Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 108

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

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

→

Talk:Club Deportivo Club de Fútbol Salmantino

Can I just point out the comical 'consensus' in the above discussion which was listed on the project page. I don't disagree with the merge at all, but the fact that the parties involved were a registered user with no other input on either the English or Spanish wiki than working on these articles, and then two mysterious IP users with similar codes whose sole interest is also CF Salmantino and are both very keen to get involved in agreeing to the move. It would surely have been better just to boldly move the article (which explains the reasons in its text) and take any flak that came from it - probably none - rather than this obvious and unnecessary puppetry farce? Crowsus (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

They also moved the page during a move discussion, which I've reverted. Some eyes and discussion on there would be appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Alf Settle

Greetings all. I came across this article while monitoring New Editor's Contributions and I thought I'd bring it to the attention of this Wikiproject. The subject of the article appears to meet WP:NFOOTY and needs improvement by someone a lot more knowledgeable about football than I am. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: he is indeed notable, and the article has been tidied, thanks for letting us know. Giant Snowman 08:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

S.L. Benfica Juniors

This page is about Benfica Juniors, a very concrete section of Benfica's youth football system. The Junior term referes only the U19 players. The U17, U15 and U13 are called Juvenis, Iniciados and Infantis, respectively. I think this page should focus only on the U19 players, the honour section should only mention the U19 honours. The same for the page's header. The Current squad and the Technical staff sections are only about the Juniors. I think the page need some coherence. P3DRO (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that the page be renamed/moved to SL Benfica Juniors and Academy or similar with a bit of expansion about the whole youth setup there (which is obviously a renowned production line of talent). This would mean that any links to the article from former players in infobox 'youth career' etc, and from tournament articles in which any Benfica youth team was competing, would still make sense. This format is used with all Scottish, most English, some Spanish and the only other Portuguese (Sporting) equivalent articles. Ideally there would be more consistency across the board but I think a 'reserves and youth'/'U20 and academy' general article is more useful than those which specifically focus on a single age group.Crowsus (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

edit - sorry, just saw the Porto article too. It has the same name as Benfica, but already mentions the junior teams right down to Under-15 - so is that correct? Would they not also be refered to Juvenis and Iniciados rather than part of the Juniores? Again i think an overall 'youth teams and academy' article would be better to cover all bases.Crowsus (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Crowsus: I agree with you. I do not think that pages about U19, U17, U15 and U13 alone are relevant. All of them toghether, as an Academy/Youth System would be better. P3DRO (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

One article on the youth system as a whole can be notable, but not individual articles for every age group. Giant Snowman 21:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Goalzz template

Player pages linked to by {{Goalzz}} appear to have no content. Can someone familiar with the site please look into this? Meanwhile, I'm going to disable the template. @Sm3a: for info. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I assume the website has a fault. I have checked a few Goalzz profiles and the links still work (they haven't changed the website setup) and the info is there in the code of the pages, but is not appearing for whatever reason. Hopefully they will fix it soon. Number 5 7 22:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Mark "Rappo" Rapsey

Probably not that big of a deal but would this guy be notable? Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I would say no. Kante4 (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

2,000 goals at the amateur level cannot possibly compare to 1,200 at the professional and senior international level. Not notable. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Height paramater

It's come to my attention that the height paramater in {{Infobox football biography}} automatically converts from metric to imperial and vice versa. Great - except it displays metric in cm, which, as those of you who will remember the big debate on this matter we had a few years ago, is not what we use. Anybody know how to adjust it to display in m? Giant Snowman 09:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Mattia Caldara

Atalanta player Mattia Caldara was signed by Juventus in January, but will remain at Atalanta until 2018 on loan. What is the correct way this should be shown in the infobox, as the brackets are already closed a year in advance?Danieletorino2 (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Like we would for any player who signs for a club and then is loaned out... Giant Snowman 12:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay man, sorry for asking I guess...Danieletorino2 (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Taylor Report

As part of an attempt to tidy the Hillsborough disaster page, I came across the Taylor Report article, which had almost no info about the findings of the report itself. Any help greatly appreciated, especially from those who (unlike me), know anything about football. Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Inverted winger separate article?

Sorry, I have done one more of these merge suggestions, don't see any need for a separate article on Inverted winger; regardless of whether a winger is considered a forward or midfielder, this sub-type can/should be added into the same larger article. I have added the merge proposal talk here.Crowsus (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Are youth/reserve club sides notable?

Stumbled across this. I can't imagine why anyone would search for it, as opposed to NCFC, so I'd suggest deletion rather than redirection. Thoughts, before I prod? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think maybe it depends on the club. Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy exists, and I can't think of any argument for it not to. For Norwich, however, I can't think of much of a reason for such an article to exist. Is Norwich's youth system particularly renowned? – Pee Jay 12:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this. For most clubs, this isn't going to amount to much more than a squad list, and any relevant information can be included in the main club article. I would generally go with the presumption that reserve / youth teams aren't independently notable unless there are significant sources to prove otherwise, which will likely only be the case with really major clubs. PROD away! Jellyman (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Norwich's youth system was prodigious at uncovering talent in the period 10-30 years ago, less so these days, although they are still well regarded. I just can't think why any reader would come looking for it, and on top of that I'm unsure it'd pass WP:V for coverage beyond local media. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC) I'm thinking AfD might be more sensible. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I would dsagree with this, there are many existing youth and reserve team (or both) articles for various clubs across several nations, too many for it not to have been noticed and challenged as being unnecessary, particularly by members of this project. A further complication is that most countries have reserve or youth teams in the same system as the main club, so really separate articles are needed to differentiate. This affects clubs in the UK now too since English academy teams are in the EFL Trophy and Scottish academies in the Scottish Challenge Cup, it would be confusing and inaccurate if lnks from these went to the main club (piped links could solve this, but aren't used sufficently). The Norwich article in question is pretty shoddy - not linked to the main article anywhere that I can see, no current squad, no previous players, no competition history or other summary - which is imformation usually present on equivalent pages. Such detail is appropriate in relation to the youth sections but would clutter up the main article - in my opinion, most visitiors to the Norwich City page won't be interested in the youth or reserve stuff so it gets in their way, but for those that are, it is handy for there to be a separate specialist article that links to the leagues and cups they compete in - provided the article is linked for easy access and maintained adequately. That isn't the case with the Norwich article, it could/should be improved. Crowsus (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. But what about WP:V? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, well, the official website (assuming it is considered reliable) would normally have plenty of info on match report/squads for the Under 23 squad and probably younger age groups too (depends on the quality of the site really). You can compile a decent and reliable list of former homegrown players via the Category:Norwich City players list (not all of them of course!). The competitions in which Norwich are competing (2016–17 Professional U23 Development League, 2016–17 EFL Trophy and 2016–17 Premier League International Cup) would all have reasonable media coverage, and they should have histories backed by reliable sources which can be translated into honours on the article (if not already on the main club honours). And with a bit of digging I can normally find broadsheet reports on academies with comments or tables relating to club performance or players produced, which it would be acceptable to cite on the wiki article. I've not done an English academy page so the sources aren't as readily available as others I have looked at, but for a club as notable as Norwich I'd have thought I could put together a credible and properly-sourced article for them without much problem (should I give it a go? it can always be trimmed or even killed after that...?) Crowsus (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Go for it! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Academy/reserve/youth teams can be notable, but they need to meet WP:GNG independently i.e. there is no assumption that because the parent team is notable, so are the kids. Giant Snowman 08:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What would you say the criteria should be? If it's playing in the uppermost national youth league, then Norwich is on shaky ground, they are near the bottom in Division 2 of the premier league 2 (24 clubs) but they do have a Category 1 academy which is necessary for entry. I was also surprised to see that they never won the reserve league, academy league or combination, although they did win the FA Youth Cup in 2013 which is a decent achievement,and beat Celtic and Valencia this year in the international cup. So not a shoo-in but maybe good enough...? Crowsus (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think any individual English U23 team, or any age-group team, is notable at all. A Reserves and Academy article can be, for clubs with enough of a history and consequent media attention to justify one, but there's approaching zero independent mainstream coverage of whatever the reserve leagues are called at the moment, let alone of individual teams playing in them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I would say reserve teams of Premier League/Football League clubs could possibly be notable if they had played in a first team league at some point (for instance, several reserve and 'A' teams played in the Eastern Counties League in the 1950s). However, by and large I would prefer to try and keep the info in the article of the main club. I am mildly surprised that we have season articles on reserve leagues; are these worthwhile? Number 5 7 13:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, well in respect of the last point, I see the Eastern Counties League, for example, also has a current season article, although it would probably be of very little interest to those not directly involved with one of the competing teams, and they could then probably get the same information elsewhere. But I presume it's useful to someone and it's being maintained properly so it's fair enough to be included on Wikipedia. Same goes for Premier League 2 and the like.Crowsus (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I've just been involved in reverting WP:GF edits to Inglewood United FC, where the full youth squad lists (U20 and U18) are wanting to be displayed by the editor who also happens to be the club's media officer. Along with ALL of their supporting coaching staff. We generally do not go to this length on articles for equivalent clubs in equivalent leagues in Australia, but am I being too harsh as this editor wants an exception to be made, presumably to lift his club's profile? You can find this information in one click from the club's website Matilda Maniac (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think in this case it is his professional interest which is a red flag, that and the fact that it doesn't look like the leagues the underage teams play in even have articles (could be wrong?). As you say, the info can all be found very easily via the club site so the attempt to add it is for free promotional reasons, at least in part. In my opinion anyway. Crowsus (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree above with Struway2 and Number57 - articles on the youth system as a whole can be notable, but not always, and certainly not Derby U23s! No need for reserve season articles. Giant Snowman 21:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record: In Germany, there are reserve sides playing in fully professional leagues, making them notable per se and permitting season articles to exist. This has nought to do with the notability discussed above, I write this only to prevent anyone from taking the English situation and applying it elsewhere citing "consensus" or somesuch. Madcynic (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Late entry into this discussion - I too have concerns about some of the academy articles recently created. Watford F.C. Under-23s was recently made - it has a couple of sentences that could easily be in the main article and has six players listed, four of whom are also in the main article. I do think there's a call for some of them, clubs like Chelsea, City, United, Arsenal etc have reams of young players, many highly regarded, in their youth set-ups who probably won't fit in the main pages (however, I don't think these articles currently serve people particularly well - more of than in a sec). If we were to impose a cut-off in England, I'd probably say category 1 clubs is a sensible/clear one, even if there's a few clubs in there where it's probably still not worth it.

