Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 164

After the move chat was closed and the article was moved over, I moved the season pages to match and migrated the categories for seasons and managers for the club. However, whats the best way to do the players Category:R. Charleroi S.C. players, to move to Category:Royal Charleroi S.C. players, is there a bot that can sort it out? Govvy (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

List at WP:CFDS. Twinkle is good for doing this. You should have done this with the other categories too, to be honest – better for attribution and a clear history for a bot to move the categories than for you to create new categories and delete the old ones. Jenks24 (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, now it actually saying that on the category to do which it didn't before, didn't know I could do that, will have ago. Govvy (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This article in it's present state is "garbaged up". From History, the missing content is at 07:48, 9 November 2020 here. Asking for expert help here to please fix as I am clueless how to re-construct. Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@JoeNMLC: The article was vandalised 13 months ago and never restored, I just reverted to then. However, does it even pass WP:GNG? I wouldn't be surprised if someone came along at put it up for WP:AFD unless you're able to greatly improve it. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Govvy - Thankyou for this cleanup/rollback. Even though I could not find this biography on the three football reliable sources that I know of, I did de-orphan based on one of the article's references. I agree about questionable notability. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know if there has already been a previous discussion, but wouldn't it be more correct to separate these categories of footballers in the Olympic games into men and women?

Ex:

Olympic footballers for France‎ > Olympic men's footballers for France / Olympic women's footballers for France

Svartner (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that would have to be agreed on an all-Olympics basis, e.g here. At present AFAIK, no Olympic event competitor categories have been split into gender. For consistency, it should really be all or none. Crowsus (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Greetings everyone, I know this topic has probably been discussed hundreds of times but I don't know if any consensus was ever reached and I would like to suggest my opinion on how to organize everything.

In terms of categorization, I think the best method would be as follows:

1. Players who is/was mainly a centre-back - "Men's association football central defenders"
2. Players who is/was mainly a full-back - "Men's association football fullbacks"
3. If a player can/could do both (like David Alaba, Benjamin Pavard, Lucas Hernández) - both "Men's association football central defenders" and "Men's association football fullbacks"
4. "Men's association football defenders" should just be used for players from the old days, when football positions were different and can't be compared to today's; or "obscure" players when we are not sure exactly which role they played in the defense

I would love to have some opinions on this system and if it could be implemented. If so, we could start going through everyone in "Men's association football defenders" (it has almost 50k articles so a lot of work ahah) and dividing them (when possible) through the other categories.

Thank you for your attention, would appreciate your input on this. JoaoSPinto18 (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the method you describe is the way categorisation is currently being handled. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, what is the issue here? If a player is described as a general 'defender', we categorise them accordingly. If they are a specific 'fullback' etc. then we categorise them the same. GiantSnowman 21:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, good to know. It's just that it's very uncommon to find a defender article that is correctly categorized, even "big articles" get this wrong constantly.

For example: Virgil Van Dijk, Matthijs de Ligt and Raphaël Varane are all categorized as just defenders and not central defenders. On the other hand: Trent Alexander-Arnold, Marcelo and Kyle Walker are also just considered "defenders" instead of specifically "fullbacks".

I saw this so often I started to wonder if I was the one who was mistaken. I will try to dedicate some time to work on this. Thank you all! JoaoSPinto18 (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

As Jay eyem has brought up, this seems to be an issue we're having with a user who constantly changes soccer to football on events in the United States because of their belief that it's the "proper" name even though it was decided by MOS:TIES that the local English must be used in relation to page's location (so as such American English has to be used). This isn't the first time this has happened and the 2026 FIFA World Cup page had to be locked because of this and the first subject on its talk page is about this. I am setting this up as a way to discuss this and see what action should be taken in regards to whether or not the user should be blocked. I am aware that we have many non-American readers who take this issue to heart for a variety of reasons, but I want to help resolve this dispute in a way that settles this. Digitslain12 (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If an editor refuses to understand that WP:TIES and WP:ENGVAR were used to come to a consensus that American English should be used on 2026 FIFA World Cup, i.e. they constantly change "soccer" to "football" regardless of how many warnings they receive, then they can be blocked from the article by an admin. If they receive a warning and stop using "football" in place of "soccer," then the warning served its purpose. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Would appreciate some input from the broader WP:FOOTY community on this. I believe that we had this conversation regarding the U.S.-hosted World Cup articles last year, but I think these two tournaments are distinct from the World Cups hosted in the U.S. in an important way. These two South American championships were held/are being held in the United States. Unlike the World Cup, CONMEBOL does not have any members that speak English natively. As a result there are no strong national ties for any particular dialect of English, so I can see how it makes sense to use the DMY date formatting and use of the term "football" for the other Copa America articles. However I would argue that is not the case for these two tournaments, where it makes sense to use American English for both dating conventions (MDY) and terminology ("soccer" vs. "association football"). And unlike the World Cup, which will have a significant audience from around the English-speaking world where there are no clear national TIES and the case is more ambiguous, I would argue that is not the case here with the United States as the clear English-speaking country with TIES (and potentially Canada, if they qualify). And while Jamaica has qualified, I believe the United States would still have the stronger TIES. Looking for some additional input, thanks! Jay eyem (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with Jay eyem that American English should be used since this was the agreed precedent set by the 1994 FIFA World Cup, 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup, 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup, and 2026 FIFA World Cup (which all use soccer due to the United States hosting the event). I think we may even need to look at all US Gold Cup pages for this as well since I don't know how many use soccer on their page. Digitslain12 (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If it's an event solely hosted in the US (as these examples are), then American English should be used in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

An event hosted in the United States (or majority hosted, in the case of 2026) should use the local variant of English. Consistency across editions of the same tournament shouldn't trump MOS:TIES, especially when the justification isn't based on solid reasoning (in the case of tournaments primarily hosted outside the English-speaking world). I could see exceptions in the event that an event traditionally only hosted in the UK is played in the U.S. (as some awful proposals for the CL final or regular season La Liga matches in the U.S. have shown, it's possible), as a similar "international" event like the MLB London Series still retains its home style of English due to stronger ties to the league than the host. SounderBruce 04:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Are dribbles an import statistic in football, enough to include it in Wikipedia profiles? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

100% not IMO. I'm bemused as to where such a stat could even be obtained from. Whatever next, statistics on the number of times a player touched the ball per game.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I consider that original research if there is not a reliable source covering that statistic. I am unaware of such sources which features dribbles. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That's actually quite an important stat in some sports, such as Australian rules football, but definitely a non-stat in soccer. --SuperJew (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Dribbles is just WP:TRIVIA and almost certainly also made up WP:OR. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I see this relates to a dispute about Jérémy Doku, an article which contains references to his completing the most dribbles by a teenager in a Euros match (wow!) and also this: ".....was subsequently given the man of the match award after winning 8 duels, completing 6 take ons and creating 5 chances, more than any other player on the pitch in each category". What the heck does that even mean? What are "duels" and "take ons", and who is measuring them and how? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The article also previously claimed (now removed) that he set a new record for the most dribbles in a match in the French League 1 with 12, which I would say is actually 100% unprovable, as I can guarantee that if someone is tracking this highly dubious stat about "numbers of dribbles in a game" then they have only been doing so for about five years so how do we know that someone didn't do 27 dribbles in a match in 1953......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of a chapter I believe was in the book The Numbers Game which said that before becoming automated, Opta made its statistics by having humans watch video tapes of matches and manually tally the data. So that is how the statistics were gathered in the 1990s/early 2000s, and anything before that is lost to time. Football is a very dynamic game which makes these statistics subjective (what really was a pass or a shot?), compared to the wealth of historical statistics on more rigid games such as cricket, baseball and American football. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This one is statcruft. It's one of those things that Opta measured, but unless an RS states it as being super important, we surely shouldn't measure it. Might as well state how many times a player hits the post. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this - we count games and goals only. Significant 'other' stats (such as highest assists in a season etc.) which are covered in detail by significant sources can be included in prose. GiantSnowman 17:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I would love to know how many dribbles were completed per game by the various players dubbed "the wizard of dribble" or "the prince of dribblers" in the Victorian era but sadly we will never know. I bet it was more than Doku ever did, though....... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

We have to be pretty careful not to get statistics creep that is rife in broadcasts. Where Mahrez has the "most take-ons per 90 minutes". None of these minor stats are helpful to understand a topic. Imagine if we listed how many throw-ins a team had? Thats another statistic that is measured. Completely pointless. Unless you are a team that is well known for playing a long throw, and if RS talk about the team getting a lot of throw-ins, that would be fine. Else, it's muck a reader has to digest. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

So, with the seasons ending in leagues that operate on the Jan-Dec calendar, many players are being announced as out of contract/free agents by their clubs. Should the previous club be mentioned in the paragraph. For example, I've seen these pages updated in the two following ways

1) Example Player (born # XYZ ####) is a nation footballer.

2) Example Player (born # XYZ ####) is a national footballer who most recently played for Team Name in League Name.

Is there a preference as to which form to use? Personally, I prefer the first one, with no mention of club as it makes it clear the player is uncontracted, whereas the second, can appear that the player is still under contract if one is quickly skimming as it looks similar to the regular form. Thoughts? RedPatch (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I would go with Option 1. Kante4 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There's also the third option I've seen of

3) Example Player (born # XYZ ####) is a nation footballer who is currently a free agent.

