other than the competition's organisers who would try to sell it as a proper honour. Same with the Premier League Asia Trophy, even if it is organised by the Premier League. It doesn't involve all of the league's member clubs and it's played outside of the typical "August to May" season, so you couldn't legitimately put it on the same level as the Football League Cup, even if that too is a competition organised by a traditional football governing body. Some are bigger than others, of course, but I certainly wouldn't consider the Asia Trophy, the International Champions Cup, the Amsterdam Tournament, the Audi Cup or the Emirates Cup as anything close to being worth mentioning in a club's list of honours, no matter how big they get. – PeeJay 17:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

To clear two things up, I (the other editor mentioned by Davefelmer) didn't say the Asia Trophy isn't a friendly, I just said others have said that, such as a previous Chelsea manager, and the director of a sports broadcaster. So I said it's controversial whether it's a friendly. I also didn't add the 100th Championship Challenge to the Liverpool page, Hashim-afc did. I just reverted Davefelmer's removal of it.

I'd also note there was a lengthy discussion on the project, involving many editors, when the Arsenal list gained a lot of friendly, regional, etc honours. The project consensus then was that less notable honours should be spun out, but all honours should be listed somewhere. Madshurtie (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

And as I previously explained, those quotes come from one article that itself refers to it as a pre-season tournament numerous times, and is written before the first edition had ever taken place. People could have just been confused on what exactly the Asia Trophy was gonna be, and maybe even original intentions were that it could be competitive, but since then and since the tournament began, its clear that all sources describe it as a pre-season friendly, as listed above. In any case, what some sports broadcaster says shouldnt mean anything here, and the Arsenal consensus is irrelevant too because unlike with clubs where you can make a seperate section titled "friendlies" and list everything, you cannot do that within a table format comparing trophies and so you just end up lumping friendlies in with professional honours, which looks ridiculous. Davefelmer (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record, List of FA and league honours won by men's clubs is simply a list of winners of competitions run by England's national governing bodies, and the Asia Trophy is such a competition. It's the only competition run by them I've seen sources often describe as a friendly (except maybe the Community Shield), so it just seems simple to include it. Madshurtie (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There are different level of honours, major, minor and friendly competitions, those summer competitions come under friendly honours. I see nothing wrong with listing those friendly honours on club pages as long as you list them correctly and they are sourced. Govvy (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Why would you list friendly honours though? What's to stop any club from setting up its own pre-season tournament as a way to puff up its own honours list? Professional footballers have to treat every game as competitive, I get that – they're playing for their livelihoods most of the time – but these competitions are not really competitive and winners should only be mentioned in the article on that tournament (if we have one). – PeeJay 19:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Do you think they should be deleted from here, here, and here then? Madshurtie (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You're listing exceptions rather than a general norm through the same 3 articles, but in any case that doesnt justify listing them alongside FA honours like the Premier League, FA Cup and League Cup in a table. Nor does it justify adding them unsourced to club honours pages like with 100th Championship Challenge to Liverpool's without at least attributing it friendly status in a seperate section like with the above lists.Davefelmer (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Dunno about norm, but it matches that consensus. And what source attributes the 100th CC friendly status? Madshurtie (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Friendly honours should not be included. Kante4 (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

And on a side note, here is the 100th CC listed on lfchistory.net as a friendly match.^[7] On top of that in any case, it is not cited by any mainstream news source in any trophy table, and it is not cited by the club itself despite it listing even youth and reserve team awards on their honours page. So while you dont need citations to prove the competitiveness of say the Premier League or FA Cup, when it concerns a random nondescript match that is not cited as an honour anywhere, you would need proof of its competitiveness to then put it in a table or honours section. Just because something took place does not mean it merits inclusion as an official trophy for a club.Davefelmer (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: Nice catch on the source. I might add that as a reference to the 100th CC page and a few other pages. It is an official trophy though, even though it's a friendly, because it was organized by an official national governing body. Official friendlies are rarer than friendlies organized by clubs (Emirates Cup, Amsterdam Tournament, etc), corporate cups (Audi Cup, etc), or charity cups. The national honours page lists all competitions run by national bodies, so the few times they've organized friendlies are notable and get included.