On the big teams, I'd say the biggest issue is that with all those players you want a sense of how that player is progressing. You've heard vaguely about someone, you look at the under-23 squad and it's just a list of names. You can't tell how old they are compared to their peers etc. The article that offers an example of better practice IMO is Leeds United F.C. Reserves and Youth Team. I'd make some changes, but it's on the right track.

Some reasons...

It merges the academy and under-23 squad lists. The under-23s will often feature under-18 players, but too often we devolve responsibility for deciding who goes where to an official site's website admin when he divvies up the player profiles at the beginning of the season. Unlike the Leeds article, I'd make the table sortable and have a column for professional/professional scholar/scholar/schoolboy (would need criteria they'd played for under-18s in the latter case).
It includes everyone the club has in the age bracket. Often a player will make one sub appearance in a cup game for the first-team and they'll disappear from these articles for evermore. You need a clear cut-off - I'd consider removing a player from the list if they've started a league game for the first-team (or several - five?) and even then I'd still mention their existence in the text above the table.
It has age, which I think is vital for these players.
It has more information. I'm not sure what combination I'd go for - position, nationality and highest international cap seem sensible and easily sourceable. Other options would be: place of birth, first-team appearances, contract expiry date, joined club, previous club, status (out on loan etc)... you could probably come up with a few more.

What would people think about that in terms of adopting as a template?

Marcelo Allende

Is Marcelo Allende a notable youth? Qed237 (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to say yes. Because: he has played league games for Deportes Santa Cruz in Segunda División de Chile. Now, this isn't on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, but Twelve professional clubs qualified to compete in the Second Division Championship will participate in this championship Translated from Article 6. This would mean an update is required to the list of fully professional leagues. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the second division also fully professional? Hack (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It would follow that if the third tier (Segunda Division) is professional as per the above, then the second tier (Primera B) is also professional. I don't have time to verify that right now. Gricehead (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Articles 7 (minimum of 12 professionals in a squad) and Article 34 (minimum of seven professionals starting a match) of that document seems to suggest that non-professional players can be part of a matchday squad. Hack (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The Chilean second tier used to appear at WP:FPL, but was removed because the sources showed that clubs in that division needed to have only a small minimum number of professionals. Perhaps things have changed, and the second tier is now fully pro. As stated, article 7 says the Segunda División (third tier) clubs have to have a minimum of 12 professionals, which doesn't even fill a matchday squad, and even then the word profesional doesn't imply what we would call fully professional players. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That does not sound like enough for the player to be notable. Qed237 (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Struway2: Do you think he is notable or is it time for AfD? Qed237 (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think he passes WP:NFOOTY because there's no convincing evidence that the Chilean third tier is what we call fully pro, and I don't see a GNG pass in the current content of the article. A couple of tabloids reporting trials with Arsenal, hung on his being Chilean like Alexis Sanchez, ~~isn't~~ shouldn't be enough... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gricehead, Hack, and Struway2: Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcelo Allende. Qed237 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sidebar - is there a consensus-agreed definition of "fully professional league" that someone can link to? In this discussion we're saying a league is not fully professional because non-professional players can be part of a matchday squad, and yet here, in a discussion last year about Brazil we're saying that doesn't matter. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Is Sikiru Olatunbosun notable?

Recently I came across this mention of Sikiru Olatunbosun. A quick search yielded more than 45,000 results. Also the Nigerian top division is considered a professional league. So does this mean that the article passes WP:NFOOTY or should I wait to start the article? Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Is he has played in the NPL then he is notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. Will he meet WP:GNG though? Giant Snowman 21:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: according to the source he plays for MFM F.C., there are some sources (see here and here) that show that Olatunbosun has indeed played matches in the Nigeria Premier League. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The video clip that went viral is from a NPL match according to this source. Olatunbosun appears to have been a regular in the MFM F.C. side for the past season. Jogurney (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jogurney: sorry for all this pinging, so to be clear this player passes WP:NFOOTY and is an appropriate subject for an article? Inter&anthro (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see significant coverage of him, but NFOOTBALL gives him a free pass as editors try to establish compliance with the GNG, so yes it is appropriate to create an article on him. I did notice a local football blog posting which claimed he was one of the two best strikers in the NPL, so it's quite possible he will garner significant coverage soon. Jogurney (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Doubt

As seen for example in Pep Guardiola, Sergio Ramos or Xavi, are captaincy templates still being used? I am certain I saw a discussion here where it was agreed they were to be discontinued.

On a related note, User:Puente aereo (who reinstated said templates) also removed the reliable NFT.com link in several articles. Attentively --193.137.135.2 (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup. I reverted him once at the Ramos article. Kante4 (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

These kind of templates should not be used, there is clear TFD consensus on that. Giant Snowman 20:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Inside forward separate article?

