Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 149

In Formation (association football) article, There is a section about WW formation as belows.

The WW was a development of the WM created by the Hungarian coach Márton Bukovi who turned the 3–2–5 WM into a 2–3–2–3 by effectively turning the M "upside down".^[1] The lack of an effective centre-forward in his team necessitated moving this player back to midfield to create a playmaker, with a midfielder instructed to focus on defence. This created a 2–3–1–4, which morphed into a 2–3–2–3 when the team lost possession, and was described by some as a kind of genetic link between the WM and the 4–2–4. This formation was successfully used by fellow countryman Gusztáv Sebes in the Hungary national team of the early 1950s.

But as far as I know, The formation used by Hungary national team of the early 1950s was a MM(3-2-3-2) formation. In italian wikipedia, There is a seperate MM(3-2-3-2) formation article - it:3-2-3-2. Besides, WW formation is 2-3-2-3 formation like Metodo (2–3–2–3) formatin.

I'm very confused and I have a question.

Are WW formation and MM formation same? In English speaking countries, Do they call it (MM formation) WW formation?

Footwiks (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think so. The confusion comes from ambiguity in the whether the defence or offence is the W in the WM. If the goalkeeper is at the top (as in the schemes in Wilson's Inverting the Pyramid), then the forwards make up the M and inverting the forwards makes a WW. If the goalkeeper is depicted at the bottom (as in the article schematic), the the defence is the M and inverting the forwards would make an MM. The use of that schematic in the article makes the next section confusing. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation.

According to current formation diagram - Goalkeeper is depicted in Bottom / From Defence(Bottom) to Offence(Top)
(1) 3-2-2-3 formation (Herbert Chapman) - similar to MW letter
(2) 3-2-3-2 formation (Hungary national football team) - similar to MM letter
(3) 2-3-2-3 formation (Metodo) - similar to WW letter

According to formation diagram - Goalkeeper is depicted in Top / From Defence(Top) to Offence(Bottom)
(1) 3-2-2-3 formation (Herbert Chapman) - similar to WM letter
(2) 3-2-3-2 formation (Hungary national football team) - similar to WW letter

Am I understanding what you mean right?

In order to prenvent confusion, I think that WW formation section need additory explanation about MM formation. Footwiks (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was trying to say, although I'd like to see a definitive source for what is the W and M in the W-M or whether they are used interchangeably.

Even Jonathan Wilson seems confused. On p58 of Inverting the Pyramid he shows the W-M numbering and the defence is clearly the W, with the two inside forwards as the tips of the offensive M. Having the goalkeeper at the top also makes sense as he is at the apex of the 1-2-3-5 pyramid.

However, on p88 he describes Marton Bukovi's innovation of withdrawing the centre-forward and says he inverted the W of the W-M, creating what was effectively an M-M. Bernard Joy in his Soccer Tactics (pp. 36-40) also describes the Hungarian innovation as changing the W forward formation to an M. Perhaps it would be best to retitle the WW section, either as MM, more consistent with the diagram, or something to reflect variations on W-M with a withdrawn centre-forward. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for organizing it. My football tactic book also explained similarly about WM => MM transformation. I also think that underlying reason of confusion is naming - WM formation. If football people fixed M - Defence / W - Offence cleary and call it MW formation from an early age, we can remove ambiguity in the whether the defence or offence is the W in the WM formation. In conclusion, Keep pace with current formation diagram trend and in order to prevent confusion, I reckon MW formaition and MM formation is appropriate naming. Naming - MM formation is possible, But Regrettably we can't change WM formation to MW formation because WM formation naming was too notable.Footwiks (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, can someone help explain what happened to Club NXT? Where did the reserve team that played in the 2020–21 Belgian First Division B go? Did it dissolve? Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The article for the 2020–21 Belgian First Division B says they dispanded at the end of the season RedPatch (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

However, I still see Club NXT exists I'm just not sure where they are. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

So essentially Club NXT is just a fancy rebranding for Club Brugge's youth academy. NXT was the very first B-team (U23) to get into the Belgian First Division A - it was an experiment to see if it helped develop young players, source. In March 2021, there was a vote to expand the program to 8 youth teams, which was controversial for many reasons (one of which was NXT's bad performances), here. The plan was to integrate U23s into the Belgian football pyramid by 2022-23, but was postponed in a vote in May 2021. The final agreement passed on 30 June 2021, where the formal rules where laid out; 1A format extended until 2022-23, and a final U23 only league was held, thereafter 14 B-teams would be integrated into the Belgian football pyramid. 4 U23 teams would get into the 1B based on the standings of the U23 tournament, 4 to the third division, and 6 teams to the fourth. Lierse S.K. was not relegated, Club NXT was sent to the U23 league, and R.E. Virton promoted to the 1B, full ruling here. So as of right now, December 2021 NXT can refer to the whole academy from U15-U23 (like La Masia), or specifically to the U23 team (like Barca B). Next year, the U23 team will be promoted somewhere in the Belgian senior pyramid depending on how they perform.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ortizesp. Suggestion; since you did all that, you should add it to the article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have seen an increase in team seasons where the regular season matches are broken down by month. I was wondering if there was any reason to do this. I checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons and didn't see anything as such, and also looked at a bunch of other articles and didn't see it anywhere. Is there any reason to be breaking down the season by month? Jay eyem (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you specify where the season is broken down by months? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by season matches. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Like this revision that breaks up the season by month, for no apparent reason. I had not seen this in other articles and I don't know why I am starting to see this so much, because I don't see a compelling reason to break down matches by month. Jay eyem (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks unnecessary to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey Jay eyem, I've noticed this too with recent Wycombe Wanderers' season articles including the current season. I don't like it either. Seems very unnecessary and too busy. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jay eyem, ChrisTheDude, and Rupert1904: Don't split by months. It's unnecessary. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Cool. I just edited the last two Wycombe season articles to remove this month by month structure. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Can someone please perform the merge action on List of international goals scored by Zinedine Zidane from 2 weeks ago? Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I know we have had some heated debates in the past about exactly what constitutes an honour for a player or manager, but never previously in all my years of following football have I seen getting promoted listed as an honour for the club physio..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I... uhhhh... what? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the club physios be honoured for "fewest injuries to squad members during a season"? ;) Geschichte (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The Category:Association football rivalries has subcategories whose naming is all over the place. Rivalries, derbies, "of foo", "fooian" etc. Should there be a uniform standard? Geschichte (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

My personal preference would be for Football derbies in .... REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Just for the sake of discussion, could it be stated that the derby is the match itself whereas the rivalry refers to the perpetual emotions between teams? Cf. Dictionary.com, derby], "a race or contest", "competition". This way, a rivalry can persist even when teams are in different leagues and do not face eachother, though the general situation where both teams compete to attract players, fans etc can also be called a "competition". Geschichte (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd query using the term "derby" too broadly. I may be wrong, but in my mind "derby" specifically refers to a rivalry match between two teams who are located close to each other geographically. Not all rivalries are derbies. Arsenal contest a derby with Spurs, I don't think anyone would dispute that. They also have a rivalry with Man United which is notable enough to have its own article, but I don't think anyone would refer to "the Arsenal-Man United derby". But then, as I said, maybe I am wrong and the term has evolved..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. A derby in football is usually between teams either in the same city or at least in the same part of a country. Hack (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

So could we go for Football rivalries in [Country]? Or is 'football' too ambiguous? Crowsus (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I would either go for "Association football rivalries in [Foo]", to match the parent category, or use whatever name the sport takes in that country, e.g. "Soccer rivalries in the United States" and "Football rivalries in Singapore". – PeeJay 14:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I noticed three things: 1) The phrasing order, some are Football Rivalries in Country and others are Country Football Rivalries. 2) The different word uses (football/soccer/association football) 3) The different word uses (rivalries/derbies/etc). My personal preference would be to call everything "Association Football Rivalries in XYZ" so there is a consistent standard. Occasionally while adding categories I might miss one because the name is different than anticipated and I simply think it doesn't exist. A standard would make it easier when editing pages from different countries. RedPatch (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Another reason to prefer "rivalries" over "derbies" is that there are also international rivalries mentioned. --SuperJew (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Does this new article actually qualify, it's pretty much falls below the mark, however all the stats websites seem to cover the tournament. Govvy (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It could go either way, but "It is one of the most important club competitions in Vietnam" seems a bit puffery to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I did notice though from the creators talk page, he created the article, it got moved to Draft:Women's Vietnamese Cup on November 19,then he recreated the article in mainspace the very next day RedPatch (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I did actually try to move it to draft space at first, however that other was already there. :/ Govvy (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the national league and cup of every nation should qualify for an article. I also filled the list of champions. -Koppapa (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree this is probably notable, just needs improving. GiantSnowman 16:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The USL W-League operated from 1995 to 2015. A new league USL W League is starting in 2022. The difference in page names is the presence of a hyphen. That's definitely not enough. Ideas? RedPatch (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguate by foundation date so USL W-League (1995) and/or USL W League (2022). If one is the primary topic (I'd guess the one to start next year is) then there's no need to disambiguate it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Have the new one at USL W League and old one at USL W League (1995–2015) as per North American Soccer League (1968–1984) example? GiantSnowman 16:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

RM started at Talk:USL_W-League#Requested_move_9_December_2021 RedPatch (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this necessary? I thought these articles were only needed for the World Cup and continental competitions (Euros, Asian Cup, etc.). Though, to be fair, we do have 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup Group A. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say not. It's a minor international competition and, if I'm not mistaken, not all of the teams competing are full international teams anyway. Also, based on this discussion, I'd say there was a consensus for not breaking it up when there aren't a lot of matches overall as it removes the unnecessary duplication of information. I'd also argue it was WP:INDISCRIMINATE to include that level of detail for matches which aren't that notable. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

On paper they are full international teams (for FIFA). In practice, most teams sent their reserve/local/U23 players. But yeah, I agree that it isn't necessary. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

We also have FIFA Arab Cup records and statistics (which seems valid enough). I still don't think the Group A article should be kept though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

In the new page feed there is;

• 2021 Manning Cup season
• 2019 Manning Cup

However I really don't see how these two actually qualify under WP:FOOTYN let alone pass WP:GNG rules. What do others think? Govvy (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Neither appear to be notable to me. GiantSnowman 14:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree, doesn't look fully professional by reading the articles and the age group seen. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

k, cheers, I sent both articles too AfD. Govvy (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

There's literally only three club lists in this category out of the entire world, should they be deleted/merged? To my mind, being captain of a club really isn't a notable enough deal to warrant this sort of list. Managers yes, obviously, but not captains IMO. I have multiple history books on my club and none of them bother to list all the captains or even mention who was captain in any given season other than occasionally in passing in the context of something else (e.g. "team captain Mark Weatherly scored the winning goal"), suggesting that it isn't really an integral aspect of a club's history...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The fact that all three articles are completely unsourced doesn't look too promising, either.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

What about international captains? There is also a partial list only. --SuperJew (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that international captains are slightly more notable - there tends to press coverage of the selection of a new national team captain, for example, in a way which isn't seen at club level.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

