Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 162

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 155

←

Archive 160

Lucy Bronze

Hello. I've been in a discussion with Kingsif on my talk page about the nationality that should be written in Lucy Bronze's opening sentence. I argue that she is born and raised in England, has only played for England youth teams, and that she is a full England international, making "English" the only relevant nationality for her sports biography; thus, she should be described as an "English professional footballer", as per WikiProject standards. I am not trying to raise a case against all similar cases, just this specific particular one about Bronze. Would it be appropriate to label Lucy Bronze as English in the opening sentence? I think yes, but I am looking for insight.
As a side note, the other side of the argument is to omit the nationality and explain further down (as we do in cases like Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang), because she is half-Portuguese and has Portuguese citizenship. I argue that her Portuguese nationality is not relevant to her notability as an English footballer. Paul Vaurie (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Kingsif.

Lucy Bronze is a British and Portuguese footballer who plays for the England women's national team. Frenchl (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello. My argument is first based on that fact that football is not a whole life, that footballer biographies also have scope outside of football, and that Wikipedia should seek to be as accurate as possible, not willfully being inaccurate by trying to limit scope. The articles aren't just a list of football stats, the nationality shouldn't just be the sporting nation if there is more to it. Including complete information (or disincluding incomplete information if an agreement can't be reached) is a main purpose of Wikipedia. I know "relevant nationality" is something hotly-debated, including outside of sports; e.g. Tina Turner, who was most famous for American music, but was Swiss. As is the case there, too, disinclusion is always preferred when there is a disconnect between accurate and notable nationalities: that is, Wikipedia is never inaccurate for the sake of "but they're better known for X". Additionally, in this case there is no need at all to include a nationality for context in terms of notability, as the lead already mentions which national teams Bronze has played for. Jumping off this, my argument is, second, that Bronze's sporting nationality isn't simply "English", either; it is English and British, as she has represented Great Britain, too. Based on WP:UKNATIONALS#Sport (an essay on interpreting the MOS:BIO guideline), which gives Ryan Giggs (Wales and GB) as an example, there should be discussion on that front anyway. Third, MOS:BIO says that especially with British people, attention should be paid to how the subject identifies; it also indicates that a "public or relevant" (emphasis mine) dual citizenship should be used; Bronze has posted on TikTok that she prefers "British-Portuguese" and not "English", making this public and the preference. Note: MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES is just about formatting, there is no separate info, AFAIK, on interpreting "public or relevant").
In short, while being Portuguese is not relevant to her football career (besides a brief mention that Portugal is where she started playing), it is still a fact; if we say just "English", we are lying by omission - something we wouldn't accept for things less important than how someone identifies - so it is preferred to not say anything at all. Kingsif (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Dare I also put Eric Dier up for discussion (like Bronze, an England right-back and occasional defensive midfielder, like Bronze, also Portuguese, just by naturalisation). The nationality has been something of an issue at that article . Kingsif (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I just watched her TikTok video where she complains everyone describe her as English : clearly we should say "British and Portuguese" or "British-Portuguese". This is the reflection of the laws and this is the choice of the player. Maybe that should even set a precedent for WikiProject Football.

And I agree with "football is not a whole life" and "BLP overrides WP:Football".Frenchl (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Lucy Bronze / Eric Dier are both professional footballers for their club sides and England. That's the first line. Any other nationality (or held passport) is an entirely separate issue. The nationality in the first instance is their representative nationality. The use of "is an English footballer who plays for England" or similar is a redundancy, while "British footballer who plays for England" or "British-Portuguese who plays for England" are both seemingly set out to confuse. We should avoid conflation of representative nation and nationality. The correct way to refer to Great Britain representation is to indicate when and where it was relevant. I.e. "Bronze also represented Great Britain at the Olympics" or similar. Koncorde (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually she does not play for the England's national team, she plays for the women's representative team of The Football Association at "A" international level. This is the official wording the FIFA uses. In that way there is no redundancy. Frenchl (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment this just seems like a re-spinning of all the debate at #Nationality in lede. Probably best to have one debate on this topic rather than two. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie @Kingsif Guys, to be honest, having taken a quick look at how the "International career" section on Bronze's page develops, I believe there's a way easier settlement we could reach...

What if we just leave the opening phrase as it is, and rather add a clarification to the second block of the lead section? Something like this:

"Born in England to a Portuguese father and an English mother, Bronze represented England from under-17 to under-23 levels; despite having considered switching her allegiance to Portugal, she ultimately made her debut for the England senior team in June 2013, before being named in the full national squad at Euro 2013..." and so on, and so forth.

To me, it looks like the best compromise, given what you all wrote right above, but this is just my humble take on the debate.

On a side note: it's true that we likely have a lot of players in similarly tricky situations (Dier, but also Sterling and Eduardo Camavinga come to mind), but honestly, I think every case is so unique in comparison to the other ones that it's just difficult to set "universal standards" for all of them to fit in... Enough about me, though. : D Oltrepier (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Only English should be in the lede, the fact that she holds Portuguese citizenship is trivial. Ortizesp (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen half of someone's identity be considered a bonus fact before, can I ask why you think that? It seems ...diminishing... to me (I have discussion alerts on, no need to ping when replying to me.) Kingsif (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

More information A separate matter ...

A separate matter

Players do not switch their allegiance to a country but to a member association. These are FIFA regulations. Actually they never use the word "allegiance" in their rules. They speak about a "change of association". Frenchl (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

We use clear and basic English. Everyone knows what changing allegiance means, it is replicated in reliable sources when discussing such changes. Koncorde (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This is The Times, not FIFA regulations. Here are the official documents.

Article 9 CHANGE OF ASSOCIATION

1. A player may, only once, request to change the association for which he is eligible to play to the association of another country of which he holds the nationality.

I think this word allegiance is UK or US-biased because in France we never use the word allegiance for sports, nor its translation allégeance. Change of association is more universal and neutral. Frenchl (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

While I have to agree that "allegiance" is plain English and well-understood in football terms, and that English Wikipedia uses English, perhaps a debate on the merits of using official terminology can be had... in its own section. Kingsif (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Close

It should be said that WP:UKNATIONALS specifically advises against trying to implement a universal standard, which is the bigger issue with trying to force sporting nationality. I think your suggestion is noble but wordy, and it's effectively covered by disincluding nationality and just listing the teams. Kingsif (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Honestly, that discussion looks like it could do with a line break and restart anyway. My edits also weren't to try and reconstruct the project's discussion on nationality (as much as I think it's in conflict with guidelines and good editing practice), just to keep an article where it's been an issue in the "disinclude" group along with other tricky cases. Kingsif (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh great, another nationality issue to deal with.

I always recognised both Eric and Lucy as English footballers who have never played with any Portugal national teams, therefore I say we should write "English" in these opening sentences. Are we going to propose removing the word "Swiss" from Granit Xhaka because the article states an ethnic Albanian family from Podujevo, Kosovo, then part of the FR Yugoslavia.? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh I really wouldn't want to get into Yugoslavia issues, and ethnicity is a whole other issue, but please don't invoke a slippery slope: this discussion is not asking for or suggesting that. Indeed, I also thank Paul Vaurie for keeping this discussion specific to the case.

Does it not seem sensible to you to disinclude something that pits "but football!" against BLP "how does the subject identify". Again, football is not always the whole scope of someone's nationality, and BLPs are BLPs before they are football articles; the national team, as I see it, is irrelevant in terms of labelling as the teams should be named in the opening paragraph separately anyway. That is, their footballing notability is as England players, not English players. Remember, Bronze has indicated that she does not like being called just English (and, since I brought it up, in his early England career Dier often reminded people he was Portuguese and "basically foreign"). There's no good reason to force-add a nationality that is inaccurate and/or a BLP subject disagrees with in any situation, but especially when your only concern is their national football team that is already mentioned. Kingsif (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I do not understand why you think labelling someone who was born and raised in England and is ethnically half English and who plays for the England national team to be "inaccurate". Lucy Bronze is quite simply an English footballer who happens to also be Portuguese by descent. If she played for Portugal at a time in her career it would have been different. It seems to me that WPF members are agreeing that she should be called English - albeit some objections. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Throwing in my thoughts. MOS:NATIONALITY states, in part, Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. As Bronze's notability is largely based upon her playing for England, then it is appropriate in the lead to state she is an English footballer. In fact, the vast majority of footballers' notability is based largely upon their nationalities, so it is appropriate (if not required) to specify nationality in the lead with other heritage covered later in the article (just as Bronze's heritage is covered in the "Early years and education" section of her article). — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I think you've missed part of MOS:NATIONALITY; it says nationality is considered basic info and typically included in the lede, whereas ethnicity can be contentious and typically isn't included. Besides that, you've said two conflicting things - that the lede should say "English" (which I'll get to below) but that we should specify nationality (i.e. "British-Portuguese") in the lede (of course, I see you have separated "nationality" and "other heritage", which isn't accurate - and is dismissive of how the BLP subject actually identifies - but which I assume means you didn't intend the second).

So, can I ask why you think the vast majority of footballers' notability is based largely upon their nationalities - or if you do? It sounds like you're arguing that nationality often contributes to a footballer's notability. But since a footballer's nationality and national team are not necessarily the same (the point), I don't think that makes sense - players don't even need to hold the nationality of a national team they play for. So I think your argument is that Bronze has had most success with the England national team - one could say it's Lyon, but let's say it's England - so this is important for notability? I won't repeat a spiel about "the lede already mentions England", but I disagree with this argument additionally for two reasons: first, we have many BLPs about footballers who do not play internationally (and most of those do mention a nationality). Second, footballers are typically notable as WP defines it when they play for a top-level national league club, no matter which club that is, and/or when they play in a major international tournament, no matter which national team they represent. That is, being in a national team is the important part, not which one it is. Kingsif (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Under the rules of international competition, a player can only represent one nation in international play. I know FIFA allows players with multiple nationalities to play for one nation's youth teams and switch to another nation's youth teams without much effort(e.g. Sydney Leroux), but switching senior teams is a difficult process. Is a player's actual nationality and sporting nationality always the same? No, but one's sporting nationality must be within their actual nationality.

It also doesn't matter how the player identifies their nationality; it matters how the player is described in reliable sources. Is Bronze described as partly Portuguese in a large amount of coverage about her? If not, then it is not important to her notability. Take the whole of MOS:NATIONALITY into account; Bronze may feel her Portuguese heritage (and, presumably, dual-nationality) is important to her, but does it contribute to her notability? The MOS is a guideline that should be followed whenever possible; if one plays for a national team, then that nationality is important to their notability.

You also state that footballers are typically notable as WP defines it when they play for a top-level national league club, however that has not been true for well over a year. A fair number of sport-specific notability guidelines, including NFOOTY, were deprecated after a discussion which was forked from this RFC in early 2022. All footballers must now meet GNG since this attempt to update NFOOTY failed, and no further efforts appear to have been made. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

A few things, some less relevant to this discussion than others: one's sporting nationality must be within their actual nationality - this isn't true. Descent is enough, and not all nationalities are inherited. FIFA have also made it increasingly easy to switch after a few senior appearances, FWIW. For example, we probably shouldn't be calling Anna Gornell Latvian.
Is Bronze described as partly Portuguese in a large amount of coverage about her? - Yes, actually. And while I think that by you arguing V in RS is necessary, you would equally need a large amount of coverage to also describe her as explicitly English (not just plays for England), I don't think it is necessary: basic info can be sourced ABOUTSELF, and a lack of that info appearing elsewhere wouldn't negate it. But yeah, the Portuguese thing is mentioned a lot.
but does [Portuguese nationality] contribute to her notability? [...] if one plays for a national team, then that nationality is important to their notability. - I have already explained why I think this is all wrong; nationality does not contribute to notability. Playing for a national team does, but the nation is irrelevant to meeting WP notability. In non-WP terms, of course which national team they play for is something notable about their career (not conferring notability, but important), but that's career info, not biographical info.
You say Take the whole of MOS:NATIONALITY into account, but don't seem to have bothered with the note about British identities that says "consider whether the subject has a preference on which nationality they identify by" when describing. Nor that "public or relevant dual citizenship" (emphasis mine) is used. (Nor perhaps, even, that "in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted" - it's clear she's British-Portuguese, but that's apparently controversial).
As for the NFOOTY deprecation, okay, take that part of my response without the league club mention. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif : "players don't even need to hold the nationality of a national team they play for", "Descent is enough" => This is wrong. The first core principle of FIFA rules about national team eligibility is : “no nationality, no eligibility”. (page 5 of this document). Frenchl (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Unless you're going to relate this to the discussion, you're straying off-topic again. To reply, that slogan is FIFA shorthand for a series of rules that they play fast and loose with e.g. saying no "nationality shopping" and yet the Saudi team is what it is, or players with one grandparent born in a place that doesn't have jus sanguinis being able to acquire that nationality because the nation wants them to play football for them. Kingsif (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Which player was born outside Saudi Arabia in their 2022 World Cup squad ? Not a single one. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. What you are referring to are the old FIFA rules. Now there is no more "nationality shopping" possible. Frenchl (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jkudlick : Does Bronze being born 28 October 1991 contribute to her notability ? Is Bronze described as being born 28 October 1991 in a large amount of coverage about her? No. So why should date of birth be included in the lede ? Because it's important. And so is her Portuguese nationality. Frenchl (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Frenchl: Your dates of birth argument is a red herring here, so you can take that up somewhere else; I personally feel that including the DOB in both the lead and infobox is redundant, but its inclusion may be required to allow accessibility for people who use screen readers.