While putting tgether some info I noticed that Inside forward has its own article when everything else in that type of position is under Forward (association football) (I think other merges have taken place in the past?) Anyway, inside forward seems to have slipped through but I can't think why it would need its own article, surely a section in Forward is sufficient. I have added a merge proposal and explanation here. Hope nobody has any issues with this but I'm sure if you do you'll let me know! Crowsus (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If you notice this graphic, that's how football was played for decades. goalkeepers; fullbacks; midfielders; wingers; inside forwards; forwards. Half-backs are basically midfielders and centre forwards just go in the general forwards category. We also have wing halves, utility, outside forwards, defenders, central defenders, and sweepers. I'd be happy enough to see inside and outside forwards lumped into the general forwards category, and for central defenders and sweepers just go in the general defenders category.--Echetus Xe 00:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

My proposal has nothing really to do with the categories, just the occasional articles for fairly specific positions that are separate from the wider umbrella position articles. For the record I have no issue with players being given the categories of inside forward or anything else listed above. But to describe the positions involved, the relevant text should just be a section of a larger article. Crowsus (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Doyen Group

Someone recreated the article in Doyen Sports (by translating French wiki). I did not remember what i write in the previous deleted version (roughly written about Doyen Sports but in Doyen Group namespace), but it look the same as the reasoning of AfD. Go to deletion review the verify WP:GNG or CSD it? Matthew_hk t c 05:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: @MicroX: @Nixie9: Matthew_hk t c 09:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Phoenix clubs

IP shenanigans at Phoenix club (sports) again. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Assists

Hey, i saw assists added at the 2016–17 Atlético Madrid season and removed them because of past discussions. 81.236.220.87 (talk · contribs) reverted me twice and accused my of vandalism. Just want to be sure i did the right thing? And can someone else have a look, don't want an edit war and 3RR... Kante4 (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ideally you should have come here earlier, per WP:BRD, but you are right that there is long-standing consensus that assists should not be included. IP blocked for 3RR. Giant Snowman 20:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok sorry for that. I linked him to an earlier discussion in an edit summary and on his talk page. Thought that was enough, my mistake. Kante4 (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Nelson F.C. article vandalism

There has been some more vandalism of the Nelson page. No doubt the most recent updates will be reversed soon by someone with roll-back privilege. However, the three edits by 86.138.25.149, made on 24 February, also need to be reversed. Indeed, as it stands right now, the article could be rolled-back to BigDom's contribution on 21 February. Drawoh46 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I have boldly done just that. Anyone can revert if I've got it wrong. Gricehead (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I have protected the page for a month given that the same person seems to be vandalizing the page regularly. Fenix down (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks to both Gricehead and Fenix down. Looks good now, and hope it will stay good! Drawoh46 (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks as if our 'friend' has moved to Padiham F.C., a neighbouring club to Nelson. Recent changes that have been made to Padiham's team kit bear a remarkable similarity to those made a few days ago to Nelson's. I suppose the first thing to do is for a person with roll-back privilege to undo Friday's changes to Padiham, and then if further corruption occurs, as it did with Nelson, to protect that page too. Drawoh46 (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Rolled back. Kante4 (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Kante4! Drawoh46 (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Soccerway or WP:RS from other languages?

Is Soccerway preferrable over other languages' reliable sources? Because Liam E. Bekker reverted my edits on Álvaro Domínguez Soto without a single word explaining why, and didn't reply even after my message on his talk page. So, I thought he may be thinking he's the correct one, I really don't know. We are trying to make use of WP:BRD, but other people seem to care so little to this guideline...

And, of course, all references from other languages must (it's a must, right?) be translated for a decent understanding of the readers, right? MYS 77 ^✉ 20:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The edit was reverted as it changed format, caused referencing to require rescuing and affected the general aesthetic of a page which is currently a GA Nominee. I understand that I should have made mention of that in the edit summary and I apologise for failing to do so. As for Soccerway as a source, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me to be used in specific reference to results and score-lines in the body of the article. Nonetheless, I replaced these sources with other sources prior to the above user reporting me on this page. I don't see why this is still an issue. The user did in fact leave a message on my talk page which I have not responded to due to the tone of the comments posted. The user has also made remarks, in discussion with a multiple IP using account, on his own talk page which (loosely translated) sarcastically says I think I am a god of improvement and writing. That does not sound like the care and diplomacy asked of in WP:BRD. With regard to trans titles, my understanding is that they are to be used when possible. I'm all for them but it hardly seems helpful when Google Translate is used and the titles make little to no sense. MoS also states that "For works best known by their title in a language other than English, an English translation of that title may be helpful." That does not sound like a must to me? I apologise that this discussion has been brought to this forum as it could potentially have been avoided by an edit summary. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

First things first: I only have TWO IPs (one from work, this one from my home), not multiple ones. I did most of the improvements on the page before you stepped in, and I can assure you I did not use Google Translate while translating the foreign sources as you imply. I also fail to see the need to have the subject's surname (in this case "Domínguez") written to exhaustion in the same paragraph, when "he" suffices perfectly.

Speaking of assurance, you also have my word I will not touch the article anymore, out of respect for other people's work and to avoid pointless edit wars and/or accusations. Attentively --85.242.133.151 (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Anton Brady

This player spent 2004-2005 with Aberdeen - should he be in Category:Aberdeen F.C. players? I say yay, @Jmorrison230582: says nay... Giant Snowman 18:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, he was born in February 1994 and was registered with Aberdeen for one year (2004/05), when he was 10/11 years old. He won't have ever signed a professional contract with Aberdeen, because you can't do that until 16 years old. There are rare exceptions of players appearing in first teams at 15 years old, but 11 seems too young to be classifying someone as an "x FC" player. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

For what its's worth (not much), I would tend to side with Jmorrison, not sure they should get the category unless at least youth-team (16+) when it would be feasible they could play for the 1st team (excepting aforementioned circumstances, e.g I think Falcao played in Colombian 2nd Div at 'apparently' 13?) Crowsus (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Would agree with Jmorrison also. It'd be okay to mention them as part of their personal life, but when it comes to being an "ex player" being a youth, non contract etc is a bit flakey. Particularly when an awful lot of players move between local teams regularly. Koncorde (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It goes against common sense and long-standing consensus to not include a player who has been signed to a notable team (regardless of his age when he was there) in their category. For those opposing - why the age boundary at 16? What about older players who never signed a professional contract? Giant Snowman 20:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Jmorrison. Kante4 (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, at what point do you make the distinction, and why? Giant Snowman 20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples of players GS? I personally wouldn't provide an age cut off, but I also find categories like this a bit shit. But it's difficult to say every youth player at Arsenal should be tagged as an Arsenal player when they were often at half dozen other teams (Ashley Cole, Jermain Defoe both trained with most London teams at various points). Example case for instance - David Beckham. Tottenham player? Koncorde (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between training with club(s) and actually being signed to the club. We have never included trialists or trainees in categories, and that is not what I am proposing here. With the example at hand, Brady, we have a reliable source which confirms he was a member of the Aberdeen youth set-up for a year. The fact he was 10/11 is irrelevant. It doesn't say "he sometimes trained with Aberdeen", it says "he signed with Aberdeen aged 10. He played for Aberdeen for a season before returning to boys' club football with Victoria Boys' Club."

As for Beckham, he seemingly spent two years at Tottenham's 'Centre of Excellence', so yes he was a Spurs player. And what about players who play for notable youth-only clubs, e.g. Wallsend Boys Club? Giant Snowman 20:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

A dedicated "Boys Club" seems very different to associating a player with a club that they were at when they were 10. Saying Beckham was a Spurs "player" seems fundamentally broken. Now if a category of "youth player" (woe betide us) then the rationale seems far stronger. As it currently stands it looks less encyclopedic, and more just a case of tagging for the sake of it. Koncorde (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Categories reflect the facts of the article. Was Brady an Aberdeen player, yes or no? If yes, he should be in the category. Giant Snowman 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

For me, youth players should not be in the category. When they sign their first professional contract with the team, then yes. Kante4 (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

But you can be a professional and a youth player...,many top young players become professional at 15/16 but might not make the first team for another 3/4 years. Or notable players might never become professional at all... Giant Snowman 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure they can, and then they can be added. Not when they play in the U10/11 or whatever. Kante4 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, why? Giant Snowman 21:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Because they did not sign a contract for the first team, simple as that. You don't like that, i know... That's my opinion and i only see you on the other side somehow. Let's see if more editors join. Kante4 (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