A requested move is currently underway at Talk:NP3 Arena (Sundsvall), where the question of sponsored stadiums is being discussed. Comments would be welcome. Cheers, Number 57 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m rather disappointed but not really surprised that the match on 30 November does not appear to warrant an article here, despite being the record score for either gender in an England national football team match. No wonder people think that there is a male bias on Wikipedia. How is this of lesser importance than Southampton F.C. 0–9 Leicester City F.C.? 2A00:23C6:C780:BF01:B918:171D:ADE6:A7DB (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

TBF the current record win for the England men's team doesn't have an article either....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it absolutely does cover notability guidelines, it's just that no-one's written it yet. Now that may reflect a male bias on Wikipedia, or alternatively the amount of interest in the women's game compared to the men's one. But it's certainly there to be written. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't see why there can't be an article either. The game broke enough records!! Govvy (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

We aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but I would imagine this does meet GNG. Was there a deletion discussion that I'm missing? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski Nope, it's just nobody has got round to writing it yet. WP:NODEADLINE also applies here- I'm sure that at some point, someone will write an article on it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think if the article had been created and then deleted, we might have reason for concern, but I'm sure it's just a case of no one bothering to do it yet. – PeeJay 16:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

In that case, this is bellyaching. Feel free to create a draft, anonymous user. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added it to WOSO's to-do list, as well as List of international goals scored by Ellen White (if we're mentioning notable topics from that match). --SuperJew (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I was actually considering writing this article but had created a similar crazy scoreline article recently that was deemed not notable and deleted. Glad others feel this one meets notability standards. I support it! :) Rupert1904 (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

We have Australia 31–0 American Samoa. The England game happened right after Belgium-Armenia ended 19-0. People have called for these games to have repercussions, in that the weaker teams should pre-qualify, like in most men's regional qualifications. Geschichte (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Holy crap, 31 - 0 for a footy game. Reading the article it was literally men against boys, Samoa fielded 15 year-olds, with the average age of the team at 18. Dam. Govvy (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: Yeah, even the scoreboard was confused and showed 32-0 for a while ;) --SuperJew (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend Next Goal Wins (2014 film) SuperJew. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Article now created at England 20–0 Latvia. Thanks User:Bring back Daz Sampson 2A00:23C6:C780:BF01:D58:AFCD:876C:89F4 (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Changing the qualification format as seen in a source given should help avoid scorelines like that again and I agree with Sarina Wiegman about this not being as competitive as it should be and another source shows how many times a 7 goal margin victory was larger. I know it is a good feeling for people to score hattricks or scoring for the first time but in the same match as done so here at the end of November does not make it very good as other people think.

If anyone noticed "Jack.S.Warrington742", the user added in a "comparison" that the England Women's team appeared to be the first team to score 50 goals, ever sooner than "Fulham Males", see this edit. That is certainly not a good comparison to include in Wikipedia either. Same user also compared the number of hattricks scored in a match compared to Swansea City in the previous decade (none), here and comparing one of their players had score more than Laurent Depoitre can manage in a whole season, here. Comparisons like that don't belong here on Wikipedia either.

By changing the format should provide better feedback from those critics so 20–0 should be the only time it happens in our lifetimes. And 31–0, as seen in an above comment, has not happened again in any competitive match in the men's tournament thankfully, I don't think based on what I'd seen. Either way, I hope these scorelines in this section are only once in a lifetime occurrences so hopefully that format changing announcement earlier this month should make football more enjoyable for everyone. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Found this guy in the new page feed, just one source in the article for him? Can't seem to find anything else in a google search. What do peeps think? Govvy (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I think his Bulgarian spelling name would be Янко Стоянов (according to Google), and someone with that name gets hits on (in Bulgarian, Google won't translate it for me). He's also listed as the top scorer in the 1939–40 Bulgarian National Football Division (found source for this: ). If he has played internationally, then he's probably notable, although that coverage is unfortunately likely to be in Bulgarian and probably offline. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Considering the period, I am not surprised it's hard to find sources, saying that what you found makes it a bit more promising. Considering it was WW2, not surprising he died at 33. Tough period to live in. Govvy (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Added some info to his page with the little information that's online. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 20:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I have made a request for comments on a content dispute at Talk:2021 MLS Cup Playoffs and would appreciate feedback from the project. Thanks! Jay eyem (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi folks - something I see a lot of and try to improve is what I see as poor abbreviations of football leagues. I really hate when league names are abbreviated incorrectly. For example, when I go to a stats table of a player competing in South America, I see that so many of them are playing in the Primera división. But this is literally the name of no less than 7 leagues in CONMBEOL. Whenever I see this abbreviation, I go in and edit their stats table or honours list to indicate which country's Primera División that is and write out Argentine Primera División or Uruguayan Primera División, etc. This also comes up with different variations of Super League - as this is the name in Greece, Serbia, Switzerland, Denmark, and I am sure there are others. I also sometimes see the Russian Premier League and Ukrainian Premier League abbreviated to just the Premier League which is another league entirely. To the average reader, I feel like these abbreviations on player articles are super confusing. I think it's probably okay to have this Primera división or Super League abbreviation on the club article (since the clubs aren't moving countries) but not for players as they are changing clubs and countries. Just wanted to make sure others agree with me and I am not going against MOS/consensus? Cheers. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The way you are handling it makes sense. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You're not wrong when you type out the full name but I feel sometimes it is unnecessary. If a player has only ever played in one country, for arguments sake Argentina, then it isn't always necessary as there is only one Primera División in Argentina. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Stevie - probably no need for full name if a player has only played in one league/country, but definitely worth disambiguating if multiple. GiantSnowman 19:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point Stevie. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Stevie. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey Stevie, as I think about this more, do you feel like this could create a precedent issue if some players have Uruguayan and Argentinian Primera Division in their honours & stats tables and other players just have Primera Division? Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you are saying. I don't think it's a bad thing if there are some inconsistencies like that. For instance, I always use Premiership in a Scottish context because it's reasonably obvious that the article is referring to the Scottish one and not a different one. It's more difficult with the Championship even in a Scottish context because they just copied the EFL's naming system and often people are still referring to the EFL Championship. Plus, what we do today doesn't bind future editors to this decision if they chose to discuss something we've done and agree with a different consensus. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense too. Thanks for your feedback Stevie. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966)/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Every year, we all know that a small amount of football matches get to be rescheduled at a later time. I am voicing my concern about these Covid outbreaks at certain clubs including Tottenham and QPR and what it impacts on the schedule and the future of football should more clubs experience similar mass outbreaks and resulting in insufficient players – if anyone knows what happened to a Portuguese match which was abandoned for that reason. Not sure if it is Omicron to blame or not but was definitely the case in Portugual. But I am hopeful that footballers getting jabbed should make things better for us all to continue monitoring football related articles and the sport can continue forever in every country. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see what this has to do with the Wikiproject. – PeeJay 11:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If no-one else has their voice of concern, they must think we're fine to continue. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Continue with what? Editing Wikipedia? That doesn't stop just because some other people got Covid. – PeeJay 11:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed it does not stop us editing. We'll see how it goes and with some luck things will continue to go well. I noticed Man UTD was called off yesterday due to that outbreak but it did not appear to be the case v Norwich a few days earlier. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, because the outbreak was not detected until after the Norwich game. Again, what does this have to do with this WikiProject? How to respond to the pandemic is not within our remit. – PeeJay 14:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see why. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Would a player that played in the Finnish League Cup meet notability requirements? The player in question would've played in a game between two professional teams in the 2016 Veikkausliiga season, just in the League Cup. Pretty sure they'd meet notability requirements, we essentially do the same for English leagues, just double checking. Ta. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 19:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a general consensus that scraping by on WP:NFOOTY with one or two appearances is not enough to establish notability. --dashiellx (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

If you find good sources, then he could just pass WP:GNG to have a page.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

He only made Finnish League Cup appearances, so I think I'll leave it for the moment. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 04:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

One game in 2016 is probably not enough to presume notability, NFOOTBALL notwithstanding. GiantSnowman 14:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I wish to make Marcus Rashford a GA, can anyone respond this peer review I created here: [] ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@ArsenalGhanaPartey: Hey... there are a lot of GA nominations that are not getting reviewed right now... it's tough especially amidst the absence of Kosack. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that don't get your hopes up, I've been waiting for months for reviews to start. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: Yeah I've realized that at this point. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I have checked the category and discovered at least 420 on the awaiting review list as of now. And it probably won't be long until someone puts Kosack on the Missing Wikipedians list. Speaking of which, Daemonic Kangaroo is currently on there but the same operator has returned under User:Daemonickangaroo2018, shall that entry be removed? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Talk:List of Chelsea F.C. records and statistics#Penalty shoot-out record to determine the necessity of the table listing every penalty shoot-out in Chelsea's history in that article. Any contributions to said discussion would be appreciated. – PeeJay 22:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I've given my view on that, thanks for pointing the issue here. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:James_Rowe_(footballer,_born_1983)#Recent_edits_about_the_circumstances_under_which_he_left_West_Ham. If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It appears the page above is currently a redirect to Great Britain men's Olympic football team. I am wondering if it is better to turn it into a dab page, listing "Great Britain men's Olympic football team" and "Great Britain women's Olympic football team" as those two entries? I noticed the article Scott Sinclair had the redirect link changed to the proper version. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It's just the same as United States national soccer team. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree, dab it. GiantSnowman 14:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ve dabbed it, but there are now several hundred links that will need updating! First task is to identify the templates the new dab page is included in, which will fix most links. Is there a speedier way of doing this? Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is standard practice to keep the men's team as "national/Olympic football team" and the women's one as "women's national football team". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You could use AWB to fix, but I can do it manually using a different script. GiantSnowman 15:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Idont have AWB so any help would be appreciated. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 15:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: - thanks. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed the page has been reverted from one version to another and back again, with two people are two-thirds on their way to a 3RR violation. Not sure if "The Banner" has noticed this talk page section first where we have agreement among most of us. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I usually only solve templates with links to disambiguation pages and do not follow this page. But it is very unfriendly to change a page without considering the consequences. When I looked at it, there were still 212 articles with links to disambiguation pages. To me, that is a problem overriding a consensus here. At least, I expect the one creating the links to solve them themselves and not dump them on other peoples plate. The Banner talk 09:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