States they're a free agent outright, doesn't allude to former club unless the editor also chooses to put that there. Christiangamer7 (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Either 1 or 2 is fine. I would not specifically state that they are a free agent, as it might encourage editors to add 'free agent' as their current club in the infobox, which is a pet peeve of mine! GiantSnowman 07:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. EchetusXe 14:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Me too. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we shouldn't really use "free agent", as we don't always know when this is true. We aren't privvy to contract talks. I'd prefer to have 1, but we should absolutely state where the last team that they played at was. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This requested move has been relisted twice therefore I think more user input is needed so it can be closed with the pages being moved or not. A few of us have already participated including me. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not convinced he should have been moved out of draft, we are not running WP:NFOOTBALL anymore. What do others feel? Govvy (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy tagging Ortizesp, who moved it to mainspace -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree, the only thing that matters is coverage now. And he's getting a ton of coverage through being a top English prospect in the Prem. He probably passed GNG a year ago. Ortizesp (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

If the article wasn't in mainspace then he would be the only player in Premier League history not to have an article. Which would be notable in of itself. Like the interesting number paradox. EchetusXe 13:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

One minute in the Spurs first team, you get all this coverage for youngsters these days, but to me he hasn't done anything notable yet. :/ Anyway, Je ne sais pas, comme ci comme ça. Govvy (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I think he should have played more minutes than just the one at the very end of the recent match. To be fair, the pages I've created on Wikipedia about footballers which are in proper article format have become more notable so this article we're discussion will probably have more minutes played so he will inevitably be out of draft for being a player in regular coverage et all. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

He probably meets GNG - if you disagree, take to AFD. GiantSnowman 19:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Good evening. I was asking myself if it was correct to say that he is actually the captain of the Italian national team, considering that he has not been called up since semptember. Let me know what you think 14 novembre (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think Immobile is still the captain despite the fact he was not called up recently. Considering the typical cases with captains, if we list every captain of all Italian matches, the list would be larger than what Italy national football team#Captains says. I see Gianluigi Donnarumma is the current captain in recent Italian matches and states on the article itself, whether or not that is a permanent role remains to be seen. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion on using NOWRAP on sports scores is taking place here. Please add your comments so that a consensus can be acheived. Keith D (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

the made up stat issue is still happening https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hird&diff=1184522671&oldid=1183763533 Muur (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I have much limited knowledge about IPv6 IP addresses but I do think this is the same person responsible for the edits. As a result of the delay in reverting, I am keeping my eyes on this article, hopefully to ensure edits like this can be reverted as soon as I or someone else sees something is wrong. Page protection should be necessary should that persistently continues. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

they did it again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hird&diff=1186685391&oldid=1186531294 Muur (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems very likely. If anyone who is an admin have the knowledge to block this IP range from editing the Sam Hird page, the range Special:Contribs/2A00:23C6:28D:4000:0:0:0:0/51 is the largest range possible without any other articles affected. No surprise, the edits including and after 25 October 2023 are disruptive. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 23:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

guy still at itMuur (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This individual has been given a warning message from me, not sure if that would be taken into acknowledgement, clearly not if the editing continues. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Certainly continues to edit incorrectly despite my only warning message on the previous IP address talk page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion in progress HERE about deleting the 2023–24 AFC Champions League knockout stage article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

An IP keeps adding assist tables to club season article despite (@2806:101E:D:3F7E:C543:52F9:8263:C7BA:). Although it is not of great importance and how assists are counted varies. Sakiv (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

We do not count assists per NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 20:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I thought I'd bring this here because it shares a lot of similarities to the discussion when Harry Kane set the goalscoring record for Tottenham and no one could quite decide if Charity Shield goals counted.

The Career Statistics section of Bryan Robson was only partially complete and completely unsourced, so I filled in the gaps and sourced it all to the English National Football Archive (ENFA) as probably the only source which could reliably cover his entire career. This gave him 100 goals in all competitions for Manchester United. A couple of times recently it has been reverted to 99 goals by an IP editor, removing his apps/goals in the Football League Super Cup because "he is not on the official list of players that have scored 100 or more goals for the club". Sure enough Manchester United's official website puts him on 99 goals. But then an archived version of the same page puts him on 98 goals so that number's clearly in flux.

I'm going to revert again because right now the table doesn't match the source, but just wondered if anyone had input on how much weight to put on official club sources vs independent databases in light of the previous Harry Kane/Jimmy Greaves discussions. Nonleagueapps (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

this is why non affiliated sources are seen as so important on wikipedia. united arent even consistent on what does and doesnt count, as they count bobby charlton's community sheild stats.Muur (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

User @FrBuJü: has changed in a huge amount of football articles the name of the stadium in Milan, from San Siro (current wikilink) to Stadio Giuseppe Meazza. I've noticed some other little changes to other stadium names. What's the practice to be used? Island92 (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Should be the name most commonly recognisable to many football fans around the world which is not the sponsored equivalent (here it should be the San Siro). I have never known that to be it's alternative of "Stadio Giuseppe Meazza" till you've opened this discussion. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Revert and warn. GiantSnowman 20:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

User has been warned in his talk page. Considering the huge amount of articles may be a BOT to revert automatically to San Siro is a choice. Island92 (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I've looked at the page histories of both San Siro and Stadio Giuseppe Meazza where up to 2006, both have had articles relating to the same stadium and I think and are exactly the same as each other but with different titles. It explains why I have never seen any page moves until 2011. As to the latest response, users who have rollback rights can revert these edits quite quickly without having to revert pages one by one. But not every "current" revision will have that editing behaviour so care is needed. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 23:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a requested move is under discussion at AFC page. Fellow WikiProject members are requested to weigh in. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 14:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I just wanted to let y'all know that I've started preparing a draft article for Giovanni Bonfanti, since he should have already met the minimum WP:GNG criteria by making his Serie A debut for Atalanta, and will (probably) make his European debut tonight.

Of course, if you want to contribute, any kind of help is hugely appreciated! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

His article got moved from Tony Yeboah to Anthony Yeboah, with the reason given, by Herr chagall, being that he is "generally known as anthony yeboah". The references in his article would claim otherwise. If this was discussed, and I've missed it, I'll scratch this tomorrow. Seasider53 (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I can only speak for England but in this country he is/was 100% known as Tony, not Anthony -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this should have been discussed via the WP:RM procedure because of the balance between both names used, therefore this page should be returned whence it came, which was the name used on page creation and discuss this issue with other users before it can be moved upon consensus.

This user has moved the page in 2018 before being returned whence it came by Mattythewhite a few months later. Since standard users cannot do this (as Govvy knows well with the Cristian Romero page move issue), I think it is right for someone with page move rights to move it back. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I have moved it back; the references certainly don't seem to back the new name as being COMMONNAME, and since the move was reverted before, it should have been clear that a discussion was required. Unilateral moves are for non-controversial situations. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This article will be the Featured Article on 26 December. I am not happy with the title. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 16:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

For some reason, Coventry City 2–2 Bristol City redirects to the article in question, and there is no hatnote referring readers to other articles about other matches between the teams with the same final score. Do we really need the "(1977)" in the article title? That is the only thing I can think of changing, because Home Team X–Y Away Team is the standard article title format we use for significant matches. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

We need the 'F.C.' to make it clear that it's a football team. Without it, it could refer to anything to an uneducated reader. GiantSnowman 18:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Coventry City F.C. 2–2 Bristol City F.C. should work then? — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

That would be my preferred title. GiantSnowman 18:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the year is necessary as a disambiguation. Per WP:NOYEAR, The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur. Coventry City and Bristol City have drawn 2–2 on six occasions (three in Coventry, three in Bristol). I fully agree with the inclusion of the F.C. though as this would maintain consistency with the parent articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

When viewing the context of the whole of WP:NCWWW (and not just WP:NOYEAR), I have to concur that the year is necessary for a scoreline that not only has happened multiple times but also has a high likelihood of occurring again, regardless of whether there are multiple Wikipedia articles. Coventry City F.C. 2–2 Bristol City F.C. (1977) would be my article title of choice. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 08:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I also think abbreviating both club names will do for this article title (this also distinguishes from Bristol City W.F.C. which has a featured article of it's own, for the wrong reasons). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The article 2023–24 AFC Cup knockout stage needs a rather bespoke template, as the normal 11-team templates dont seem to cater for some rounds being single leg and some being two-legged. Where can i find help to amplify n the existing one, or make new templates? or is this more generally a question for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac: Not sure if this helps, but 2023 MLS Cup Playoffs has an example of a bracket template that has both single and multi-leg series. SounderBruce 08:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This has single and multi-leg matches in the same round - beyond my skills. Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the necessary change has been made. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to @Cs-wolves:. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This redirect should be deleted. Dipralb (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:Redirects for deletion is thataaway.... GiantSnowman 18:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The RfD is right here. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Would like help merging Draft:Alexandra Kimball and Draft:Alex Kimball; linking here as it is relevant to this project Joeykai (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

If the article is not already on certain user's watchlists: please could more pairs of eyes take watch over this article- both Kingsif and I are in danger of being blocked for edit warring (probably for this article only). The edit history is definitely not looking good with lots of "Reverted" tags attached to many December edits. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I would seriously question whether is a WP:RS- it looks like a fan piece to me. If it's not a reliable source, then an actual reliable source should be added for the text that's being removed/re-added. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the IP is correct here. Why are you restoring a contentious statement sourced to ... well, a gossip website? Surely there must be better sources, if indeed the information is DUE? Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: I also protected Jordan Nobbs this week without that same gossipy source being used to source her sexuality. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see the history of that page and see that was violation of WP:NOTGOSSIP. And reliable source also comes into good question. That's more than one good reason the IP version seems good enough but IP should not edit war in any case. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Usually no, but I suspect they'd claim the WP:BLP exemption to WP:3RR, and to be fair would have some justification. Black Kite (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

A quick Google search showed that Williamson and Nobbs apparently were in a relationship, but I would judge most of the sources as not reliable because they are blog-style sites. Unless their relationship was confirmed in an interview or other reliable source, I have to concur with the removal of contentious information from a BLP. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this content should never return to both articles we are talking about here? And hope that Kingsif would not restore that content now that I know what the source is all about? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that unless the content is confirmed in a reliable source, it has no place in either article. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

And the content has been restored again, despite only being sourced to that questionable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing Kingsif may not have seen this section. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I would've appreciated a ping. Of course, AfterEllen (at least, not the vaguely transphobic-looking guest writer stuff I see as I visit now) is an RS. I don't see the source as questionable and the IP behaviour here and elsewhere is incredibly concerning, but if there's agreement to not include, I won't restore. Kingsif (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

(Removed my own comment for discussion links, but): I think that because this is non-trans related content, AfterEllen should be considered reliable. See 2020 and 2023 RSP discussions. Also see January talkpage discussion (that I don't remember having if I'm honest, but still think the same). Kingsif (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for not pinging you earlier that afternoon.