With reference to my earlier point, 16+ was a bit high as an age example, but its so rare for a player younger than 15 to be involved in the thoughts of even a small team that I think 14 should be a general guideline cutoff age (but exceptions do apply, I'd say Karaoke Dembele would be an 'ex Celtic player' if he left tomorrow as he has played for the Development team). This would mean clubs like Wallsend would still fit as it looks like most of their players moved to pro clubs at 15 or 16. Beckham was named in an earlier example, but he isn't a former Tottenham player because there was literally no chance of him playing for the first team at the age he was when there, ditto Anton Brady at Aberdeen. Crowsus (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to restrict "X F.C. players" categories to individuals who trained or made appearances with the first team or reserves. I suspect there will be scant coverage in reliable sources of youth player contracts (particularly for ages 10 and 11), and even if youth team appearances can be documented, I don't think many editors would open a category expecting to track down youth players associated with a particular club. I realize this may go against consensus, but as someone suggested above, perhaps a sub-categorization for youth players would alleviate the confusion that could be caused by placing an article like David Beckham in Tottenham's players category. Jogurney (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To cover some points - @Kante: how do you know he didn't have a contract of some kind with the club? @Crowsus: why has it suddenly dropped from 16 to 14? @Jogurney: no I don't think it would make sense. Fabregas left Barcelona at 16, if he had never re-joined them as an adult would you exclude him from the category? If you sub-categorise, would you include players who played for youth and senior team in both? Giant Snowman 07:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems like reaching GS. Blanket inclusion for the sake of once being a young player "on the books" to use the vernacular leads to categories of basically 0 value (which is only marginally less than they currently are anyway, Fabregas has an astounding group of "expatriate" categories, and quite who maintains the voluminous "Association football midfielders", and its related categories of "Association football wingers" and "Association football wing halves"). If we take Fabregas categories alone for instance, he has "Spain youth international footballers", "Spain under-21 international footballer" and "Spain international footballers" as separate categories showing a clear line between a "Spanish International" and a "Youth" at each tier of his progression. Yet for some reason we are expected to not have the same delineation for their clubs? Koncorde (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Koncorde makes a significant point. Can a logical case be made for including youth players in categories this way? Absolutely, yes. Is it useful or helpful to do so? I don't think so. I think WP:COPDEF is a useful guideline here. It states as an example "a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right or relevant to his acting career". As it happens, I recently removed some players from job categories for things they did after retirement for which they aren't notable, e.g. Dave Beaumont from Category:Scottish police officers. He can technically go in that category, sure, but he's notable for football, not policing. Using a similar reasoning, footballers are notable for their association with clubs they have played for at a senior / professional level, and generally not for those they were associated with as children. Jellyman (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

GS, how do you know that he has signed a contract? You want him included so you need a source saying that he had signed a professional contract. This discussion seems clear to me, btw... Kante4 (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think an appropriate solution would be to have a subcat for each club (i.e. "X F.C. youth/academy players"), for cases where the player was with a club in that period of their development. This would include both groups of players, i.e. those who later played in that club's first team and those that moved on, as it would look a bit odd if you had (say) "Manchester United youth/academy players" cat which included Robbie Savage but excluded Ryan Giggs. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I changed my mind from 16 to 14 because I agree with you that 16 year olds can player for the first team at big clubs and have done so many times, so they would be suitable for the criteria even if they did leave the club without actually making any appearances. And I would extend that to 15-year-olds too. But 14 years and under are really just kids with a possible future so it would really be pushing it to consider them as players of the same level as the adult professionals and older youth players. that's my view on it.Crowsus (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just read through this discussion. At first, I was in agreement with GiantSnowman as a player has either been a part of a club, or not. However, some of the others do raise good points. Overall, I think Jmorrison230582's most recent point would work, a sub-category for youth team players. R96Skinner (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

So we're basically going to double the number of categories for no reason whatsoever? Interesting. Giant Snowman 20:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think more sub/categories is a good or necessary idea. Happy with the idea that youth team members are players of the club, but would say the criteria for when it should be added could be tightened/better defined, and age seems the simplest way to gauge that.Crowsus (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Would more categories be a bad thing? Any issues with it? Genuine question. I reckon it would make sense, especially as it's already the case with international players. If there's a reason, then as I previously mentioned I would agree with GiantSnowman's point of view on this. Players who have been owned by a club would warrant the team category, e.g. Anton Brady having the Aberdeen one; I've always thought that was the way to do it anyway. R96Skinner (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, more (unecessary) categories means more maintenance. As for the age thing - what about if we don't known how old a player was when he played for the youth team? Giant Snowman 08:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, the category for a club is added when the player signs (even if they don't play for the club), while the category for a league is added only once the player plays a game in the league. Seems to me it should be the same case for both types of categories, no? --SuperJew (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it should be quite so defined as that, we could all think of many examples where a player never featured in an official game for a team despite being employed by that club and training with them for years, so to me that justifies the club category for them. In contrast they are only officially a player in a league when they participate in that league. Crowsus (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I always include cats for players who have been signed up to club's youth teams. Brady might be an extreme example but is the alternative to set an age limit or to create new youth team categories? Yeah, let's just have Brady in the Aberdeen category.--Echetus Xe 10:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Or wait until he signs a professional contract with that team or appeared as an amateur in a first team game. Kante4 (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

So if we oppose creating a new one, shouldn't we define the current categories better? What people are saying, is that in all other cases for a category or inclusion for an article (or even notability) a player typically has to have played, or been part of, a team at a professional level. It's generally accepted that you don't get an article unless you have played a game - even if you have a professional contract - but the weight of inclusion for a Category seems unduly weak. Most people would agree a youth team is notable enough for inclusion as part of a players origin within the article (or if the youth team in and of itself is notable enough to have a wiki article), but struggle to see how someone was a "player" for Tottenham when they either never played, nor were they eligible to play in many cases, for the thing that gave them notability. We're only heading down the two category route now because of the current interpretation is not merely extremely liberal, but is actually diminishing the value of the category.

At the very least it seems to me "Youth Player" is definitely a sub-category, but even then I am not convinced that would clear up the confusion if enacted that way. Koncorde (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

So what's the solution? Nobody has been able to strongly suggest one, so I suggest we keep the status quo for now. Giant Snowman 08:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Huh? I see most editors for not having the category included, so it should be removed until youth ones are created or so... Kante4 (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely "Huh" on that one GS. I see most editors are quite strongly against the inclusion for what are effectively children on the books of a team that they may never appear for being considered a "player". That seems quite reasonable. A few are for the inclusion of the category when a contract is signed, or when someone is practically a player (i.e. available for selection for squads, named in reserve teams etc) but arguing for what should be the criteria for inclusion does not indicate that they agree with the current method. Meanwhile our general approach to most content on wiki-football is to only include people on lists when they actually play for, or appear at, clubs, national teams, competitions and tournaments. So it seems at the very least resorting to the "Status Quo" is not the answer. Koncorde (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well I don't think it's practical for editors to change the thousands of articles that go against this new policy change. Could someone get a bot to remove cats for youth team sections on player articles, but tell the bot to keep them if the cats are in the senior career section? I still say this policy change is a bit ill thought through though, I mean what about players who won the FA Youth Cup and stuff at a club but not turned professional? They'll have honours with a club but apparently never played for the club and aren't in the club's cats?--Echetus Xe 10:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Youth Cup age players (16-19) really came into it. The original question was raised over a 10/11 year old. Even if we did agree on an arbitrary minimum age to count players in the category, e.g if it was 15 there would not be many players who were 'incorrectly' tagged, most of the English and Scottish articles I have seen have no youth career at all or just mention a starting age for the same club they eventually debuted with, so no change needed. And even with those who do have a full youth history, most of the clubs are non-notable boys teams, or like in the case of Beckham, the category was never added. Crowsus (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no 'huh'; there is no consensus. Some say keep the categories, some say remove them, some say replace them. What is it to be? Plus consensus is strength of argument, not numbers. Giant Snowman 21:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This line of thinking is only helpful if there was a previous consensus or guideline people were trying to change. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this has been discussed before? There are many articles where players have been categorised this way, but also many others where they haven't — I wouldn't have done so with an article I was creating. One prominent example already mentioned is that Beckham isn't currently in the Tottenham category. So there isn't really any status quo to maintain. GS seems to be advocating that as we don't all agree, we should do what he prefers... Jellyman (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

For me it seems that GS tries to push "his" way through while most editors disagree. Feels like WP:DROPTHESTICK to me... Kante4 (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Both of your comments are disingenuous and show a distinct lack of how we have operated at WP:FOOTY since I joined over 10 years ago; the editing has always been that we include a club category if the player has been signed to the club. Giant Snowman 09:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the consensus here is to create "youth player" categories. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup. But not to leave it as it is on that article... Kante4 (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

No, there has been a suggestion to create youth categories. Given the large number of articles that would be affected, we need far greater clarity on a) the proposal and b) the support for the proposal. Giant Snowman 12:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

But there is consensus to not have it like it is now. No one agreed with your side. About a subcategory, that is a different story, of course. Kante4 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, no. Some say replace it, some say remove it, some say keep it. If the first suggestion, how? Giant Snowman 21:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... "some say keep it". Where? Kante4 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Me, RSkinner... Giant Snowman 20:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Some = 2, ok. But there are more against it... Kante4 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus = not a vote. Giant Snowman 21:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