To my opinion, the problem is Template:Fbo. If I could, I would have fixed that but I failed. The Banner talk 09:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can't work out how to edit that template (and related) to fix the issue... GiantSnowman 17:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the parameter mw = Olympic should be changed to mw = men's Olympic. (But this will affect some other Olympic team pages like Uruguay and some others, who don't have "men's" in the title.) On a semi-related note, I think that everything from Category:2012 Summer Olympics football group standings templates, Category:2012 Summer Olympics football team roster templates and Category:2012 Summer Olympics football game reference templates is major template overkill and serve absolutely zero purpose. I propose to replace all that stuff with regular wiki text and page transclusions (where needed). --BlameRuiner (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there seems to be some technical glitch whereby the old links still appear when you click on "What links here" on the left-hand toolbar on the Great Britain Olympic football team article. Despite this, as far as I can see, the links do actually point to the men's article. For example, if you look at the edit history of the first two articles that appear on "What links here", Football at the 1920 Summer Olympics and Scotland national football team, you will see user: GiantSnowman's edits. Checking the articles themselves, you will see that neither article now includes a link to the Great Britain Olympic football team article. How does the cache on here get cleared? I thought this was automatic. --Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I have run the script again and it still says 'No more links to disambiguate'. GiantSnowman 08:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps your script only deals with direct links in article space? There are several template-space links still unchanged: see HERE. The direct links in the Olympic-related templates are easily fixable, I'll do them in a minute if no-one else has by then, but the flag ones probably need someone with technical understanding and appropriate permissions, which lets me out. It might be wise to revert to the redirect until they're all done. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, and striking the bit about some of the templates being easily fixed: they use the unfixed flag templates. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Surely it shouldn't matter with the old links, if you've created double redirects one of the bots should pick that up and tell you. WP:DblR. Regards, Govvy (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

In most cases, the article titles of Olympic teams are either under 23's or Olympics for the men's version while women's use national instead. If we could use a separate template such as "Template:FboGB" where we could only just change the altlink parameter to "Olympic men's football team", that may work. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you guys help me understand whose edit was right here? Mine or the other user's? In my 10 years on wikipedia I have honestly never seen anyone having a problem with updating infobox like this, especially for a player whose season is definitely over (summer league, all fixtures completed, new club confirmed the signing). --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the current version of the article, as of 15 December 2021 at 8:08 is the right version in terms of the present/past tense. The 2022 parts should only be included when those days are actually in the present/past, not in the future unless you write in the future tense indicating which team he will be contracted to. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Anwegmann is correct. Courtesy ping for them: @Anwegmann:. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

He's not a player at that club until he signs for them, and he can't sign until 2022 as that's when the transfer window opens. Adding it now is too soon, and speculation- there is always a chance that it doesn't happen. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah the edit is correct. It's also how we handled it at Dominik Szoboszlai in December 2020. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we're in agreement with what I think initially. I presume the hidden text indicated by the arrows and dashes in the source will stay there until he officially joins the club. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not speculation. The transfer will happen unless something remarkable stops it. – PeeJay 14:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Something remarkable could happen to stop it. And he doesn't sign until the transfer window opens, so shouldn't be listed as a player for the new club until then. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

And the assumption that something remarkable will happen is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. – PeeJay 13:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed that the 2021 year is currently in the article with the previous club in the infobox. Not certain if that's true as we don't have anything in the article. And Soccerbase lists him as a current Vitebsk player and Soccerway has the player still listed in the squad as well. Should it be there at this moment or not? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

None of the sites you mentioned actually follow real contract start and end dates, unless the player is from Prem or MLS or other league with major media attention. I guarantee you that for 99.9% of the transfers happening at this player's level (Belarusian Premier League -> Ukrainian First League) they won't know the transfer happened until player debuts for the new team in the spring. --BlameRuiner (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

See how info was displayed here. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

He will not sign until 1 January 2022, so the article should not be updated until that time. GiantSnowman 14:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

ukrainian transfer window does not open until january 31st actually.Muur (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The amount of goals scored by this player for Bayern Munich appears to be miscalculated from sources we regularly use - Soccerbase and Soccerway both says he has scored four goals, all of which came in the 2019–20 season. By checking the season articles for Bayern Munich, they also say he scored four goals. It appears I may have found the error from this edit but I have no idea why that happened. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It might have been a typo. According to sources like kicker or Soccerway he scored only 4 goals in the 2019–20 season. I've corrected this error. --Jaellee (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

A little anecdote that has little to do with this: occasionally, Soccerway is wrong; I emailed them about two mistakes they made on Kalimuendo's profile for example. Moral of the story? Be vigilent even on "reliable" sites! Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Another issue with sites like Soccerbase getting things wrong, is that other news organisation use their data and the wrong facts become embedded in articles long after they are corrected. Take Richard Wood (footballer) for an example. Soccerway shows him at 201 appearances for Rotherham. If you add up the number of games each season on Soccerbase it also adds up to 201 appearances. However the totals on Soccerbase don't (they showed 199 before the game last Saturday and they still show 199 today). Local journalists and even the club picked up on Saturday's game being his 200th appearance, so that is now out in reliable sources on the internet. Gricehead (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand how Soccerbase can show one total for a player on the front page and then a different total if you add up the numbers from their individual season pages. You would think it would all pull from a single underlying database. If not, I am no expert but that sounds like a really bad site build..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jaellee: - thanks.

@ChrisTheDude: - yes, particularly as on Soccerbase where I just noticed they have not included four appearances on the front page. That needs to be fixed, I wonder if they could be emailed too about that error. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

yeah im 99% sure that soccerbase has an error on Alex Baptiste. they include 9 play off appearances for blackpool for some reason even tho he only played 6, and as such caused multiple news sites to say he made his 600th apperence last month when it was actually his 597th. so just backing up that these sources aren't always 100% accurate all the time.Muur (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Per convention here, disambiguation is usually done first as (footballer), then (footballer, born XXXX) as opposed to (XYZian footballer). Currently the article for Petit is at Petit (Portuguese footballer). He is the only footballer at Petit#Footballers, listed as just Petit, but there are other players such as Jean Petit (footballer, born 1949) and Jean Petit (footballer, born 1914) with full disambiguations. Should this page be at Petit (footballer) or Petit (footballer, born 1976)? RedPatch (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

1976. GiantSnowman 15:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I've been wondering about three thing about 'medal templates' section in Infobox:football biography.

1. When you put in the name of the event you usually type year and a place of the competition (eg. {{Medal|W|[[2022 FIFA World Cup|2022 Qatar]]|}}, but recently for some reason people started writing only year, without place. Since other sports also show year and place, I don't think that's a good idea to change it for an unknown reason. Should it be eg. Qatar 2022 or just 2022?
2. In the template Medal, there is a third parameter meant for the competitions like athletics (eg. 200 m) or tennis (singles, doubles). In football, it is usually not used at all, except for some reason, the youth teams (eg. see Lionel Messi). I don't think it should be used at all since it's not made for this purpose, but if it is used then why only for youth squads? And if it's used, links should rather direct to article on a squad during the competition, not the team overall. For example from Lionel Messi article, I think that "U-20 Team" should be linked to 2005 FIFA World Youth Championship squads#_Argentina not Argentina national under-20 football team.
3. This is a nonsignificant thing, but for players who earned medal in different squads of the same nation, shouldn't we maybe write {{MedalCountry|{{fba|ARG}}}} instead of {{MedalCountry|{{fb|ARG}}}} in the MedalCountry template? Or maybe split them like eg. {{MedalCountry|{{fb|ARG}}}}, {{MedalCountry|{{fbo|ARG|name=Argentina U-23}}}}, {{MedalCountry|{{fbu|20|ARG|name=Argentina U-21}}}} etc. Piotr Bart (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with all three of your points. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Can someone please help me find more information of Eliezer Mayenda with reliable sources? I can't find his nationality and birth place, although some of the sources say he is French, Beninese, Spanish. I am just a bit lost on this one. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think we will find anything just yet, too soon and no interviews are out. Hardly any profiles either. We'll have to wait, although I reckon he'd be accessible on his Instagram @eliezer_mayenda. If I had to guess, born in either France or Spain to Beninese parents, and raised in France, so probably going to be confusing anyways.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Myself and @Davidlofgren1996: have agreed how the infobox should display on this article; IPs are reverting without discussing. Any other views welcome. GiantSnowman 15:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Did he play youth or senior football for Valencia? If youth, the IP is correct. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

No mention of it being a 'youth' loan at here, just a normal one. the fact he didn't make a first-team appearance is irrelevant. GiantSnowman 17:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming, though, that he only played youth football, and not senior football. Anyway, last year's RfC on the whole youth/senior thing in the infobox resulted in no consensus, so idk. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with not including Valencia in the youth category, would look messy and much more confusing. --Ortizesp (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ortizesp: Not confusing when Barça's official web omit important information, TBH. With a proper storyline and with references to prove it, it's clear that Espanyol let him go in 2015 and then re-signed him only in 2018. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not conclusive, but The striker was loaned out to Sant Andreu at U19 level where he made his first team debut and also had a loan spell at Valencia. reads to me as if both loans were at youth level. --SuperJew (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: He played youth football for Valencia. Not a loan, though. Added proper references to prove the youth periods correctly and the first Sant Andreu apps, aside from composing a storyline to reflect the amount of information properly. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

What do you think about Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Sports venues? Should not there be some actual definition of a notable venue? Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I see that the proposal was started on 5th Dec, then five days later it was added to WP:NSPORT, with the same editor using it as basis of three AfDs in the space of 15-20 minutes later (one, two, three). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:NVENUE and WP:NSTADIUM are a waste of time, we have WP:NGEO#WP:NBUILD, which covers this, I can't believe all those people wasted their time writing all that crap. Govvy (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be the part of unanimous consensus in favor of Supporting, up until this morning. As far as an "actual definition of a notable venue" goes, NARENA is one: a venue that meets the GNG. Why is Ludost Mlačani so virulently opposed to properly sourcing articles? Ravenswing 16:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

You cannot introduce a new proposal with limited participation and no advertisement to the relevant WikiProjects. GiantSnowman 16:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The proposal has had many participants, and was posted on the talk pages of both WP:N and WP:NSPORTS, those being the relevant pages of the areas that discuss and govern sports-related notability criteria. You have been around Wikipedia quite long enough to know that there is no duty to inform Wikiprojects for general changes to NSPORTS. Decisions are made by those who show up. Ravenswing 23:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: How is NSTADIUM a waste of time? Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: Sorry for the lateness of my reply, was away, however for your question, we already have the SNG WP:NBUILDING. This covers all buildings including stadiums for notability issues. Why on earth do you need another notability SNG, which only covers stadiums. It's pretty much down to the same issues, does the structure have in-depth coverage. There are already too many SNGs below GNG. The whole project needs to be selective in what works, what is precise and not convolute an already overwound wiki-verse. Govvy (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone. In recent years, as WP:FOOTY we've made great progress in agreeing on how to layout and format various aspects of player articles such as career statistics tables and the honours section. This standardisation of how articles look greatly benefits our readers, I think, because it makes the articles easier to read.

The honours sections of club articles are a lot less standardised somehow. They are supposed to look like this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs#Honours

Some articles also use tables but look quite different still:

• FC Barcelona#Honours
• Real Madrid CF#Honours

Others don't use tables and seem to rely on bold text excessively:

• Liverpool F.C.#Honours
• Chelsea F.C.#Honours
• FC Bayern Munich#Honours

Questions:

1. Have the honours sections of club articles received a wider discussion by the project?
2. If so, why are most articles not matching the template?

If not, we should try to agree on a standard layout and formatting and update articles to match it.

Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

A lot of editors like to make an article to their liking, a lot of editors like tables, others like templates. As long as the formatting doesn't have WP:ACCESS issues I am an even/or person. I however prefer no table, just easier on the voice reader. Govvy (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Allowing editors to make an article as they like defeats the point of having a standard. But it is also a good idea to revisit the standards from time-to-time. @Govvy:'s point with voice readers is a good one and if tables make them harder to use, perhaps the standard should be changed. --dashiellx (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say that tables are easier to read than having loads of different bullet points. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I know for players born in one country, but who represent another, we omit nationality then write: "Born in XX, Player represents YY internationally. What happens when it was a country that no longer exits, such as Yugoslavia? For example, Milan Borjan was born in Yugoslavia, but represents Canada. The area he was born in is technically part of Croatia, but it was in a Serbian-supporting-area of Croatia as mentioned in Milan Borjan#Personal life, which is how he identifies his heritage as (Serbian). What should it say for his page? Born in Yugoslavia, Borjan represents Canada internationally?I don't think it makes sense to write Croatia. RedPatch (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Do reliable sources define him as being Croatian? If not, Canadian is fine. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I've changed it back. He wasn't born in Croatia, because Croatia didn't exist then. He was born in Yugoslavia. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If referring to a specific historic event (including someone being born) a place should always be referred to as being in the country it was actually in at the time. I am pretty sure the MOS states this, although I can't find the specific page right now..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we should refer to the historical name. GiantSnowman 10:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The last paragraph of MOS:GEO covers this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Should the signature of a player be added to the infobox like for example here? --Jaellee (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

No, not needed. GiantSnowman 19:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see anything wrong with it. Signatures are part of {{Infobox person}}, so nothing wrong with including them for footballers - footballers are people too! – PeeJay 20:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem to include it if it's available, but I wouldn't go out of my way to get it. --SuperJew (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I have concerns about both relevance and provenance. GiantSnowman 15:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, how would we actually verify it's his signature? It's an image that someone has uploaded on Commons as their "own work", yet apparently it's Coutinho's signature. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not the signature is accurate is a different issue to whether or not it should be included. The community that worked on the parameters for {{Infobox person}} decided it was fine to include there, and we have the ability to nest {{Infobox football biography}} in {{Infobox person}}, so even if it weren't included in {{Infobox football biography}}, it wouldn't be too difficult to circumvent and add it anyway. Obviously if it's not really Coutinho's signature, it should be deleted, but otherwise what's the problem? – PeeJay 17:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Because an infobox is meant to be summary of a player's career. The signature is not relevant. Generally we do not use the other {{Infobox person}} parameters and there is no reason to have signatures of players either. GiantSnowman 19:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Could I get a few more eyes on this article? Rainhampete is repeatedly adding a massive chunk of text copied verbatim from another website (even including the words "See Kent League tables from 1894-95 season......CLICK HERE", which don't link anywhere!) to the history section. I've reverted him three four times and asked him to stop, but I need to log off now, so if anyone else could keep an eye on it that would be great. Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks to be sorted - let me know if he re-appears as IP. GiantSnowman 19:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I requested revision deletion for all the copyvio diffs. And user is indeffed now too. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about a redesign of the NASL Template on its talk page. If I could ask for others to offer their suggestions, it would be appreciated. Thanks. --dashiellx (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from experienced users on how to handle a club's involvement in the FIFA Club World Cup when it happens between two domestic league seasons. User:Claudiogostoso repeatedly removed references to the 2021 FIFA Club World Cup from 2022 Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras season. Their contention at Talk:2022 Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras season is that the 2021 edition, although played in February 2022, should belong in the 2021 season article.

Honestly, I can see both sides. My first thought was that since it's played at the very start of the 2022 Brazilian season, it should definitely be part of the 2022 season article. But were it not for COVID delays, it would've been played in December 2021 and it's the extension of the 2021 season. And it could create complications if Palmeiras win the Copa Libertadores again and qualify for the 2022 edition.

Thanks in advance for your input. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would put it in the 2021 season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Please leave the 2021 FIFA Club World Cup article only in the 2021 season, so that there is no confusion and friction between seasons, as was done in the 2020 season, where you maintained Palmeiras participation in the Club World Cup in the season in question and not in the year it was played. Claudiogostoso (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd expect it in 2022 probably. Maybe have at least a link to section from other article. -Koppapa (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

And what about the transfers? The squad information? Since you're all saying that the 2021 season is not over, i think we should put the "2022" transfers at the 2021 season. Guilherme (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, While working on Orphan articles, I found these two, both from Brazil -

• Associação Atlética Vila Isabel - orphan, defunct
• Villa Isabel Football Club - not orphan, founded 1912, defunct

Asking if anyone here can investigate & maybe merge into one article? Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Merge what? I don't see anything in either article to indicate either is notable. I think they are more candidates for AfD--dashiellx (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@User:Dashiellx - Both are stub-articles & need much more content. Lacking substance, I agree about AfD. I've not done AfD ever, so you're welcome to pursue. Thanks, I still have much to learn about Wikipedia. JoeNMLC (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

When I nominated these articles for deletion, I used Twinkle for the first time to do so, and I think I did it incorrectly. Both are showing as "Articles/Templates/Categories for deletion/". Additionally, the delete proposals were removed by @User:Ortizesp and @User:Phil Bridger respectfully. Hoping an admin could take a look at this, show me what I didn't incorrectly and assist with getting this discussed properly. Thanks. --dashiellx (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dashiellx: - yes, you messed up. Please can you fix manually and follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO? I have added AFD tags to the articles and moved the discussion pages to the correct location. GiantSnowman 18:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: - I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what it is you would like me to do? It looks like you did everything to fix except add them to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion log which I have done. Does everything look OK? --dashiellx (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to tag the articles (which I did), start the AFD discussion page (which you did but which I moved to correct location), add to the log, and notify the article creators. GiantSnowman 18:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed Twinkled posted the creators talk page, everything else has now been done. Thank you for your assistance. --dashiellx (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Lovely stuff! GiantSnowman 20:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I have started a proposal that FA Cup Third-fourth place matches be merged into FA Cup semi-finals. Input welcome, discussion is here. Crowsus (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I am noticing an issue going on here regarding middle names. this source gives his middle names as "Stéphane Bernard" while the Bundesliga refers to his middle names as "Mbu Agogo". Some of the sources must be wrong, whether it is the first group which gives him "Stéphane Bernard" or the one which was recently added by the IP address. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I would personally go with the Bundes source. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree, Bundesliga likely to be more reliable on this. GiantSnowman 18:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

By checking the article history, the "Mbu Agogo" middle names was removed in April 2017 which was unsourced at the time, then in February 2019, the addition of the other two middle names were added and that's what Mattythewhite knows. Unless this section is seen first, Matty would probably revert it back to the latest 21 December 2021 version. Also other language Wikipedias don't have a common solution as to what his correct full name is. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Also should there be agreement to see if that article should have been moved from year of birth to nationality disambiguator, see also Anthony Modeste (Grenadian footballer). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Keith Downing has joined Plymouth Argyle as first team head coach. So he is their new manager right? Wrong, he is manager Steven Schumacher's assistant: "Keith has come in as my No 2, if you like". Why do clubs like trying to confuse people with these titles?! --EchetusXe 15:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

after spending five years managing english youth teams I would'v thought he could get a better job than assistant at a league one team.Muur (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If you call your assistant manager "head coach", it should be an automatic relegation IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello!

Seven logos of two Japanese football clubs have been brought to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 December 27 by myself, just FYI.Jonteemil (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Sweden were supposed to play matches against Finland on 9 and 12 January 2022, respectively. However, this national team gathering was later cancelled due to new Covid restrictions. The thing is that the squad had already been called up. What is the praxis in this scenario? Go back to the latest squad (from November) in the "Current squad" section? And should players called up for these matches then be removed from the "Recent call-ups" section (if they have not been called up for the latest 12 months, of course)? If not, what should even be written in the "Latest call-up" column (since no match was actually played)? // Mattias321 (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I would still keep the called-up players for the January 2022 games. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I would keep them. They've been called-up despite having not played. We don't edit post match to remove any players who weren't fielded in the match. --SuperJew (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, keep them - this is still the current squad. GiantSnowman 19:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, @Nehme1499, @SuperJew and @GiantSnowman. I guess it makes more sense to keep them, even though it feels it a bit strange since the games won't be played. However, what should go in the "Latest call-up" column after the next call-up in March? "v. Finland, 12 January 2022", followed by ^CANC for "Cancelled"? // Mattias321 (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm indifferent. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, can anyone help to create the 2021-22 season away kit and third kit of Lincoln City F.C.? Cuz I don't know how to create the kit with photo editor. Thanks a lot. --Isaaclai1122 (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Isaaclai1122: I have added basic versions of the kits. GiantSnowman 14:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thanks a lot for your effort, but I think if any other people have the skills to create the specific kit for the club are still welcome to help.--Isaaclai1122 (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Super specific kits are generally frowned upon. GiantSnowman 22:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

hey, can we please get the career statistics of cristiano ronaldo more mobile friendly, especially less wide. to see the effect on a desktop resize your browser to very small and use [the mobile site]. especially remove the column listing "la liga" 20 times, as everybody knows that real is in la liga? to list la liga anyway we could put it at the end and make a sum of the goals. here a try, note the sums at the end, as ronaldo played for manchester two times. despite the now quite good table editing such sums are not so easy to maintain, i created a a task in phabricator, maybe some PHP wizard has a cool idea how to address it better. what you think? @ItsKesha: was so kind to point out to list the proposal here. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@ThurnerRupert: The league definitely needs to be listed. Also, to make experimental changes, you can do so in your own sandbox. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499:, i tried so, see the comparison. the league is there in the summary row. that the table itself needs the league sounds strange. my personal preference would be that columns can be hidden away somehow, to have them for automated summary functions. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The used table is much clearer, the other one looks "afwul" for me with the league totals, shortened names. Kante4 (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hahabs23345664 (talk · contribs)

Can someone have a look to their edits and their next ones? Almost of them are uncostructive. Dr Salvus 16:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: I have undone those of today but there are some older ones not yet looked at. Also left additional message at their talk page. Judging by this edit, they may be 'nothere'. Eagleash (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I've corrected some of their edits, and left them a message. GiantSnowman 16:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

There is an RfC related to changing the guidelines of WP:NFOOTY currently in progress at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC on WP:NFOOTY criteria being changed. snood1205 17:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hope all the project peeps are well, just had my third jab yesterday, and a dead arm today! Happy holidays to you all. Govvy (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You too - may your booster side-effects be minimal and your Christmas festivities be maximal. GiantSnowman 19:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy holidays! I'll be spending the week in the Christmas tree-flag country. Nehme₁₄₉₉

Hope this Christmas would be healthy and safe to us all. Although from 24 December, the day of my 3rd jab, I may get side-effects from the booster but hope nothing too serious. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry holidays to all. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all at WP:FOOTY! Hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable Christmas. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