Does her Portuguese heritage or nationality (I'm not familiar with Portuguese citizenship law to say she IS or IS NOT a Portuguese national) contribute to her notability? THAT is the important question. The way the article is written now does not state her nationality in the lead apart from the fact she plays for England, which is fine. If her nationality is to be included in the lead, then only that nationality which contributes to her notability (England) should be used. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

She is a Portuguese national, yes. I do not think whether nationality contributes to notability is relevant: again, being British or English isn't the relevant part of why playing for England makes one notable - that is the playing international football part. Anyway, you'll be glad to know that my argument is not trying to add a nationality to the lead, it's the opposite, specifically arguing that in the case of Bronze nationality in lead should be disincluded. Yes, the point does get lost when respondents prod at different individual points in comments and hairs get split, but if you look to the introductory comments you'll probably get the picture. So while I personally think there's good reasons to say "British-Portuguese", not very good reasons to say "English", and good reasons not to say "English", I also think there's not much gained in including a nationality in the lede when we already have a mention of England in the lede and information on nationality in the rest of the article. Disinclusion is a compromise, and a smart one when it's an identity issue - something we are careful with. Kingsif (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's inaccurate in the same way the premise of your first sentence here is inaccurate (and possibly deliberately so to try and make your point): she is British and Portuguese, regardless of what team she plays for. To mention English and not Portuguese is, as I said, equal to lying by omission. I also think we're overlooking that the BLP subject has indicated preference for British over English - there are BLP instructions to be particularly considerate with British national identities. (also, Bronze is from Berwick-upon-Tweed; as recently as a few days ago The Guardian said she was born in Scotland)
Now, I don't know which thread you're reading if that's how it seems to you: not including me, you, and the user who opened the similar discussion above, I count one user saying We should avoid conflation of representative nation and nationality, one saying What if we just leave the opening phrase as it is, and rather add a clarification to the second block of the lead section?, and two saying words to the effect of "only English in lede" with either no explanation or a slippery slope argument. Ignoring that the topic was to not include any nationality in the lede, and they seem to think it was asking to add Portuguese, if counting !votes that's about equal for "only English" and "some other solution", if looking at arguments, there's a stronger case for finding another solution. Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

player born in england, raised in england, played for england, spent almost her entire life in england. hmmmMuur (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to be snarky while deliberately omitting "player is and identifies as Portuguese" from your list, it's going to be hard to believe you're commenting in good faith. Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I think I will agree with what Ortizesp said yesterday in this edit. This player never played with Portugual by seeing the infobox. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact that she hold Portuguese nationality is not trivial, it is what allows her to play for Barcelona because it makes her a EU player. (Source) Frenchl (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Frenchl: This is completely trivial - Messi was also registered as a Spanish player for Barcelona (as of my knowledge, but I did not look it up), yet he is in no shape or form a Spanish footballer. That Lucy Bronze is registered as Portuguese at Barcelona is irrelevant. That does not make her a Portuguese footballer. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Frenchl and Kingsif: Most editors (Paul Vaurie, Iggy the Swan, Ortizesp, Muur, Jkudlick) all come to the conclusion that a player born in England, raised in England, and who represents England at international level should be considered an English footballer, as this is backed up as by MOS:NATIONALITY stating that this is the only nationality relevant to her notability. I think it is reasonable to say that any further debate is unnecessary; there has been past consensus on this WikiProject about this before, and this is the consensus now. You two (Frenchl and Kingsif) are throwing everything into overturning what the majority of editors seem to agree on. There are countless examples in the favor of Lucy Bronze being labelled "English". Zinedine Zidane and Karim Benzema are both notable for being French footballers, even if they have Algerian citizenship. Same goes for players with two nationalities like Mario Balotelli, Paul Pogba, Nico Williams; this is especially the case for players who represent their birth nation. Bronze represents her birth nation. There is absolutely no need to refer to her as anything other than English. The press refers to her as English as well. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Messi was registered as Italian, I believe Look, I am not trying to do anything but say that it is clearly (and, I mean, clearly) controversial how the nationality of this one player is described, and therefore it is better not to include it (i.e. I have already been aware of all of your arguments; I disagree with them and do not see myself ever agreeing based on my understanding of WP; there has been at least an unwritten sort of agreement that the compromise is disinclusion, so why is that being challenged). I am sorry that it has gotten so long, after having been called upon to explain/defend certain arguments tangents do split, but that is the foundation of what I am trying to do here. I don't know why you're fighting so hard to add something that is not entirely true to an article that didn't even say otherwise in the first place.
The countless examples you list are not only WP:OTHERSTUFF - none are the same situation, judge case-by-case, I believe (at least) one of the nationality guidelines even explicitly says this - but it's also likely that they are the way they are because of forced application of this project's views even when outside users disagree, as I linked with diffs at the Eric Dier article. And again, nationality isn't relevant to notability.
Also again, counting "!votes" is not the way to decide this, and I especially note that Jkudlick did not come to that conclusion, literally saying The way the article is written now does not state her nationality in the lead apart from the fact she plays for England, which is fine. - an agreement for disinclusion - and that Muur gave no conclusion but left a drive-by sarcastic comment that mirrored your words.
As I expressed early on in this thread, the previous thread got out of hand, whether that be too many points being made and then fought over or irrelevant things brought up but still debated. I acknowledge that you are just trying to close out a lengthy discussion, but I do not think you are doing it in a way that is representative of it. I don't say this with vested interest, but based on the observations in my paragraph directly above. Would you find it amenable to create a section break and try to make a simpler discussion? Kingsif (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

From what I can tell PV isn't expressing the need for English to be included - only that the push for Portuguese to be included is invalid. It isn't controversial. Including English isn't wrong. Not including it isn't wrong either as we already mentions she plays for England. Mentioning it in the second paragraph or in context of where she was born, lived, parentage and so on or in personal life isn't wrong either. There's many ways to skin the proverbial cat. The reality is this 'discussion' as it is should be about the MOS and answer the question definitively - but we should appreciate the answer is: there is no concrete answer and many well written articles don't all match each other. Koncorde (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so - I have never advocated for adding Portuguese, at all, for a start. At the article, PV added "English" and I removed it, based on it having been previously fought over when I was editing the article but knew nothing of the subject's nationality and disinclusion being a common compromise. PV and I discussed, and as you can see in PV's comment when opening this thread, he frames it as 'say just English' or 'say nothing'. I think Frenchl is wanting to add "Portuguese", and I think that has skewed discussion. Kingsif (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

No, but others have. PV's argument here is that English would be the nationality that is relevant and therefore if we are to include one it should be that (his opening paragraph offers two outcomes). This seems to be specifically in response to the idea that some other nationality would be relevant. I think you may be talking at cross purposes. Koncorde (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope so, how about we ask directly... @Paul Vaurie: is Koncorde's view that you would be happy with not including nationality in the lede of the article on Bronze correct? That you just wanted to argue that, if a nationality was added, you think it should be "English"? Kingsif (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thank you for the clarification. However, no. I do not think that this specific example constitutes a nationality scenario complex enough for nationality to be excluded. I advocate that Lucy Bronze should be labelled "English", as has been the case for other players in the exact same scenario as her (Zinedine Zidane, for ex). If we set a precedent for not including English for Lucy Bronze, which is not a very complicated scenario, then that means we are overturning the inclusion of nationality for all dual-nationals, which is a slippery slope we don't want. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, I disagree it would open the floodgates, but, let us let discussion continue below. Kingsif (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: Just since I saw you cite it and it continues to confuse me: it may also be worth discussing how we each interpret that opening salvo of MOS:NATIONALITY. It says in full The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable. Especially taking into account the last clause ("notable mainly for past events"), I have always found this to mean that we include nationality purely as context regarding their environment when they were/are notable. It doesn't say anywhere that nationality itself is related to notability. I think you (and perhaps others) are basing views on a misreading? I'm sure you can query it at the talkpage over at the MOS if this is what your argument is based on. Kingsif (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That made her a Barcelona footballer ! How can you say it's trivial Frenchl (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

MOS:NATIONALITY says "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable." Her Portuguese nationality made this person a Barcelona football player, which made her notable in Spain. Therefore, her Portuguese nationality is relevant because it provide context to the footballing activity that made her notable in Spain. Frenchl (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Re "The press refers to her as English as well" - the Portuguese media also refer to her as English (Inglesa) - Mais Futebol, Record, O Jogo as well as pt:Lucy Bronze.

Re "Her Portuguese nationality..." - you have Keira Walsh, playing for Barcelona but I don't see any descent of any EU nations so being of Portuguese descent does not mean you join Barcelona regardless of having EU status or not. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This is also mostly irrelevant - and I have to be frank and say to Frenchl that by emphatically bringing up so many tangential points you're not helping your case. - but the Barcelona section at the article on Bronze does explain that she had to be registered as an EU national at the time. So for club football purposes, she's Portuguese. Of course, one doesn't have to be EU eligible to join Barcelona at the moment, but I suppose that just proves that nationality isn't relevant enough to need to include it if there's dispute. Kingsif (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif: You also have to look at the past consensus of this WikiProject. The consensus is that a player born in, raised in, and representing that nation should be described as such in the opening sentence. Period. I don't think that you have made a case strong enough to overturn that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

And as I said even at the start on your talk page, I'm not trying to overturn the project consensus. Yes, I find it a strange rule - with no other profession does Wikipedia decide that we can obscure basic info because some of it kinda relates to their job. But, I was never trying to overturn it. I was only ever trying to, as I have said countless times, maintain disinclusion at an article where you wanted to add something contentious in its place. I think this thread has ended up being perceived as 'project consensus or not' - maybe because users are used to that being the line of debate, maybe because of the involvement of another editor who does seem to want to overturn right now, maybe because you have kept commenting variations on 'it shouldn't say Portuguese' when really the premise was 'say English or say nothing'. We've all strayed during a long discussion.
However, if by saying a player born in, raised in, and representing that nation should be described as such in the opening sentence. Period. you are trying to say that national team-as-nationality must always be added, no matter what, then I don't think that is the attitude of the consensus, actually. And let's just say that if it was a 'project consensus or not' debate, then one of the parties to the debate cannot declare that it views itself as authoritative and thereby 'win'. Kingsif (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

To summarise my understanding of the situation, and you're welcome to take it or leave it but I see no end in sight until people state what their preferred outcomes actually are:

PV added English to the lede.
There is a pre-existing standard that where two nationalities may be valid that we either only expressly use the one that is relevant, or we omit it from the lede and rely on their representative background to answer the initial question.
Kingsif argues we should exclude both per that convention (and likely reflect Bronzes personal feelings elsewhere).
PV argues we should only include English if we include any.
These are not mutually exclusive options.
Random arguments about various merits of Portugals notability ensue, dabble with British and other distracting stuff.

Conclusion pt1: existing consensus is clearly to omit and use representative nationality (i.e. plays international football for x) where there are complexities (or controversy), but even if we include English in the opening sentence, we can reference her relevant amount of self identifying nationality / ethnicity / whatever in the narrative of her biography and personal life (with suitable citations, that really shouldn't include a Tiktok).

Conclusion pt2: "complexities" when it comes to nationality vs representative nationality is generally when someone was born / raised in a different country, is a descendent of immigrants in another country and so on, where their actual citizenship is unclear, or they adopt a new citizenship through naturalisation (Diego Costa being one of the most significant cases). Having one parent be another nationality is not particularly complex. Living for a short time in another country as a child isn't complex. Opting to play for another country when you are eligible to play for both isn't complex. Changing representative country and so on isn't even that complex. Playing for one country, then moving to another country and becoming a citizen further down the line isn't complex. You just ensure these are explained in the narrative.

Everything else: noise. Koncorde (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think your summary makes sense, certainly on my preferred outcome. Since you (briefly) mention it, I still don't personally agree that using an inaccurate (by way of limited) nationality in the lede is ever ok (i.e. not even when there's suitable coverage in appropriate sections of the article), but I'm not here to debate that unless disinclusion is not accepted. Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Well written, Koncorde. However, how I see it, English is what should be in the opening sentence; nationality should not be excluded in this scenario for Lucy Bronze. Her situation is not complex. It's actually a very simple one. There is no "complex scenario" that entails her Portuguese nationality as relevant enough to omit her nationality and explain it further down. Referring to her as English is also not inaccurate, it's rather accurate in her context. However, I am not against absolutely not mentioning Portuguese in the lede. That can be mentioned, alongside her supposed self-identification. I maintain that she should be described as an "English professional footballer who plays as a [position] for [league] club [club name] and the England national team". Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to conclude the discussion, only provide the conclusions that we can agree are actually in play and thus may inform the basis of establishing a consensus.

We can agree consensus has previously been to omit when it is complex / confusing / controversial.
The argument is thus about whether Lucy Bronzes situation is complex enough to meet the existing consensus (and inform what the consensus reaaaaaaaally is about).

The next objective is to list what about her nationality makes the situation complex / confusing / controversial:

. She is nationality British by birth (usual post '83 rules assumed in play)
. She, at some point, has gained some level of Portuguese citizenship (I won't pretend to know what the rules are for Portugal and haven't looked them up)
. She is eligible wise representative of English & Portuguese by birth (regardless of #2).
. She (personally) feels that she is 50:50 because of her parentage.
. She chose to represent England.
. She played for Great Britain at the Olympics.
. For reasons of a footballing nature she was / is able to be registered as an EU player with Barcelona. This is not because she is changing national allegiance and so on, but because she happens to have a national ID.This is thus just item #2, #3, and incidental but interesting.

Am I missing anything? Koncorde (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Koncorde: No, I don't think that you're missing anything, but I might add that Lucy Bronze grew up in England, although I'm not sure how relevant that is.
The way I see it, if we don't write "English" for Lucy Bronze, then we shouldn't write "French" for Benzema or Zidane, or German for Mesut Ozil or Ilkay Gundogan, or any other player with dual-nationality (and we can't always check if a player has dual nationality unless it's stated in reputable sources). This creates a huge slippery slope, and soon we'll be excluding nationality for players who have one grandparent from a country and simply have the passport. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

We'll get to that bit. I just want us to agree that we're looking at the same facts for Bronze. This then (if we want) will help structure a proper RFC or similar to finalise consensus for application more broadly. Koncorde (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I still see errors here. Özil is not a dual national, he renounced to his Turkish nationality in 2007. Frenchl (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Frenchl: That is completely beside the point; I just meant to give examples of dual-nationals. You understood my point. Perhaps Ozil isn't Turkish, but that's irrelevant. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Paul, I appreciate that you are trying to follow a good precedent, I really do, and I further appreciate the continued discussion when this is probably exhausting for everyone, but I do think that this edit and its edit reason, as well as the edit reason here, are quite inappropriate. You do not get to unanimously decide what parameters and direction a discussion takes. Nor to decide that your view that there isn't a strong argument is fact. I won't invoke STATUSQUO, but given discussion is ongoing, replacing the contentious material and saying others now have to argue to change it back is not helpful, and it seems non-collaborative even though you are discussing.
I have views on the OTHERSTUFF claim, but I think @Koncorde:'s mediation is helpful and would like to follow it rather than go back to just point-by-point addressing comments and creating noise. If it would be helpful, of course, we can discuss sources. Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif: The existing consensus on such a scenario is to write "English". Until this specific case regarding Lucy Bronze or the entire consensus changes/reaches a different conclusion, the existing consensus should be reflected on the article. Let's keep discussing until we reach a conclusion and then make the necessary change to the status quo (which is the past consensus). Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The status quo would be the way the lede has been for nearly 12 months, actually. Especially considering (and Thebiguglyalien left this in a note at the AN/I you opened, so I presume you are aware) that project consensus is only advice and should not be imposed over other edits on the basis of being a project consensus alone. Kingsif (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't start this again. It's unnecessary and pointless. 1. Thebiguglyaliens comments are not what is happening, so irrelevant. And 2. Consensus is a foundation of wikipedia so is 100% NOT advice only. What TBUA would be referring to is guidance / help pages such as MOS, or where a project has tried to force or stipulate specific changes or go against policy. I'm happy to work with all to establish clear guidance for consensus building but continuing an argument at this point is just distracting. Koncorde (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Chris Bart-Williams

Twitter reports of his death are leading to vandalism of his page. Mark Crossley posted about an hour ago and Kevin Campbell has since posted, but currently only the Mirror and the Daily Star reporting it. Could somebody please keep their eye on this page, protection has been requested but not sure how long that takes to go through. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Seeing news reports in other newspapers (Daily Express), LBC and TalkSport, plus club sources. For now, I have added a sentence noting reports of his death, using the LBC source for citation purposes. Paul W (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Split discussion on Talk:Lionel Messi

Greetings! Just here to inform the community that I've started a discussion on proposing a split of the Lionel Messi article over at Talk:Lionel Messi#Club and international career split proposal. Feel free to head on over and give your opinion on the matter! — AFC Vixen 🦊 23:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

1902–03 Western Football League

I copied the same source from lead to the tables, but it doesn't include when you have the table on another page. Whats the work around? Govvy (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The reference needs to be fully defined in the table. You can define the same reference multiple times and, so long as the name and content are the same, it will appear as one entry in the reflist. Give me a moment and I'll edit it and show you what I mean. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Aaa, works one way, not the other, I see. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Future tournaments in infobox

Is there any need to include the date of a future tournament in the infobox when that tournament has not been officially confirmed? In the 2034 World Cup article, User:DanGrizzy1203 seems to think it's important to add "2038" to the infobox (and same with adding 2036 to the UEFA Euro 2032 article). I would argue that, while those tournaments do usually take place every four years and it would be reasonable to assume there will be a European Championship in 2036 and a World Cup in 2038, those have not yet been announced as even taking bids for host nations, so adding those years to the infobox could be considered a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and may encourage editors to create articles for those tournaments prematurely. – Pee Jay 16:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with including 2038. 2034 isn't going to be the final edition of the tournament. It's pretty expected to happen. I would just leave in text rather than redlinked. RedPatch (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Consensus needed...