For me there is consensus to at least remove it and then discuss about youth categories. Kante4 (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That is an edit which goes against long-standing editing practices and is not supported by firm consensus. Are you going to remove every 'senior' category of youth players before discussing what to do next? Absolute nonsense. Giant Snowman 21:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I've always been of the understanding that players who have represented a club at youth level should be included in the club category. Only a small number of people have contributed to this discussion, thus there is not yet a firm consensus. The opinion of 10 or so people cannot seriously be enough to change long-standing consensus. Let's have some further opinion from others who haven't contributed yet. LTFC 95 (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I'd go for a cut-off of scholar-age in the UK (so season they're in the school year age 16-17). At that time they're affiliated with the club full-time, you get a fairly definitive list of players in the year group, there's coverage of their games on official sites/local media. Oh, contrary to what was said above - you can't sign a professional deal with an English club until you're 17. HornetMike (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

So what is it going to be, when they're 16 or 17? What about players not in the UK? Giant Snowman 20:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

English academy/U-23/Reserve merge proposals

Further to the recent discussions suggest that one article relating to the lower sections of various clubs would be more useful/credible for notability than two (or more), I have made a few merge proposals for articles which are not following the more common Reserves[or Under 23s] and Academy model in England.

The articles concerned are for Reading (1) / (2), Charlton (1) / (2), West Ham (1) / (2) / 3), Spurs (1) / (2), Arsenal (1) / (2) and Southampton (1) (2).

I realise editors involved in updating the articles may not agree with the suggestion so in addition to the merge section on the article talk pages I will point them to here (there is also a link to the earlier discussion for reference) to comment if needed. Thanks.Crowsus (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Support - merge into X F.C. Reserves and Academy as appropriate. Giant Snowman 13:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Support - as per Snowman. Probably need to standardise reserves/under-23s and academy/youth team too. HornetMike (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Support - Absolutely no need for seperate articles.Danieletorino2 (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think F.C. Internazionale Milano Primavera and other Serie A youth teams need such a treatment too, as some of them did also covered the team lower than "Primavera". Only Juventus F.C. Youth Sector had a correct namespace to reflect its content. Matthew_hk t c 20:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I also support the Italian youth teams being merged. However, only notable Italian youth teams should have articles (ie. Atalanta, Torino) that have won many honours and produced talent that have played in the top flight.Danieletorino2 (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A.C. Milan history section

The bottom two paragraphs of the A.C. Milan history section are borderline illegible, and I don't believe warrant that much attention in the summary of the near 120 year history of such a prestigious club and I'm saying this as a complete neutral. I mean, there's almost as much written about a proposed change in ownership as Milan's entire success in the 1980s-1990s (countless league titles and several Champions League titles). Does it even matter that the club could be potentially Chinese owned? The Chelsea F.C. article summarises the sale to Roman Abramovich in one sentence!Danieletorino2 (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If there are illegible paragraphs then go ahead and remove them. You don't need to ask for permission. And yes, ownership doesn't usually matter too greatly, and proposed ownership changes are probably speculation and so shouldn't be mentioned at all.--Echetus Xe 00:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I agreed that some content should be moved to "the history of" subpage or season article, or to "A.C. Milan as a company" of the same page, and a more concise content to summarize ownership change and recent results of the club due to cutting cost to comply with Financial Fair Play. Matthew_hk t c 20:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Also not sure it should be in the scope of wikinews or not, the buyer borrowed moved from a mystery BVI company "willy shine international" to pay may notable to some level to report (as a leveraged buyout and coverage on Italian newspaper), except the speculation part of guessing the owner of BVI company was. the borrow, charge of shares of "Rossoneri Champion Co., Ltd." (the SPV to acquire Milan) and refurbish were verifiable by Hong Kong Companies Registry document, but not verifiable that where the money "Rossoneri Sport Investment" a Hong Kong subsidiary of Sino-Europe Sports came from. Matthew_hk t c 21:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW, i want to give a counter-example and counter-counter-example. The (re)birth of Torino F.C. and A.C. Reggiana 1919 were both using Article 52 of N.O.I.F., so that the point on quite long to cover the birth of Torino, which basically another kind of takeover. Matthew_hk t c 09:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I will counter this and say Torino's bankruptcy is the only notable thing the club has done in 20 years. Milan have done so much in recent history, and the new Chinese consortium still haven't even bought the club. The Roma article also bothers me because it's way too lopsided in favour of recent history.Danieletorino2 (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The length of content then depend on the content itself. Nothing really need to write about the hangover on Chelsea as it is simple (a nominal fee to give to Abramovich). For Milan it is a mystery buyer, lots of delay and mystery loan from BVI, but not yet notable enough to have an article likes Glazer ownership of Manchester United and Manchester City F.C. ownership and finances.

In favour of recent history was a common issue on football club, as e-source was occur in recent years and copyvio if just copy the content of some book, as well as the age of the editors were covered mostly 90s to recent time due to their age and they are familiar to.

The problem is, where the content should be put (such as ownership change AFTER NEEP Roma takeover and UniCredit withdrew as shareholder, additional share bought by chairman of Roma may summarize in "A.S. Roma as a company" section, as what NEEP did was just twice recapitalization and building stadium), but looks strange to completely remove it. Matthew_hk t c 10:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Haldraper

I am finding him disruptive I've already mentioned a few different things to him, like the citation being at the end of the paragraph on White Hart Lane, be he continues to be disruptive. Govvy (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

See comment on White Hart Lane talk page. Haldraper (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

expatriates categories

I see people adding expatriates categories for countries players are no longer in, shouldn't those categories be removed once that footballer is no longer working in said country? For instance Giovani dos Santos has multitude number of cats for England, Turkey and Spain. Are these categories not no longer needed? expatriate or not, surely the cat's should be removed once that footballer is no longer in the country? And there are a fair number of articles of footballers that have category problems in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

That makes no sense. The category reflects the fact that the person was an expatriate in that country, at some point in time. That fact doesn't change, irrespective of their later movement(s). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

can same logic apply to retired footballer, removing them from club and occupation cat? Then the former footballer may have no cat at all (just POB, Living people?) Govvy, cat cover past and present. Matthew_hk t c 12:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Club cat's are different, expatriate is in the name of the cat, if they are no longer living in England they are no longer and expatriate in England. Either it needs a complete rename because they categories aren't working as they should. And back to Giovani, are some of the cat's duplication with different name? Govvy (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

? Makes little sense. They are/were expatriates and that won't change even if they leave the country. Kante4 (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

it may notable to subcat them to "former expatriate footballers in XZY country" or create more problem on finding the footballer from the cat? Matthew_hk t c 15:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There was never a problem so far. Kante4 (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I had the joy of looking at Thiago Motta's list of expatriate categories yesterday and just shook my head. Regarding some of the examples above, I have to say that if a dead person had to still be included within the "Living person" category then I would be very amused. As it stands, I have no idea what the categories in 90% of the cases are meant to be serving the purpose of. Koncorde (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Living person cat was a placeholder and more on maintenance purpose, it was always paired with year of death, they can't coexist. For dual nationality case the sorting is certainly way off by placing him as both Brazilian expat in France and Italian expat in France, but better solution? Matthew_hk t c 17:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

How many cats does Dos Santos need? He is in, Expatriate footballers in England, Mexican expatriate footballers, Mexican expatriates in England, Mexican expatriate sportspeople in the United Kingdom. That's four categories doing the same thing, not to mention there are a few more expat cats there. I personally think the whole categories of expats regarding football/soccer players needs reviewing and a clear and precise system used. Govvy (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention that he is now lives in the US playing for a US team so technically he isn't an expat in England anymore!! Govvy (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Mexican expatriate sportspeople in England and similar cat may be created (some country as i remember had a deeper cut of cat, but i certainly say Category:Mexican expatriate footballers in England is overcategorization, as it did not contain much people), but excluding Scots, Welsh and Irish from North (e.g. NO Category:Scottish expatriate sportspeople in England unless Scotland got independent), but leaving him in Mexican expatriate footballers.