In response to my own comment yesterday, just like in any association football match, I'm afraid the booster jab given to me will also have to be postponed, to be done at a later date. I'd put the false fact in bold above. Logic has it, a second faint line might mean bad news so having the jab immediately following that test result probably does not bode well afterwards. I wasn't aware that I may have caught something related to Covid yesterday (e.g. Omicron), or even before that, so it is safer for me to wait rather than risk the bad effects. Just hope Govvy didn't catch something before the jab. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully it's a false positive. At least having COVID is considered better short-term protection then any jab. If that counts as a positive. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Seasons greetings all! Stay safe Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I am all good, cheers Iggy, My Spurs West Ham ticket, I had to resale last week, certainly didn't feel up to going the day after my jab. Govvy (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_147#RfC_medals_in_infobox was closed with the statement "include medals from [notable] international tournaments in the infobox of soccer players and national teams, so as to be consistent with how medals are displayed in other sports". Piotr Bart (talk · contribs) is claiming that this project has made including the nation that hosted the tournament part of the template. I seem to recall that several editors aside from myself have removed the location. Is an RfC required for this or has it already been settled? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any consensus on the matter, but I think the country name of the host country should not be included. GiantSnowman 19:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Nor was I, and you and PeeJay were two editors I recall having seen remove them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not participate in the initial RFC, but I concur that the host nation should not be included in these cases. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have had an edit reverted at 2020 AFC U-19 Championship, where I removed the large, empty pre-tournament group stage section, and replaced it with a table showing the results of the draw. To my reckoning, this is well over 50% of the whole article devoted to a section that was cancelled - not deferred - and significantly unbalances the article. @Mwiqdoh: disagrees, citing that we still include cancelled phases and the groups are also needed as a template.. I don't really understand the second point. Regarding the first point, do we routinely, or should we routinely, include cancelled phases for cancelled tournaments ? This would also include a similar case at 2020 OFC Champions League#Knockout stage, where in my view all but the first table should be removed as it has also become hypothetical and /or redundant. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I certainly don't see the point of an empty group stage section. I think your draw table and perhaps a paragraph on when the games were supposed to take place, where, etc... would be sufficient. --dashiellx (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

We need the empty group to use as templates for articles like: 2020–21 in Saudi Arabian football#Saudi Arabia under-20 national team. In the section for the 2020 AFC U-19 Championship, we put the template, {{:2020 AFC U-19 Championship|transcludesection=Group C|show_team=KSA}} so we show the team's group. We may not need it for the article, so maybe we can create a separate template just with the groups. Sorry if this isn't a good explanation, I'm in a rush right now. Thanks, --Mwiqdoh (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You could cover it in prose on both articles to be fair. It doesn't take much to say "National Team One were due to play National Team Two, National Team Three and National Team Four in Competition X before it was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Wherever" or however you wish to word it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

To solve the second part of the issue in my opinion, we could simply remove the transcluded template off the section in the 2020–21 in Saudi Arabian football#Saudi Arabia under-20 national team article, without needing an additional or separate template? The particular cancelled games still appear in this season article just as they are now (as they are not inside the transcluded section), so I would think that would be fine; it would be similar to what's currently displayed at 2020–21 in Australian soccer#Men's under-20. Matilda Maniac (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

in the absence of any other comments to the contrary, I am intending to remake the edit (tomorrow?) and "cover it in prose on both articles" as per the suggestion of @Stevie fae Scotland:. Matilda Maniac (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Arsenal F.C. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Mohamed Abdelrahman (footballer, born 1993), from Sudan, sometimes known as Mohamed Abdelrahman Yousif
• Mohammed Abdulrahman (footballer, born February 1989), from the UAE, sometimes known as Mohammed Abdulrahman Al Raqi
• Mohammed Abdulrahman (footballer, born September 1989), from Nigeria

All of these are part of Mohamed Abdel Rahman (disambiguation). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• We can probably disambiguate by nationality instead of birthyear in this case for brevity.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Ortizesp, disambiguate by nationality as first disambiguator. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

In the football box collapsible, would we include a yellow card given to the head coach? For example: In this Premier League timeline, the 30th-minute yellow card given to the Southampton coach is included. Mwiqdoh (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't include that, technically it's not part of the game play, the referee has to wait for a break in play to issue managers or coaches with a warning. Govvy (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: I disagree, it is given during the game while the time is running, therefore it is part of the game. Mwiqdoh (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Govvy (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Mwiqdoh (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The consensus is not to include cards for players either, so definately no reason to include for a coach --SuperJew (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Since the new rule which allows refs to put managers in the book, I don't see how it is different to the players. The way I see it, we either have both or none. Although it would probably need something like an RFC to decide it properly. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Actually, we do include bookings in season articles. Mwiqdoh (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: There might be cases where editors include them, but it is not the consensus of the project. --SuperJew (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Cautioning coaches or sending them off usually does not directly affect the final result, so I support maintaining the current situation.--Sakiv (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sakiv: I agree. Thanks for your input. Mwiqdoh (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I stumbled upon Ri Kum-chol (footballer, born unknown), and then also found George Allan (footballer, born unknown), Harry Allan (footballer, born unknown) and John Allan (footballer, born unknown), all very recent articles. I understand the reasoning behind the naming, but lack of a known birth year is probably not a good way to disambiguate – and "born unknown" seems especially inadequate as it doesn't even tell you what exactly is unknown about their birth. Has this issue come up before? Is there anything else that could be used for disambiguation in these cases? Lennart97 (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• After a quick glance, the issue is that neither birthyear, nor nationality, nor position are adequate disambiguators, and those are the ones listed at WP:NCSP. I'm fine with "born unknown" disambiguator, but if someone has an alternative I'd be open to those as well.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Birthdate unknown sounds more natural to me. Hack (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Things like Name (1920s footballer) or Name (active 2000–2002) or Name (club footballer) etc. are better than using any form of 'unknown' as a dismabiguator IMHo. GiantSnowman 15:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The era ('1890s footballer' etc) should be the suffix if nothing else is available as that helps it be identified from lists if someone is looking for possibilities, whereas 'born unknown' gives no such clue. On a related note, the quality of these "articles" is grim. If so little information can be found in the sources to identify the person, surely the creator should consider holding back on adding it to the site. Crowsus (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the timeframe when the footballers were active, if known. I found Danny Simpson (early footballer) where his birth year is not known or sourced but he was active in the late 1800's and early 1900's. So renaming these pages to when they were active is certainly better than "born unknown" per GiantSnowman's response today. I have also found Kim Jong-man (footballer, born unknown) during an insource search of "born unknown" for any wikilinks plus Ri Hyok-chol (footballer, born 1973) where I don't see a sourced birth year. Not sure if that's all the article names which have this odd disambiguation. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with "active [timeframe]". As a more precise alternative I propose "fl. [timeframe]", as the "fl." denotes a period when the subject is known to have been active (not necessarily the entire period of their activity). --Theurgist (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it common WP practice to use "fl." in article titles? I agree it's more precise than "active", but its meaning may not be immediately clear to most readers. Lennart97 (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Jonathan Mutombo became part of Paris Saint-Germain's first team after he "graduated" from the under-19 team on 1 July 2021. He was under a professional contract and was not part of the club's amateur reserve side; therefore, he was part of the first team. On 31 August 2021, he left PSG to join Vitória de Guimarães's U23 team. Should I include this in the transfers section of 2021–22 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season? Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul Vaurie, I'd include him Dr Salvus 09:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Any other opinions? And should I specify that he joined the U23 side of Vitória? Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Include him, but no need to specify U23. GiantSnowman 10:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

In August, I created this template. Can someone insert the template in all players/clubs/coaches/etc who play in the French leagues? Dr Salvus 22:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

What is the point of the template? GiantSnowman 22:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It's similar to Template:English football updater. It's very useful especially for lower-tier clubs, where instead of having to update all their infoboxes to reflect the most recent season's result, you would just update the template itself. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Got you. WP:BOTREQUESTS might be the best place to get assistance for this? GiantSnowman 10:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Can we make sure it's correct before we start using it please? For example, Saint-Pryvé are not in Championnat National and were not promoted as champions of 2020–21 Championnat National 2. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I edit a lof of French football articles. The template is very confusing right now, has some errors, and when I put it in an article it makes a huge space inside the opening sentence. It needs some adjustments before being used all over French football league player articles. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Today or tomorrow, I'll see the template and correct the errors. Dr Salvus 09:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie what's confusing in the template? @Gricehead I may've been distracted but I've seen no errors (except the mentioneted one by you) Dr Salvus 22:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes when I put it in articles it leaves a big space in the opening sentence. It creates a new line when it should just replace words. It's weird. Perhaps it's been fixed since the last time I used it. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Are "in-game involvements" of any encyclopaedic value? Mrloniboo is repeatedly reverting my edits removing such information on Gabriel Martinelli. See here for diffs. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NOTDIARY, particularly the section that says that we should not mention every game played/goal scored.Spike 'em (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi folks. I could do with some help at Kwon Chang-hoon. AsianEuro Cungball (talk · contribs) has been removing the |club-update parameter from the infobox. I've asked for an explanation at their Talk page but instead was reverted. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: Final warning issued - if they continue let me know and I will block. GiantSnowman 22:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

At Women's International Champions Cup, the editor who removed content from the men's tournament is insisting "many consider the WICC to be the annual decider for the best women's soccer club in the world" while it is only one team that is participating and so it is better to say that (although I do not think the phrase stands up to scrutiny). Feel free to comment on the (currently uncreated) talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I have given my view on this on the "currently uncreated talk page" which is now created. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 23:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Clubs encompass many different teams. Whilst both are true, "team" reads better and is more accurate. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I would use "teams" for international competitions (national teams) and "club" for club competitions. This falls into the latter. Cheers, Number 57 23:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Would some mind undoing these recent edits at Kostas Tsimikas, where an IP has changed the infobox stats to include all competitions and added unnecessary rows in the career stats table? I'm on three reverts. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Done, plus I've semi-protected the article for a week. Cheers, Number 57 00:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Are "in-game involvements" of any encyclopaedic value? Mrloniboo is repeatedly reverting my edits removing such information on Gabriel Martinelli. See here for diffs. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NOTDIARY, particularly the section that says that we should not mention every game played/goal scored.Spike 'em (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi folks. I could do with some help at Kwon Chang-hoon. AsianEuro Cungball (talk · contribs) has been removing the |club-update parameter from the infobox. I've asked for an explanation at their Talk page but instead was reverted. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: Final warning issued - if they continue let me know and I will block. GiantSnowman 22:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

At Women's International Champions Cup, the editor who removed content from the men's tournament is insisting "many consider the WICC to be the annual decider for the best women's soccer club in the world" while it is only one team that is participating and so it is better to say that (although I do not think the phrase stands up to scrutiny). Feel free to comment on the (currently uncreated) talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I have given my view on this on the "currently uncreated talk page" which is now created. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 23:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Clubs encompass many different teams. Whilst both are true, "team" reads better and is more accurate. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I would use "teams" for international competitions (national teams) and "club" for club competitions. This falls into the latter. Cheers, Number 57 23:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Would some mind undoing these recent edits at Kostas Tsimikas, where an IP has changed the infobox stats to include all competitions and added unnecessary rows in the career stats table? I'm on three reverts. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Done, plus I've semi-protected the article for a week. Cheers, Number 57 00:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I changed those articles titles 1960 American Football League season — 1969 American Football League season to 1960 AFL season — 1969 AFL season. This would match better, with the Year NFL season articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the wrong WikiProject. Kante4 (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops, this WikiProject covers association football. Or what we North Americans call, soccer. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Although "AFL" is ambiguous with "Australian rules football", so I would say it's better as is. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone think of any reason why the font sizes in some of the tables at 2021–22 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season should be reduced? I was told it was because it was causing one of the names in one of the tables to wrap onto two lines, so I widened the columns. Then I was told "that's just how it's been done for the last few years", which as we all know isn't a good reason to do something contrary to the MOS (specifically MOS:FONTSIZE). There is an allowance for a smaller font in larger tables, but these tables don't fit that description, at least in my opinion. So yeah, if anyone can come up with a legitimate reason to reduce the font size in the tables, that would be swell. Courtesy ping @Govvy. – PeeJay 13:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