Having a look at both these RSP discussions, none of us has ever participated in these generally mixed outcome discussions, but should be used with context as seen in 2020 and queer reporting and biographies of living persons both make good points, as quoted by the two closers of these discussions. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

As for the content, I still can't see a reason an SPA IP (i.e. passers-by who read something they want to change) would edit-war over such a thing unless it is for erasure. To improve the article (and to not give them the satisfaction), I have gone on a source hunt to see about restoring the content. While I agree I can't find any better sources to support the relationship, there are some to support Williamson's sexuality (note that I searched for "LGBTQ+" so there may be other sources that confirm a specific identity, but these don't): would adding PinkNews and Evening Standard satisfy for inclusion @Iggy the Swan, Joseph2302, Black Kite, and Jkudlick:? Kingsif (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm good with both of those sources, though there must surely be some better sources on the relationship - after all, it's not exactly a secret. But the IP was completely correct that AfterEllen on its own was not good enough. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, besides the lesbian-interest websites, the interest in women's footballers' relationships probably wasn't big enough to get good coverage until recently, so you can see why there might not be better sources. Kingsif (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Those seem fine to me, as they're actually reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• A further ping to participants (@Iggy the Swan, Joseph2302, Black Kite, and Jkudlick:) that the IP is back edit warring the updated sentence (most recently yesterday because it wasn't reverted). Page protection perhaps? Kingsif (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. I've seen @Kingsif: reporting the IP address range recently but the admins who watch the page haven't, presumably because a much larger IP address range is currently blocked for editing one page and the helper bot explains that. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

So Transfermarkt is not considered as a reliable source but Footballdatabase is ? Do you even know how Footballdatabase works ? Yes, exactly the same way as Transfermarkt does : it is user-generated. The difference is that they have no verification process, so clearly it is even less reliable than Transfermarkt. Now for the sake of consistency, I'm therefore asking for the 12000 links to Footballdatabase to be removed. Thank you. Frenchl (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a matter for WP:RSN. GiantSnowman 17:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion there. Frenchl (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd particularly like to point out to the WikiProject Football that the data for the 1998/1999 season of the French National were all completely wrong and has been completely removed from footballdatabase recently, but not necessarily from Wikipedia. Frenchl (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I see the Template:Fb si player (with its very inactive talkpage) has "EU" linking to European Union citizenship at the moment. I think it would be appropriate to change the target link to EU status (football), which I created a while back - not really because of the specificity, but moreso because people who are not EU citizens can still be EU players, in a variety of circumstances. The current link target was suitable enough but changing it would be more accurate. Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I presume you meant that you wished to change the "EU" pointer at Template:Fb si header. I made the change there. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti# 93.140.194.58 (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Actual link - Talk:FCSB#Merge proposal. GiantSnowman 20:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Willy Kambwala has the France U16s on his infobox, despite never having played for the team. He was called up to the France U16s for a Clairefontaine training camp in 2020 here, but was not capped officially. Every single France international with a cap gets a FFF profile, and he doesn't have one. User:Stuart1234 keeps readding the national team despite 0 caps because there's a one-off sentence on the Man Utd side saying he's captained France, but my understanding is that you don't add the nationalteam to the infobox if they haven't formally played for the team. Can anyone confirm how to proceed?--Ortizesp (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have used a suitable edit summary to explain why you were removing it from the infobox in this edit rather than "cats" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Willy_Kambwala&diff=prev&oldid=1191486288 Then I wouldn't "keep readding". Your edit left an inconsistency in the article Stuart1234 (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I got a strange Infobox error when editing 1892–93 Scottish Cup this morning. The following came up when previewing edits despite all four parameters appearing in the infobox and in the template documentation so I'm not sure what that means.

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox football tournament season with unknown parameter "nextseason"
Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox football tournament season with unknown parameter "champions"
Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox football tournament season with unknown parameter "runner-up"
Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox football tournament season with unknown parameter "prevseason"

I've never seen it before so thought I'd ask in case anyone here knows more. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be an isue with the infobox (I checked on other pages using it and they also have the issue). Looking at it's history, I would hazard a guess it came about following this edit. I don't have enough experience with this kind of coding (or ability to edit the infobox template) to work the kink out. I recall there's some technical talk-page that helps out with this? Or alternatively maybe the editor who made the change @Aidan721: could address it? --SuperJew (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Just switch the parameters to |next_season=, |winners=, |second=, and |prev_season= respectively. The tracking category is there to deter multiple parameters for the same usage. Presently there is no difference in appearance of the infobox, but the messages are to encourage using a standard set of parameter names. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Doing that gives me

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox football tournament season with unknown parameter "winners"
and doesn't display the champions (see edit) --SuperJew (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the |winners= row ought to be formatted like the |second= row, to accept |champions= or |winners= the same way that |second= accepts |runner-up= or |second=.

| winners = {{{champions|}}}

| count = {{{count|}}}

| second = {{{runner-up|{{{second|}}}}}}

What would be good, apart from someone with the requisite permissions to fix it, is to document the changes. I'm not convinced we're likely to start using a standard set of parameter names if those names don't actually appear in the documentation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I've put in an edit request at Template talk:Infobox football tournament season to get the winners parameter fixed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Struway. Might be worth looking into a bot if these parameters are to change, I can think of at least 100 pages that I've edited that use them so I would not be surprised if there were several thousand out there. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Greetings, Asking for help with K.F.C. Moerbeke article. Founded in 1927, and according to FB page, still active. Article lacks references, and is Orphan status. Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Third provincial division suggests to me the club is in the 8th tier of Belgian football. Besides, the only secondary source coverage I can find is the standard results websites. I have a hard time believing it's notable. Perhaps AfD unless someone else can find other stuff to help improve the article. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo - Thanks for the club info. I see article now has PROD, by @HawkAussie so unless improved, it will go Jan 2. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Recently, a dispute arose over the number of goals scored by goalkeeper Rogério Ceni in his career. All Brazilian media coverage, in addition to more serious sources (such as globoesporte, Lance!, etc.), consider the 131 goals scored professionally. On the other hand, the IFFHS disregards two goals scored in friendly matches, even if the criteria of a full professional match were adopted in them.

In the article, the information of 131 total goals and 129 goals in official competitions was clearly mentioned, however, the user Mishary94 constantly suppresses the total information, stating that goalkeeper Rogério Ceni scored 129 total goals in his career.

What is the best way to proceed? Svartner (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

club friendlies arent official matches, otherwise pele gets to keep his claim of scoring 15,000 goals.Muur (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - no other player's stats include friendlies, so why should his? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Friendly matches do not cease to exist and comply with professional criteria. Even mentioning that such goals existed seems completely arbitrary to me. Svartner (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to strike up a discussion for page moves for football clubs with sponsored team names, as that possibility could potentially be reopened in Chinese football.

Do sponsored team names warrant a page move from the original team name to the new, sponsored team name e.g., a page move from İstanbul Başakşehir F.K. to Rams Başakşehir, or should a title like İstanbul Başakşehir F.K. stay unchanged (which is what Başakşehir seemed to do, I'm just looking at examples), given that clubs still retain their original names officially, because

1. moving pages would be hard to maintain with all the redirects and player pages using the original name,

2. it might not be the best name that some clubs are most known as (as per the rule at Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names), or as per Wikipedia:Article titles#Name changes, where you'd only move the article when sources in the English language start using the sponsored name.

I'd like some opinions, thanks. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

We should not use sponsored names. GiantSnowman 10:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, we should avoid sponsored names. Tbf, you've sorta answered your question with point two. The common name will remain as the unsponsored name at least for the beginning of a period where a team has a sponsored name. That may change, but that's a bridge to cross in the future. As an example, New Douglas Park has a new sponsored name pretty much every season, none of them have ever been as commonly used as New Douglas Park and it feels pretty pointless to move it every May or June to reflect the change of the official name. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The name of an article of a club should meet COMMONNAME. This rarely (but sometimes does) include sponsorship. FC Red Bull Salzburg for example. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not a 'sponsored' name - the owners changed it to reflect their company. GiantSnowman 19:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It should depend on the country, as sponsored names are in common use for stadiums around the world. Same applies to the rare team that goes down this route, especially the K League and the former Japan Soccer League. SounderBruce 21:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the policy we've had for years to not use sponsored names unless it has had no other name since foundation. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Even then, we have examples such as Falmer Stadium, which precisely no-one calls it because it's had one sponsor since it opened and is known to all football fans (and locals) as The Amex. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Could someone refresh my memory of the agreed way to display this? Should it be as it currently shows at David Marshall (Scottish footballer) with dashes for uncapped years, or should those years be omitted from the table? I have a feeling the latter was preferred? Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Dashes are used in club stats to indicate that the player's team did not participate in the competition in question that season (or the player was not eligible, for example being cup tied) - so using dashes in international stats indicates that the country did not play any games, which is not correct. I say use '0' instead, to make it clear there were zero appearances by that player. GiantSnowman 12:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't automatically assume that a dash means the country didn't play any matches, just that the player didn't. Regardless, it's equally pointless to have x number of rows of zeros or dashes when the player hasn't played any matches. Combining rows would make more sense when a player has gone two or more years without an international appearance. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I second this, although I'd prefer the zeroes rather than the dashes. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for replies, I had thought there had already been a discussion on this which established a firmish rule, but maybe not. Agree 0s better than -s, personally I'd prefer to just take out the uncapped years altogether for aesthetics (reduce a long thin table, particularly for the likes of Marshall) but not something I want to argue with anyone over. Crowsus (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Bah, ideally I'd have filled the whitespace beside that table with a Scotland photo but the only one for him is the main image, and I'd agree it's probably the best one for that purpose. Crowsus (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I watch the Trent Alexander-Arnold article, which has been alternating between "right-back" and "right back" on a near weekly basis for quite a while. My guess is that this is actually an ENGVAR problem, where right-back is the UK spelling and right back is the American spelling. That's based purely on some unscientific google searches so I'd like to bring this up for wider discussion so that I have an archive to point to in the future. Plus, if it's happening on the TAA page I'm sure it's happening elsewhere. Does anyone have any soccer dictionaries that could solve this for us? Alyo (chat·edits) 16:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