... on this talk page which it appears another one of our association footballers has multiple places of birth, as does this player. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Ali Daei

Ali Daei was previously credited with 109 goals in 149 appearances until FIFA chose to no longer recognise Iran's game against Ecuador in 2000. How do people feel that it's best to show this on the table (between goal 50 and 51). Greyed out? Left in the table with a "-" as I have done, or removed and noted at the bottom of the table? Or another way? I looked on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players but there is no guidance there currently.

The other examples that I know of are Paolo Guerrero and Hamza Al-Dardour.

Would be interested in creating best practice!

Felixsv7 (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I would just remove it. The reference (RSSSF) used to source the table states that the game was against Ecuador Olympic, not a senior team. We should follow reliable sources, not fall into WP:OR. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

But the RSSSF source says exactly what Felixsv7 wrote: That it was credited and later discredited - Note that the match of Iran against an Ecuador Olympic team played on 12 Jan 2000 in Los Angeles, which originally was considered official by the Iranian FA, was deleted from the list of official matches because of a FIFA decision in 2021. --SuperJew (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Then I would add an efn note specifing this, but I wouldn't put an entry in the table itself. Belgium national football team, which is an FA, also does this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is a fact for all, since 1992 all Olympics games matches and since 2002 Asian Games matches are indeed official matches but for U23 NT and are recognized by the concerned federation and FIFA, also matches played against Olympic sides outside the games, but all these are not recognized as FIFA "A" international matches by FIFA (in certain cases country fed do consider them as A int. match). Thus any match which is not FIFA "A" int. match will not be added in the table rather in notes below for Wikipedia, which have been followed here. If you find any such match included in the RSSSF list it's simple because we respect the concerned federations who consider the match as A international, viz. earlier match against Ecuador considered Full A by the concerned feds but not anymore so removed from list, but we always mentions 'what is what" in the RSSSF list. Hope this might help. Drat8sub (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Sad news

Hello, I am very sorry to report that Eagleash has passed away. Since this talk page was one of his most edited pages in the Wikipedia talk namespace, I thought I should write a message here. Graham87 12:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Salt Lake Stadium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GorillaWarfare#Message

i request users to open the link and also if possible provide solution where dozen of pages tell one and a single user another (girl admin might not be that familiar) 93.140.103.186 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"girl admin might not be that familiar"...? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah it's the Croatian IP. @GiantSnowman: can you please take care of it? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This IP range has kind of harassed many Indian wikipedian who edit football related articles, always comment as if they are ordering someone or as if users work under this person. Comments mostly include "do this, do that". Drat8sub (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

No edits for a few days - if they pop back up let me know. Pinging @GorillaWarfare: so she is aware. This IP editor has a long history of disruption, it's seemingly ongoing with other editors, and to boot they are being sexist about you! Giant Snowman 07:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Charming. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Ryan Tafazolli

Hi - a group of IPs keep editing this article to include a single appearance that Ryan Tafazolli made for a 7-a side team 5ive Guys FC. The “club” page on YouTube describes them as a group of boys having fun. Most of the edits are extremely poorly drafted and corrupt the page. Unless you consider that the content has some merit, could the page be protected. Thanks. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for three days, hopefully by then they will have better things to do with their time....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I have also warned all the IPs. Giant Snowman 18:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Stats discrepancy

If a usually reliable source gives an incorrect statistic, do we a) include the source with a note explaining why the source is wrong, or b) not include the source without an explanation. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I would use the source and add a note explaining the discrepancy. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Giant Snowman 18:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

So you both agree with the note here for Javier Zanetti's entry, specifically his Inter figures? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The principle of a note? Absolutely. The precise wording of that specific note? Not ideal. Giant Snowman 20:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

So, can you advise what to do in this situation? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Isn't oGol user generated (and thus not a reliable source anyway)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Category renaming/restructuring

I just noticed that the women's national team football categories are sub-categories of Category:European national association football teams but the men's teams are not, and while we have separate categories for men's teams they're not specifically men's. I don't think it would be controversial to create, as an example, Category:European men's national association football teams and then turn Category:European national association football teams into a container category in order to put all national teams at the same organisational sub-level, but I wanted to discuss it here first. (The other proposed option would be to up-merge women's teams, but those categories already are in gender-specific categories, so it makes more sense to turn the main category into a container category in my opinion.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It has been discussed recently. Have a peek in the archives. Seasider53 (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Where should I be looking? I haven't hit the right search terms yet. SportingFlyer T·C 12:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I may have got the relevant discussion Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

National football team to men's national football team?

There is currently a discussion about moving Sweden national football team to Sweden men's national football team. There are WP:COMMONNAME arguments for it, even though sources are ambiguous. There are WP:CONSISTENT arguments against it, even though there are four exceptions (USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). I'm not totally against it, but I think it seems a bit rushed. Sweden is not unique, and I believe that same arguments for moving could be applied to Denmark, Norway and several other countries. But starting 200+ (or 54 if you restrict it to UEFA, where everyone follows the same praxis) similar discussions would feel a bit unnecessary and tedious. I think it would be better to decide on a principle and then, potentially, move all articles concerned. Please feel free to join the discussion! This is a big question, and it would be good if many people got involved. // Mattias321 (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Duff (footballer)

Please could someone who has not been involved in today's RM discussion to close it since I've been involved in that. Per WP:RMCLOSE, I can state that I should not close it since I've started that RM myself. Thanks -- Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Update - requested move has been closed a few minutes after. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Query on Rory Wilson's 'senior career'

Is there a precedent for whether a league appearance for a B team at an amateur non-national level counts as a 'senior career appearance'? I am asking based on a query from @Davidlofgren1996 on the page Rory Wilson and thought it best to discuss.

My initial assumption was that an appearance for Rangers B (39 minutes in one game, not that the duration matters particularly) in the 2021–22 Lowland Football League, would not count as a senior appearance as the Rangers B side is explicitly included in the league as a youth 'colt' side (all U21s) , not a senior side and sits at level five in the pyramid as a regional league. I can see the argument from the other side that this is a 'senior league', but my train of thought is can you make a 'senior appearance' for a side that is not 'senior', but are playing in a 'senior league'? In comparison, I would not consider appearances in the EFL Trophy for invited U21 sides to be 'senior appearances' either, hence they are almost always tagged in career statistics sections as 'appearance for X U21 side in the EFL Trophy' to distinguish them from full senior appearances.

Opinions welcome. One option could be to include Rangers B on Wilson's youth career section, as ultimately it is a U21 'colt' side. Mountaincirque^talk 11:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

If the team plays in a league in the pyramid, then it gets included in the senior career (If they played in a specific youth league, we would not). By comparison the EFL trophy teams don't play in a pyramid league, so they don't get added to the infobox, but we'll put those stats in the stats table (if there is one) RedPatch (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I have been reading the guidance/discussion here , which seems to suggest adding a 'res.' after the appearance in the senior career infobox as per Luca Clemenza's infobox, as Rangers B is a reserve side of Rangers this seems like an identical case when compared to Juventus/Juventus U23, where Juve U23 also play in the pyramid but are a reserve side with restrictions on age. Mountaincirque^talk 11:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the Lowland League is that its stats are not reliably maintained on a league-wide or even team-wide basis AFAIK, so usually I'd skip them for the infobox, but there is enough to show that a player was involved in a particular match, and if that was known to be the only one played, it's fine to put it there. I don't agree with the Juventus U23 comparison because the issue there is the name of that specific team, which implies it operates at an age-restricted level when it doesn't. There is much less ambiguity with 'B' teams operating in the senior system so I don't see the need for the marker. Crowsus (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

seems like it should count, since theyre in a senior league. res part seems needless. also is this player even notable?Muur (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems there's enough coverage IMO based on the controversy surrounding his move. Crowsus (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

(res.) only makes sense for cases such as Clemenza, in which the reserve-team spell is sandwiched between loans from the parent club. This isn't the case for Wilson. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C.

What are the rules on templates, and does the Arsenal article need that many navigation templates at the bottom of the page?? At the moment, I thought I counted 14 of them. Govvy (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

As long as the nav template links to Arsenal (which they all do), they should remain. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Really? Are you sure? Because I count six templates that don't link to Arsenal. :/ Govvy (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Titles also count. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

You could always keep them and collapse them together if you think they are getting unwieldy. (hopefully be adding another Community Shield title to that list Sunday!) ;). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It's the same at the Tottenham article, but I keep messing it up, I wanted to remove current squad, matches, seasons, managers, hall of fame and player of the year. But every time I review the edit, it looks messed up. Honestly, why are those links related to article templates there, it's congested now. Overkill across the board if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

All the matches, seasons etc templates that only have Arsenal linked in the title don't need to be there, the rest are acceptable in my view. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

List of foreign CPL players

Just wondering, would a player like Kekuta Manneh be registered as their birth country (Gambia), or the country they swear allegiance to (USA), despite not playing for them. Also, would Marcus Simmons be a foreign player, as he was born in Canada but he has been called up to the Guyana senior team. Is a reference always needed after every player listed. Thanks. Ugogames (talk | contribs) 17:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC); edited 19:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about all of this, but I put a requested move at List of foreign CPL players. See the talk page. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Typically we use either a birth country or the most recent national team for which they have played. Since Manneh has not played for the US, you're probably fine to use the Gambia flag. As far as the article is concerned, I would say that the list in the article ought to follow the same established standard, but the table is more specific to the CanPL's rules regarding international players e.g. a player like Emery Welshman would be listed in the article but would not have been in the table. Kind of like the MLS International Roster Slots article, if MLS didn't make it such a huge pain to keep track of things. Regarding Marcus Simmons, I would not add him to the page until he has been capped by a non-Canadian national team. Jay eyem (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Romeo Beckham

Romeo Beckham plays for Brentford B (previously on loan, now on a permanent contract, but not on a Brentford senior team deal). Brentford B plays in senior cup competitions, although not in a league. I had put it in the senior career section as Brentford B -(-) similar to what we do for the MLS Pool players (i.e. Greg Ranjitsingh) to represent it's a team that plays in senior competitions, but just not in a league, and the other competitions are listed in Career Stats table under Brentford B. The page has gone back and forth between switching the infobox between Brentford 0(0) and Brentford B -(-) along with a note explaining it, and listing BrentfordFC aoley as youth career with no senior. see previous edit, see previous edit 2, see previous edit 3. Personally I feel using the 0(0) with the first team is misleading as he is not a first team player and also does not match with the career stats table. Plus as they compete in senior cups, it technically is a 'senior side'. Bringing this here since a discussion was started on the Talk:Romeo Beckham#Brentford B talk page, but this page is more visible. RedPatch (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Is Brentford B similar to the U21 teams who play in the Premier League 2? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

From what I've gathered, they play in senior cups like London Senior Cup and Middlesex Senior Cup and organize friendlies against other lower division senior teams, but don't play in any specific U## league. RedPatch (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

if senior teams play in it, it counts. london senior cup does indeed count as official appearances, as seen here but i imagine matches that are reserve team vs reserve team in competitions like that would be pretty hard to source since i feel like if brenford b ended up playing stoke b in a match like that whos even gonna bother tracking those stats. even if brentford b played in a reserve league though it wouldnt count cuz resveres only. so as long as theres senior teams in it theyre fine to count for romeo but most people dont even really bother to look for u23 apperences in competitions like these so it may cause his stats to be lop sided and mean were missing data for a lot players. as for brentford b the infobox should be brentford theyre still brentford. he should be listed as regular brentford in his senior career page. the premier league cup however, does *not* count and if you cant find stats for the other two cups you cant include the 15 because the pl cup are not official appearances brentford b are not a senior team and everyone else are pl reserve teams. so 0 senior teams = not a senior appearence. the bbc source also doesnt specify what the 15 came in, some of them could and probably were friendles against foriegn teams as brentford b do that. i dont thikn we can include them unless you can source every individual match that counts.Muur (talk) 06:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Results-by-round

Yep, this old chestnut. Still being sneakily added to season articles, despite consensus that they hold no value. Seasider53 (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure you removing it with no edit summary is any less "sneaky". As is posting about it without tagging Skyblueshaun whose edit you've mentioned. --SuperJew (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me know if/when you decide. Seasider53 (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

World Cup table template still showing wrong teams advancing

Last men's world cup it was agreed to fix this. I don't know if that never happened or was only applied to the men's template.

A couple days ago, the Group H template displayed as follows:

More information Pos, Team ...

Pos	Team	Pld	W	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Qualification
1	Colombia	2	2	0	4	1	+3	6	Advance to knockout stage
2	Germany	2	1	1	7	2	+5	3	Advance to knockout stage
3	Morocco	2	1	1	1	6	−5	3
4	South Korea	2	0	2	0	3	−3	0

Close

Updated to match(es) played on 30 July 2023. Source: FIFA
Rules for classification: Group stage tiebreakers

That is, Colombia and Germany "advance to knockout stage". But Germany did not advance, Morocco did. And even if Germany had won, predicting the result in advance is a violation of CRYSTAL.