So I can read it on my mobile when I am out and about, I actually, can't read the font on my mobile when you switch it to the higher, it goes somewhat blurry to me, my eyes are fucked up enough without you edit-warring. You're being unfair on me and my dam poor eyesight. Govvy (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why only some tables have the reduced font size. If you're having trouble reading things with a large font size on your mobile, maybe you need to change your own settings, not change things that affect the way everyone reads the article. – PeeJay 13:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I've reported you to ANI, I can't read now thanks to you. You don't understand the settings I have or the problems I have. Thank you. Govvy (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm on PeeJay's side. If there is a "blurriness" problem than all table sizes should be reduced, right up in the wikitable class itself. Obviously that isn't the case, so the MOS should be followed. One editor claiming "I don't like it" isn't enough to work against a clear order from the MOS. PeeJay's is on the right here, and Govvy should take their issue, without their language, to the MOS:FONTSIZE talk page. Deancarmeli (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Can someone have a look to the article's FLC? Dr Salvus 14:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I worry a bit about this - does this even meet WP:LISTN? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski if this page doesn't meet it, all the pages about hat-tricks of national teams should be deleted. Dr Salvus 14:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

For anyone interested with a little spare time, I have recently updated Category:Association footballers not categorized by position and Category:Women's association footballers not categorized by position with over 1700 new articles of players that do not have any position category.

In addition, I have also created Category:Association football players not categorized by nationality with just over 300 people who are categorized in the association football player category tree, but do have have any nationality category (e.g. "Fooian footballers").

Any help would be appreciated to reduce the backlog! As a side note, some of the people in these categories may not actually have played football, but are incorrectly included in one or more player categories, resulting in them ending up in these lists. In such a case, the offending player categories should be removed from the article. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, S.A. Julio. Adding missing position categories has been a focus of mine in recent years and I will keep trying to get the numbers of uncategorised players down.

A bunch of prominent people who are not at all known for being footballers are categorised as such because they played for amateur sides. This goes especially for Category:Hollywood United players but also for someone like Arthur Conan Doyle. This has been bugging me. Is there anything we can do about this? Robby.is.on (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, should these be histmerged? Of course, the main space version is better developed but we have now got two separate articles on the same person with different histories. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it was moved from mainspace to draft as he hasn't played a FPL match, but then it was immediately re-created in mainspace. I cleaned up the complete mess of an infobox though, formatting was all over the place. RedPatch (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I have merged the two versions (in mainspace) and taken to AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trai Hume. GiantSnowman 22:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Was there a consensus to include college statistics tables in player articles? I have a tough time understanding why they should be included when stats are not included for more notable youth club competitions like the FA Youth Cup, UEFA Youth League, PL2, etc. American college soccer is a youth, amateur competition and is the only youth competition that I have seen have its own dedicated stats table on wikipedia. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

it's fine to include them in the infobox, but not the 'career stats' table. GiantSnowman 22:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Cool. So okay for me to remove college stats tables when I see them like here and here? Rupert1904 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

absolutely - not standard, not in the MOS. Any editor wanting them to become standard would need consensus here. GiantSnowman 22:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Great. That's what I thought but wanted to check before I started removing blindly. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should have any problem with including American college sports stats. – PeeJay 23:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Why should we include them? We don't include other youth, amateur stats outside of major international youth competitions. Rupert1904 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Because American college sports are essentially a law unto themselves. They're not the same as other youth competitions. – PeeJay 00:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? Rupert1904 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not standard, but the reason they get added often is because college stats are highly notable for Basketball and American Football, where players have to go through the college system prior to making the pro leagues (for a while it was kind of like that for MLS as well for domestic players). So editors will say since we do it for that, we probably do it for this as well. I don't think it's people trying to force it in, but a general good faith misunderstanding due to its prominence in player articles for other sports. RedPatch (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay, college careers are a whole separate category. I don't see an issue with including such statistic tables, especially given the statistics can already be included in the infobox. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. The two examples cited here were well maintained and clearly marked as separate from other club statistics. Especially considering many college athletes can already achieve notability from WP:NCOLLATH, why delete? Seany91 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Also the idea from Rupert1904 that European youth competitions are more notable than American NCAA D-I competitions in all sports is just laughable and not at all reflected by all metrics like audience, broadcast, revenue, competition level in certain sports, etc. I will assume good faith here that the attempt to standardize this is just based on unfamiliarity with American sporting landscape and not some sort of weird European bias. Seany91 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I am American and live in America. I know the college soccer landscape very well and have been around it my entire life. College soccer is very different to Division 1 college football and college basketball. Yes, college football and college basketball are huge money-making ventures for the schools and conferences but to suggest college soccer is getting huge attendances and TV revenue is ridiculous. A ton of D1 schools don't even field men's programs because they don't help the school or athletics program at all financially. Only with the emergence of ESPN+ SVOD platform in the last few years have games been readily available to stream on a computer or mobile device so to suggest that it's extremely profitable and widely disseminated to a huge TV audience is a bit absurd. And my issue is not whether the stats table is well maintained or not. My issue is that if amateur sporting competitions that are very well known and have huge media coverage (i.e. the FA Youth Cup and the UEFA Youth League) have been deemed not notable for inclusion in a stats table than college soccer stats should not be either. College soccer has essentially been the academy/youth system in American professional soccer. And I hope you don't believe that more professional players come from college soccer than European academies. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the FFF template is broken, as it will display an archived link even if the parameter "|archive=" is not included in the template. This seems unnecessary as the FFF website is still active, and some of these pages have not been archived on the Wayback Machine. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The FFF website is still functioning, but none of the target pages are in the same place any more. Using the example of Marius Trésor, the page is now at https://www.fff.fr/equipe-nationale/joueur/8784-tresor-marius/fiche.html rather than https://www.fff.fr/equipes-de-france/tous-les-joueurs/fiche-joueur/886-marius-tresor. Gricehead (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gricehead: What I mean is that, when the FFF template is used, the result will always display the archived link, even if the "archive" parameter isn't used. Because the FFF website is still functioning, why do the links need to be archived? I recently added an FFF link to Étienne Youte Kinkoue, but as you can see, the link is archived, and there is no instance of his FFF profile on the Wayback Machine, so the link simply does not work. If the template worked as intended, it would just link to the profile, not an archived version, and would still be available. Hope this makes sense. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

My reading of the start of the code is that the |archive= supplied specifies a specific dated version of the archive to use, not to to toggle using the archive. i.e. it will always create the link using archive.org, and assumes that this archive has been created using the https://www.fff.fr/equipes-de-france/tous-les-joueurs/fiche-joueur/ format rather than the newer one. I haven't figured out what the rest of the code is doing yet! Spike 'em (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And this change says to use {{FFF player}} for new style ids, so it looks like {{FFF male player}} will only work for players using an old id who happen to have been archived. Spike 'em (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Have also updated Étienne's page to illustrate Spike 'em (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to move {{FFF male player}} to something like {{FFF player (old)}}? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I've added a note to the template documentation, but moving it will still leave a redirect so that it doesn't break the existing pages using the template. Spike 'em (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, many of the players who transclude the "male player" template, also transclude the newer "player" one, so should probably have the archive version removed (as long as the new one actually works). There are ~750 pages using the old one, so would need a bit of effort to check them all. Ones where the page isn't archived would need a search on the site to find the new location of the page, or a check on the wikidata for the player (as the numeric ids have changed) and a swap of the templates. Spike 'em (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the update on the page, Spike 'em. I agree with Nehme, I think it makes more sense to have something like {{FFF player (old)}} or {{FFF player (archived)}}, or something along those lines, to save from confusion in future, if this template is to continue being used. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In infobox football biography, in the medals section, should we mark events by year and host (like most sports does), or just year? Piotr Bart (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Just year - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 149#Medal template in infobox again. GiantSnowman 19:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Wait, so first you say there isn't any concensus and now use it as concensus to put just year? Piotr Bart (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? GiantSnowman 13:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi all,

I've attempted numerous times to draw user @BergKin: into a discussion regarding their editing of the Israel national team page (both on their Talk page and on the national team Talk page), to no avail, and have now been accused of trolling by their sockpuppet account @HerzlTheGoat: (see editing history for confirmation).

I have been trying to bring the page in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams, namely by deleting the Current Competitions section, the Squads section (as it is available in the Competitive Record section) and moving images of Yossi Benayoun and Eran Zahavi to the Records section, where they would both be relevant images. The latest point has also been the addition of Tooltips to the Recent Call-ups section that I believe is excessive as information is available immediately below in the Key.

I cannot get either user to engage in a discussion and have now reached the 3 revert rule therefore am looking for another user to help or better make a ruling. If there's a more appropriate forum to take this issue, let me know and I'll head there!

Thanks,

Felixsv7 (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Taking this argument at face value (without looking at the facts), this is probably a better sourced to WP:ANI for behavioural issues. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks Felixsv7 (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

List of Montserrat international footballers with 1 cap (see draft).

I just cleaned up Alex Daley somewhat, but I believe his notability is pretty close to non-existent. It's miles and miles below an English Conference player, for instance. Daley represented Montserrat once, which is about as far from notability as one can get in international football. However, per WP:PRESERVE, and the outcome of AFDs over the past year (not only football, but cricket as well) where GNG has been more enforced than before, I thought about making a list into which all of these barely-notables could be lumped. Michael Henry (footballer) is another example. The list would consist of a table with name, DOB (and DOD), position, year of cap, and known clubs + ref (see draft). All eligible players would be merged on sight, without prejudice of demerging them if someone suddenly comes up with SIGCOV.

The same idea would apply to other minnows like Anguilla, i.e. FIFA members that aren't countries, sit around 200th in the FIFA ranking, have minimal home match attendance etc. Granted, this would set a big precedent, but with the recent community rejection that Olympians have automatic notability, Wikipedia seems to be headed in this precise direction either way. Also, note that I limited the proposal to 1 cap at the moment. Geschichte (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Create List of Montserrat international footballers to list all players, even those definitely notable, and then seek consensus at AFD to redirect individual players. GiantSnowman 15:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a really good idea btw. As GS says though extend it to all Montserrat internationals, there won't be too many of them. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro is adding a nonsensical link to List of expatriate footballers in Paraguay (not even the correct link, which is List of foreign footballers in Paraguay) in every single non-Paraguayan player article that has played in Paraguay. I honestly don't think this is a correct approach and I'm therefore removing it from those pages.