What a pathetic edit war! I think it should be 'right-back' (with dash) per this, this, this etc. - these were the first results which came up on a Google search for 'Trent Alexander-Arnold right back' (no dash). GiantSnowman 10:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Right-back is the correct way to spell it. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Part of the problem might have been that {{EngvarB}} was added in April 2023 even though {{Use British English}} had been present since October 2016. I removed the unnecessary EngvarB. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It didn't help that it was inconsistently hyphenated throughout the article, so I went ahead and fixed that. – PeeJay 21:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It should be hyphenated when used a compound adjective, hence what PeeJay has seen as inconsistent use of hyphenation on the Trent page. Otherwise, there's no need for hyphenation in typical usage. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Most sources hyphenate the right-back in the article we're talking about so I'm inclined to agree with these sources about hyphen usage. The Andrew Robertson article uses hyphens for his normal playing position so should this one. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 00:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by “compound adjective”? Are you talking about saying “he plays in the right-back position” vs “he is a right-back”? Why would they be any different? What rule of grammar is this reflected in? – PeeJay 10:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in the wsy that we would type "it's an 18th-century castle" versus "the castle is from the 18th century". Grammar isn't our strong suit, as we've previously discovered. Plus, "right back" or "right-back" are invented terms, so pinning down the correct usage will be subjective. Seasider53 (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Who's "our"? I don't think that rule of grammar applies here. – PeeJay 18:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I feel the need to (again) point out that {{Use British English}} has existed on that page for more than seven years, so "right-back" should be used as it is the dominant term used in the UK to describe a fullback who plays to the right of the goalkeeper. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, came across him randomly and saw some gaps in the stats. Managed to find one for Everton and Boro that takes him over 500 games, but there are still a couple of seasons at Crewe and Orient missing, would be better to have a grand total for inclusion on List of footballers in England by number of league appearances. Could anyone fill this in, possibly from ENFA? Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I have added the stats per Michael Joyce's book. Could I ask where the previous "total" figures came from? Even when I added in the figures for the missing clubs the total league apps don't come to anywhere near the totals that were shown before..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. For the totals, someone had already added the correct grand total even with several clubs missing. I added the stats I found to that total (rather foolishly, obviously 120 odd + 160 odd would not make 460 odd so I should have spotted it BUT very strange to have it like that, how did they know the sum but not its parts) so that put it way higher than reality, and has now been brought back down. Ah well, nice to have the boxes filled even though he didn't make it to 500. Crowsus (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

On a separate note, is this page a clear primary topic over Arthur Rigby (actor)? RedPatch (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

User @Gaty3000: has created 2025 FIFA Club World Cup qualification on which I find the same contents as per 2025 FIFA Club World Cup if not for an extra and huge table. What should we do? Island92 (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like unnecessary duplication to me, as all the extra table are unsourced WP:OR on who can or cannot qualify theoretically. Probably best to just redirect to the main article, as we don't need separate qualification articles for club tournaments. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. That's just not needed and overkill. Kante4 (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Island92 (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I tagged it for WP:A10 as it is clearly copied from the main article. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Can members please contribute to this renaming discussion. ParkingTheBus (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is underway to determine whether or not splitting two sections of the Lionel Messi article into their own article is the best solution to resolve the article's WP:SIZERULE issue. Input from as many voices in the community as possible would be much appreciated. — AFC Vixen 🦊 07:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I have a question.
Lucas Beraldo is a player that was on Sao Paulo before being transferred to PSG on 1 January 2024. Should his infobox display that he ended his Sao Paulo career in 2023 or 2024? Someone else said 2023 because that's when the Brazilian season ended, but I initially thought 2024 because he still would have been a Sao Paulo player on the morning of his signing. Any ideas? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

For me, the contract starts right away on 1 January, so 2023 as the end date for his Sao Paulo career. Kante4 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Kante is correct but for the wrong reasons. Where a player plays in a league which runs calendar year seasons (such as Brazil), their end date is the last season they left, so 2023 is correct. Where a player plays in a league which runs across two years, when they transfer on 1 January, the 'end' date is 2024. GiantSnowman 19:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if he signed in 2023, or his transfer became official? Kante4 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A player cannot transfer to the new club until the window opens, so e.g. 1 January 2024. GiantSnowman 19:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I know but assumed it would mean he is a player of that club at 00:00 on that day. Kante4 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the clarification, GiantSnowman and Kante4. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

If the transfer was agreed and announced in the December but couldn't happen until the January when the transfer window opened, surely it would make more sense to have 2023 as the end date and 2024 as the start date regardless what league the player plays in? It looks silly and is a bit misleading to imply player y played for club x in 2024 when they didn't. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Stevie fae Scotland. It makes the most sense to do it that way and provides better insight to the reader as to what actually involved the player's career, rather than a technicality where the player was a member of a club for a single second in 2024. RedPatch (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not misleading at all. A player transfers from one to the other on 1 January 2024. It's accurate and the long-established way of doing things. GiantSnowman 21:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Rush scored 346 for LFC 2A00:23C7:C3CB:E501:D53E:EAD8:656E:C84F (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Correct, and his article says exactly that. What's the issue? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

If you’re wondering why the infobox only says 109, 90 and 30 for Liverpool (which adds up to 229), that’s because infoboxes are supposed to only take into account goals scored in the league. Adding up his goals in the league, cups and other competitions you get 346. Check the career statistics section further down the article. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've corrected the infobox which included every goal scored for Liverpool rather than just league games. I've seen this several times by the way where Liverpool player stats are "inflated" in the infobox - not sure if there is just one WP user making these changes? ColchesterSid (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Might be. I’ve come across that issue several times, mostly in older player’s pages. the current players probably get updated regularly enough to prevent it happening. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aaron Parker#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Similar to the recently-archived thread on Leah Williamson and an SPA taking umbrage with the mention of sexuality. It looks like a different person, based on behaviour, however, which is concerning - and looks like either a particularly angry and righteous homophobe or someone who has maybe been tasked with getting information about one of Putellas' (former?) partners in particular off the internet (though she wasn't named etc).

Anyway, I have left a message at their talkpage responding to some of their excessive edit reason and pointing out that whatever their motive, it's not allowed, and asking for a more cooperative explanation. I am leaving this note here in case anyone involved in the last discussion wants to keep an eye out, or if further discussion how we protect such coverage is warranted – I nearly responded to the editor here that inclusion is not "inconsequential" as they claim, that Wikipedia is proud of its recent efforts to help make minorities including LGBTQ+ women more visible. Kingsif (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The user is blocked for similar behaviour on Spanish Wikipedia. Kingsif (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Before the creation of the French Football Federation in 1919, so-called national championships were organized in France by two federations, one amateur, the USFSA and the other "professional", the FSAF (Federation of Athletic Societies of France). . There is no English Wikipedia article devoted to this last competition. Is it possible to create articles for each of the well-documented editions, the documentation being based on the results, news and rankings published in the specialized press of the time?

vincentm5194 Vincentm5194 (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Vincentm5194 Is this the same organisation as Union des Sociétés Françaises de Sports Athlétiques? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

No, Joseph2302, it's a different one. There were two federations managing French football association championships at this time if we do not consider the French "patronages" federation : the USFSA and the FSAF. Vincentm5194 (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Vincentm5194. I don't see any problem for such a creation. Frenchl (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

How should we deal with players who are known by one name at the club level, and another at the national-team level? For example, Omar Bugiel is known as such when playing at the club level in England, but is known as "Omar Chaaban" when playing for the Lebanon national team. Should we pipe [[Omar Bugiel|Omar Chaaban]] in articles relating to the Lebanon national team? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. Frenchl (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sounds fine - or simply link to Omar Chaaban, no need to pipe... GiantSnowman 11:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, per WP:NOTBROKEN, piping is unnecessary. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

now that hes been called up and played for Australia, having played for wales at youth level, should this page be renamed to soccer player and his page use soccer terms instead of football. born in australia, moved to wales as a kid, played for wales up to u21 level, turned them down until he was in his late 20s and i guess realised wales would never cap him. for what its worth, he uses football in the interview after his debut. https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/24031631.bolton-wanderers-gethin-jones-australia-togetherness/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xejUyXG6z-E&ab_channel=OptusSport and dude just straight up has a british accent and talks about how he used to be wales u21 captain Muur (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• No, it should stay as it is per MOS:RETAIN. Also, since he has played his entire 14-year football career in England, it would be somewhat bizarre to start using "soccer" now on the basis of a single Australian cap. Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Scott Arfield is still a footballer despite his caps for Canada. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 20:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated IFK Göteborg for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 20:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ACS Mostiștea Ulmu#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Greetings, Article K.F.C. Moerbeke was created 8 July 2012‎, and remains without citations. Asking for help here as it was PROD by @HawkAussie on 26 December 2023‎; then deprod by @Kvng on 1 January 2024‎. Because of this club's long history it should be notable, but the article does need reliable source, in-depth references. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated it for deletion at AfD. I understand considering WP:ATD, but there's no point in merging to Royal Belgian Football Association when that's an article on the Belgian FA only and there is basically nothing from K.F.C. Moerbeke to merge anyway. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Sgubaldo for the AfD decision. While I have an interest in football sport (mostly as a fan), it's not very deep knowledge for me about clubs & individual players. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently these are all screwed up, with the tables showing the second division table under each club’s position in the First Division table. Is anyone able to fix this? - J man708 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@J man708: I think i fixed it (hopefully). Kante4 (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Cheers @Kante4:. Looks fixed to me! - J man708 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it me, or is it a really horrible to do a transfer table? Govvy (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine if properly referenced but that one is formatted really oddly. SportingFlyer T·C 19:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