Yes, I understand that this is standard format and we expect our readers to know that claims of advancing may be false. But not everyone on WP will understand this, and have what is effectively insider knowledge. As a general-purpose encyclopedia, we should be accessible to those who are completely ignorant about football. This was agreed at the last men's cup, when we decided that we should not show that teams advance until they actually advance.

My recommendation would be to leave in the green color, but to not have the words "Advance to knockout stage" appear until all games are played. We could have an override to display those words for a single team if that team couldn't possibly lose even before the last round.

— kwami (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

List of foreign players criteria

Raising this here to bring an end to an end a debate I have been having with @SuperJew: at List of foreign A-League Women players.

Should the clubs listed in this type of article be "those for which the player has played at least one game" in the competition or "those clubs which have contracted a player" [including where a player has made no appearances for one or more of those clubs]?

The criteria for inclusion of a player in this list is, in all of the articles I'm aware of, that a player must have played at least one game in the competition. For consistency, I'm not sure why we would then include additional clubs for whom the player did not appear in that same competition - and from what I've seen, including only clubs the player has played for appears to be a fairly clear WP:CONSENSUS in every other example of this type of article. Macosal (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion of a player is that the player played at least one game. That's fine.

But then, why should we not include all of the player's career in the league. Being contracted to a team, but not making an appearance is also part of the player's career (same as we categorise a player as "X FC players" even if they don't play a game). If we decide not to include clubs a player hasn't played for, what's the next step? Not including seasons the player didn't make an appearance? Listing all the clubs a player was contracted for gives a more complete entry in regarding to the league. --SuperJew (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

How does this list meet LISTN? All references are to one cite. Do any sources actually talk about foreign players in the Australian women's football league? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Govvy/James Chalmers (footballer, born 1877)

I've got this article in my sandbox, I was wondering if anyone is able to add too it, got any resources they have to improve it, regards. Govvy (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Goalkeeper, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team}

Goalkeeper (association football) is a B class article.--Echetus Xe 14:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

That's because the general sports article Goalkeeper is the one being done, not the specific football article. But Talk:Goalkeeper has WP FOOTY listed as one of the WPs (which is why we've been notified). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

problem moving a clubname

I was directed here when I brought this up at the helpdesk see here.
Repeating the question I asked there: I wanted to move VV ZOB to vv ZOB because that's how it's commonly spelled/capitalised in the Netherlands and the footballclub calls itself that on it's homepage, see bottom right underneath contact here: https://www.vvzob.nl/ Somehow it was moved to Vv ZOB. Naturally I assumed I screwed up and tried to do it again. WP didn't allow this. No matter what is typed in the searchbox, it always goes to Vv ZOB.
So the question now is: Does this meet WP's and this projects naming conventions? Dutchy45 (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Just add {{Lowercase title}} at the beginning of the page. Did it for you on this one. --SuperJew (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Category discussion CFD:Dual internationalists (football)

A few months old CFD Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 11#Category:Dual internationalists (football) would need some opinions rather than comments, maybe a 3rd relisting on that basis and I've also added some alternative proposals to it hopefully improving the suggestion. Respublik (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Requesting review for FLC

Requesting interested reviewers who are active in FLC, kindly review the article I've nominated here Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/AIFF Player of the Year Awards/archive2. Though, it has been months since source review has been done by the FLC director and according to process they follow, FLC delegates want to see more review to promote it. It will be a great help since I've other articles which I'm thinking for nominations. Thank you all. Drat8sub (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Croatian IP

This time it is quite interesting...trying to gain sympathy ? ... "User targets ip's from personal hatred, and content suffers". Pinging @GorillaWarfare:, @GiantSnowman:, @Nehme1499: Drat8sub (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"peronal hatred" is a funny way of putting things. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I hope this is not Modric

, they once quite boldly told me that they are friend of Igor Stimac and I should listen to them. My first thought about Stimac's friend was Modric only

Drat8sub (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I would advise users to take a look at Special:Contributions/93.140.0.0/16, the majority of recent edits, which includes those made on 27 July, are centered on Indian football, contacting WP:ANI and/or WP:RFP as well as speaking to random Wikipedians who probably don't follow football at all. I can probably deduce this might be some sort of LTA based on how many IP addresses used recently and this edit summary. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Check this out. It's all the same guy Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Certainly more IP address outside the /16 range, which I'm now aware that contains the entire list of 93.140.0.0 to 93.140.255.255. Some of the IP ranges on Nehme1499's Meta sandbox are more likely to be the same individual than the widest /16 range. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, all IP addresses in my sandbox page are the same individual. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This IP user has been playing hide and seek here for last 4 years since Igor Štimac become the head coach of India team. If I search my history and the pages I edited, I think I will find hundred of such encounters with this user. I've asked several times to make an account if they really concern and interested about IndianFootball articles and history. But as you know, they love to play peekaboo. Drat8sub (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is this user not fully range-blocked already? Those are all socks of User talk:Sportski recenzist, has been editing since 2019, including many personal attacks, posting knife emojis with death threats and how he will track you down, islamophobic comments against Bosnian users (like here) etc. etc., and then he is spamming user talk pages on other Wikipedias in other languages after he gets banned there. I already mailed Hrvatski telekom and they apparently don't give a shit, so just range block this clown even if this means that several useful IP editors would be affected, they should say thanks to their ISP for not taking action. Or if its possible to range block only the specific topics, like only the articles marked with WikiProject Football would be locked from editing, but all other non-football pages could still be edited from this range? Snowflake91 (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Good point - I have created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sportski recenzist, I suggest those that can tag any known IPs, and if there are any active currently let me know and I will block. We can then consider a range block at ANI. Giant Snowman 15:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Nice, I'm throwing in all the IPs listed in my sandbox. Will take a while. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, I've categorised 80-90 ips searching through my talk page and NT, ISL, season, few clubs and players articles, it's lot, there can be many more, I am exhausted. Most of these spammed, harassed, edited disruptive way, vandalised and 5-6 of these ips even been blocked for hours to days. Hope it helps. Drat8sub (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Want to add that, there is a similar polish ip user too who have certain pattern but not these much like the croatian, in case you may encounter one such ip. Drat8sub (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Askern Miners F.C.

Can someone have a look at the first line for the above club - somebody keeps describing the club 'semi-professional', and no matter how many times I revert the edit they change it back. Firstly I'm almost certain the club is an amateur one, opertating at the lowest level of the football pyramid, and secondly, even if true, the editor doesn't include any sources to back up his claim. Kivo (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

semi pro according to the following interview of themselves saying theyre semi pro. this was in relation to the failed combining with another team though which would've had them enter the 10th tier, idk if that applies with them in the 13th tier after failing to merge and jump up three leagues seems it prob isnt as they were taking over the spot of the 10th tier team to become pro but remain amateur at the 13th i guessMuur (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The above source shows a completely seperate (and now defunct) club as semi-professional, not Askern Miners.Kivo (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

User now started vandalizing my talk page Kivo (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Specific German club names in infoboxes

Hello. This is not an attempt of reviving a broad discussion about German club names, as some of that is partially addressed at WP:KARLSRUHER. I just want to see if there is clear consensus on the "infobox" COMMONAME for a few German clubs.
As I see it, this is how it should be:
1. TSG 1899 Hoffenheim should be referred to as TSG Hoffenheim (it's currently referred to as the incorrect 1899 Hoffenheim)
2. 1. FC Union Berlin should be referred to as Union Berlin (which it already is in most articles)
3. 1. FC Köln should be referred to as FC Köln, as the article's opening sentence says. (We still use 1. FC Köln. Let's be honest, the "1." is not part of the COMMONANME in English.)
4. 1. FSV Mainz 05 should be referred to as Mainz 05 (which it already is)
5. 1. FC Heidenheim should be referred to as FC Heidenheim (we use the 1. as of the moment).
I hope we can clear up these specific scenarios for wider use on Wikipeda player articles and whatnot and start implementing consensus consistently. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I would support bringing each discussion that branches off onto each respective article's talk page. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Question: Why is it that Union Berlin and Mainz 05 don't need to use FC, but the others should? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Mainz 05 is not FC but FSV, and I suppose this is the case for both because it has been previously established that these are the COMMONNAMEs, perhaps? I think the thing is with German football is that they don't want "city names", so "Union Berlin" is enough to satisfy that, while cutting TSG 1899 Hoffenheim short to Hoffenheim doesn't work, but TSG Hoffenheim does. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football club season

Hello everyone, I would like to clarify if cup results should be italics, similar to the rule for league result, if it is still in progress as the team is not knocked out yet. Someone says cup results should only be italics when it has not begun, but not when a team is progressing through. Thank you for your help in advance. Jeremy Hulber (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That's correct, italics are for ongoing competitions. Thanks for the clarification. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:FIFA World Cup#Requested move 12 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:FIFA World Cup#Requested move 12 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. BilledMammal (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification which may interest this WikiProject

There is a current discussion regarding the order of qualifying teams at Talk:Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification#Results order vs Alpha order for list of teams qualified. I invite members of this WikiProject to review the discussion and give their opinions if they wish to do so. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

George Wilkins (footballer)

Hi, could someone update the layout of this page? Thanks. Ugogames (talk | contribs) 16:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

For any admin lurking

Could you please take a look at the contributions of the ipv6 editor on the addresses starting 2A00:23C8:3984:6201.

They are disrupting, probably in good faith, several french football articles, and it's basically impossible to communicate with them (I have posted on at least one article talk page and one of their IP talk pages). They are:

adding "history" sections, which are not related to history
adding back maintenance tags which have been removed after being actioned
claiming teams were "disqualified" from the league - despite the season having finished
making edits which leave tables in a nonsense state (see Group A)

I am wasting so much time reverting/correcting these edits that they're almost starting to feel like revert on site. I actually suspect this is a logged out user who has previously had a thing about "Ligue 3" in French Football articles, but obviously I'm not going to make that connection here. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Also editing against sourced information at FC Sète 34 without providing any sources of their own. Gricehead (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

And editing my comments on talk pages . Gricehead (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gricehead: Have you tried reporting this to WP:AIV? — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: No, because it's (mostly) not vandalism. More a mix of WP:CIR and WP:DISRUPT. I thought our own admin might be able to advise/act. Gricehead (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Revert, warn, and then report to AIV/ANI if conduct continues. Giant Snowman 20:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

indeed, ANI would likely be better (and quicker) in future. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

2023 Arab Club Champions Cup

is this actually official...people have put the goals on ronaldos page but it jsut seems to be a pre season tourney Muur (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It's the Arab world's equivalent of the Champions League and has been running for over 30 years. Teams qualify based on their league position and the preliminary rounds have been ongoing since March. It's not just some Mickey Mouse friendly tournament -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

theres already an asian champions league tho.Muur (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

So? It's still a major honour, far, far more than a pre-season tournament. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Definetely a major competition. Include in the "other" section for career statistics purposes. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Overuse of Current sports transaction template

There seems to be this new trend of adding the {{Current sports transaction}} template everywhere. However, this template is reserved for imminent transfers widely backed by many media reports, not for speculation or rumours of clubs hypothetically "keeping tabs" or "considering making an offer" for a player. I just want to put this out here, because I have seen the template on way too many articles that it should not be on, like Kurt Zouma or Conor Coventry recently. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

We're all about redundancy, so I expect we'll keep seeing it henceforth. Seasider53 (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Released players

Admins, please take note of a warning I've given to Skyblueshaun regarding making the process of clubs releasing players part of a transfer to a different club. He's had several warnings over the years, and I see all the current-season club articles are rife with incorrect information (see this change from a release to a transfer, for example). Seasider53 (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I am a little confused, other than not using secondary sources and a tendency to use primary which is what Skyblueshaun does a lot, I don't see an issue. Govvy (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The majority of pages from teams in the Championship, League One and League Two also have this in place. I don't see why you can just single me out when clearly I am not the only editor applying this. My understanding was that if the player released joined a subsequent club in the same transfer window then the edit is acceptable. The fee still remains "released" and I can see the references in the edits you have reverted still remain. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless the references say the player was released to so-and-so club, it doesn’t matter. Seasider53 (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking sources will say the previous club the player played for, Skyblue is just pointing out where the player goes next. I personally don't see an issue as long as it's done in same window. Govvy (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

We should only be stating the facts at the time, sir. I'm sure I saw a broad WP policy that we don't update such things after the main event has occurred. Seasider53 (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not very informative to have a list of several players all going into free agency. In lower leagues most new signings are free agents. Readers want to know either the team the player played for previously or where they went to after leaving the club.--Echetus Xe 14:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

They were released as free agents, and if they sign for someone else a month later, it isn't correct to imply that they went straight to that team. It's WP:SYNTH by using two different sources (one saying released and one saying they joined another team) to justify this transfer. The fact that so many users do this doesn't make it correct. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Joseph2302 I don't agree this qualifies as WP:SYNTH. WP SYNTH states we cannot say A+B=C. Meaning we cannot extrapolate new information on a subject based on two separate sources. But on a Wikitable with columns for different pieces of information on a topic, I believe updating the table with new information is acceptable. My concern is that this discussion should be about table titles. if the title is "Transferred to", then of course this might not accurate. But if the table title was "New Club" or simply "to" then it would be acceptable. Is this discussion more about standardizing the tables used on WP Football?Demt1298 (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The table is doing A+B=C. A is that they left a club, B is they joined another club a month later, and C is we're showing on tables that they transferred from an old club to a new club, which isn't correct. E.g. Sam Byram left Norwich, a month later he joined Leeds, but he didn't join Leeds from Norwich, and the sources make that clear (they say he joined Leeds following contract expiry at Norwich). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

We can’t assume what readers want. If we did, we could also assume they wanted to read accurate information, which this is not. Seasider53 (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Seasider53 Please provide this source. I don't know we can define the release as the main event. Especially since this is in a Wikitable, which has multiple pieces of information separated into different columns. So I think updating a table with new information while providing both sources should be acceptable.Demt1298 (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It might not be linked correctly here, but this is where I recall reading it. See “restaurant updates” section. A couple of policies are mentioned therein. I’m on mobile is all.