What are your inputs over this? BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

BrazilianDude70, the link is just useless Dr Salvus 02:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, this is not constructive. GiantSnowman 15:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Could someone familiar with Finnish football take a look at Mikko Simula? It's a bit out of date and I'm not sure if he's notable. Hack (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the nonsense. :-) Seems notable to me, Simula played for a bunch of clubs in Veikkausliiga. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The Finnish entry at WP:FPL is marked with {{Clarify timeframe}} so I wasn't sure if his Veikkausliiga appearances counted. Hack (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Could someone add an infobox to the article? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

In season articles, we include goals, penalty misses and yellow and red cards. I think we should also add in substitutions because in almost every website they include substitutions in the main timeline. (For example: Southampton 1–1 Tottenham – Premier League) Mwiqdoh (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

An example of this would be (although could be designed differently):

I even hate that cards are included, so my point on subs is the same. Parameters are called "goals1/2" and that what should be included or it's going to be a mess. Never saw penalty misses included (nope, don't think it should be included), but why not include the starting 11 if we insert the subs, or mark big saves or show the injury time? Way too much... Kante4 (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I also prefer goals only, is a pain when all you wanna do is quickly see who scored.Muur (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kante4: While it is true that the parameters are called goals1/2, they literally show on Template:Football box collapsible that yellow cards are shown there. Mwiqdoh (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't see any logical argument for including the subs. Imagine a scenario where only one substitution was made and it was in the 89th minute and the game finished 0-0. That would mean that the only player's name highlighted within that little colourful box which is supposed to give the key information about the game would be a player who played less than two minutes and almost certainly made no significant contribution at all. What's the logic behind that? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It should be goals only. Substitutions are not goals, yellow cards aren't either so we should just be adding goals IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Goals only. If the game is notable enough, the additional information would be covered there. Otherwise, I think this would be covered by WP:NOTSTATS -dashiellx (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Should probably be goals and I can see the logic for Red cards as well since those could greatly influence a match with a numbers advantage. Whenever a red card is given I usually check to see if the goals were scored before or after it. RedPatch (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

​ ​ ​ Well if you think yellow cards shouldn't be added, then you'd probably need a consensus for that as yellow cards are shown on EVERY season article + yellow cards are even used on the Template:Football box collapsible. Mwiqdoh (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh:I'm going out on a limb here and speculate that starting a discussion and getting opinions is the reason @Kante4: posted. Perhaps we went outside of the strict parameters of the question. But yes, I can see the value of cards in the box. It could be argued however that a match with a lot of cards would be notable enough on its own. We don't want to make these boxes too busy --dashiellx (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dashiellx: Yes, I understand that substitutions would make the box too crowded. But it's not true that a substitution isn't key information, because in some cases, the substitute scores a few minutes after being subbed on. If there is a way substitutions could be added without making the box crowded, it should be done (As subs are shown in almost every website in the main timeline, meaning it's important information). Mwiqdoh (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean, this would make it sorta less crowded:

I really am not a fan of that, I prefer just goals myself also. Took me a while to get use to when people started adding the red and yellow cards. At times with games that have a fair amount of incident and goals, it looks way to much and you want to add substitutions to that! Those stat boxes would look over bloated if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: Honestly, I agree with you. Thanks for your input! Mwiqdoh (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: That looks much better than the original example IMHO. I wouldn't vote against that. --dashiellx (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dashiellx: True but there would be a problem when there's a lot of goals and cards, it would look too overcrowded. For example an already crowded box would originally look like:

vs. with the substitutions

With all those subs in, it's eeewww, and EEEWWW, Govvy (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, I'm trying to figure out a way to make it less crowded. Mwiqdoh (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: @Dashiellx: An alternative method to make it more readable would be:

Speaking words of wisdom, leave it be, no need to add subs, so please don't. So here a song for ya, Let it Be. Govvy (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I really can't. It's included everywhere else, I can't see why it can't be included to here. Mwiqdoh (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

IDK....Do the City Foxes Boxing day. --dashiellx (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dashiellx: Here it is before:

and after:

I see absolutely no reason to show subs unless we also show starting lineups. I also concur with those wanting to remove yellow cards. Spike 'em (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just WP:DROPTHESTICK. Kante4 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright, so it seems that everybody opposes this proposal (except me, who supports this and User:Dashiellx, who is neutral), so therefore it seems that substitutions won't be added in season articles. Thanks for your input everybody, and have a great day! Mwiqdoh (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense for the reasons you've specified above but I'd keep yellow and red cards. Dr Salvus 18:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Yellow and red cards affect the result of the game so they should be included. Mwiqdoh (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yellow card should absolutely not be included. Red cards are a maybe, since they seem to be included by other sources, but yellow cards have no place in there. – PeeJay 22:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree, only goals should be included. It get's clustered and can be misleading if you've got four or five different things on one side and the only goal is on the other side. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay, Stevie fae Scotland, Sakiv, Mwiqdoh, Dr Salvus, Dashiellx, Joseph2302, ChrisTheDude, Muur, RedPatch, Govvy, and SteveMc25: Should we open a new discussion abolut including cards? Sorry if i forgot one to ping (everyone here and editors who edit season articles). Kante4 (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

No need, there are clearly enough people that don't want it. Govvy (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I would welcome a discussion about it, but that's basically what this thread turned into. No need to open a separate thread to tread over old ground. – PeeJay 17:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree there's a consensus here to not include them so I don't think we'd need another discussion either. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

So is it a consensus which can be used when someone adds a card? Do we allow red cards to be included or not? Kante4 (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

No new entries, so it's ok to remove them? Or what to do now? Kante4 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Sillman 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the SvFF (Swedish Football Association) have changed the format of their website for club players, and the template is now outdated. Could someone have a look to see if this can be updated to reflect the new format?

Also, I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, had the same problem with the French FA template, but it seems the SvFF general(?) template is automatically displaying the links as archived, even with no archive parameter being included? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

See latest history here: the source (direct link here) says 80, but my edit was reverted without an adequate explanation, and also by a user who often engages a lot in edit warring. Now, as I don't wish to engage in edit warring and my history with that user has proven there is no point "talking" to him, what do (should) I do? Anyone?

Kind regards!

Lorry Gundersen (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The source, and therefore you too, are wrong as per this, this, thos, and the actual footage of the match. The RFFFS is constantly prone to nonsense and errors as can be seen here and here. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

RSSSF is surely a more reliable source than the others listed and they clarify that Mabkhout scored two in this match, not one as reported in other sources, therefore I'd be inclined to agree with Lorry. Felixsv7 (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Is RSSSF really more reliable than actual match footage? And on what basis is RSSSF more reliable than all the other sources provided? So the AFC archive does say number 7 Mabkhout scored the third and fourth goals in the 31st and 37th minutes respectively, and the player scoring in the 31st minute has no beard and is wearing the number 7 shirt (Mabkhout), and yet the player scoring in the 37th minute has a beard and is wearing the number 4 shirt (with number 7 Mabkhout on the other side of the box unmarked). Which would be Al Farden scoring according to the AFC archive's squad list, and corroborated by the match reports from VN Express, Talk Vietnam, The National, Gulf News. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

And yes, this is how I've decided to spend my Sunday afternoon. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any source using WordPress can be considered reliable. Spike 'em (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello ItsKesha! I actually value more the video proof than anything else, i.e. RFFFS is undoubtedly making a mistake if there is a video proof showing otherwise, so I have to agree with you on this here. However, I have to highlight the explanation should come in the edit summary, not afterwards: as I only saw something I reverted to be reverted back with merely "79" as the reason without any other explanation, e.g. in a talk page, I had the right to be dubious about it. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

RFFFS undoubtedly makes mistakes all the time to suit their own opinions and agendas, it's not remotely an infallible source. Two people reverted your edit to 80 i.e. two people telling you it was wrong, the onus is then on you to discuss and debate the change you wanted to make. But you revert and then come here to discuss here rather than on the talk page! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

"To suit their own opinions and agendas" is a pretty bold claim. They got the information from the AFC itself, which are the ones to blame for this error. Lorry is in the right here: he reverted an edit made by and IP using Wikipedia as a source (), and you just revert his edit by saying "79" (). The source used says 80, so the onus was on you to show sources saying otherwise (which you now did). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I was talking in general. One of their primary journalists (of which there is actually very little out there of who these people even are, so who's to speak of their reliability), once admitted they use different criteria from FIFA to how they decide on what an official match is, and therefore also use different criteria from Wikipedia. Their stats are absolutely nonsense across the board. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I know about Mamrud, my experience with him has been more negative than positive. However, I agree with the fact that we shouldn't be blindly following what FIFA says is official or not. They don't have an actual list of "official" games anywhere, so there is no way for us to double check. And in any case, many games are deemed "non-FIFA" due to purely bureaucratic reasons. I remember a friendly between Iraq and Lebanon in 2012 which ended in a draw. Iraq didn't send the papers to FIFA as the draw would have placed them in a lower pot for the upcoming World Cup qualifiers. The game was completely regular, played between two senior teams, with a regular ref and a normal amount of subs. Another example is a game in the 90s between a mix of two Lebanese clubs (including foreigners, and the two respective club coaches) vs Egypt. The select Lebanon team also wore sponsored Pepsi shirts if I'm not mistaken. FIFA apparently considered it official, which is ridiculous. Also, lots of FAs have their own lists of official games, which don't necessarily match with each other. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

- I'm not sure if it's been mentioned above, but we should not be using match footage (especially uploaded by some random guy) as a source, nor using it to find information. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't, I corroborated the footage with actual match reports. This was all detailed above. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Should 4-digit numbers in the infobox, for players such as Peter Shilton, have a comma or not (1000 or 1,000)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Why not 1.000? We use a dot in my country, and apparently in many other countries (according to this), but I don't think a comma or a dot is needed since we are talking about a small number. My opinion is the same with the first comment here, i.e. if there were too many zeros or in general a repetition of the same number or if we had a very large number (regardless of repetition), then a separator would be needed, now it doesn't. Hope this helps. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

No, not a dot on enwiki, that is a decimal point in the Anglosphere - I think many places use a comma as a decimal point instead. Undecided on the comma or not issue btw. Crowsus (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the decimal point here is the comma (it's the other way around), and maybe it's like this in most countries of the world, but, as we are talking about the English WP, makes sense the question to be only about comma or nothing... well, frankly, I think you are fretting over a minor thing here, since a 4-digit number can be understood as being a thousand without a comma (or any other separator). In addition, speaking of the technical part, regardless of the software, usually the case is the less non-number parameters/values the merrier. Does this help? Lorry Gundersen (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I would add the comma, yes. It just looks better. – PeeJay 08:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think MOS:DIGITS covers this? GiantSnowman 10:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Per digits above, Numbers with exactly four digits left of the decimal point may optionally be grouped (either 1,250 or 1250), with consistency within any given article.. As this is an ENGVAR article, should probably have the comma. So long as it is internally consistent, it's fine. No dots to convey this though, sorry. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree per above. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical) § Starting line-ups