And please remember the fact that cat is for reader to find the right article they need. What if i just remember he is a Mexican who plays/played in premier League? Matthew_hk t c 17:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

These categories are fine and should remain even when a player has moved on. Giant Snowman 18:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I just give example to rebut the claim that "too many" expat cats by creating deeper subcat. However, in wikipedia there was no such rule "too many cat" BTW. Matthew_hk t c 18:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes there is, there is CFD precedent that Category:X expatriate footballers in Y triple intersection shouldn't be used. Giant Snowman 18:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

look off topic but it may be used if there was really a significant number and NOT removing them from Category:X expatriate footballers. BTW someone had created Category:Republic of Ireland expatriate association footballers in England, nominate for deletion for now? Matthew_hk t c

Yes, those tri-categories should not exist. See e.g. this recent CFD and related earlier consensus. Giant Snowman 19:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

So,

Category:Mexican expatriate sportspeople in the United Kingdom - only has three players in, delete?
Category:Mexican expatriates in England - There is already Expatriate footballers in England so delete this also? Categories should be specific right?

Govvy (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy: you don't even understand what is saying. Please keep Category:Mexican expatriate sportspeople in the United Kingdom and Category:Mexican expatriates in England, it is not overcategerzation but Category:X expatriate footballers in Y Matthew_hk t c 15:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Why keep it? With 3 articles in it? It's duplication of other categories, UK cat isn't needed if England does that job. Govvy (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe Mexican expatriate sportspeople in the United Kingdom is a triple-intersection category that should be deleted. I don't find any value in these expatriate categories - and a quick review of the contents of several of them suggests few BLPs on non-footballers are ever included (mostly BLPs on diplomats). However, I believe there is consensus to use the double-intersection categories, so sadly they will persist. Jogurney (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jogurney: I agree that all triple intersection categories should be deleted. CFD? Giant Snowman 18:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the categories dealing with triple intersections should not be used, but there is no need to delete the categories the subjects aren't part of anymore. Since Danny Wellbeck no longer plays for Manchester United should all mentions and categories pertaining to Manchester United be deleted from the article? Of course not. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you go off subject? I was only ever talking about expat cats, I was trying to discuss the default meaning of expat, When you return home to your country you were born in, you're no longer an expat, you're a resident and a citizen, there-for the expat no longer applies. If you move to a different country, you're no longer an expat in the previous country. I think the other editors are looking at the categories has historical referencing point and are not using the default English meaning of expatriate. Govvy (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability does not expire, for example Javier Zanetti spent most of his career in Italy, so the article is in the appropriate categories Category:Argentine expatriates in Italy and Category:Expatriate footballers in Italy. Just because Zanetti no longer plays professionally doesn't mean that he should be removed from these category. There's a pretty long standing consensus regarding this subject and I'd be surprised if it changed. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

What has notability got to do with being an expat? They are two different things! Govvy (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Because going on with the Zanetti example he is famous for playing for Inter Milan i.e. for playing in Italy. Since most of Zanetti's career was spent being an expatriate footballer in Italy it makes him being in the aforementioned categories appropriate. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree on deletion triple intersection categories. But just need more people involved to vote or "have a say" as high involvement of articles (or even ask other project such as basketball). (someone even created a container cat Category:Brazilian expatriate sportspeople by country of residence) Matthew_hk t c 08:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Chelsea 2–4 Bradford City

Lincoln's win over Burnley has been deemed notable, and now features on the main page. What are people's thoughts about Bradford's win over Chelsea? Is it worth moving into mainspace? Giant Snowman 12:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Not in its current state. Also, Robbie Fowler's opinion at the time is a useful tidbit, but what have people said about the game since? If people have said Lincoln's win over Burnley was the biggest shock since Bradford beat Chelsea, then that would be a good indication, but I don't see any evidence of that. – Pee Jay 12:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

All but two of the citations in the draft are from BBC Sports. If more widespread coverage can be found as was found for the Lincoln - Burnley game than I would say sure. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Regarding you sandbox page, I would apply a team sheet to the page with the subs that were selected. Also the last few FA cup games leading unto the clash to show the history of how they met each other. Govvy (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Not as it stands now. Kante4 (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the above comments, what coverage has this game received since it was played? Fenix down (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Maxi Pereira

Is the second individual honour in this player worth something (a NEWSPAPER team of the year)? I have been removing it in several players, but now myself have been reverted by a reliable user.

If it is, I apologize for any inconvenience and will revert all my edits regarding this particular accolade. Attentively --193.137.135.2 (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say no. Kante4 (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say no as well. Aside from being unreferenced, it's not a notable accolade. I've already reverted it back. MYS 77 ^✉ 20:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Galleries of kits

Should not be included per WP:NOTGALLERY; so please can somebody inform @Chuckdisi: over at Antigua and Barbuda national football team? Ta. Giant Snowman 18:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Bot to update tables

How about a bot that automatically updates tables? The bot would take input from the sites that are customised at User:DatBot/footyconfig, and could either update a page that is transcluded onto the template (such as what Defconbot did) or it could edit the template directly. The only manual thing would be to edit the bot's settings for relegations and promotions I believe. It would also be possible to turn off one of the leagues that the bot would manage, if there would be some weird event that the source updated incorrectly. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 22:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely for this. Nobody consistently updates 95% of the players tables and they're always incorrect.Danieletorino2 (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This would be particularly beneficial for non-League season articles and I am definitely in favour. Could we also get it to update infoboxes and stats tables in player articles using a source like Soccerbase? We could have a lookup page that lists pages the bot should ignore in cases where the Soccerbase profile is incomplete or has a known error. Number 5 7 16:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I am for this as long as it will work with Module:Sports table. Qed237 (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess there will be problems when teams have qualified (statusletters should be inserted) and when changes should be made in qualification column, but that could be done manually? Same for possible notes. Qed237 (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I quite enjoy updating tables, as anyone looking at my contributions will see. *sigh* progress. Gricehead (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dat Guy: I am confused, what leagues will the bot up changing and how will the bot know which games and leagues to update? More importantly what sources will the bot be taking into consideration when it updates the sources? Soccerway and Nationalfootballteams.com are the two I most regularly use but even in those two I've come across mistakes. Personally I need more information before I sign onto this. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: It is all customisable. You can set which leagues, you can set which sources. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion from somebody, that has done something like this (other wiki and not widely): include something like  and , to be able to have some notes and other things, that can't be automated with bot. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

In a perfect world that is a good idea. In reality it probably will require so fuch fine-tuning, that it will not save much work anyway. Some hints: How often should the bot run and convert the webpage to the article, every hour, once the webpage changes content, once the content does not match the article anymore (in case some user changed the article somehow). Somebody will likely update the table anyway, before the bot has run. At least for the big leagues. And all those smaller ones, that have outdated tables for weeks, might not be worth the botwork anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not always. Also, I believe if there is consensus the shortnames would not need to be there as it will just add Team instead of the shortened versions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Any comments/opposes? Code is BRFA-ready. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 06:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional statistical tables in minor tournaments

How much statistics is too much statistics, with respect to WP:NOTSTATS ?

I have reverted edits (twice) from @Callofworld: who has been creating statistical compilation of matches for a number of minor tournaments - including see Talk:Algarve Cup - and then they are reverted back saying it is my Personal Impression and Personal Taste, and that the WP:NOTSTATS policy isnt Necessary for all articles, and a request to make a separate article for the table (as a "National team appearances in the XXXX Cup", rather than revert ? I consider that such a table for FIFA world cups (Men/Women) may be warranted due to the high importance of the event, but not for every minor tournament. Similar edits to make these tables for other minor tournaments have been made recently by this contributor for tournaments such as OFC Beach Soccer Championship, Peace Queen Cup, Cyprus Cup (recently reverted by @Snowflake91:), Women's Nordic Football Championship, Africa Beach Soccer Cup of Nations, Nordic Football Championship, Africa Women Cup of Nations, Copa América Femenina. I consider the article on the Algarve Cup already rather unbalanced with respect to tables, and the additional of another long table makes it more so.