Talk:Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares/Archive 1#Restaurant updates

Seasider53 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Seasider53 That discussion references WP:NOT#JOURNALISM and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I don't think updates on a status of a player on their previous teams page meets either of those criteria. Neither of these say anything specific to not updating something based on new information coming out. That is why Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons shows it as part of the Transfer section of the club season template. Like I mention below. It shows it as a note that is shown in a notelist rather then updating the WikiTable, but it still shows an example of updating a players status based on new information. I think the issue here comes down to the WikiTable not having a specific template or the template being morphed by multiple users (this might be discussed in previous Archives of WP Football, I admit I didn't look up table template discussion). If we used the example from the template page, we would be updating the players information, just in a different format then @Skyblueshaun used. So we should be educating everyone on the template format recommendations rather then starting a Wikipedia:What Wikipedia_is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground by issuing warnings without education of the editor based on current WikiProject templates. That is unless the user deleted those discussion from their talkpage, which again I did not dive into the history of their talkpage. Just my 2 cents! 16:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Demt1298 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It still comes down to sourcing, else we're editorialising. Sources will likely never say "player x was released to join club y". Brett Ormerod was released (by mutual consent) by Preston so that he could join arch-rivals Blackpool without it being a direct move, but that's the closest example I can think of. Adding notes in a table's column to update a player's career is nonsense. That information can go in the player's article. Seasider53 (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Seasider53 I concur all edits should be sourced, but we we wouldn't need Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup or Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles if that were the case. Nonsense or not, the reason for the club seasons template is to standardize across editors regardless of how they feel. I recommend you take this discussion to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Club seasons page and start the discussion there to have more editors come to a consensus, which appears to be something @Govvy tried in 2020, but the discussion didn't pan out.17:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Demt1298 (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

(sidenote) in the A-League Men there are no transfers between clubs, so any "transfer between clubs" is actually club A mutually terminating the player's contract before club B signs them. Sometimes club B's post will be "we signed player from club A" and sometimes club A will post "player's contract was mutually terminated to allow him to pursue other opportunities". In such cases, even though technically it's not a transfer between clubs, I think in spirit it is (like the Ormerod example above) and should be showed that way (with a note about the technicality). However if a player is released and a week/month/year later signs, then no reason to mention the club they eventually end up at. --SuperJew (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe we need to reference Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons which is listed as the MOS for these pages. It shows that information as notes under the transfer section, when they move to a team after being release from the team which the article is for. I don't know that I like this format better then it being listed in the table, but it is the current recommendation for this WikiProject.Demt1298 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

every single season page shows players released june 30th then says who they signed for later down the line. youd have to change the entirety of football wikipedia. your example of sam byram for norwich/leeds does exactly that. the 23/24 norwich page says he left norwich on june 30th and joined leeds

More information Date, Pos ...

Date	Pos	Player	Transferred to	Fee	Ref
30 June 2023	RB	Sam Byram	Leeds United	Released	^[1]^[2]

Close

this is how its listed on the norwich 23/24 page. every single season page for 200 years of seasons does this

Muur (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't make it correct. The sources there say he left Norwich and later joined Leeds, he didn't transfer directly like the table suggests. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Muur I concur with the fact that this appears to be the standard, and I personally believe we need to change Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Club seasons to show this, but I am just trying to ensure all editors know what is on the template, because of the discussion and related warnings to editors. Demt1298 (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

well youll have to get the standard changed and then get the users to edit thousands of season articles people are content with how it currently works you and your friends are yelling at everyone for something everyone has been doing on football wikipedia the entire tiemMuur (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we can just make it simple like changing "Transferred to" to "Next club". It can be a compromise, so the information isn't untrue (i.e. signing not a transfer), but still keeps it accurate for what most pages already do. RedPatch (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Released isn't a fee. Seasider53 (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I added a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Club seasons to discuss changes to the template. All are invited. Demt1298 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

References

[1]
"Club confirms players that will depart this summer". Norwich City FC. 5 May 2023. Retrieved 5 May 2023.
[2]
"LEEDS UNITED RE-SIGN SAM BYRAM". Leeds United F.C. 5 August 2023.

@RedPatch: Or simply just To per what we've done on Tottenham season articles from 2017–18 to the current season 2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season. :/ Govvy (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I do love that not only is there false information in the "released" section, but there are footnotes to explain why it's false. Seasider53 (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

What I told you was true, from a certain point of view. Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I can see both points of view: technically it's correct that the player is released or allows their contract to expire so 'to' is misleading, but IMO most readers will be interested to know where the player went. My suggestion for compromise would be a {{efn|note beside Released saying "joined Xtown United"<ref for this signing/>}} (have to say I do love efns, slightly fiddly but nothing compared to some formats, and allows links and refs within the note). :::::::: Crowsus (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

In England, players leave their contracts on 30 June. Signing for a new club at any point after that date is not a 'transfer' from one club to the other. Players signing for new clubs in July/August do so as free agents. Giant Snowman 21:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting read, but the Spurs season page release table doesn’t actually say or mention transfer in it. Coysfan (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's mentioned above. Not a huge deal, since the headings for the tables say Transfers in and Transfers out, so a column heading saying the same would be overkill. Seasider53 (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the opinion that the player who moves to a club after the end of his contract no longer has any connection with the previous club. In other words, then the former club has nothing to do with the transfer process, and this should not be mentioned in the table.--Dl.thinker (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Good point, and one I meant to mention yesterday but got sidetracked. The listing of two clubs implies there was communication between the two regarding the deal. Seasider53 (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The 2023–24 Southampton F.C. season show released players like this: Players released

More information Date, Pos. ...

Date	Pos.	Player	Subsequent club	Join date	Ref.
30 June 2023	DF	Will Tizzard	Queen's Park	1 July 2023

Close

This seems to cover all the objections above. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't satisfy my point. My point is that if they are released by team X and later join team Y, it's irrelevant to a season article on team X that the person now plays for Y. e.g. it's irrelevant to the 2023–24 Norwich City F.C. season article that Sam Byram eventually joined Leeds, because he was released by Norwich (not signed for Leeds from Norwich). As an aside, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Club seasons seems to have a separate discussion about this, which is entirely unnecessary duplication. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it gives relevant context to see whether the players subsequently signed for (in the same window) clubs on a higher or lower level, signifying the position of the releasing party in the player market. 2A01:799:19A1:C100:114F:1310:151C:6A84 (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Leeds season page

Can I ask why the squad list has player values, especially when it’s known that the media don’t always get that right, wouldn’t that be speculative information and it’s not even sourced in the table. Coysfan (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about 2023–24 Leeds United F.C. season, I guess that it could be considered the Fee column on the table is a breach of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Govvy (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

As with so many season articles, I'm blown away by the quality of the written prose in that one....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Date signed, fee and contract end are all irrelevant for a season article. If they join/leave in season, that's relevant, otherwise knowing someone signed in 2020 and (allegedly) has a contract until 2026 has no impact on the 2023-24 season. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Same on previous season page, those columns should probably be removed. Well I have work meetings all day, laterz. Govvy (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Repsectfully disagree. The fees and contract length can give a state of mind of the club (are they rebuilding for long term? is it a short-term signing to fill a gap? is the club willing to pay for quality transfers? does the club have faith in it's youth by signing them to long contracts or is it a short contract to check? etc.) --SuperJew (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

sorry Joseph2302 I thought you meant in the transfers section (which is what I referenced). I agree it has no place in the squad list (players section). Also place&date of birth as well as the club they originally signed from is irrelevant. --SuperJew (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like all of the last few of the Leeds season pages have this sort of intricate detail too.... Joseph2302 (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

They're in most of the Football League club-season articles (see 2023–24 Blackpool F.C. season and 2023–24 Plymouth Argyle F.C. season for two I've just checked). I'd point a finger at someone, but they'd just say they were copying what someone else did. Seasider53 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

things like value/fees/contract length etc are all NOTSTATS. As I will say until I am blue in the fact, we are an encyclopaedia, not a sports almanac or fan site. Giant Snowman 15:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The players section should ideally use the {{Efs player}} templates, such as this season page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Ideally all the information would be referenced in the player articles. They do seem a nice feature, but if they are judged to not be appropriate then someone can be bold and remove them from all this season's articles. They are the default for this season, for whatever reason. It does annoy me how the season article default changes every year to result in a complete lack of consistency across the seasons.--Echetus Xe 15:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

i did find it odd to suddenly appear on the bolton 23/24 page, when no bolton page before hand had used this format. i think one guy just added it to every teamMuur (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it too much to hope that we'll one day see some decent prose in these articles rather just loads of dazzling multi-coloured tables......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Cristian Romero

RfC at Dani Alves

PAOK FC

Team of the year navboxes

Please see Template:2015–16 Segunda División Team of the Year. I question whether this is a navbox adherent to Wikipedia's standards. Navboxes exist to facilitate navigation between related articles. Seeing as this was not an actual team which of course never played as such, but in reality a series of 11 individual awards bestowed upon the best players in each position, and that the players don't necessarily bear relations to eachother outside of the award, I think the template should go. We don't make navboxes out of, say, the historical squad that won the 2015–16 Segunda División either. 2A01:799:19A1:C100:114F:1310:151C:6A84 (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, also seems overkill. Maybe for the World Cup. But not a national second level league. -Koppapa (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Kill. I'm not even sure this would be suitable for a subjective list for the World Cup, but this is certainly overkill. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

In England and Wales, the Professional Footballers' Association Team of the Year is an annual award given to a set of 55 footballers across the top four tiers of men's English football: the Premier League, the Championship, and Leagues One and Two, as well as the women's FA WSL. The teams for each division are then seemingly captured as navigation boxes - Template:2019–20 EFL League Two PFA Team of the Year, for example - presumably helping readers see who was honoured across each division for a particular season. The respective player biographies may list inclusion as an individual honour (see Charlie Kirk here, for instance) and include the navbox. Paul W (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - such navboxes could be considered on a wider scale rather than the focus just being on one year's box for one country. I haven't the time to check for coverage right now but I doubt that being named in the team of the year for English football's fourth tier is more notable than achieving the same in Spain's second tier....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

BTW check out the template bloat at the bottom of Kenny Sansom's article as a result of such navboxes existing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Club names of Saudi Arabia

Germany–Spain football rivalry

Exodus of footballers to Saudi Arabia

Balmer

AFC Ajax

Requested move at Talk:2016 Bangladesh Championship League#Requested move 11 August 2023

Footballers who never played official senor match

Is not it global consensus that players who never played at senior level (Da'vian Kimbrough, Cristiano Ronaldo Jr.) are not notable and there is no other reason than wp:I like it to create article for them against wp:toosoon? Dawid2009 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not. WP:SIGCOV is needed to fulfil WP:GNG. Two in-depth articles from WP:reliable sources are usually sufficient. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible for a player who has not played a senior game to pass WP:GNG and therefore be notable. See for example Carlos Kaiser, who has had an entire book written about him.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Carlos Kaiser is another specific example. He was born 1963 and he "was" in 13 clubs as senor player, wp:tooson does not apply here. I am also not talking about say goalkeepers who were in dozen clubs but did not played senior match sue to obvious reason. I am talking about players born about 2010 like Criatiano Ronaldo Junior who never played senior match due to fact they are not senior footballers yet and do not have books but are hearable thank to family just in news like Telegraph,Guardian etc. About playera who did not played fully proffesional senior match but are more hearable for junuor carer. What with them? Dawid2009 (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG apply to all subjects. If you have in-depth reporting from the Telegraph and the Guardian, that's fine. I don't know what you mean by the word "hearable". Robby.is.on (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

"Hearable" because of Cr Jr. is just mentioned in one of these sources, and even is not mentioned in the Guardian reference (hidden trap to article seems be more sourced than is in fact!), in the article all other references than Telepgraph and Guardian are not English or too difficult to not call tabloid, it is not wp:significant coverage. I would discuss that at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Association football, I am not the only who had redirect on mind, and as for WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG apply to all subjects, the article has just 14 references and on Wikipedia it is common to mergre article with +30references (with references like Time, BBC etc.) to another one. Even Poortuguese Wikipedia and Arabian (Cristiano Ronaldo Junior play in Saudi Arabia) o not have the articles. With respecto to the WP:GNG, WPSIGCOV and author of the subject, I think the subject is not notable (mainly wp:too soon) and should be redirect to article about Critiano Senior for now. Kind regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

List of 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup controversies

Can I please ask others to have a look at this article. It's huge. Far to much content, in my humble opinion. An editor has added the Overly detailed tag, but I can't see that having much impact in the short term. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow that looks like almost every newspaper or web article connected to the WWC (most of which will have a slightly controversial angle to attract readers) summarised on there. Must say tho the writing and sourcing is above-average. Crowsus (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

If everything is controversial then nothing is controversial.--Echetus Xe 10:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This is why having controversies articles for most major sports events (Football World Cups, Olympics etc) is a bad idea. If we shouldn't be having separate controversy sections in articles, we definitely shouldn't be creating controversy articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that is way too detailed and most things are suited more for a blog. Kante4 (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

As well sourced as some of this is, most isn't even controversial. Is England voting for a host a controversial aspect of the world cup? I'm against these sections as a whole, and articles are almost always out of place. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think controversies listed on that page should be centered around the actual event only + qualfiying, therefore should be more like the List of 2010 FIFA World Cup controversies article where most of them centered around football matches. Sections such as "Colombia flight" and "Ireland–Colombia warm-up match" probably had no impact on the competition, and with the "Media incidents" section, it is only known to certain audiences, not globally.