 – --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Is it possible to add starting line-ups for cup finals and European Cup finals?. E.g. the 1963 FA Cup Final, 1964 FA Cup Final, 1965 FA Cup Final, 1973 FA Cup Final, 1974 FA Cup Final, 1976 FA Cup Final, 1978 FA Cup Final, 1980 FA Cup Final, 1981 FA Cup Final, 1982 FA Cup Final, 1984 FA Cup Final, 1986 FA Cup Final, 1986 FA Cup Final, 1987 FA Cup Final, 1988 FA Cup Final, 1989 FA Cup Final. Can you add files for the starting line-ups in the FA Cup Finals from 1978 until 1992. And files for starting line-ups in Cup Winners Cup Final from 1968 until 1989. And files for starting line-ups for League Cup Finals from 1961 until 1991. Yours sincerely, Sondre --193.161.216.9 (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Our articles on those finals do include the squads. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess the editor means the lineup image? Kante4 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I can make the graphics if we can find a source for the actual formations, but I’ve looked before for most of them and never found them. Let me know though. – PeeJay 01:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I was just looking at what I have, but pretty sure the images I have here for 1981 and 82 finals are all copyright. :/ Govvy (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they're talking about team photos. – PeeJay 09:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Govvy: - although it's not very well worded, I think they are talking about things like this. As noted above, though, I'd be amazed if a source can be found for the specific formations used by the teams in, say, the 1980 FA Cup Final. But hey, I've been wrong before..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Well according to Phil Soar's book I got, 1981 Tottenham played 4-4-2 in the first game, it's unclear for the reply. Govvy (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The article (along with other W-League seasons) has a list of match details in a the Matches section. I removed it because league articles don't have match details on them unless it's for playoffs. SuperJew reverted me stating "why not? it's relevant information to the season". Should the article have match details or not? I'm not suggesting the Finals are removed just the league games. Dougal18 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they should be kept. As Doubal says, the finals are more than enough imo. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the problem with having a list of match details? It is relevant information to the season. I can understand why not to include them in a season page of a league such as the Premier League, which has a club season page for each club which include the matches. But for the W-League there aren't season pages for each club. --SuperJew (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, including every single match of a league season with goalscorers, date, referees, stadium information etc. is indiscriminate. League season articles should be more of a summary of the overall season. Details of individual matches should be at the relevant clubs' season article if they are deemed notable. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree that this level of detail in any competition season article is not needed. GiantSnowman 16:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Why is every single match with goalscorers, date, referees, stadium information etc. indiscriminate on a league season article but not indiscriminate on a club season article? --SuperJew (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The volume of matches in a league could be 20 times as much as a club season depending on how many teams are in it and how many matches they play so the details of an individual match are far less significant. When a match is significant – whether it's a record score or a title/relegation decider – include information about it. Putting every match in also leads to an unnecessary duplication of information when the same details are presented in the club season article. You can still include a lot of this stuff without repeating it 20 times (or however many matches it happens to be) as well. A list of competing teams with details of their home stadia plus a table of results and you can work out where Team X's 2–1 home win against Team Y was. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I did write I can understand why not to include them in a season page of a league such as the Premier League, which has a club season page for each club which include the matches. Since the info is in collapsible football boxes, having a table of results or listing the matches is much the same for the reader, except listing the matches allows the reader who is interested to open the specific match and get more information about it. --SuperJew (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

We had discussion(s) before about that and agreed not to include matches in the main article, if i am not mistaken. Kante4 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kante4: AFAIR it was disucssions of leagues which have club season pages for all the clubs, and then the inclusion in the league page was redundant information repetition. --SuperJew (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm with SuperJew here. There's a different context in play where not every single A-League Women club has its own season page (and TBH based on past experience, if there were, many editors editing primarily men's soccer pages would call for their deletion in AfD). Sure, if I were personally starting a new league season page, I wouldn't include every match details, but given the different context here I don't see what's the harm in keeping them when other editors have already created them and they are well maintained. Seany91 (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

There really isn't. The A-League Women having their match details in a league article is inconsistent with every other league season article. FPL, non FPL none of them have this level of detail. Dougal18 (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season for a particularly ludicrous example. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If there were always season articles for all of the 10 clubs in this league, then it would be appropriate to only show the detailed match information in those articles. However, in this league there are not season articles for most of the teams at this point (3 / 10 for this season, 3 / 9 for last season, 6 / 9 for the season before that). Until that gets addressed, having the information in the season article is the only repository, and that is something I consider is necessary during the season as matches are being postponed frequently due to effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. If it was a 38 round 20-team competition it would be huge, but we are talking about a 14 round 10-team competition. The main issue is a lack of editors willing to keep the women's season articles as up-to-date as the men's season articles. Women's football articles (or soccer as you must prefer for Australian articles) cannot be held to the same standards and guidelines as for the articles on the men's competitions (for example, a while ago there was debate about removing the WHOLE W-League from Wikipedia on the basis that it wasn't professional or fully professional - which was the male article paradigm and one of the criteria affecting notability for players in that league). Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Can you see whether or not you can create line-up images for different cup finals and European Cup finals. E.g. FA Cup finals from 1954 until 1982 and from 1984 until 1989. UEFA Cup finals from 1972, 1974, 1976 to 1978, 1985, 1987, 1989 and from 1990 to 1992. Cup Winners Cup finals from 1961 to 1963, 1969 to 1973, 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1986. See if you can find them and search for line-up images which exist. It can be rather difficult because of copyrights and such. It's worth a try though. See if you can discuss with other users regarding this. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.89.14.227 (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Iggy the Swan and User:Joseph2302, plus others,

The page history looks interesting as both of you removed "Díaz" on at least one occasion in the second half of 2021, yet I see "Díaz" almost everywhere despite your explanations on not including it then. Not sure why someone else has not reverted those inclusions yet. Ta, 46.149.249.106 (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't touched this article since the last requested move, when Díaz was added to the article title. Historically when the article title had been Ben Brereton, there wasn't a consensus to add Díaz anywhere, but that consensus looks now to have changed. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:CHANGEDNAME probably possibly applies here. If he really has changed his name, then the article should start with some variation of Ben Brereton Díaz (born Benjamin Anthony Brereton; 18 April 1999) is.... The later MOS:LEGALNAME supports the current formulation. Spike 'em (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC) (edited at 11:28)

And based on the same the body of the article should use the name he went by at the time events happened? Spike 'em (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Could it be that he has two legal names, one used in his British passport and the other by his Peruvian one? A few examples like this include Elkeson and Omar Bugiel. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Chilean ;) GiantSnowman 16:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Although he announced last summer that he wished to be known officially as Ben Brereton Diaz to mirror Spanish naming customs, the official EFL squad list document for the current season still lists him as Benjamin Anthony Brereton suggesting that he has not legally changed his name in the UK. As for whether he has different names on his British and Chilean passports - is that even possible......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

When should the infobox start for players senior start year. I'm editing Theo Corbeanu page, where he was in Wolves' youth academy, then began making regular bench appearances starting 21 December 2020, before finally making his first appearance for Wolves in 2021. Should it be 2020 or 2021? RedPatch (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Bench appearances do not matter in most cases; young players are often on there for experience/because there are injuries. It is not indicative of a first-team career. So, as his senior career actually began in 2021, I say use that date. GiantSnowman 16:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone notice that Soccerbase haven't been updating the club totals for players? For example, they list Trent Alexander-Arnold with 139 league appearances for Liverpool, when, going by their own appearance data, hes' actually on 147. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed they have not updated the summary table. GiantSnowman 11:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

they sure are becoming a worse and worse site to use huh.Muur (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I've never used that site because of mismatches with Soccerway and I'm glad I stuck with Soccerway. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Do we include second nationality categories for a player like Christian Pulisic, who was born in the US, plays for the US, but has a Croatian passport? While his Croatian citizenship appears to be a way to facilitate his career in Europe, he is, by the letter of the law, a Croat of American descent.

Now, this would affect a lot of South American players who count as EU players for the purposes of squad quotas and work permits. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. He is not considered to be a Croatian footballer. GiantSnowman 14:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree no, AFAIK he has never made any moves to be considered Croatian apart from applying for the passport which as you have said was to further his club career, and I'm not sure if "by the letter of the law, a Croat of American descent" is accurate - has he renounced his US citizenship, I can't see from the sources that he has? The situation would change if he had no US caps and accepted a call-up from Croatia, same applies with the Latin Americans. Crowsus (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

He hasn’t renounced his US citizenship, but he can travel through and gain employment in the European Union just like any other EU citizen. I can see the reason for not categorizing him as a Croatian footballer, but I can see a separate argument for categorizing him as a Croat of American descent. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

He is not a Croat of American descent though. That implies he comes from Croatia and has American ancestors when it's actually the other way round. He's an American of Croatian descent. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't see anything wrong with putting Category:Croatian footballer if he has Croatian nationality. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Because he's not a Croatian footballer. GiantSnowman 19:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with GS, they have to be Fooian as a footballer. Geschichte (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland Fair, though Category:Naturalized citizens of Croatia seems like a reasonable category to add. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Citizens of Croatia through descent‎ would make more sense in his case. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nehme1499 and Ytoyoda: If he is a naturalized Croatian citizen, include both. I don't see why they can't coexist. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

For how I understand it, a "citizen of X through descent" is someone who acquired citizenship via ancestry claims, whereas a "naturalized citizen of X" doesn't have any family ties. Both categories are also part of "People with acquired X citizenship" (example), so it wouldn't make sense for someone to be part of both. For example, Mauro Camoranesi is part of Category:Citizens of Italy through descent, whereas Mario Balotelli is part of Category:Naturalised citizens of Italy. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman and Geschichte: What makes you think he isn't a Croatian footballer? He is both a footballer and he has Croatian nationality. He is therefore both an American soccer player and a Croatian footballer. There is nothing wrong with that. I am very literal in the way I interpret this. I think that if he is Croatian and that he is a footballer, Category:Croatian footballers should be included. Because his sporting nationality isn't Croatia is irrelevant. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It's like saying somebody like Kolo Toure, who spent a number of years in England and might have acquired citizenship as a result, is an 'English football'. Nonsense. GiantSnowman 09:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with GS: there are many South Americans who have European citizenship out of pure formality. It wouldn't make sense to define Messi as a Spanish footballer. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Why would it not make sense? Remove your pre-existing beliefs when thinking about this; Messi is both Spanish and a footballer. That makes him a Spanish footballer! It makes absolute sense to include this category. If he became Spanish after his retirement, then I would say that he is not a former Spanish footballer. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with GS and Nehme. Just feels wrong and makes no sense per above. Kante4 (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul - if Messi stays in France and gains French citizenship, would you call him a French footballer?! GiantSnowman 19:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say that "he is an Argentine footballer" but Category:French footballers should be included in the categories section! It's just the logical thing to do; French + footballer = Category:French footballers. I believe that y'all have a prejudice against this whole thing. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

As this just makes not much sense, tbh. Even when gaining citizenship, it should stay as it is. Kante4 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)