However, now we have that source, I'm considering either marking or separating out the friendly competitions on the national honours page, I'm just thinking about the best way to organize it. My suggestion with the Liverpool page would be to put (friendly) or something like it next to the trophy to distinguish it from other nationally organized trophies. Madshurtie (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You could just make a seperate sub-section below titled 'others' and include both this and the Asia Trophy, noting that while also organised by the relevant associations highlighted on the page, these tournaments have friendly status. Likewise with the Liverpool page, just make a subsection titled 'Friendly' and include it there. That is not uncommon for club pages.

The other thing to note though would be that Liverpool have obviously won a lot of trophies so including a friendly at the bottom seems meaningless because they have already won so much. It feels a little too much like what PeeJay was saying, that its like puffing out a club's section artificially. Davefelmer (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That layout could work with the Liverpool one, now we have a source for every friendly they've ever played. Seems a bit of a shame to group this trophy with things like the Ornery Hospital Memorial Cup or the McCain Southern Fries Trophy or whatever some of those comps have been called, because this one was officially organized and was sort of a grand final for 100 seasons.

I think PeeJay was saying a club could create a friendly to boost its total. But Liverpool didn't create these, these are official friendlies. I agree Liverpool have won more notable trophies, but the consensus before seemed to be the encyclopedia should document all competitions won by a club, but keep minor ones off the main club page, which seems fair to me. Madshurtie (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure your point about the Ornery and Southern Fries Cup, I hope you arent implying those were professional trophies to be included on the main honours page, because thats absurd. If they were officially organised friendlies like the 100th CC, feel free to take it to the talk page at LFC or here for including a big list of their friendlies in the statistics page. Davefelmer (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

They're made up memorial/corporate style friendlies. My point was an official friendly like the 100th Championship Challenge or the Premier League Asia Trophy is considerably more notable, so it would be a shame to group other friendlies with it. Madshurtie (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please quality check my new articles:

• Robin Holm
• Oscar Kindlund

Thanks in advance. ATZNA 11:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@ATZNA: I don't understand how Robin Holm is notable per WP:NFOOTY? Seems he hasn't played for a senior international team or in a fully-pro league. --SuperJew (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Oscar Kindlund passes WP:NFOOTY. When it comes to Robin Holm I created the article as he will soon make his debut, he is in the first-team benches and is soon to make a debut. He has also played for the U20 naitonal team. He is soon to pass WP:NFOOTY and I also concider GNG. Thanks. ATZNA 12:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

ATZNA - That's not how notoriety works. Either he passes NFOOTY or he doesn't, As he hasn't played a match, this is a clearcut case of WP:TOOSOON. He doesn't pass WP:GNG either, which means the player would have to have been written about in multiple independent sources, with significant coverage. Should probably be PRODed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ATZNA: Yes, I understood that about Kindlund, and have made some formatting changes to the page. I'd suggest moving Robin Holm to your userspace until he debuts. Please note WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. --SuperJew (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I would suggest userfying as a better option currently. --SuperJew (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

SuperJew - Sure. Whichever. It doesn't currently belong in mainspace, however. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@SuperJew: @Lee Vilenski: I consider GNG, maybe an AfD discussion is whom to reference, and if it's not to be in mainspace, then we can maybe draftify, because in short-time he is to make his debut so deleting it has no point. Thanks. ATZNA 13:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@ATZNA: so please draftify instead of needlessly taking it through AfD. From previous experience with AfD discussions, I am 99% sure you'll get the answer given by Lee Vilenski and myself. --SuperJew (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@SuperJew: I agere. Could you move it to my sanbox and input the pages link on my talk page so that I don't forget, cheers. Thanks. ATZNA 13:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@ATZNA: Done. Moved to Draft:Robin Holm. Could an admin please delete the redirect page Robin Holm with no salt? --SuperJew (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