Is this sort of detail warranted, or does it set a precedence for every minor tournament to have this level of statistical detail ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Not needed, you were correct to remove it. Kante4 (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi , first Algrave and other article is a important official championship and very important for each Continent. Overall results is more important than Participating nations! many article have it. we can transfer it to : National team appearances in the ....... Cup. thanks. this policy : WP:NOTSTATS :Not specify exactly (each section with Personal Impression and Personal Taste can be deleted) , for improve information and complete overall table is good.Callofworld (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTSTATS say:

Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article United States presidential election, 2012 have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012).

@Matilda Maniac: you first create National team appearances in the Cyprus Cup and reverted table, many article relate to football have a general statistics , many minor or continental championship.

Africa men Cup of Nations have a General Statistics, why not Africa Women Cup of Nations? for policy ? or Personal Impression of policy? we can delete all of table from all of article and wiki become incomplete! is it mission of wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

and more ........................... i havent time find all of them for you.

Callofworld (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

But, @Kante4: and @Snowflake91:, I feel I am simply being drowned out by the replies from Callofworld - as above and on my talk page - who is asking me not to offend her. Surely the solution is not to create a separate stand-alone article just for the tables - that would fail WP:GNG I do not really have the time to correspond, and if i revert again, it may be reverted back, and all of a sudden I'm in an edit war. Better things to do. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This table does not violate any law. More than 30 of these tables are available on Wikipedia before From World Cup to Confederations Cup or small regional tournaments like CONCACAF or ASEAN. ::::You can add text to improve Wikipedia to the tables or separate page to create them in accordance with the law. Please end this discussion. We're gathered here to develop our articles rather than remove them under the pretext of incomplete personal interpretations. Wikipedia is one important rule fairness and goodwill, while the table is a short summary of the entire article.

Thank you

: AFF_Championship#All-time_ranking_table (short and minor and reginal with 8 teams)
: National_team_appearances_in_the_FIFA_Confederations_Cup#Overall_team_record (short and minor with 8 teams)
Wikipedia:Harassment

Callofworld (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This is an attempt at civil debate, not Harrassment ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I quite like them, but they have problems: they are all unsourced and self-compiled. They most often contain errors (sum wins is not sum losses, goal difference doesn't add up to 0, etc). Best thing I guess would be to delete all of them for whom you can't find a source. Those are likely then anyway. They have their own Category by the way: Category:All-time_football_league_tables. -Koppapa (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

for me, not worth the grief of deleting a table that someone has spent hours of their time on; it will only inflame. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

They were added to so many pages by the same author, it's crazy. Look at Africa_Futsal_Cup_of_Nations#General_Statistics, a source is given, but it doesnm't work. Wins don't match losses, overall goal difference is +12. Even the first team has a wrong w-l-d for the points total. Yeah, much work, but not a pretty good one. -Koppapa (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

International caps

Hi, looking for some opinions re a dispute I've had with GiantSnowman re international caps, which can be found here. Essentially, what I want to know is what do we regard as acceptable, e.g. caps approved by relevant football association, only caps approved by FIFA etc? The dispute was borne out of what National-Football-Teams.com regard as 'FIFA' and 'Non FIFA' matches, when they seem to include matches played between two FIFA-approved teams in that category. I mean, if we only go by what NFT regard as official FIFA matches, then we wouldn't include any of Gibraltar's matches in UEFA qualification, which NFT regard to be be 'Non FIFA'. To me, this would be counter-intuitive, factually inaccurate and a bit bonkers. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

We only include 'official' international games, in the same way as we only include league domestic games. NFT is not always 100% accurate, as in it might have mis-classified a game or two. In the absence of alternative sources, however, we go with it. Giant Snowman 07:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Who decided that only NFT can decide what matches are deemed 'official'? And does it actually meet WP:RS? Even if it does, why is it a greater authority on international match-officialdom than UEFA or a football association? If that is the case, we're going to have barrels of laughs revising history, pretending Gibraltar never participated in UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying... Mattythewhite (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

NFT can get it wrong, sure, but in the absence of the other sources you mentioned we go with it...and FAs cannot be trusted, they like to award extra caps (see Bobby Charlton...) Giant Snowman 18:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

So as per the NFT site, it would be seen as okay to edit Barry Bannan's article and remove the 2015 match shown in his Internationals infobox and reduce his caps number by 1 ? RossRSmith (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If that's what the source says, then yes. Unless you can find other sources which support the higher caps? Giant Snowman 08:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There are two connected points here. Taking NFT first: NFT is a personal website, and its content is supplied (among other ways) by users on its forum. Its contact page states "Responsible for the content of this site: Benjamin Strack-Zimmermann". Doubtless the site owner checks the content supplied, but it is basically his personal site and as such not WP:RS.

On Charlton's 1963 cap against the FIFA XI: every independent reliable source known to man knows that Charlton won 106 caps, including that one. And FIFA knew the same, until their 2001 decision to exclude caps awarded for matches against FIFA or confederation select XIs after all: see Charlton at RSSSF. Except that when the French Federation stood up to them over France v FIFA XI 2000, FIFA backed down and agreed to recognise that game as a full international: see Zidane at RSSSF. But NFT doesn't: their David Trezeguet page counts three fewer goals than does the FFF; Mr Trezeguet scored a hat-trick in that match. NFT doesn't even count it as a non-FIFA match. So NFT's idea of FIFA matches differs from FIFA's in at least some cases.

The other point is the one made above about Gibraltar in the Euros. They were at the time a full member of their continental confederation, and thus entitled to participate in that confederation's major competition. I think that if we try to argue that matches in the Euros in some way don't count as full internationals because Gibraltar wasn't at the time a FIFA member – despite full caps being awarded not only by Gibraltar but by all the countries that played against them (including Mr Bannan for Scotland) – we'd be making ourselves look pretty silly in the eyes of the real world. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Robert Goethals

The article Robert Goethals was somehow appearing in the non-existent Category:Pages using infobox ftball biography with unknown param, so I went to see if I coukd tidy it up.

It appears to have been using a lot of parameters which are not documented in Template:Infobox football biography, so I commented out the paras which seemed to be causing errors.[1]

Please could some more familiar with Template:Infobox football biography see if they can sort it out?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed the infobox formatting. Looks like the article's creator copied the infobox across from nl.wiki and translated the parameter names into English themselves rather than using the en.wiki para names. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Struway2. That's great. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

CAF members

So Zanzibar is a full member now. Anyway, sorting the list Confederation of African Football#CAF members by date i wondered why Kenya is listed as joining in 2012. FIFA and CAF credit is as 1960. Football Kenya Federation has correct dates in the infobox, but the text is worded totally different. There was a rival association from 2011 to 2015, maybe that's why. Any expert on African football able to clarify the situation? -Koppapa (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Marouane Fellaini Standard Liege stats

There is no source which backs up what is in the stats table. Soccerbase has nothing on his Standard Liege career while the Guardian source disagrees with the league appearances. The cup and continental stats seem to have been pulled out of thin air. His Soccerway profile (which is currently not used for stats) also has different league and continental apps and nothing on cup appearances.

What is the solution to an issue like this? I propose just matching up the table exactly with what is in his Soccerway profile (always found it far more reliable for non-English leagues) and removing the links to Soccerbase and the Guardian. This would mean just setting the cup apps to zero so can I do this or is there another solution?

Stuart1234 (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

In general, if you haven't got ~~stats~~ sources for all competitions it's perfectly acceptable to only source what you have got, and leave unsourced cells blank. Setting cells to zero if you don't know they actually are zero isn't a good idea.

As to Fellaini at Standard, 2006/07 is a bit long ago for Soccerway. The figures at the Belgian Soccer Database match those currently in the article's stats table, except they give him 4 league goals in 06/07 where the article has 3. The discrepancy is in the match against Germinal Beerschot in April 2007, which other sources give as an own goal, e.g. ESPN, RSSSF.