2019_FIFA_Women's_World_Cup#Controversies is far better to read than looking at 151,994 bytes of controversy whose size should be reduced for relevant content. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

most of these arent even about the world cup itself, like random warm up friendlies taking place before it.Muur (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Charley McMillan-Lopez

Santiago Giménez

Help with article split discussion

Article quality: FIFA final

Requested move at Talk:Gillingham W.F.C.#Requested move 21 August 2023

Jérémy Doku

Second team template in Canada

Claim of England representing Great Britain at the 2024 Olympics

Southern Football League

Hong Kong Rangers FC players

FIFA rankings in articles

So I am working on the Australia women's national soccer team to improve the referencing on the article and I have noticed that their is a section for FIFA World Rankings which I don't think would be suitable for an article. Other articles that I have checked like England and Sweden women's team also have same issue. So I am wondering is this even required, or it's just trivial knowledge which can be easily be deleted. HawkAussie (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider the official worldwide rankings "trivia", but I also don't think we need a table of all the positions. I do think it's worth mentioning. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree that it isn't trivia but I don't think the solution currently listed on the template is the best solution. Felixsv7 (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd say world ranking information is worth mentioning but I do not understand that table. The increasing and decreasing arrows do not seem to correspond to anything and I don't know how the ranking for the years are calculated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The up and down arrows show whether their current position is an improvement or a decline from their previous ranking. – Pee Jay 13:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I also don't consider that trivial knowledge - shows how well the team has been historically - and I would restore the section you removed for now. Not sure what the optimal solution here is though. SportingFlyer T·C 14:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to add to my previous comment - rankings are used to seed nations for competitions therefore definitely cannot be defined as WP:TRIVIA. That being said, I think the only reference to World Rankings needs to be in the infobox, stating the Current, Highest and Lowest rather than year-on-year fluctuation, unless others feel strongly. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, unless the rankings are especially notable in prose for some reason, for instance discussion of a team finishing first in multiple different decades. SportingFlyer T·C 15:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that we shouldn't mention it in prose. It's arguably one of the only decent metrics of a team's position in the worldwide stratosphere. This shouldn't be a one size fits all approach, but something mentioning the team's highest position in the FIFA rankings is definitely something worth mentioning in prose, as is if they did something else noteworthy (like the severe drop in the Iceland national football team). It'll depend entirely on sourcing. We shouldn't just be a carbon copy of the fifa rankings list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah I definitely mis-spoke when I said "the only reference". I meant that it didn't need an independent section - rather than never needing to be referenced in the History section. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It may be best organised in an independent section, though, if indeed there's anything to say about it. SportingFlyer T·C 15:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I am happy with that agreement as we don't need a year by year summary of the international team. If people do want add it, they could add in the statistics page if the national team has one. HawkAussie (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I have now added that section to the 'statistics' page of Australia women's national soccer team all-time record, as per the recommendations of HawkAussie. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Results and Fixtures sections in National Football team articles

Just about every Men's and Women's national team article has a section on Results and Fixtures, with the introduction that "The following is a list of match results in the last 12 months, as well as any future matches that have been scheduled." This is shown in the Template for such articles under WP:WikiProject_Football/National_teams. However, edits have been made to remove this section from Scotland national football team and Scotland women's national football team by @Jmorrison230582, because there is a related article on results for the men (Scotland national football team results (2020–present)) and women (Scotland women's national football team results (2020–present)). Many national team articles have both (see for example Australia), but a section summarising the more recent results and fixtures is required. After reviewing the articles' histories, I note that @Jmorrison230582 is a frequent contributor to the national team articles, and overwhelmingly the major contributor to the the the results (2020-present) articles, so there appears to be a degree of ownership of content or process here. Does WP:RECENTISM trump the format of the Template? Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Apparently WP:RECENTISM does trump the format of the Template, as @Jmorrison230582 has just now removed that section from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams template too, citing WP:RECENTISM. Should this be reverted until there has been some discussion? Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"Recent results" sounds like recentism to me. Why should the "recent results" occupy over 15% of the content of an article (10,513 bytes out of 60,887)? We don't do this for club articles (Template), so why do it for national teams? The national team template has only included the recent results section since November 2020 diff. It's not based on any wikipedia policy, it's just one user's edit. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed inconclusively last year. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Jmorrison here. What we are effectively doing by adding a recent results section is providing twice the the amount of focus and weight to these recent matches because all the national team articles should have a history and competitive record section which give an overview of all the team's results. These will be covered there anyway so there's no point in doubling up. Plus, it's not difficult to link to the results pages which will allow readers to find the information should they want more detail. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that it's a clear violation of WP:RECENTISM, nd it also makes for tonnes of unnecessary editing for people to update these in multiple places. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I also also agree. Why does the Australia WNT article have a massive section detailing their results in the last 15 months specifically? We'd never have a club article with a "results in the last three months" (or whatever) section, so why are NTs different......? ---- ChrisTheDude (talk)

There is a template for National Team articles which includes the Results and Fixtures section. Or at least there was an hour ago. The thread where this was talked about (with inconclusive outcomes last year) finished with the thought to "Maybe we need an RfC to determine whether or not to include results on national team pages then." What we dont need is for the template to be edited at the beginning of this discussion, half an hour after reverting my edit removing the Results and Fixtures section from the Scotland women's national football team, which i think is really poor form. Decide by consensus to change the template, if the template is wrong. Dont just remove from the template as a pre-emptive strike. I have restored the Template on that basis, and look forward to consensus on whether to change. Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what happened. I made that edit to the template at 06:23 (diff). You started this discussion at 06:34 (diff), 11 minutes later. My edit was not made "during the discussion". Please amend or remove your comment. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I have edited my version of the timeline, which Jmorrison230582 probably still will not like. I was in process of typing in this thread as an Add Topic when the text was removed from the Template.

I would guess there are nearly 1000 national team articles - if one includes the youth team articles - which have a Results and Fixtures section; however the Scotland articles do not. Is the overwhelming common practice for around 200 other countries/associations to be based on Scotland as the template? Most of these ~1000 national team articles would not have a subsidiary Results article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because it appears on one article doesn't mean it should be on any article. By all means, argue the merits of the section against wiki policy but simple stating it exists is not a relevant argument. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, also the main reason that results sections have been created on so many articles is because it is in the template. To then argue that the template should continue to have a results section because many articles have them is circular logic. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I have to say I don't think the fixtures and results are all that helpful for an overview of a team. We don't do similar things for club teams, but we do often have season articles dedicated to these. I could understand a list of scores if we had an article dedicated to the history (or part of a history) of a team, but as an arbitrary 12 month list it's incomplete and unhelpful. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Can I just say that I was the editor who added the Results and Fixtures into the template as the template did not reflect the national team articles. But also, articles such as England national team have had a recent fixtures section since 2006 and I feel that the Results and Fixtures section is clearly defined to twelve months therefore won't suffer from bloat, and is a far more of a benefit (clear, useful information) than a detriment (10,000+ bytes). Felixsv7 (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

And then doesn't the Current Squad fall foul to Recentism as well, despite being really useful information that probably (no data collected) draws readers to the page (much like, in my opinion again, the Results and Fixtures section). Felixsv7 (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

No, because that information is necessary to describing the team as it is presently composed. The more useful statistical information is the team's overall record in matches and competitions, not an arbitrary list of recent results that takes up a significant percentage of an article (WP:NOTSTATS). If a recent result is significant, it will be mentioned in the article text. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the recent results section "violates" RECENTISM as much as the current squad section. Both should be kept. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Then why don't we have them in club articles? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTSTATS does not apply as Recent Results are not a collection of unexplained statistics - nor is it confusing as the parameters for what is included is clearly defined. Club articles have a different template, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and every single other nation has the Results section apart from this one which has seen its inclusion rejected numerous times, despite many more editors requesting the section than having issue with it. Anyway, looking forward to hearing other users' input to hopefully get this settled once and for all. Felixsv7 (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

We're part way through a discussion about the inclusion of recent results and it's definitely not clear that "many more editors" want it.

As for the club articles comparison, perhaps it was never intended for club articles because clubs whose current season is considered notable will have a separate season article so recent results will be included there. It's also impossible to ask editors to upkeep the hundreds of thousands of football club articles with a recent results section. Most national teams are eligible to have a list of results article (and those which aren't because they've played like seven matches, can have it easily incorporated within the main article) so I don't see why we can't do what we do for clubs and link to the results list (the current season article if you will) so that readers who do want more information can easily access it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no need to have recent results in club articles because we have articles such as 2023–24 Arsenal F.C. season for that purpose. – Pee Jay 21:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Could somebody please use an argument for these results sections that does NOT involve using circular logic? "Every single other nation" has this section because it is in the template. What do you think will happen if the consensus is that the template should not have that section? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised they were removed to be honest - WP:RECENTISM doesn't specifically speak to this and we're not going to include every single match a national team has played on a team's main page. Showing recent results is an excellent way of displaying a subset of information - that may be the most searched bit of information anyways - while providing a link to a page which contains all of the results of a national team. (National teams also play significantly fewer games than club teams.) SportingFlyer T·C 15:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"National teams also play significantly fewer games": By the end of this year, the England women will have played 20 games, and they played 19 last year. That's more games than most NFL teams play in a season. If the "recent" results of a team are historically significant, they should be mentioned in the text of the article. For example, the England women's article details their success in Euro 2021 (played in 2022) and the 2023 World Cup. It doesn't also need to list out the detail of each and every match (including pre-tournament friendlies, one of which wasn't even an official match link). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Can we not just have a 'last result' and 'next fixture, limiting every article to 2 such boxes? Anyone needing more can go to the results article. Crowsus (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd either limit it to the current year, the last five results, or the last tournament. I'm not swayed by "more games than an NFL team" argument, but the England women do have too many results on there right now. It's not as if it takes up a lot of space in the current format. SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

As an additional example, we frequently list the last five seasons of a club team on sports pages at least in other parts of the project - every season will be notable, but we intentionally pick a subset in order to make the main page more concise. SportingFlyer T·C 22:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

If a Results article already exists, then I can see some logic for not wanting to duplicate effort. But of the ~1000 such national team articles (my estimate), most will not have a separate Results article, and I would guess that very very few of the youth team articles will. Perhaps there is an argument that such articles for the National men's and women's teams would meet WP:GNG criteria, but that is unlikely to be the case for trying to create a separate article for Results and Fixtures for say these teams from New Zealand (Men's U23, Men's U20, MensU19, Mens U17, Womens U20, Womens U20 - Trying to choose a country that is not ridiculously small, and is not a huge country with +100 years of history in the senior men's team like England or Scotland). I believe if separate articles were generated just for the recent results and fixtures component they would all fail due to WP:GNG, including issues with references, as the references and sources are in each individual match and don't separately get copied to the references section. What about upcoming fixtures? They are referenced with a source (primary or secondary) - could they be kept, even though they have not yet occurred? Most senior and youth teams play 10-20 matches per year, and what has that got to do with American NFL? I don't believe it is circular logic since most articles had this section before it was added to the template in 2020. The fact that it was not in the template when it was created in 2005 is not relevant, as templates evolve over time. Perhaps from the tiny subset of editors contributing to this discussion "it's definitely not clear that many more editors want it", but theres 1000 articles which are being updated by editors, and mostly they are kept up-to-date Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The "circular logic" argument doesn't hold true because, as I said, the template has only displayed Results and Fixtures since 2020, while Nigeria has shown Results since 2010 at least, England has shown Results and Fixtures since 2006, Argentina since 2010 at least, Jordan has shown Results and fixtures in the current format since 2014 so "every other country in the world" didn't just copy the template, they all decided it was relevant information to the national team as its currently composed... like the Current Squad. Felixsv7 (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so four national team articles have had recent results before you added it to the template. How many articles have had them added since then? Will you at least accept that listing over 20 results and fixtures, as in the England women article, is excessive? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I deliberately picked four random countries to prove my point but allow me to do so again with Kyrgyzstan in 2015, Djibouti in 2017, Montserrat in 2014 and Vanuatu in 2017. And England's women display 20 results because they have a lot of fixtures and results in the agreed twelve month window - I don't see this as an issue as it gives the reader an accurate depiction of the current team's recent form and fixtures but clearly you think it does. Even on the page WP:RECENTISM it says users can view it as a positive or negative and it's obvious we just approach it from different sides of the coin. Felixsv7 (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What you are arguing though is that "it's in the articles" which follows on to "it should be in the template" and then that just leads back to "it should be in the articles" and so on. It doesn't matter if it started with one or the other, it still loops round back to the beginning.

I also don't understand above where it's argued WP:RECENTISM doesn't specifically speak to this. We have a section titled "Recent results" which creates an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events, that is exactly what it speaks to. The discussion now should be about a consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight. Recent results will be considered in the history section and the competitive results section alongside everything else that has happened which gives it fair weight. The senior teams will results articles as well which again give equal weight to recent results as they do to historical ones so there is no question of balance. The inclusion of another section, the sole purpose of which is to cover only recent events when they are already covered fairly alongside historical ones, gives an imbalanced focus on them. It's not needed. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not a chicken-egg situation when you're fully aware which came first - in this case its appearance in every single national team article - bar Scotland and Peru. Felixsv7 (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Can we not keep going round in circles please? Argue it on its merits, hold it against Wikipedia policy and guidelines and let us come to consensus. So far, we've got a few editors in agreement that it violates WP:RECENTISM and a few editors who disagree with that but haven't pointed out other policies or guidelines which support it's inclusion (if I've missed something, I apologise, I was trying to summarise in a few words). Perhaps, as Matilda Maniac pointed out, we might be better with a full RfC. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM works both ways and doesn't have any text specific to this situation, which contains a section which constantly turns over as time moves on. Readers are more likely to be interested in the team's recent results in the same way we have current squad lists, it's a placeholder section for a larger article, since we can't list all of the results on the main page (I mean, technically we could, but I think we can all agree that's horrible for readability.) Removing the section entirely is a net negative, but this may be trending towards RfC territory. SportingFlyer T·C 10:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Bring on a RfC process. But recognise that the bulk of the ~1000 articles don't have a separate article like Scotland and England senior teams do; creating such articles for several hundred youth team articles will likely fail on WP:GNG, so readers interested in what fixtures they have coming up (qualifiers, friendlies etc.) wont be able to find that information on Wikipedia without already knowing what the tournament is, and have to navigate there separately. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Many already exist for the more notable countries, so I don't think that will be an issue. SportingFlyer T·C 00:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Many already exist for the Senior teams only of the more notable countries, which is less than 50% of the articles. Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the almost religious adherence here by some editors to WP:RECENTISM and position to not have any recent results on a national team page is missing a bit of the point. At the end of the day, I'm sure the average reader wishes to see the recent results on the national team page (both from my experience and a variety of discussions on social medias I've been part of).

Also to point out that WP:RECENTISM isn't all black-and-white: Some Wikipedia articles tend to focus on recent events. Wikipedia has been praised for the way it deals with current news breaks. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to be aware of balance and historical perspective. (my bolding). Also a reminder that it's an essay, not policy. Having the recent results of the last year on a fully-formed page about a national team is not inflated or imbalanced (perhaps we could discuss the length of the period - perhaps 9 or 6 months is more appropriate). If, as in some cases of less well known countries, the results section is a majority of the article, the correct solution is to expand the page, not to split part of a small article into another page.