One point to bear in mind, @ATZNA: - when a player has played for a national team, the link in the infobox should be to the article on the actual team (e.g. [[England national football team|England]], not just to the article on the country. And flags should never be used in the infobox -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand when we use the template and what usage of the template? Can someone help me? If this template is unused, please feel free to post to TfD, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Those templates were meant for piping propose in table, which should be replaced. The template was only used in the article 2006–07 Real Madrid C.F. season, which should also go to TFD. Matthew_hk tc 09:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Was G5 deleted but the footballer actually passes WP:NFOOTBALL having played in a fully pro league according to this, , Govvy (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Feel free to recreate it if the player pass WP:NFOOTY. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong answer, I don't want to recreate it, I want it restored, it had history on the article which I might not find. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Not wrong, because restoring history may cause CSD#G5 again. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: And this AfD is obvious:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algeria–Egypt rivalry. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Any admin ought to be willing to userfy it in your userspace, particularly as you have a source to show the subject does pass WP:NFOOTY. Or alternatively, to go the deleting admin, present your source and ask for it to be restored. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Struway2: I did goto the admin that deleted it, provided the source but had no response in two days. It's a simple fix if restored, as I can't see what was there before, it would be helpful for restoration instead of recreation would be so much easier on everyone. Govvy (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you needed to explain to them what you explained here: that you now had a source that showed the subject's notability and wanted to work on the article but wanted the page history visible to work from, and ask them if they would restore it either in your userspace or in mainspace so that you could do so. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies; I got another unrelated message shortly after you posted on my talk page, and must have missed it. I'll need to look into this a bit, the only issue is the blocked user in question who recreated this is specifically blocked for copyright issues. Give me a little while and I should be able to restore the revisions without potential copyright concerns. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Should be all set; it's at User:Govvy/Shafiq Shaharudin. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Before we continue to post Fb templates to TfD, we should discuss the replacement of those parent Fb template in Category:Fb templates, thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

If you have an opinion, please feel free to help me post to TfD, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hhhhhkohhhhh: You seem to be breaking down the templates into many nominations, wouldn't one mass nomination be quicker? Once the discussion is closed, a plan can be created for how they should be replaced. I'd be willing to contribute, and hopefully a WP:BOTREQ could be submitted to assist in the procedure. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: Sorry, I have not much time to post all templates to TfD in one day, so I can not do in one day, but if you are free, just feel free to post them to TfD, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hhhhhkohhhhh: Might it be more efficient to have a bot tag all of the templates which are nominated? S.A. Julio (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: I don't think so. Maybe will. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Remaining Fb team templates are now listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 20#Mass Fb team templates. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

There is an absolutelly silly editing at that aticle where IP insistently adds "Arab" to the lede when the player is clearly an Israeli international. He has 4 caps already so he cant swich nationality anymore, but IP claims he can... Either page protection or something is required, cause it is an extremelly stubborn vandal we are dealing there. FkpCascais (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest it may well be User:MaharanRadi logged out as an IP, but it may well not be, with a sock for User:Mikehenryistoday. I'd suggest following the WP:SOCK proceedure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of "switching nationality", as "Arab" is neither a nationality (in real world terms) nor a national team he could represent (in football terms). I think the IP is trying to convey that Kabha is one of the Arab citizens of Israel, which seems to be sourced in the article........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the IP is in the right here. Israeli Arabs is the correct terminology to use for players like Kabha (although it should be without the hyphen). It's nothing to do with switching nationality (Abbas Suan is an Israeli Arab who captained the national team). Number 57 14:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity should not be included in the lede per WP:OPENPARA. GiantSnowman 16:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