At first I thought it was the squad list, then I realised afterwards it wasn't. It does have that odd feeling. Govvy (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether to change it around, but felt like just leaving it! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Having a transfer table is fine (and a good thing even), but formatting it in that way is very odd and looks like trying to merge squad and transfers which is very confusing. Needs a major clean-up --SuperJew (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - we should not use the 'squad list' formatting. A table is fine. GiantSnowman 11:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have, or know someone that does, access to the ENFA website (subscription based) to retrieve specific player career club stats? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, any other websites which offer accurate historical player career statistics? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Which player...? GiantSnowman 21:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The one you have observed me working on recently, Leon Leuty. There is one ref (I think you added) which offers overall club apps stats, but I can't see where else publishes this, or broken down by season. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bungle: I have access to ENFA and have added a career stats table to the article. Good work with it, by the way! Mattythewhite (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite, many thanks for that, it's appreciated! I think it "finishes off" the article nicely, with everything reasonably covered. I'm pondering putting it through GA, as I feel it's pretty much at the standard now (I just wanted to wait to see if the career stats could be sourced)!

On a similar note, I also helped to further develop a new article Ray Young (footballer) a few weeks back, but could not find anything in the way of stats for his last 2 clubs (and seemingly his last 2 senior years), if that happens to be available also? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bungle: ENFA only include appearance and goal data for Football League clubs, so there's no data for the latter two which played in non-League, except the years he signed for them, which match what's already in the article. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, I suppose that makes sense if the database is limited to the football league only. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that the goals in the football boxes are starting to appear larger than necessary? I think this change should be discussed more widely. This is where change was requested. Sakiv (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem with it. The issue was presented and remedied? Seasider53 (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The template was violating the MOS and now it isn't- which means in general it will work better for people, particularly those on mobiles/tablets. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

There are size differences between goals and cards. Sakiv (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Cards aren't included in the World Cup tournament listed as an example in the link you gave. Seasider53 (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you please understand? In club season articles! Sakiv (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

What am I missing? Seasider53 (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Seasider53: I believe Sakiv is talking about the {{yel}} and {{sent off}} templates that use the same font size as the old version of the goals template. An example can be seen at 2023 Seattle Sounders FC season#Leagues Cup 2. SounderBruce 02:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been discussed before and the consensus was to not use the goals parameter for cards hence why it doesn't appear anywhere in the MOS Seasider has linked to. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd be interested to see who first introduced them. There may have been a discussion about it, but it equally might have been another undiscussed one-man mission. Seasider53 (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a proposed merge discussion at Talk:Chengdu Rongcheng F.C. § Proposed merge of Phoenix Hill Football Stadium into Chengdu Rongcheng F.C.. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• College soccer
• College association football
• College soccer in the United States

There appears to have been an undiscussed page move, specifically moving College soccer to College soccer in the United States, turning College soccer into a disambiguation page, and what appears to be the creation of College association football. Does this move seem alright? I know there was a template on the College soccer page for some time about it being US-centric, but it would have been nice to generate some discussion before these were moved. Jay eyem (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

This should not have been done without discussion. US college sports are the primary topic. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Already raised with the editor in question at User talk:Fma12#College soccer. GiantSnowman 11:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It also looks like the talk page Talk:College soccer also should have been moved to Talk:College soccer in the United States but it wasn't, and now there is a new talk page in its place rather than the old talk page. So now you have conversations relating to the original article on the talk page for the disambiguation page. Jay eyem (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

What a mess. Can an admin unwind this completely and start a RM? SportingFlyer T·C 20:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the page histories for all three articles, all I can say is that this is what the US military would call a "Romeo Charlie Foxtrot," or a "Royal Clusterf***." There was no page move performed, which is why the old talk page is still with the dab page. (See the move logs for College association football, College soccer, and College soccer in the United States.) I would try to "unfornicate" what has happened, but I'd be more comfortable if an admin or someone with rollback rights performed the edits. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent edits by Fma12, so currently the main article is College soccer in the United States, College soccer redirects there, and College association football redirects to College soccer. This is still not ideal. Surely the main article should be College soccer? I cannot work out how this was the first ever edit to 'college soccer' and only on 26 December 2023? GiantSnowman 20:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what discussion was needed since the college soccer in the United States article had also sections related to the sport in the UK, South Africa, Vietnam, Japan, and other countries. After the reversion to the previous version, the title "...in the United States" is (IMO) wrong. What I simply did was to create a new article, "college association football", moving topics related to non-US college/university (association) football there.

Those changes were based on the tag that says The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject..... I don't think the current version help avoid confusions, but if anyone knows how to solve this out, he'll be welcome. For my part, I won't edit or modify anything else. Fma12 (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

But you have not moved anything, there is nothing in the logs? GiantSnowman 21:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I already moved the non-US college football sections. All is here Fma12 (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In the most technical sense, copying (which is what you did) is not the same thing as moving. It left a huge mess in edit histories (how is it possible that the first edit in a page's history removed more than 50 kilobytes?) and disassociated a talk page from the proper article. I understand what you were attempting to accomplish, but the end result was extremely confusing and should not have been done unilaterally. I would suggest that you begin discussion to determine how to properly split the article at Talk:College soccer since that is where all the existing discussion already resides. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

And now they have all been just redirected to College soccer in the United States rather than College soccer, and the talk pages have still not been fixed. Is there any way for us to return this to the status quo, where all of this was under College soccer, and to have a proper RM before making any more changes? I don't really know how to undo all of this but would appreciate some guidance. Jay eyem (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

There were no page moves, so talk pages should not be affected. GiantSnowman 17:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok I don't understand how that could be true. The page was always at College soccer, I used to regularly check the page, it was never at College soccer in the United States until very recently. How else do you explain the fact that Talk:College soccer has posts going back to 2007, while Talk:College soccer in the United States was only very recently created? I admit that I don't know everything about moving pages, but the page was originally at College soccer and just redirecting that to College soccer in the United States doesn't make sense. Jay eyem (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree, I cannot fathom what they have done and they have not explained. GiantSnowman 19:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I have gone ahead and posted something at the help desk and hoping to get another look at this. I am not sure if I should be posting somewhere else, but I am still hoping that this can get resolved back to the status quo. Jay eyem (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The sequence of events that got us here is that Fma12 copied most of the content from College soccer to College soccer in the United States, copied the rest of the content to college association football and then converted college soccer to a disambiguation page. Then DanCherek merged the history (using Special:MergeHistory, so it appears in Special:Log/merge not Special:Log/move) of College soccer to College soccer in the United States. Then GiantSnowman reverted College soccer and College association football to redirects and College soccer in the United States back to the content (but not the title) it was before Fma12's actions. So the result is equivalent to as if Fma12 had moved the page (but not the talk page) even though the page move functionality wasn't invoked, and an admin can bring things back to the status quo ante by moving College soccer in the United States back to College soccer. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I performed that history merge in an attempt to preserve attribution in the edit history, but it looks like I made things very confusing for folks so apologies! DanCherek (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

So I am not 100% familiar with the process on undoing this change, so I went ahead and started a RM at Talk:College soccer in the United States. Hopefully we can get this sorted. Jay eyem (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I was reading through the article, but the open lead second paragraph, Established in 1893, Genoa is Italy's oldest extant football team and one of the country's oldest ever. One of the country's oldest ever? This reads funny, I wasn't sure how it should be rewritten, but this sentence seems pretty important, Wouldn't it be better to just have Established in 1893, Genoa is Italy's oldest extant football team in the country. ?? Govvy (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I've left it as Established in 1893, Genoa is Italy's oldest extant football team. If it's Italy's oldest team still in existence, it's implicitly one of the oldest even when you include those that have been dissolved. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough, cheers, I only posted, because after I edited Timo Werner the other day people seemed up in arms over it and harassed me. Wikipedia is a strange thing. Govvy (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:AEK Athens F.C. in European competitions#Requested move 15 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, I've just looked at the page history, one user should be sin-binned by an admin, and it shouldn't need a page move request, it needs moving back. Govvy (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Amelia Hazard at AFD sourcing issues. — Maile (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of single-purpose accounts recently that edit on absolutely nothing accept cramming someone's ethnicity into the opening sentence instead of their nationality. First there was User:Hackneyglyn21, who appeared to be Welsh but pro-Catalan and Basque, and almost unironically evoking Monty Python's "What did the Romans ever do for us?", asked for proof that Mikel Arteta is Spanish besides his country of birth and national football team.

Days later came User:Lametinowiki whose entire edit history is a flurry of adding Basque origin to the lead. I don't think they're related, I just think they have the same hobby.