Another point is that currently the majority of national team pages are in the format of having the recent results. Shifting all of them to a different format of having separate pages for the results would be a lot of extra (imo unnecessary) work for the editors. --SuperJew (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure that the "average reader" would also like to read the recent results of Manchester United or Liverpool, but they can't. Why not? WP:RECENTISM, and the season articles for each club suffices. Why doesn't the same logic apply to national teams? Surely there is more work involved in updating the results on NT articles during each and every international window, as opposed to the one-off effort of removing them? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I've seen feedback here against having a page about a national team's "season" (as in a year of results) claiming national teams don't have seasons and that it's not enough matches to warrant a separate page. In short, the difference is the amount of matches (for example: England national football team has 17 matches in a year period, while Man City have 42 listed currently (and that's before the draw of the domestic cups and Champions League). --SuperJew (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Whoever your average reader is, they CAN read the recent results of Manchester United or Liverpool, as those teams will have season articles (an EXISTNG separate article), and there will be a link to them. Why doesn't the same logic apply to national teams? Because WP:GNG will likely prevent separate articles from being created for many Senior Men's teams, most Senior Women's teams, and nearly all Men and Women's youth teams. The amount of effort is not the point, it is the inability to have somewhere to put new fixtures into any article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The majority of senior national teams already have a separate results article which more than satisfy GNG. It's different for youth teams because they don't receive the same level of coverage so they aren't as notable. Removing the recent results section also doesn't prevent anyone putting new fixtures or results into any national team article, that is the whole point of the history and competitive record sections. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I also disagree - results pages already exist for national teams, often by decade. But say American sports teams have season list articles, and we show only the last five seasons on their pages. WP:RECENTISM? Not really, it's just picking the subset of the most recent seasons to show in order to not clutter the page. I don't understand why the same logic wouldn't apply here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Can we please settle this debate by confirming whether the template should be amended, or whether the Scotland page should be changed? Rather than allowing this discussion to go dormant for another year! Felixsv7 (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I would now be happy with the option of allowing this discussion to go dormant for another year. There does not seem to be a clear consensus for either amending the template or the Scotland team's pages. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems sensible. An RfC at a later date might be the way to take it forward. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You're ignoring a third option. Leave it in the template, but articles can choose whether or not to follow that template if editors believe that the spin-off and associated articles suffice in covering the recent results of a team. As they do for every club article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that just allows for WP:OWN. We should have consistency across the national team articles i.e. following the template. Felixsv7 (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Tbf, the Scotland article has been through the Featured Article and Peer Review processes multiple times and the only time it was brought it was a recommendation to remove recent results. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes but tbf, that was in 2007 and the Results section looked like this! Felixsv7 (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

So? There's been ample opportunity to bring it up again and it's not been a problem. As Matilda Maniac says though, might be best to leave it for now and come back to it. There's no deadline so perhaps a future discussion aimed at getting wider community participation would be best. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

So therefore there should be no deadline in bringing up Results and Fixtures as an issue. Ah well, we'll readdress it when someone else tries to add it to the page in a year or so! Felixsv7 (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Joe Walton (footballer, born 1881)

Establish an official guideline for recognision of titles

I have observed that media counts differently the titles that players have won over the years. For example, FIFA credits Alves with 44 titles (counting him presumibly the 2018 French Supercup), while PSG does not count in on Alves profile in their website. Other example is Messi, I saw the WP:consensus you guys had about these tournaments, but at the end of the day we relay on sources in order to write articles.

Another misunderstanding is that Manchester City does not recognised Cancelo for his UCL, when he played 6 matches of that tournament, but they do recognise him the Premier and FA Cup. While Bale and Isco are recognised for his 5th UCL with no minutes on the tournament. Finally I also wanted to point out that we are not recognising players or managers that didn't play the UEFA Nations League Finals, but appeared on the group stage. This happened with Luis Enrique or Ferran Torres, even though clubs usually recognise these titles on their websites.

Now that I have pointed out my main doubts, I want to propose a system for recognising titles aside primary sources, which can be sometimes misleading and contradictory.

In my opinion, in order to have a trophy recognised you should have either:

1. Played in the match, any player who entered the pitch anytime during a competition should be recognised. It should not matter whether it is part of the main squad or not, or if he lefts the club before finishing the tournament.

2. If a player has not played any minute, it should have been called-up, and it SHOULD be part of the main squad. We do this often for league titles, only players from reserve teams that actually are used anytime are counted for the recognision.

I think those are two very logical conditions for me, and it can contradict many club sources of even FIFA sources, but I thing we have to clear things up.

Just for you to know, using my parameters, I will address how would the discrepancies I've mentioned on this text be resolved:

1. No Supercup game where the player has not been called-up should be recognised. So no 2018 French Supercup for Alves, no 2005 Supercopa for Messi and no 2008 FA Community Shield for Cristiano or 2016 UEFA Supercup.

2. Players that have disputed a competition with a team and then left should be still awarded. So recognision for 2023 UCL for Cancelo (unless UEFA had specified knock-out phase participation requirement, which I do not think so)

3. Recognision of 2023 Nations League for players that disputed the group stage but weren’t called up for finals (at the end, "finals" is just a fancy name for knock-out phase and not a different tournament). Same for 2019 and 2021 winners.

I think we could add notes on the articles explaining that some sources say otherwise. Sorry for these long text but I think my points are very logical and can be applied to Wikipedia neutrality stantards. If different sources have different guidelines, Wikipedia should have their own. FCBWanderer (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@FCBWanderer I agree with your every point. Eduardo2024 (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I would like to have as much opinions as possible, specially administrators or important members of WikiFootball like @User:Mattythewhite or @User:GiantSnowman. This way Wikipedia won't relay on newspaper or misleading sources on this aspect but we only have to ensure that any of the two mentioned points are fulfilled in order for us to recognise the title. FCBWanderer (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking that one of the golden rules of WP is that we follow what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say that Alves won the 2018 French Supercup, that's what we say, we don't invent new rules to allow us to over-rule what the sources say -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with ChrisTheDude. We should follow what sources say- if most sources say that player X won competition Y, then we should also report that. And vice versa. Wikipedia isn't here to make up/define when we think someone should/did win something, all content should follow what reliable sources say about the subject. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the sources is they are contradictory, that is why I said this. Eduardo2024 (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Even so, making up our own standards/opinions on when someone did/didn't win something is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, which isn't acceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Your points are also valid TBH. Wikipedia is all about reliable sources. Eduardo2024 (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SPORTBASIC: "Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players." Paul W (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

In specific cases where sources are contradictory, that can be addressed locally. The solution is not to make up our own rules which will in some cases almost certainly disagree with all reliable sources. For example, using the proposed rule Played in the match, any player who entered the pitch anytime during a competition should be recognised would mean that if Man City had had a player last season whose entire contribution was to come on as a substitute in the last game of the season with 30 seconds remaining he would be recognised as winning the Premier League, even though that competition has a very specific rule that a player has to have played at least five games to receive a winner's medal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Manchester City recognises Scott Carson with two Premier League titles even though he did not played a single match in the last two leagues,^[1] therefore Man City even though is a primary source is incorrect? Isn't that contradictory? --FCBWanderer (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

If a player left before his team won European club trophy, it means that a player was not needed in the team anymore. We also cannot put players who played in UEFA Nations League group stage but were not called up for the finals as the group stage is basically a qualifying round (in case of League A) for the latter. NextEditor123 (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: Cancelo, the UEFA statistics handbook lists him among "the players who have won the UEFA Champions League" as part of Manchester City's 2022-23 squad.

There are a few inconsistencies across Wikipedia, for example;

- Samuel Eto'o made three appearances for Real Madrid in 1999-2000. He is listed as a winner in the handbook but not on his Wikipedia page.

- Darren Potter made one appearance for Liverpool in 2004-05. He is listed as a winner in the handbook and on his Wikipedia page. John Walsh was an unused substitute in 2004-05. He is listed as a winner in the handbook but not on his Wikipedia page. My initial feeling was that Potter, unlike Walsh, must've received a medal but that is not the case. Potter confirmed in an interview with OffTheBall on January 2nd 2020 that he did not receive a medal (you can find the article online). Therefore, why does Wikipedia recognise Potter but not Walsh?

- Messi made six appearances for Barcelona in 2005-06. He is listed as a winner in the handbook and on his Wikipedia page, but with a needless note against it. There is no such note against Maxi Lopez, who made one appearance in 2005-06. Why does Messi have a note and not Lopez? Before you argue that Messi was not in the squad for the final, neither was Lopez.

It is important to be consistent.

If you are listed in the handbook as a winner, the number of minutes you played or whether you received a medal is irrelevant; UEFA recognises you as a winner.

https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/0282-18407a7a3056-fed61d05639b-1000/ucl_202223_finals_md13.pdf 2A02:C7C:F419:2900:9DD9:DFC:CEF0:6312 (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

References

[1]
"Scott Carson". Manchester City F.C. Retrieved 15 August 2023.

I think the club's official website sources are kind of biased, doesn't maintain neutrality. Should not be considered as reliable sources for this topic. Eduardo2024 (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Media house sources and official tournament/organization sources like UEFA/FIFA are more reliable for this informations. Eduardo2024 (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The thing is that UEFA and FIFA do not have a page in which they address all the titles won by each player, so it is impossible to know if they recognise or not a specific title. That is why we need a guideline. And btw @ChrisTheDude, I have searched into the Premier League rules (https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2023/08/10/eb775c99-351a-46c1-9050-53dcae175a81/PL_Handbook_2023-24_DIGITAL_03.08.23.pdf) and there is no mention of "5 matches requierement" or anything like that. FCBWanderer (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

FCBWanderer It's mentioned here. It says "[Medals] can be distributed to the manager, players and officials as the club see fit, as long as every player who has made at least five Premier League appearances during the title-winning season gets one." So in theory a club can choose to give a medal to a player with fewer than five appearances if they wish (as presumably was the case with Carson), but this isn't the same thing as "literally every player who played even a single minute of a PL game should be regarded as having won the PL"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The thing is that many competitions does not have specific rules to get recognised. In the case of 2005 Supercopa de España for Messi what do we do? We give him that title just because Barcelona granted him in his website. And what about Alves and the discrepancies between FIFA and PSG? Which are your solutions for these cases FCBWanderer (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

If FIFA/UEFA or media house sources are available which contradict clubs official website then we should prefer them. If Alves has 44 trophies because some sources said that then Ronaldo also has 35 trophies according to sources. Eduardo2024 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't found any FIFA source that mentions Cristiano's honours, neither a United source that recognises him the 2008 english supercup. FCBWanderer (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Other thing @ChrisTheDude, I've found that on the Premier League web players who didn't play at least five matches are not recognised as winners, such as Carson or Perrone. But on the Manchester City page they are listed as winner, then, who do we believe? FCBWanderer (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

If all the "reliable sources" contradict each other, maybe we should just add the titles/trophies/medals/etc. in question and include a note in the hounours section or in the article itself, as to explain why some sources mention ″x″ number and some other sources mention ″y″ number, that way we don't have to constantly discuss this in here, plus it would stop the edit warring that usually happen in the articles.Bocafan76 (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bocafan76: - that would seem the ideal solution to me. No OR involved -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe like this website Eduardo2024 (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Premier League's official website is a more important primary source than official websites of football clubs in that case because it represents the governing body. NextEditor123 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Joel Voelkerling Persson

Football players - Orphan articles

Colchester United crest was on commons and got deleted.

Live updates

List of club goals scored by ___

Hello, I have suggested this a few years back but I would like to re-explore the chances of a new type of list for footballers; that would be a list of CLUB goals. I understand the sourcing nightmare this could bring, but I do not deem this as an impossible task. Nowadays we have various resources to source from, so I feel that making a List of club goals scored by Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo could be way easier than the likes of Maradona and Pelé. My original plan is to just create lists for LM10 and CR7, due to their legacy in the sport and the accuracy of their statistics with modern recording. Other players could have their own lists if they are sustainable enough or even worth the article, but that would be outside of my focus. I feel this would be a good tool for users as most sites that list their goals are too complex and ill-maintained, in contrast to Wikipedia and its massive amount of users that could take care and further improve these lists as time goes by. They are approaching the end of their careers anyways, so their goal tallies could only grow so much than they already have. I'm sure people once thought of List of international goals scored by Lionel Messi as a wild idea, heck, even a useless one. Really interested to see what the community thinks, I am all ears: Would this be feasible? TheSoccerBoy^{(𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕜)} 05:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

For info, such an article for Ronaldo was created in 2020 and for Messi in 2021. Both were nominated at AfD, and unanimously deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Simply no. The international goals articles are bad enough, but we aren't a place to store information like this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Lists of international goals squeak by WP:NOTSTATS because we limit them to players who either are currently or were at some time the leading scorer for their nation, thus creating an objective notability requirement for them. There is no chance of lists of club goals surviving. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Assistant for women's clubs

Requested move at Talk:Avua-Siav Leo Nelson#Requested move 30 August 2023

Requested move at Talk:Sergei Mikhaylovich Puchkov#Requested move 30 August 2023

Requesting roll-back edits on improperly edited articles

Wikipedia controversy - article used as a CV to fool european football clubs

Cambodian Premier League stats

User:NextEditor123

Is anyone else concerned by this editor's contributions? They are making unilateral changes to hundreds of players' biographies to remove honours that they don't think the player earned. For example, they are removing the 2007-08 UEFA Champions League from Jonny Evans' list of honours despite Evans playing in multiple games during that campaign. They seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that a player has to play in the final for them to be considered to have won a competition, but I'm pretty sure they don't have any grounds for this, certainly not when it comes to a consensus here. – Pee Jay 16:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

He was not in the team. He was in the loan to Sunderland during that time. You should bring a source which fully confirms that he is Champions League winner in 2008. But you didn't. NextEditor123 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I pointed you to the fact that he made three appearances during that season, which means he was part of the 25-man squad Manchester United named for the competition that year. I also linked you to the UEFA Champions League Statistics Handbook, which lists Evans in a section entitled "Players who have won the UEFA Champions League". Now stop making blind reverts. – Pee Jay 16:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

At first, he played in 2 group stage matches, not three. Secondary, personal attacks are prohibited there in Wikipedia. Third, if you want to create a topic about Champions League winners right there, you should not put all blame on me as I was just following the consensus that a primary source that mentions particular name of players can be used for the players' articles. The problem is that there were no official sources that lists all players who are officially recognized as UEFA Champions League winners. Therefore, we could only use official news websites or official clubs' profiles for that. You only bring a case with Jonny Evans while there many Wikipedia articles about players where UCL triumph in the honour sections are absent mostly because they left their teams in middle of winning seasons. NextEditor123 (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many matches he played in as long as it's at least one. You have a source now, no need to get defensive. I'm still not impressed by your edits, though, especially your refusal to listen to people who disagree with you. – Pee Jay 17:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Look who says it.

Speaking of the handbook, would you also recognize managers who were sacked during teams' winning season as Champions League winners? NextEditor123 (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

And will you do the same about the rest of missing players in Wikipedia? NextEditor123 (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Ass hole 2804:7F4:388B:868A:CCD7:9BEA:1134:2D60 (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism is prohibited. You look like a coward by hiding behind IP address and not having Wikipedia account. NextEditor123 (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, wholesale changes like these should really be discussed for a consensus. I don't think you'll get a better citation for winning the event than UEFA stating it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Would you also recognize managers who were sacked during teams' winning season as Champions League winners? NextEditor123 (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't see how that is relevant. We summarise what reliable sources say about a subject, we don't make up rules around who is or who isn't eligible for an honour. Yes, we should have citations that show players have that honour, and if the governing body said they won the tournament, they did. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Lee Vilenski here.
I can only give my input regarding Ligue 1, a competition where if you play one single minute and your team is champion, you are also a champion. However, I'm not aware of such rule for the UCL, and you would have to probably find reliable sources to back up the Jonny Evans honour. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

But just to clarify: So Samuel Eto'o has won four UCL titles (including UCL 1999-00 with Real Madrid) after all ?!