There is not a blanket rule against it (it says "generally"). For Israeli Arabs, it is virtually always in the first sentence because it is notable part of their citizenship. Hence why virtually all the articles on Israeli Arabs do include it (see e.g. almost all of the articles in Category:Arab politicians in Israel or Category:Arab-Israeli footballers, and the Hebrew version of Kabha's article). This issue appears to be based on a lack of familiarity with conventions in the Israel topic area. Number 57 16:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait N57, I think you may have precipitated a bit. I am OK to leave "Israeli-Arab" if that is common practice for Israeli-Arab players playing for Israel. However, we dont even have a RS confirming he is Arab... FkpCascais (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This for a start. And the one already in the article. Number 57 17:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you N57, I see I was wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I've been working on a draft (User:IagoQnsi/sandbox/FC Cincinnati v Chicago Fire (June 2017)) about a non-final match in the 2017 U.S. Open Cup, and I was wondering whether or not it actually meets the notability standards. The match received a lot of extra news coverage, far above what USOC matches typically receive, but it would be the first non-final USOC match to get an article. What do you guys think of my draft and the coverage it's received? (note: I haven't inlined all my sources yet, so see the References section) –IagoQnsi (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, if any match meets WP:GNG, it's fair game. You will need to really prove it's notable over other regular matches though Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Hmm... I'm starting to think that this Chicago Fire match by itself might not be notable, but perhaps an article about their entire USOC run could be—i.e. an article titled something like "FC Cincinnati in the 2017 U.S. Open Cup". The article could cover each match in a sort of short summary, with the Columbus, Chicago, and New York matches perhaps getting slightly more in-depth. That's a little unconventional though—what do you all think of this idea? –IagoQnsi (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ehh, actually, forget it. I think this content should probably just live in the body of the 2017 U.S. Open Cup article—a separate article is probably not necessary. –IagoQnsi (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't need a split like this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah -- in my head, there was a lot of significant coverage in reliable sources about FCC's cup run, but when I actually started looking for citable sources, I couldn't find as much as would have been necessary. My love for the club skewed my perspective I suppose. ;P –IagoQnsi (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello all, user @Yudhacahyo: remove the source in foreign players like he did here. I mean all information need source to make them valid, right? What do you all think? Should it be removed or shouldn't it? Wira rhea (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Replyed on article talk page. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys, I was wondering if I could have help changing the name of Pratik Chowdhary. All proper sources such as the Jamshedpur FC official website list him as "Pratik Chaudhari" and even his verified twitter account here says his name like that. I apparently need an admin to make the move for me so if that could be done that would be amazing, thanks. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

ArsenalFan700 All you need to do is follow the WP:Requested Moves procedure. This isn't a non-contraversial move, so we should do all we can to follow the guidelines. As there is a redirect in place, it is an admin thing, and not a quick move. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Awesome! Well, I made the request here. Cheers! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi all. I have a question regarding career statistics, it's about when a player with a career stats table goes to a club/league where the stats are unavailable. E.g. If an Argentine Primera División player has two seasons worth of stats, then moves to a league where the stats are not known, before returning to a league with stats, e.g. Primera División. How should the career statistics table then be presented? Should only known stats be shown or blank sections (like in infoboxes) for the period spent in leagues without stats? R96Skinner (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It is usually best to leave them out and have a footnote in the totals row e.g. Tom Pope. Otherwise you'd potentially have a lot of blanks.--EchetusXe 16:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I could see happening. Just thought it would make more sense to a reader with blanks, but I guess the blank spaces would be referred to in the infobox and career section so not particularly needed in the stats. Appreciate your response! R96Skinner (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is consensus to include squad navigational boxes for the World Cup, Confederations Cup, Olympics and each continent's top level competition, men and women, but what about competitions such as the Pan American Games (Category:Pan American Games football squad navigational boxes) and the African Nations Championship (Category:African Nations Championship squad navigational boxes)? The Pan American Games is an under-22 competition, while the African Nations Championship is for local national teams. Do these competitions warrant navigational boxes? S.A. Julio (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

They should be deleted. Matthew_hk tc 17:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep, take to WP:TFD. GiantSnowman 17:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Kante4 (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright, now listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 22#Template:Argentina football squad 1955 Pan American Games. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I see this article has been recreated now. I have made his article long time ago with his entire career by then, and the recreated article has been missing most of his career. I restored some content, but is it possible to access my previously created article where his entire career was sourced? FkpCascais (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 19:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Indonesia national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would someone please check an IP's two recent edits made on 23 April 2018. It involved replacing the members of the current squad with no reference that I can follow. One error is that a new entry for Abdul Rahman has an invalid birth date so an error is displayed. The parameters are |1990|24|8 which should be |year|month|day so possibly the 24 and 8 should be swapped. However, the link Abdul Rahman has nothing to do with football, and I don't see a source. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I already check it and revert it, because it seems that IP edit it to satisfy himself. I mean like Ridho Djazulie, Teja Paku Alam, etc. that he put in, not being called up, even for PSSI Anniversary Cup. Cheers. Wira rhea (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be inconsistency with the use of football or soccer related to South Africa, which one should be used? For example, the national team article is located at South Africa national football team, but the article on football in the country is located at Soccer in South Africa. This inconsistency is also reflected in category/template naming. Thoughts? S.A. Julio (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I've invited members of WikiProject South Africa to the conversation as they would probably have more insight that most of us. Nzd (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It was always football, I thought - but whatever is decided, it should be used universally (articles, categories etc.) GiantSnowman 15:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is called Soccer in South Africa, but the opening line is "Football is the most popular sport in South Africa". I understand your quandary. – PeeJay 17:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The following (unreferenced) section is included on the article Names for association football:

In South Africa, "soccer" is the more common name, used by all cultural groups when speaking English. The domestic first division is the Premier Soccer League and both in conversation and the media (see e.g. The Sowetan or Independent Online), the term "soccer" is used almost exclusively. The largest stadium used at the 2010 FIFA World Cup, held in South Africa, was known as Soccer City. Despite this, the country's national association is called the South African Football Association and "football" might occasionally be used in official contexts. In Afrikaans, one of the other major languages in South Africa, the word "sokker" is used far more often than "voetbal".

Is this enough evidence to support using "soccer"? Below I've compiled a list of the conflicting articles/templates/categories related to South African football which should be resolved (including players with the footballer disambiguation). "Soccer" seems more predominant (many of the categories were moved a few years ago via CFDS), but more player articles use "footballer" when disambiguating. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Everyday usage in South Africa is inconsistent; SAFA versus PSL, though club names tend to use "football" fairly consistently at least in the professional leagues. The other major football code, rugby union, is consistently called "rugby" so the potential for confusion is actually very low. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

....so long as it's a local reading the stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Still unsure what term should be used, should a RM be opened to hopefully find a consensus? S.A. Julio (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed that the AFC Champions League and CAF Champions League both use the non-plural "Final", despite being a two-legged series like the CONCACAF Champions League and Copa Libertadores, which use the plural "Finals". CONCACAF itself seems to prefer the non-plural form, so I'd like some feedback before I submit a requested move. SounderBruce 00:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

What does CONMEBOL prefer with regard to the Copa Libertadores? – PeeJay 07:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, the word "finals" usually refers to the later stages of a tournament. Such, as the "World Cup Finals", being the knockout stages, or the whole competition itself, where the word "final", or "grand final", means the events final match, or series of matches contesting the championship. I suppose it depends on what the orginization calls it Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Certainly in UK English we would refer to "the final" of a competition, even if it was two-legged (eg 1984 UEFA Cup Final). Not sure how this applies to non-English speaking countries, though.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

According to the CONMEBOL website, they seem to prefer the singular "final", although that was in Spanish as I couldn't find the English language version of the equivalent page on the site. – PeeJay 11:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Toronto FC competed in the final of the 2018 CONCACAF Champions League. The lost 2–1 at the first leg at home and won 2–1 in the second leg of the tie. This resulted in penalties. C.D. Guadalajara made all four that they took while Toronto only made two. The editor is stating that they "lost 4–2" in the penalty shootout, however the official score is 3–3 on aggregate. I can't come up with better wording without adding excessive detail. Is anyone able to assist with the prose in that section? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

3–3 on aggregate. Guadalajara won 4–2 after penalties. Something like that? Kante4 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

As I was reading WP:MOSBIO to discuss with an IP user, I stumbled upon a rule that I had never heard of before:

"Names confused with common words and well-known single names"

"Some names look like common words that are usually capitalized, or like well-known historical figures. Subsequent mentions of these individuals should use their given names or full names. Examples include: I, Lord, Christ, Moses, Islam, and Mohammed (the last with various spellings)."

The first person who popped into my head as I read this was Gabriel Jesus, and I must admit that "Jesus began his career at Palmeiras" and "A talented and versatile forward, Jesus is capable of playing in several attacking positions" sound a bit odd, but not as much as the nightmare that is "Jesus comes from a religious family and reportedly has worn the number 33 in tribute of the age that Jesus was believed to have been crucified."