I don't see why there should be any special pleading that the Basques are a special case exempt from MOS:ETHNICITY. It is true that their language faced persecution, but the African Americans and the black people of South Africa faced exceptional persecution and we don't say that Michael Jordan was an African American basketball player or Steven Pienaar was a Cape Coloured footballer. As I tried to say to Hackney Glyn multiple times to deaf ears, "Spanish" and "Basque" are not mutually exclusive. One is a citizenship and one is an ethnic group. His arguments that players have names from the Basque langauge or even speak the language doesn't stop them from being born in the country recognised all over the world as the Kingdom of Spain, playing for the Spain national football team and working abroad on Spanish passports. In Europe we are used to the idea of the nation state but most countries in Africa and Asia are not nation states and this place would become incomprehensible if we talked about "Tamil footballers" and "Yoruba footballers" instead of the basic context of nationality. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it not notable. We put nationality in the opening line only, and even then not if it is complex. A player should be described as 'Spanish' not 'Catalan' or 'Basque'. GiantSnowman 22:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The best example I can think of is the Featured Article on Sandy Koufax. Every baseball fan knows that Koufax was Jewish, and many books and articles have concerned his Jewishness, but it is not until the third paragraph of the lead that his Jewishness is introduced. The article details the importance of Koufax in Jewish history - alongside his much bigger importance in baseball history - rather than trying to bludgeon that identity into the first sentence. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a few people might want to keep an eye on Cristian Romero (Argentine footballer) as there seems to be a couple of disruptive editors popping up to do goodness knows what to the page this January. Also, some of the written text on Timo Werner, ugh I've have to say, I simply don't trust some editors around these days. The article suffers from the awful, where multiple sentences start with; (On #date). It's nice to start a sentence a different way so it's not written like a list! As for lead! I don't really want to go there, there is a whole talk page section on it. :/ Anyway, happy editing all. Govvy (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Alas, no one interested in the nastiness going on at the Timo Warner article?? Govvy (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Can I check that the general consensus is not to have these? And in particular not ones where the "rounds" are numbered out of sequence? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary duplication of information. There are a list of results in every season article and every single one shows you the results by round so you don't need a separate section to tell you something you already know. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The usual suspect, Skyblueshaun (see article creation diff), doing what he wants and ignoring past discussions. Seasider53 (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think from this section where multiple users participated four years ago, a couple identified that as overkill. I certainly find number misordering of the "Round" row misleading. Hence why 2021–22 Gillingham F.C. season does not have that Results by round table, as that and majority of other clubs experienced Covid related match rescheduling.

I shall check the article creations for next season's club articles to see if the usual suspect adds these tables and ignores discussions. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I also brought it up last August but, again, no response. Seasider53 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

the prt where its like 1, 2, 4, 5, 3, 6, 7 cuz of postponed is stupid, and it seems to just be one obsessed guy. it should be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - what matters was 7 games being played not that 'the match that was meant to be 3rd happened 5th so lets make the table look really stupid'.Muur (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The positions by round numbers is not needed, and is basically WP:OR since the sources don't keep a history of the positions of teams straight after they've played a match. Changing the round numbers due to postponements is even more questionable/OR. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and the additional problem with Soccerway is that it only shows current league tables when looking at previous season articles. We are now more likely to scrap that sort of information per the last response above. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call Results by round WP:OR, however I do agree it doesn't provide much additional information to the article. I'd much prefer people to write decent prose on a season article. Which you don't see much of. So I have no qualms if it was removed. Govvy (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed.

By the way: on a different issue relating to the same affected group of pages (i.e. the current season pages for the 92 clubs in the top 4 English tiers of football), I have discovered almost every page had incorrect seasons where the number displayed after the club name is 2023 (the previous year) instead of the correct ones, e.g. https://int.soccerway.com/teams/england/swansea-city/2023/ . Reason being - why would we want to visit the Villareal CF Soccerway page instead of the correct teams? I can see from page histories of a sample as well as this that the user who adds in the incorrect Soccerway links by using the start of season number instead of the correct one is "the usual suspect, Skyblueshaun". I first noticed the mistake on the current Swansea City season page and once I checked the insource tool, I knew a lot of errors needed to be fixed. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll be damned if i'll ever understand this one, but here's the deal: this manager replaced Héctor Bidoglio at the Malaysian club described in storyline, and after winning it all last season he now left, and Bidoglio has returned!

A Malaysian IP keeps removing the mention of Solari's arrival in December 2022 (replacing Bidoglio), ref and all! In their last summary, they wrote "Out Hector Bidoglio who is not part of Solari History". Really?!

I come to you for assistance, as i'm close to breaking WP:3RR. Attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Odd situation. But yes, that content should stay. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It should stay of course - I'd also suggest the fact that Bidoglio returned to replace Solari immediately after that successful season ('moved downstairs' and re-appointed himself by the looks of it??) should be mentioned as well. Crowsus (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The Fb rs template which contains home and away records is useful, but might need to be taken a step further in regards to neutral matches that can occur in a league season. For example as recently, the Unite Round in the A-Leagues took place, where all matches for the round were played in Sydney, which indicates that there is no true form of home/away fixtures involved, or for the COVID hub games that occurred in Sydney during the 2019–20 season for the remainder the league season, hence the definition of neutral matches instead of true home/away ones. There may also be other circumstances where there weren't home/away (neutral) matches that occurred in other league seasons. However, the form of neutral records in this template can be just as effective. Since the overall totals are the home and away records added up (in the case of no neutral matches included in the records), the overall tally wouldn't be the same record as the team actually did in the league season. Also using the home/away records to add a neutral match is just throwing the true home/away records off. If the change can be done, the neutral records don't have to be shown in reading mode, unless the 'neutral' parameters are entered into the wikitext. FastCube (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a template expert, but imagine that the neutral parameters could be made as optional parameters, which only display if they're populated (similar to how the points deductions parameter on there looks to be working). There's probably enough matches wholly at neutral venues in the last few years with COVID to make this worthwhile IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgio Marchetti (2nd nomination). Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we change the name of the articles from a single year, such as 2023 Supercoppa Italiana to the name of the season, e.g. 2023-24 Supercoppa Italiana, as the official website reports and also to avoid confusion, as is often held in January of the following year, 2023 Supercoppa Italiana now is the one which is taking place in 2024. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree for all those where confusion could occur. Crowsus (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:AS Cimentul Fieni#Requested move 19 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ACS Hușana Huși#Requested move 19 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of association football players who died during their careers#Requested move 3 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 06:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of football articles and football score lists on Wikipedia that are not cited. We need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:FEB24]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The Malaysian IP has now created an account and resumed removing any mention to the other coach in this manager's article. They also left a nonsensical note in the article's talkpage, i don't know what else to do anymore...

Attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

As I have told you - revert, warn, and report to AIV. GiantSnowman 16:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Could I get some calmer heads to take a look at the managerial stats in the article on Neil Warnock? There's an editor claiming that there's an error in the source cited. The claim seems at least plausible, but they're unwilling or unable to provide reliable sources to correct the error. Given that they've also resorted to posting an angry rant into the content of the article, direct discussions with them are unlikely to be fruitful. I'd appreciate some additional input on this. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added a footnote to the managerial stats table. Hope it helps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Huddersfield confirmed the Stoke would be his 132nd time in charge, since he already had 108 matches between 1993 and 1995. Soccerbase are right with their stats on this article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Having a look at the footnote added, it would appear that Soccerbase added the Stoke match incorrectly. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, Soccerbase's stats are increasingly incomplete the further back you go. Huddersfield played in the Football League Trophy in 93/4 and 94/5, but Soccerbase doesn't include that comp in their database that far back (see 93/4, 94/5) so it doesn't get counted in their stats. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't access Soccerbase as I am at work and it is blocked on my work computer but his Scarborough stats look especially suspect. If he managed there for two and a half seasons, there's no way that equates to only 78 games. The team would have played over 100 league games alone in that period, never mind other competitions....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, 145 matches for Scarborough (W71-D38-L36) according to Scarborough football club official history 1879-1998 page 88 Cattivi (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Struway2: yes, I have checked Soccerbase for the confirmed omissions as well as the 1994 Football League Trophy final article where Warnock managed that team as confirmed. As for Scarborough, having a 31 game season is not common throughout the history of football for senior men so even more incompleteness. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

If the numbers are that suspect, and the problem goes beyond just Warnock's most recent managerial post, is there a case to made to just remove the entire stats section until we can get better sources? Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sounds sensible - only add stats that can be clearly and properly sourced. GiantSnowman 17:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

All official goals should be recorded in player's Wikipedia page; league, domestic cups and continental cups. Every goal exept friendly matches. The official records of UEFA, the player's domestic league etc. is doing it; so should Wikipedia. Because it's official. 149.7.163.75 (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 17:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I presume what the IP means is that the infobox should include all goals (and, presumably, apps), not just league........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman I think linking to previous discussions from WP:Football would be better than just putting WP:NOTSTATS. All WP:NOTSTATS says is no Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Cup and International are not unexplained.