According to the consensus, any changes in this regard have always been reversed to this day.

On the one hand, page 12 of the handbook in "Players who have won the UEFA Champions League" section, lists Samuel Eto'o in the 1999-00 squad for Real Madrid, but on the other hand, page 15 only lists three titles for him in the section "Players who have won the competition" with more than one club.

--> I don't have a preference myself, but the rule should then apply without restriction. Miria~01 (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the above, could @NextEditor123: and @2804:7F4:388B:868A:CCD7:9BEA:1134:2D60: please pack it in with the constant edit warring? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

fs player template flagicon issue.

So, I was putting in IRE in the flagicon bit for Republic of Ireland, the alt code says Irish football association, however the flag was wrong, it appears to be the Northern Irish flag and I noticed on the alt code which is odd, also, why is IRE pointing there. Why is it different to the code from {{:flagicon}} ? Whats with the inconsistencies? Govvy (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

If I'm reading the source code right, it shouldn't make a difference. Can you link an example? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

(e/c) You need to use IRL for Republic of Ireland. IRE is the code for the pre-split Ireland team, which was run by the Irish Football Association (the Northern Irish body). The Republic team is run by the Football Association of Ireland. Number 5 7 11:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Number 57:, is there an (1882–1950) flag code? At the moment I have,

Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules; some limited exceptions apply. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.

More information No., Pos. ...


No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
—	MF	IRL	Charles O'Hagan

Close

As you see, I was trying to use flagicon use the code IRE for a player from Ireland from an earlier period, should I be using IRL or a different code? Govvy (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your question, but IRE and EIR both work for the 1882–1950 team. IRL is for the Republic of Ireland. Number 5 7 11:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to get the right flag icon and got thrown off by the different codes and different icons. As I told Primefac, this ship is blown off course! Govvy (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure EIR should link to that flag, IMO the term Eire is almost always associated with the Republic of Ireland being the Gaelic version. Crowsus (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

EIR is/was a country code defined by FIFA. Number 5 7 18:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; however, I had a look at List of FIFA country codes, but neither the FIFA ref, its archive nor the RSSSF ref links that country to that code. Strangely neither of them mention the 'old' Ireland at all, although there are entries for the other states which have altered / split etc. As for the coding, if we are using IRE, then why have EIR in use at all? Crowsus (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Sahilangh (again)

Inconsistency UEFA competition title honours for players on loan

Coli Saco

Requested move at Talk:Fantasy Football League#Requested move 28 August 2023

League Performance SVG updates

Umbro Cup and 1985 Azteca 2000 Tournament

pre 1991 Kyiv Vs Kiev

Hi, Ive noticed that Wikipedia has gone with the Kyiv spelling of the team, but throughout the time of the Soviet Union the team was known as Dynamo Kiev. In fact I cant find any English sources that refer to the name as Kyiv. Shouldnt we change the name to what it was called at the time? Nothappycamping (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:KYIV I would assume that for article content prior to 1991 "Kiev" is preferable. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. So how would we go about changing the soccer articles? I have no idea how to do such a massive edit. Nothappycamping (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Which articles do you mean? Robby.is.on (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Soccer, the European Cup, Cup winners Cup, Soviet Union Leagues/cups etc. Nothappycamping (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I don't think it's worth the effort. "Kyiv" isn't wrong, it's just that the transliteration of the Russian pronunciation used to be more commonly used. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It can be done. Just because its difficult doesnt mean it shouldnt happen. For historical reasons the team should be called Kiev at least before 1989. Many teams have had name changes and I doubt we stop using the older names in articles that would have featured the team with their previous name, Woolwich Arsenal for example or the IRish Free State. It certainly matters. Nothappycamping (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The only oddity here is that the club's name didn't necessarily change, though. SportingFlyer T·C 14:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

What club name didnt change? Dynamo Kyiv was called Dynamo Kiev in English until, at the very latest 1989. Id say it goes beyond that by a year or two. But thats where we are now.

Of course its a name change. I challenge you to find something from Soviet times that used the "Kyiv" spelling. Ive posted match programmes, stickers and badges from the 60s though to the late 80s that use either the Russian spelling or the Kiev in English. Nothappycamping (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

There is some information on this on the Kyiv article. Kyiv is the official name for the Ukrainian city. The English version of this is Kiev, but after the 2014 Russo-Ukrainian War the use of the English version of the city name lost favor to the more traditional name. I know this doesn't address 1991 through 2014, but I think politics plays a part in this. Demt1298 (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Post 1991 I get why its Kyiv, but it wasnt known as Kyiv before then, it was Kiev. I get that because of politics that many people would prefer to see the Ukranian spelling but that goes against what happened in the past. I genuinely cant find any English article pre 1991 referring to the team as Kyiv. Nothappycamping (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

From at least 1989 the club used the Kyiv spelling in their official logo, it's difficult to determine what they officially used before that date though which may be helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 14:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

YEah, I see their shirt used the Ukrainian spelling, I wonder did that translate over at the time to Kyiv in the English world.

A match programme from 1986 that uses the "Kiev" spelling.

https://www.sportspages.com/product/dinamo_kiev_v_atletico_madrid_1986_%28ecwc_final%29_football_programme_12291

1987 that uses the Russian spelling

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Dynamo-Kiev-v-Besiktas-1987-1986-87-European-Cup-Quarter-Final-2nd-leg-/362987754402?nma=true&si=FKPsNb5goBuLVOkRaGZgGAPWdjw%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

A soccer pinbadge from 1987 with the Russian spelling

https://violity.com/en/110299659-dinamo-kiyiv-1987-match-z-porto-portugaliya-kubok-ch-polufinal?utm_source=also_like&utm_medium=dinamo-kiyiv-1987-match-z-porto-portugaliya-kubok-ch-polufinal&utm_campaign=15uah Nothappycamping (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

So in 1989, the year that their crest changed the spelling to the Ukrainian version they were still known by the Russian name in European competition.

https://memorsport.com/product-eng-4936-Dynamo-Kiev-MTK-VM-Budapest-UEFA-Cup-official-match-programme-13-09-1989.html

Here is a video of the third round game which was in November. A home game and they are refered to using the Russian spelling. But their jersey is sporting the new logo with, I can only assume the Ukrainian spelling. Its very hard to make out the writing under the "D" but it has to be Ukrainian surely.

So I think we can see the change happening around here.

Kiev was part of the Soviet Union, their players represented the Soviet Union, they didnt play for Ukraine, they couldnt. The team was known historically as "Dynamo Kiev".

It would seem that a decision has been made based on modern politics and not on what happened in the past. Nothappycamping (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

If any action is to be taken after this discussion, shouldn't it also apply to the other Ukrainian clubs? In the recent months pretty much all mentions of clubs like Dnipro, Metalist Kharkiv, Shakhtar Donetsk, Chornomerets Odesa (and others) were retroactively changed on English wikipedia to present-day Ukrainian spelling (for all or most of Soviet-era league and player articles and pre-1991 UEFA competitions). --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

YEah, absolutely. I used Kiev as the example as thats the one that stands out as they were the biggest club back in the day. Nothappycamping (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Trophy display

National
	Competition	Trophies	Seasons
File:Divisao Trophy.svg	Segunda Divisão	2	1977–78, 1987–88
Regional
	Competition	Trophies	Seasons
	Regional Promotion Championship	1	1935–36
	Regional Opening Tournament	3	1982–83, 1984–85, 1986–87
	Regional Honour Cup	1	1986–87
	Primeira Divisão Regional	2	1954–55, 1961–62

Template F.C. honours
Honour	No.	Years
Premier Template League	3	3330–31, 3331–32, 3332–33
Template Cup	3	3330–31, 3331–32, 3332–33

Arsenal F.C.–Manchester City F.C. rivalry

Eyes on this new article please? I don't have a strong view on its validity and haven't looked at the sources in detail for demonstration of concept notability, but my impression (and TBF the article states as such) is that the content is all very recent. My personal benchmark for a rivalry is, would it endure if both clubs were not challenging for honours? I'd say this maybe wouldn't. There is an interesting aspect to the player and manager relationships currently and recently, but those often fade as the personnel move on. Crowsus (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Not a bad article, I liked the opening lead paragraphs, later on prose felt like I was reading some tabloid rag! I don't get the bottom two tables. I would get rid of those under WP:NOSTATS. But I feel the article does have merit. Govvy (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

These articles need sources that actively state there is a rivarly. If enough sources talk about this, then there's no real issue if it's only recent games where they've made this comparrison or only a couple. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

tehres no rivalry Muur (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

There isn't a single source mentioning a rivalry between the teams, let alone a long-running one, and therefore the article should effectively not exist. It would be a shame to send something that an editor has clearly worked hard on to AfD, but I don't see any alternative. Black Kite (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned by others there is no history or rivalry between these two teams - they just both happen to be two rich and successful clubs playing in the same league. Until last season they had never even finished in the top two places together of either the Premier League or First Division. Delete. ColchesterSid (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

There's an ever-growing tendency for people to create Example F.C. - Other example F.C. rivalry articles when really all it actually covers is Example F.C. - Other example F.C. head-to-head record..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I would take it to AfD. Quite a bit of synthesis going on, particularly in the "manager rivalry" section. It boils down to a few transfers in the early period of Abu Dhabi ownership and a title race last season. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi guys, the article creator here, I did write a nice informative reply, then hit save and got the edit conflict and it cleaned it all out. Please bare with and I will try to find a spare 5 to reply. Thanks, Footballgy (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the tag to bring me into the conversation, the thought process behind creating the article to me is pretty self explanatory, in fact I am surprised it didn't already exist. I don't think you have to be a massive football fan to understand that certainly from 2008 onwards the two team entered into a period of rivalry that was well covered and spoken about, certainly given Wenger and the players going the other way. Although only a mere Grimsby Town fan myself, having lived in Manchester during that time there was a lot of angst between the two clubs. The Adebayor slide is one of the most controversial Premier League moments ever and to be at a game involving these two team was a pressure cooker from personal experience.

I don't want to hash over and repeat facts stated in the article but I find a bit bizarre for anyone to dismiss them as not rivals or for the article to be not notable enough. The Artera-Guardiola twist has given new life to this and now the fact they are title rivals and Arsenal have that City connection now it's spiced things up, so I am not really understanding why some of the comments state here such "they are just two rich teams in a league" etc, I think to answer that you maybe need to read the article and the sources? As well stating there is no historic rivalry, again is explained in the article, but are we to say that any new rivalry is deemed as irrelevant as opposed to long-standing traditional ones.

I draw your attention too the Liverpool F.C.-Manchester City F.C. rivalry, despite the location of the two cities being geographically close these two teams were not rivals until they fought for the title in 2013/14 and given the whole Klopp v Guardiola thing which didn't come until 2016 again this is a very recent rivalry as well? One that you can argue is a little cooler now than Arsenal v City. All in all having been on Wikipedia for a long time I am all about growth, improvement and preserving article, so I am happy to go and improve areas of this article or add extra verifications if need be. In the most part I looked for single incidents or moments rather than searching for articles depicting an overarching story of rivalry. I will happily go and add more and ask if there are things you would add then please do.

Lastly in terms of the bottom two tables, it was a mere hash over from the Manchester derby page.

All the best, Footballgy (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Footballgy: You did nothing wrong, its just people around here are reading in black and white and not the full colour picture. They don't even bother doing their own correct research these days in my opinion, but here, my quick five seconds yields a great article on the rivalry. I found aljazeera.com Man City, Arsenal and the new Premier League rivalry on the block. There will always been more news outlets and sports magazines talking about rivalries for all sorts of clubs. Govvy (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the message, I have just been reinforcing the page with articles referring to rivalry, this was one of them. Found this one as well . All the best, Footballgy (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

From my perspective as a City fan, it simply isn't a rivalry. Games with higher stakes these days yes, but not the needle associated with a rivalry. The Adebayor incident was certainly notable in his career, and watching him run past from my position in the East stand to the away end was certainly memorable. However, it was more about the individual than the clubs. Adebayor and Nasri invoked visceral hatred in the Arsenal support, but Kolo Toure and Sagna were received warmly, being former "Invincibles".

At the time in question I did the social media for a City supporters group, and while there was a vocal minority of irate Arsenal fans, it paled in comparison to what you would get from United or Liverpool fans.

The Arteta-Guardiola thing might be an interesting apprentice and master narrative, but again is more about the individuals than clubs.

I'm ambivalent about the Liverpool rivalry article. While there has certainly been more effort put into this article, and the Liverpool one is in a poor state, there have been a lot more newsworthy incidents relating to rivalry between the clubs - the bus attack before the Champions League game, or the joint statement by the vlubs in December pleading for an end to the toxic atmosphere in games between the two. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, really appreciate your input, swings and roundabouts I suppose, I have City supporting mates who feel a little more heated. I think it's perception, but respect and I am grateful for your input on that. 100% I think Liverpool is the greater rival but I was using it as a measuring stick for notability, in essence I feel both are notable articles and are worthy of inclusion. Footballgy (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

As a further update the article has now been bolstered by numerous articles solely written about the two teams being rivals ranging from Arsene Wenger himself back in 2010 all the way up to present day. I see no reason why that shouldn't alter the dimension of some opinions. Thanks, Footballgy (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

My mergist tendencies view things in this way: The article primarily deals with two periods. That starting in 2009 where City signed a number of Arsenal players, and the title race last season. The former is part of the story of Arsenal's decline from title challengers to perennial 4th place late Wenger Arsenal, and City's rise to prominence. The latter would be indisputably useful material in 2022-23 Premier League. Those type of articles are always crying out for more prose content. Interestingly right in between those periods is the one time the teams directly contested a major trophy, the 2018 Football League Cup final. I do not recall much discussion of rivalry at the time. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Personally as an Arsenal fan, we are not rivals. This "rivalry" only really formed last season. Before that, all the major incidents in the "rivalry" were about individuals and Arsenal like the Adebayor and Arsenal falling out, and Pep's assistant coaching Arsenal. The club's haven't been on the same level in recent times with Arsenal's last win at the etihad and emirates coming in 2015 and 2012. Before 2008, Arsenal vs City was like a title contender playing a team aiming for mid table. This "rivalry" is more of just two good teams playing eachother in the league. SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 16:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting surveys - every Premiership fans most hated clubs 2019. Not in this list or this one. Meanwhile, this starts with the sentence "While Manchester City don’t immediately spring to mind when you think about Arsenal’s historic rivalries...". Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Related Articles