So, is this rule saying that all references to Gabriel Jesus should have his first name and surname? I'm going to edit that sentence that refers to the more famous Jesus as that one is just too confusing. Harambe Walks (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I think, in the article Gabriel Jesus, it’s okay to refer to him simply as “Jesus” since it’s obvious who is being referred to. In the excerpt you’ve posted, I would say to disambiguate the other Jesus as “Jesus Christ”. – PeeJay 07:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I always thought JC was a keeper anyway. Hack (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

A vandalism protection is needed for this page. Note that the vandal is most likely a sock, using IP edits as well as (at least) two user accounts. -BlameRuiner (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@BlameRuiner: I've semi-protected it for a week. Cheers, Number 57 15:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding a dispute at Sebastian Giovinco: Giovinco is described in the present tense as a member of the Italian national team, though he hasn't been called up for more than a year. What should the standard should be for considering a player a current member of the national team? If a player plays one game for his national team at age 18, and never plays for the team again, should he still be listed as a national team player when he's 28? I would propose that we switch the past tense ("he has been a member of the Italian national team") after one year. This is what is done on the national team pages: those pages only list players who have been called up in the last year. Is this reasonable What do others think? 64.231.158.68 (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The consensus was not WP:Crystal to guess when is the last international game of the footballer. Matthew_hk tc 04:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, that discussion was about a slightly different point, i.e. whether to enter the last year that the player was capped in the infobox. In the case of Sebastian Giovinco, that would mean entering "2011–2015" beside his full Italy caps and goals instead of "2011–". I agree with you that to enter the year of last cap could be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL as we would essentially be predicting that he will not be capped again. The point the IP is raising above is a slightly different one. Although it would not be correct to imply that he will not be capped again (by entering 2015 in the infobox), it is also incorrect to say that he "is a member of the Italian national team". He hasn't been picked for at least two years, and this is due to the most recent coach (Ventura) deliberately omitting him because he plays in a less prestigious league. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Putting an end year means he is retired from international team, which in Giovinco's case, it is not. He is still available to callup. Since this "issue" was "discussed" again and again every few months, some version of the thread differ sightly with others. Matthew_hk tc 05:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Just means he didn't play for them since the year 20XX. An official retirement is almost never announced for 99% of players, leaving the period open just add more confusion.--BlameRuiner (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the responses. I'm asking a different question than the one addressed previously. I will put my question as directly as possible: With a player who has not been called up to the national team in more than a year (the example being Sebasian Giovinco) should the text of the entry say "Sebastian Giovinco ... plays for Canadian club Toronto FC and the Italian national team" OR "Sebastian Giovinco ... plays for Canadian club Toronto FC and has played for the Italian national team"? 64.231.158.68 (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• How about "Sebastian Giovinco ... plays for Canadian club Toronto FC, and has played in 23 games with the Italy national football team"? Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be better to use present tense and in another sentence of the lead, pointing the debut and last game he actually played. Player such as Super Mario is awkward to say he is current member or not, as he was mentioned by the current interim coach, but not received any call up for a few year. Matthew_hk tc 03:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"Sebastian Giovinco is an Italian international footballer who plays for Canadian club Toronto FC."? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Struway2 - keep it simple. GiantSnowman 15:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to nominate this article for RD, and I wondered if someone here would be so kind as to copyedit it a little, as I am not used to writing football articles, so I may not get the lingo right. (Also, English is not my first language, so there will be some other mistakes too, but I mainly address this forum for the football lingo) . It's a relatively short article. Thank you. Iselilja (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Presumably the article you mean is actually Bjørn Hansen (footballer).....? Also, what is RD? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Recent death, which can be posted to In the News frontpage, at the bottom. Iselilja (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Should these redundant templates be deleted?