@ChrisTheDude I think you are correct. Demt1298 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

We do not include non-league stats because it would favour modern players. GiantSnowman 21:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This is actually one of the ugliest aspects of articles on footballers. Enthusiastic fans routinely update goals scored, round by round, almost always WITHOUT new sourcing for the new number. This means that maybe half the articles on football breach Wikipedia rules most of the time. I wish there was a simple fix. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

In theory, the infobox should be reflecting information in the statistics section, which in turn is cited to whatever database or league website is there. I would not be against seeing FBref or similar databases cited in the footnotes section of the infobox, though making that standard across 200,000 articles is a daunting task. SounderBruce 03:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It can be done more automatically using WikiData and templates, as is done on infoboxes for Australian rules football players. --SuperJew (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXREF applies. GiantSnowman 11:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Which aspect(s) of WP:INFOBOXREF? HiLo48 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please have a word with User:StarryNightSky11 about their conduct at Frank Lampard? They're insisting on piping New York City FC to New York City despite the club being commonly known by their full name. They also seem to have a bit of a civility issue, as evidenced by this edit summary. I would also suggest that their edits at Nasser Al-Khelaifi are inappropriate, since the mention of his role with Paris Saint-Germain is immediately followed by his role in the Qatar Tennis Federation, and thus Paris Saint-Germain F.C. should not be piped to Paris Saint-Germain. Apologies if 3RR has been violated on my part - I often struggle with counting, especially when trying to ascertain another editor's attitude. – PeeJay 22:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems you were blocked regardless. Oh well. Seasider53 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There's already a lot of these team names in MLS that we don't pipe, but it's particularly inappropriate for New York City and Los Angeles where there are two teams each in both metros. No reason to not be as explicit as possible. Jay eyem (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There ought to be a more concrete policy on this (and other Americanisms that MLS has that outside editors refuse to recognize). For consistency and to prevent confusion, I strongly favor leaving the suffixes and prefixes for all MLS teams; even for a team with a distinct name like the Sounders, referring to "Seattle Sounders FC" disambiguates from the earlier un-FC iterations of team. This is also the case for some teams that have rebranded over the years. SounderBruce 01:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with SounderBruce when it comes to confusion.

As for those blocks I believe I took some responsibility for that as I reported both to 3RR notice board but failed to notice this section had already started before I finished reporting. Who knows what would happen if I didn't report by noticing this section first. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as we pipe the FC for almost every other team, why would we be inconsistent and not pipe it for New York City FC? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

USA is different... GiantSnowman 12:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Which raises the question: why are we doing it differently for the US? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It falls under WP:ENGVAR. We simply do things a bit different here. SounderBruce 11:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

For this particular case it is helpful to be as specific as possible. To a layperson it is not obvious to say that a player who played for "New York City" played for New York City FC and not New York Red Bulls, especially since NYCFC is pretty much never referred to as simply "New York City" the way you might for, say, Manchester City. The same can be said for a player who played for "Los Angeles", as it wouldn't be clear if they played for the LA Galaxy or Los Angeles FC (Likewise, LAFC is also pretty much never referred to as simply "Los Angeles"). Can't really speak for most other MLS cities with names like this, although there are often other teams in those cities, so just listing the name of the city in the infobox is unhelpful. Jay eyem (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"SukunaZenin moved page Álvaro Fernández (footballer, born 2003) to Álvaro Carreras: Now going by the name Álvaro Carreras check his presentation at Benfica as evidence"

No discussion, no nothing. Should one revert to the previous surname? SLBedit (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes and initiate a RM discussion to see what users think on this move. Looks controversial to me without one. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree - needs a full RM discussion. GiantSnowman 19:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Talk:Álvaro Fernández (footballer, born 2003)#Requested move 24 January 2024 SLBedit (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox football tournament season § champ match score. 2pou (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I asked this before, but I couldn't find it in the history when I was tried using the archive search tool. How do you set up multiple notes sections, so the notes appear in different places. For example, I have a note in the infobox that I want to appear in a notes section, then a note in the stats table, that I want to appear right underneath the stats table. Have this issue on a couple of pages such as Jesse Daley. However, all the notes are appearing under the stats table since that is the first "noteslist". Thanks in advance RedPatch (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

If you use Template:Refn instead of efn then you can add a group parameter which will group the references separately. You'd need to change the notelist to {{reflist|group=groupname}} though and you wouldn't be able to group the two Sounders notes together. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Or, use the ordinary {{efn}} and {{notelist}} for the first one and a different template, such as {{efn-ua}} or {{efn-lr}}, for the other with the corresponding notelist, {{notelist-ua}} or {{notelist-lr}}. See the documentation at {{efn}}. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!! RedPatch (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I need your help to find some informations about angolan staff members at 2006 FIFA World Cup. Can you help me ? Cordially. FCNantes72 (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do we even have an article like Angola at the FIFA World Cup if they only appeared once? Surely that should be redirected and merged into the appropriate Group stage article.

Angola at the FIFA World Cup Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

A proper article would discuss preparations and the like, there's nothing wrong with it, just a bit too reference-y IMO. SportingFlyer T·C 14:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I have just found Mabi de Almeida (assistant), Arlindo Macedo (spokesman), Laurindo Vieira (psychotherapist). No informations about Goalkeeper coaches, Fitness coaches, other assistant head coaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FCNantes72 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

article doesnt seem notable to meMuur (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Every country which has participated at the World Cup has an article in the same format as Angola's - several of them of course have also only made just the one appearance ColchesterSid (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It would, of course, be nice if the article had more citations than its current total of zero. Quite apart from that, it effectively fails WP:NOTSTATS because it's ... nothing else. Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

So far, we have been counting Czechoslovakia's records towards the Czech Republic's historical tallies, and have been treating Slovakia as a separate new team. Do we need to reconsider this?

UEFA publishes pages profiling the teams that are to participate in each forthcoming Euro championship. Judging by those, UEFA may actually consider both teams to be equal inheritors of Czechoslovakia, as it states that they both were "winners as Czechoslovakia" at Euro 1976. Relevant pages: Euro 2024 teams, Euro 2020 Czech Republic, Euro 2020 Slovakia.

UEFA's website also has general profiles of the national associations, and those are less categorical: the Czech Republic page contains a timeline where all notable records of Czechoslovakia are listed equally as those of the modern team, while the analogous lists in the Slovakia page only have one entry on that period, carefully worded thus: "1976: A large contingent of Slovak players, as well as assistant coach Jozef Vengloš, helps Czechoslovakia to win the European Championship."

FIFA's website, on the other hand, has association profiles that no longer have history sections (Czechia, Slovakia), but they used to have them, and they used to attribute Czechoslovakia's appearances in the World Cup to the Czech Republic only; Czech Republic: 9 appearances, Slovakia: 1 appearance.

On Wikipedia, based on those publications by UEFA, certain users have now carried over Czechoslovakia's records onto Slovakia's tallies too. So, the former team and its records are now listed and counted twice everywhere: check e.g. in statistics pages on the World Cup and its qualifying, and the Euros and its qualifying. Per the all-time table, Slovakia is now 20th in the World Cup historically, actually ahead of the Czech Republic, which is 21st.

Should we continue this way, or should we revert it? --Theurgist (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd have said revert. But there actually is a section of text at the very bottom of the article. "A number of UEFA associations have been affected by dissolution or splits of member associations. For statistical purposes, the records of these inactive countries have been allocated elsewhere: therefore, all Soviet Union matches are awarded to Russia; all West Germany – but not East Germany – matches are awarded to Germany; all Yugoslavia and Serbia & Montenegro matches are awarded to Serbia; all Czechoslovakia matches are allocated to both Czechia and Slovakia." I wonder what makes that split special? -Koppapa (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen two countries end up with the predecessor's record before. That is weird. My opinion has always been that because the Czech Republic isn't Czechoslovakia, they should be separated out but they often aren't because the Czech Republic is considered the direct successor. This creates a very different problem and I don't think counting Czechoslovakia's result twice is the solution. The wording in that note is far from ideal as well because "awarded" sounds like there was some sort of competition to decide who got (for example) the Soviet Union's record. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Very strange, I mean Slovaks played a big role in the Czechoslovakian teams, but so did Croatians (and others) in the Yugoslav sides and Ukrainians (and others) in the USSR's... Crowsus (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

i would say it depends on how fifa determine it, not uefa.Muur (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Koppapa: Even if that page by UEFA overrules the general association profiles on the same website (which, again, don't seem to reflect it fully as of yet), that's only UEFA, not FIFA. And yet, all of a sudden we're stating that Slovakia has 2 silver medals from the FIFA World Cup. @Muur: I had an edit conflict with your edit; nice to know we're on the same page.

I agree that it's weird to count the same records twice. Besides, by definition no more than one party can have majority in a union. Even if ethnic Slovaks contributed greatly to the team, a country is not just the individuals who represent it but also organization, structure, facilities, funding, etc, all of which the Slovaks benefited from during the Czechoslovak period.

Imagine if Catalonia broke away and started claiming Spain's trophies, or if Scotland did the same with the UK's Olympic medals. I don't have ties with any of those countries, but it just doesn't make sense.

I'm pinging User:Khoa41860, who made the edits in question. --Theurgist (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree because the UN did not consider Czech Republic and Slovakia are the outright successor and that both were admitted as independent nation. Furthermore, FIFA and UEFA have allocated records of these inactive countries have been allocated elsewhere: therefore, all Soviet Union matches are awarded to Russia; all West Germany – but not East Germany – matches are awarded to Germany; all Yugoslavia and Serbia & Montenegro matches are awarded to Serbia; all Czechoslovakia matches are allocated to both Czechia and Slovakia. Also, both the Czechs and Slovaks have played eight World Cups as Czechoslovakia and wanted to keep into both. Khoa41860 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This is what UEFA states here, and where does FIFA state it? --Theurgist (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

FIFA.com Khoa41860 (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Which page exactly in fifa.com? --Theurgist (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

FIFA.com/Czech Republic and FIFA.com/Slovakia 2600:1700:B0A1:5F0:F06A:FBD1:C329:A267 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it is the updated links of https://www.fifa.com/fifaplus/en/member-associations/czech-republic and https://www.fifa.com/fifaplus/en/member-associations/slovakia 2600:1700:B0A1:5F0:F06A:FBD1:C329:A267 (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I linked those two pages above. I'm not seeing such information there. In fact in both you see a "News" panel with a "SEE ALL" link on top right. The one at the Czechia profile gets you to a page containing articles on Czechoslovakia's achievements, while the equivalent page linked from the Slovakia profile only has materials on Slovakia. While not explicit, this is significant. --Theurgist (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

So, Slovakia is now suddenly one of the most decorated teams in the World Cup, in fact second only to the Netherlands apart from the title-winning teams. With due respect, this is not how it works.