Template:2008–09 CONCACAF Champions League

Template:2009–10 CONCACAF Champions League

Template:2010–11 CONCACAF Champions League

Template:2011–12 CONCACAF Champions League

We don't use these for UEFA Champions League, probably because it would be redundant. Please nominate. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This template is Unnecessary to me. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Other than being on the main page associated with that season year, I don't see them being used anywhere else, they do seem a little ridiculous to me. Govvy (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why the final articles for the Supercopa Argentina are offset in terms of the year. It has been played in: 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and now 2018. Yet the article name for those articles are always a year behind. For example, the edition that took place in March 2018 is named the 2017 Supercopa Argentina. I was about to rename them, but thought I'd ask here just incase I've missed something. R96Skinner (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone help me post templates in this category/subcategory for deletion, like Fb team templates, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You do realise all these templates are part of a build for multiple redirects to subheadings right? Govvy (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy:? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done, now listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 27#Mass Fb competition templates. @This, that and the other: could TTObot be run to add a TfD tag to the templates in question (using noinclude since these templates are used in text/table rows)? S.A. Julio (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The bot has started. It should be complete in a few hours. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@This, that and the other and S.A. Julio:Oh, thanks! But some templates have double tags ,such as Template:Fb competition 2009 CCL, because some have already nominated on April 21 and 22. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter for now. Let's just hope they all get deleted so we don't have to worry about it! — This, that and the other (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio and Hhhhhkohhhhh: The bot succeeded, except for the following pages: Template:Fb competition 2013–14 Corgon Liga, Template:Fb competition 2007-08 EPL, Template:Fb competition 2008-09 FL Cup, Template:Fb competition 2008-09 Intertoto Cup, Template:Fb competition 2010-11 Türkiye Kupasi, Template:Fb competition 1999–2000 Treca HNL, Template:Fb competition 2003–04 Treca HNL, Template:Fb competition 2009–10 Treca HNL, Template:Fb competition 2010–11 Treca HNL, Template:Fb competition Treca HNL. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Perfect, thank you once again for the assistance! S.A. Julio (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I have edited this article to amend the details of his birth based on Andy Mitchell's well researched book published in 2012: "First Elevens - The Birth of International Football". (This has been accepted by the englandfootballonline website, as cited in the article). As Smith was born in 1844, can someone move the article to James Smith (footballer, born 1844). Thanks. 2A00:23C5:8D07:B000:C407:E42:3B00:93C0 (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done (by Jmorrison230582). Eagleash (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

So, it's now mathematically certain that Man City will win the 2017/18 Premier League and people are updating their players' honours sections accordingly. However, should we not wait until the end of the season when medals are actually handed out? Should we add them to players who have already made at least five appearances? Of course, they should be sourced, which is a bit of a rare occurrence when people are in a mad rush to update articles with breaking news... Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Remember given how many matches we have left, it is feasible that a few extra players could get 5 appearances in the meantime. I would say, just for completeness and consistency, let's wait until the final whistle on the last day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait until reliable sources confirm that the player has won the honour. GiantSnowman 18:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I personally think we should wait to after an award ceremony. Govvy (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

However unlikely, points may still be subtracted if ineligible players are identified or some other breach of the rules identified etc. So always the 'crowning' should be post season even if they celebrate today. Koncorde (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It can be easily sourced that Manchester City have won the league. It can equally easily be sourced that any player with five or more appearances gets a medal. Waiting until the end of the season just on the off chance that something which has never happened before might happen is ludicrous, IMO. OZOO (t) (c) 13:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Well what normally happens is the club that wins the league (Manchester City) would have an award ceremony after their last home game of the season in this case it should be the 9th May home game against Brighton. Govvy (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The title of the section is "Honours". Not "Medals they have been given". Is it denied that the the players in question have achieved the honour of Premier League champion 2017–18? Incidentally, the award ceremony will be May 6 v Huddersfield - so will they have achieved the honour after that game? Or after the season ends 2 games later? OZOO (t) (c) 14:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The Premier League website keeps a definitive record of Premier League champions via player profiles. This season's Man City players with 5+ league appearances haven't had their profiles updated. Why can't we wait until then? What's the hurry? Mattythewhite (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Why should we wait? The fact that Manchester City F.C. have won the Premier League is easily verifiable, the list of their players with (the arbitrary count of) 5 league appearances can be found on any stats website, why wait to a future date – which incidentally no-one can decide which date – to add? What's the delay? OZOO (t) (c) 14:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The delay is that the Premier League hasn't handed eligible players and staff their medals yet or updated the records on their official site, which is of course standard practice and is to be expected this time every year. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The section is a list of honours, not medals awarded. OZOO (t) (c) 15:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You're not making sense. To win an honour in football you need to obtain a medal for it. Just because a club achieved something doesnt mean every player at that club has qualified to have won that honour. Until the Premier League confirms who has got medals and until the season is finished to see who has played the mandatory 5 games for a medal, it seems silly to update. Davefelmer (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

But we already know that certain players have played 5 or more games, so why not add the honour for them now? Unless you think somehow they are going to be refused medals.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

These honours do not apply until the end of the season, because the existing holders are entitled to it until then. We are not waiting for anything. The newspapers and media do not run the league. Britmax (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

From an administration point of view, we only update at the end of the season as then all results and outcomes are clear and all pages can be updated, and all templates in one go. Partial or incomplete updates or inconsistent updates are why we avoid this sort of urgent need to report live. Koncorde (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

2013 I-League 2nd Division. I don't know how to correct that. Thank you.--2A01:CB05:823A:3B00:DDA2:9648:EA52:3590 (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Good spot. I've removed the vandalism from the infobox. R96Skinner (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

A floating IP has been making edits on Israeli footballer Moanes Dabour that flout Wikipedia's guidelines. He changed Dabour's nationality from Israeli (which he is) to Arab Israeli (which is his ethnicity), removed a reference that actually confirms he is an Arab Israeli and added an unsourced category saying he is a Muslim (Wikipedia categories on religion of living people must be the strictest sourced of all). I left a note on the IP's talk page but then his address changed and he came back again to restore his unconstructive edits. I know these kind of nationalist edit warriors are the most relentless of all so it might be worth other users putting this page on their watchlist, I can't be around forever. Harambe Walks (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Harambe Walks: perhaps submitting a request at WP:RFPP or directly asking an administrator to request page protection would be a good step to preventing troublesome IP editors from disturbing the page. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Below are some examples of inconsistencies in the FA Cup Final articles:

Hull City 2014

Cardiff City 2008

Everton 1995

Home teams listed first.

Round 3: Everton 1–0 Derby County

Round 4: Bristol City 0–1 Everton

Round 5: Everton 5–0 Norwich City

Round 6: Everton 1–0 Newcastle United

Semi-final: Everton 4–1 Tottenham Hotspur (at Elland Road, Leeds)

Which one is correct? Mobile mundo (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mobile mundo: If you're talking about having all the articles consistent throughout then I go with the format of the table that starts with Middlesbrough. There must be loads of older articles in the project that need updating and cleaning up. Govvy (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks (Mobile mundo (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC))

Can someone look at this article and the standings and figure out what is going on? It says that the template is "deprecated" and I don't know how to fix the issue. Jay eyem (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jay eyem: Already fixed. But please update to use Module:Sports table instead, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I apologize if this sounds a bit silly, but is there a reason why we only allow league caps and goals to be represented in the "Infobox football biography" template? I am a getting slightly annoyed of having to make 1-2 reverts a month were I explain to a new editor that cup caps and goals do not belong in the leading template. To avoid WP:BITE if there any policy, essay, of past discussion I can point them to? I looked for about ten minutes in the archives of this talk page but I could not find the original discussion on this topic, either it never happened or I am using the wrong keywords. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it is a more easy comparison between player with same criteria, once the criteria was set at the start of the infobox (and wikipedia) it just became standard, unless making a change in ALL infobox of existing articles and on future articles. Matthew_hk tc 14:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, there'd be endless edit wars over what counted as an appearance (cf. the repeated arguments about whether the Charity Shield is an honour). Number 57 14:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Plus, league apps are much easier to source (certainly for UK players). Michael Joyce's book "Football League Players' Records 1888-1939", for example, lists only league stats, the same with Barry Hugman's equivalent book for post-WW2 players. Cup stats for anyone who played more than 20 years ago are actually really hard to find........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It is really hard to find Coppa Italia Serie C stats. or Copa FPF, in some sense they are competitive match, but usually filled with inferior squad as well as lack of media coverage. Matthew_hk tc 07:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I preferred it before User:EduardStreltsov started messing with the article, wondered what others thought. Govvy (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think 'messing' is exactly fair. I created the original formatting too. It looks much less cluttered in the format I've used. A format used by countless other club pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EduardStreltsov (talk • contribs) 13:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I did prefer the way it was before it, a fair bit more comprehensive, I don't mind the standard formatting, but it can be a bit boring, it's nice to have variations at times. Govvy (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw on the talk page about the field size in the infobox on the page, I thought that a good point about being 3, mil square foot sounds very wrong. When I did google translator it says the whole stadium is 3m Square foot, is there another element to change that too? Govvy (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)