UEFA is doing its own things, but as far as FIFA is concerned, there's no evidence that it treats it this way. Not only the old country profiles (also linked above) but also the all-time table used to attribute the appearances to the Czech Republic only, although we're still lacking a current (non-archived) first-hand explicit confirmation.

In fact RSSSF has an all-time table too, and it currently leaves those records unattributed to either modern country; in a footnote they admit that FIFA considers the Czech Republic the successor of Czechoslovakia but they've decided not to follow suit (a previous version did comply with FIFA's view). Better leave them unattributed than count them twice. This just makes no sense. Users might argue, and with reason, that Czechoslovakia is not the Czech Republic, but then Czechoslovakia is not Slovakia either. --Theurgist (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

A few sources - but not all - mention that Jamie Jellis played for St Albans City, which is seemingly verified by this, but St Albans themselves have no details on him and I cannot find anything to verify that or when he signed. Any help appreciated... GiantSnowman 15:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe he just had a trial. Govvy (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

He's very active on Twitter, and I just scrolled back through those years, during which he mentions each of his transfers. St Albans wasn't one of them. Seasider53 (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

OK great thanks - as Govvy says, possibly a trial? Which a journalist has mis-interpreted and then it's been repeated lazily. GiantSnowman 15:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The article Ben Radcliffe (footballer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

nothing out of passing mentions and routine coverage in reliable sources, does not seem to meet any notability guideline

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 2A02:C7C:78ED:FE00:9036:FEB3:C7A6:9328 (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, would appearances/goals in the A-League Men finals series count as 'League' appearances or as 'Other' in career statistics tables? I've seen it done both ways. Thanks for your help. Nonleagueapps (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on my understanding, league appearances - as they are used to determine the league champion. In Belgium, this was given as a league app on Toby Alderweireld even though it was after the regular season titled "Play-Off I". I'm inclined to know what others think about this. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I had always thought they were 'playoff' and therefore an 'Other', as opposed to regular season. I think that's what I've seen with MLS? GiantSnowman 16:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand 'league' vs 'other' to mean any appearance that has bearing on league standings, including playoffs to determine a champion, vs appearances in multi-league tournaments, such as the UEFA Champions League. So appearances in MLS Cup playoffs or the A-League Men finals series would still count as league appearances but would not count toward any regular season statistics. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The finals series is part of the domestic league season, so should be included in league stats in infobox, and are treated as such in most stats websites I've seen, for example Ultimatealeague, Soccerway, Soccer Base. Fbref seem to be the only one I can see that count only league appearances until finals (but in the detailed view show the finals too and count them in the total). --SuperJew (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Soccerway also counts English domestic play-offs as 'regular league' games although it is long established that they are not... GiantSnowman 20:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I understand, English domestic play-offs are only to determine which teams are regulated or promoted, no? In the A-League the finals series is to decide the champion (format similar to the AFL format). --SuperJew (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Much like the MLS 'play offs' which we don't count as 'league' either... GiantSnowman 22:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

ALeagueStats tends to be the source I use and they separate out the Finals appearances! Nonleagueapps (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to add input to my own question, I always worked on the premise that any format where all teams play the same number of matches (e.g. the split in Scotland) counts as League, but any fixture which limits qualification to a select number of teams (e.g. promotion playoffs, MLS playoffs, A-League finals) would be Other, to show it's an addendum (or "post-season"). But as formats get more convoluted (Belgium being a good example) I tend to just leave anything complicated the way I find it to avoid incurring wrath. Nonleagueapps (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

play off, so goes under 'other'.Muur (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not a play-off. Playoffs are to decide who gets promoted/relegated --SuperJew (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

tell that to the mls. who literally have mls play offs. same of the indian league. the kangaroos calling it something else doesnt not make them play offs.Muur (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

If the MLS want to call something which isn't a play-off a play-off it doesn't make it a play-off just because that's what they call it. --SuperJew (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The definition of 'playoff' is simply "a game or series of games that are played after a regular season of games [...] to decide a winner". GiantSnowman 22:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

and there you go. the regular season determines the winner of the supporter's shield, and then the play offs for the mls cup. this aussie stuff doesnt count as official league games. soccerbase dont count them as regular apperences - they count adam le fondre with 96 league appearences and 56 goals - discounting the end of season title play offs https://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=38355&season_id=155 if they counted them hed be at 106/62, but they count them under other instead. so soccerbase already dicsounts the a league final stuff for stats.Muur (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

As someone who has followed the A-Leagues since their inception, the answer is 100% that finals games are considered league games. @Nonleagueapps: has mentioned that ALeagueStats "separates out the finals appearances". While they do at times list these games separately (they also separate out Grand Finals, which can hardly be different statistically than other finals games), it's also clear that they combine finals matches with regular season games for statistical purposes. For example, Carl Jenkinson's most recent game (bottom of the page) is noted as "50th appearance in the A-League (Men)". Looking at his stats up the top of that page, this is clearly the sum of regular season and finals matches.

This mirrors how other official and third party sources treat A-Leagues appearances (and is also consistent with a consensus in editing A-Leagues pages which has developed over 20 years without controversy). To pick another example, Nikolai Topor-Stanley retired as one of the A-Leagues' top appearance makers with 368 regular season games and 12 finals appearances, per ALeagueStats. All sources refer to him as having made 380 A-League Men appearances, including the league's official page: "surpassing recently retired defender Nikolai Topor-Stanley who sits one game behind on 380"; Newcastle Herald: "...called it quits last season aged 38 with an incredible 380 games to his name" and Cessnock Advertiser: "racked up 380 matches in the A-League".

Changing approach at this point would go against what has been done on many hundreds of pages and is also clearly out of step with how primary and secondary sources treat A-Leagues games for statistical purposes. Macosal (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I see it as outside of the league season matches, which is how I've seen it recorded. For players with majority of their career in Australia/US/Canada they can have a Playoffs column in their stats table where these stats are recorded (beside League and before Cup) as is the case with the pages for many MLS players (similar to State League's location in tables for Brazilian players). Jesse Daley is an example of this as a player who has played in Australia, Canada, and the United States. RedPatch (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you bring exmaples of how it's recorded? I think Macosal made a strong case here, backed by media sources. --SuperJew (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I meant recorded on some wiki pages I've seen. RedPatch (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source to verify information. It is not uncommon for separate records to be kept in different sports leagues for regular-season and post-season statistics, e.g. the National Hockey League, but all statistics still count toward the player's total. If you can find a source that shows MLS, A-League, or similar leagues maintaining fully separate sets of statistics between regular and post-season play, please let us know. I have yet to see any league that uses post-season play to determine a champion not include those statistics in the players' totals. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe RedPatch is trying to reference other articles as examples of project consensus rather than citing them for statistics. As for the MLS side of this: the league website has separate tables for regular season and playoff matches, as does ESPN; FBref seems to ignore them entirely and Soccerway rolls them into the same entry on the table. SounderBruce 04:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This was what I meant (ie. Consensus) , sorry if it was unclear. RedPatch (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The consensus should be based on reliable sources. If the consensus is flawed, it should change. --SuperJew (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

In creating its finals series, the A League was directly copying what happens in the two bigger football codes in Australia, the Australian Football League (which plays Australian rules football) and the National Rugby League. Both competitions have been holding finals series for over a century, much longer than the A League has existed. The A League did it for the same reason as Aussie Rules and Rugby League, money. More games added to the regular season (because that's what they are) brings more people through the gate and more television revenue. Nobody in Australia sees those "series" as separate from the main season. They the main season's culmination, not a separate series. So it's an Australian invention. No relationship to what happens in other countries. Most Australian soccer (football) fans have considerable interest in English and other European leagues, but have little idea about what happens in the US. Drawing any parallel between what happens in Australia and what happens in MLS is silly. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Belgium is a an appropriate comparison - they have 'extra' matches which do not involve all the teams from the initial phase, but as far as I'm aware they are included as league appearances in the table for the players. Bit fiddly, but what I'd suggest is maybe having the A-League stats table have something like ||34^[a]||7^[b]||...etc to give a breakdown for those interested or uncertain (I'm aware that doesn't happen for Belgium at present, but maybe it should?)

Crowsus (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is it a bit fiddly? Australian sport has coped with the concept for over a century. (And Australians are obsessed with sport. MANY sports.) You cannot demand that all soccer playing nations follow the model you are most familiar with. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I just mean it's a bit fiddly to add the explanatory note in the table for every player and every season, but I feel if its being done right that should be shown, as many in other parts of the world would assume those aren't included - but I agree with you that the baseline figure should include them as standard. Crowsus (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kosovo Derby#Requested move 29 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Manchester United F.C. in European football#Requested move 1 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I ask if I can change the name to the correct one, FC Internazionale Milano 14 novembre (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want to change the article name of Inter Milan, then you should use WP:RM. GiantSnowman 19:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading the previous discussions at Talk:Inter Milan before doing anything. This has been discussed at length before. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Someone with a bit more experience should probably make an article for this bareing in mind it is in the public eye at the moment WikiHmmmm... (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

There's practically no consistency with the naming in lists of international association football players by club. Some are "internationals", "international footballers" or, "international players" which appears as a mess. Can't we just stick to one name? FastCube (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we should - I say List of CLUB international players, being in line with standard of List of CLUB players in Category:Lists of footballers in England by club. GiantSnowman 09:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this an okay article? Seems like a category can do the same thing. :/ Govvy (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I went to accept this, but it's already a redirect to Oklahoma City Slickers where the team is clearly covered. The articles are different though, is this enough for a stand-alone page? SportingFlyer T·C 18:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)