If it were me, I'd use bsdb.be as my main source, with a note about the Germinal goal. The player page is at https://www.bsdb.be/spelersfiche/28454 (you have to register, but it appears to be free to do so), which gives the league apps and goals, and then you click on the seasons to get a full breakdown of matches played in, including cup and Europe. hope this helps, Struway2 (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright cheers I'll look into it. Stuart1234 (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Jim Wright (footballer, born 1910)

Greetings all. I just closed an Article for Deletion discussion regarding Jim Wright (footballer, born 1910) on the basis that this person meets WP:FOOTY. I'm not very knowledgeable about football, so if any of the members of this WikiProject are able to improve this article (particularly the sourcing) I'd be very grateful. Thanks in advance! Exemplo347 (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Al-Ahli Saudi FC

I noticed a lot that nicknames keep going into the infobox on the club page, being removed and so on, but a lot of strange unsourced edits on the page. I was wondering if the page should be semi-protected for a few weeks? Govvy (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Done by another admin. Giant Snowman 20:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Giampiero Boniperti appearances in various tournaments

Hi. Giampiero Boniperti is one of Juventus' all-time appearances and goal-scoring holder. My question is whether to include his appearances and goals played in the Latin Cup, Coppa dell'Amicizia and the Copa Rio as part of his grand total? Would any of these tournaments count in official tallies? Maybe under "other"? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

regarding WP:Overlink

Someone has removed some of the links in the infobox on Robbie Keane under overlink rules, I didn't think you were suppose to apply that rule in the info boxes so wanted to double check, cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: heh, you went and restored it I see fair enough! You could of replied know! Govvy (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. Sometimes I just go ahead and do stuff. – Pee Jay 16:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

regarding zebra striping for tables

Walter Görlitz and I, both contributors to the Seattle Reign FC page, have encountered an issue that we are seeking input from WP:FOOTY members. Our dispute is regarding the use of zebra striping for tables and is described at User talk:Walter Görlitz#Zebra striping. You can see from the editing history of Seattle Reign FC#Coaching staff that Walter Görlitz insisted on using a zebra striping that colored alternate rows the same shade of gray as the header row. As I described in their user talk page, this stylistic choice is not currently used in any other table listed in FOOTY's manual of style and potentially creates confusion. We were unable to come to a consensus, so as Walter Görlitz suggested I've brought it up here to seek additional input. —Mightytotems (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the striping is helpful or aesthetic. Number 5 7 16:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Really not needed. Does not add anything. Kante4 (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're colour blind like me in the grey then it's not helpful at all. Govvy (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Then it should be removed from the template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Women's football clubs in international competitions

I just created Spanish women's football clubs in international competitions, and since there doesn't seem to be any other articles like this in women's football I plan to make it like this for all the other UEFA members that have taken part in the UEFA Women's Cup / UEFA Women's Champions League as well as CONMEBOL members for the Copa Libertadores Femenina. But since some tables I created recently were rejected I thought I should check it before going any further. Is it okay? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, since there are tables with the same information in the main articles for each club, like Athletic Bilbao, Rayo Vallecano... should I delete them and link to the new article instead? Then the orphaned article tag could be removed, right? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah my personal opinion would be to delete the tables from the club articles and just link to yours, the layout on the club pages isn't the best in the way the boxes have been used, and it should be easier to keep a single article updated. Could I suggest that you add Home/Away markers for the games somewhere? Not instead of the 1st/2nd leg boxes but maybe next to the scorelines? Crowsus (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

How about placing it before the scoreline? Since extra time indications are placed after it I think it looks more estructured that way. For example:
| h: 2–1 | a: 1–3 (aet) |
I'm thinking about adding it to the qualifying tournaments too, how about it? Like h: when the team's the host, a: when it plays against the host and n: as in neutral ground for the other matches. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the format of those groups until I checked RSSSF (wiki articles didn't explain, bah), I suppose it complicates it because there's one host team, so technically all their matches are home, while the other teams play 'neutral' fixtures. It might look a bit odd to show it as N,N,A, for example, but that's accurate coding for what happened so I guess that's how it should be displayed.Crowsus (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well first I'd say besides the top nations those articles are probably not notable, are they (articles are also a lot to update)? I don't know Greece, Portugal or Kazakhstan have surely not gained any media attraction out of those matches. Second i find the current format a bit strange. a) In my view the group stages should not display a 2nd leg at all but rather use a rowspan. I'd also not use a h,a or n for those at all. There is no away goals rule for one. Maybe a (hosts) after teamname would be better. The aggregate score after 1st and 2nd match also is something I've never seen before. I'd rather show the final group rank and points total instead. -Koppapa (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm confident those ties have media coverage too. For example, searching for Kazygurt in Marca's website lists 8 articles for the FC Barcelona - BIIK Kazygurt tie between August 20 – October 15, 2015. I believe at least the countries that have made it into the UWCL's knockout stages and the UWC's Last 16 group stage deserve notability. About the format okay, I'll change the h: n: a: code for just (host). I'd like to fuse the 1st - 2nd leg boxes in those stages and the one-leg finals with a colspan, but I don't know how to do it while preserving the win-draw-lose coloring. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I would agree about notability, I don't think there's much justification for articles other than the 'Big 5' nations and the 3 Scandinavian. The format isn't perfect but I quite like it. Fitting the groups into home/away rows is a bit forced, but in fairness I think it would be quite difficult to display those unusual group fixtures in a clear way. The opponent, score, outcome and scorers are all there and easy to navigate so I think it fulfils its function. But maybe a more standard results grid and points table (which you could replicate for all teams in that group) would be better for when those hosted groups are involved. I'll admit to being quite impressed by any complex table as I find the coding for them difficult! Crowsus (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Al Rams Club

Thoughts about Al Rams Club? Qed237 (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Same editor has also created Masfut Club, Al Hamriyah Club and possibly other non notable articles. CSD? Qed237 (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Al Rams played in the top division in 1984–85 and have also played in the national cup. Masfut have played at the second level and in the cup. Hamriya (who also appear to be known as al-Jazeera al-Hamra have played at the second level and in the cup. Always worth checking rsssf.com for this sort of thing. Number 5 7 13:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Jim Milisavljevic

Do Jim Milisavljevic fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY? He was a member of Australia national soccer team for 1974 World Cup squad. --Gonta-Kun (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

He certainly fails WP:NFOOTBALL, no international caps. WP:GNG is a separate matter, although from a quick Google search he appears to fail that as well. Giant Snowman 08:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Surely we can bypass that when they've been selected to play in the largest football competition on Earth? - J man708 (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That's what GNG is for. Did this guy get significant coverage in the 1970s in Australia? Possibly/probably. Giant Snowman 21:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The annoying thing is, from the 60s and 70s, records of football at best are very rare. They're good when you can find them, but surviving records are like hen's teeth. - J man708 (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives#Australia. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Excessive stats

Hi. An editor disagrees with me and want to keep all goalscorers at 2016–17 Moldovan National Division as well as referee statistics. Could someone take a look and see if I am doing something wrong here?

Also we have a minor dispute at Template:2016–17 Moldovan National Division table after which the editor told me never to edit moldovan articles, if you want to look at that as well. Qed237 (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm that editor. Qed237, if you really care about Moldovan football,especially 2016–17 Moldovan National Division please instead of deleting everything ,help and improve it.this page needs lots of work,is outdated.what kind of editor you are if you can only delete others people work ? Please help by improving. About goal scorers.only top ten are listed,other are hidden(for calculation).i will edit probably this later,but I need a list from there I can start.don't ruin others people work which sometimes took hours. About template.you was wrong from the beginning and vandalised the page by reverting.what was the point to add( every time) 2017-2018 Moldovan A Division season ???? Next Moldovan A division season will be transitional 2017,cause they change to Spring-Autumn. By not knowing this fact you vandalized again and again. How can you add wrong information on Wikipedia ??? Check it before adding anything please. About Petrocub.the official name of the team is Petrocub-Hincesti (with dash) this is the source [[2]] press editia 16-17,and you can see.this team renamed a year ago,and has a double name (with dash). Exactly the same situation like the other club with double name in Moldovan football FC Dinamo-Auto. Anyway,just wanted to repeat.all the articles on Wikipedia does not belong to you.you can't just delete whatever you desire,just because you don't like it.you are acting all the time like dictator,by thinking you are only one right man all the time.Kolya77 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not a dictator and "if you can only delete others people work" is not correct. I would not tag section as unreferenced (diff) and give editors a chance to find sources, if I wanted only to delete content. Qed237 (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Any comments from other editors? Qed237 (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

List of top scorers should definitely NOT include ALL the goalscorers, regardless of being hidden collapsed, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season. If 2017 will be a transitional season, it should be mentioned in article text with a reference link, so that everyone will see that using 2018 in a table is pointless. As for Petrocub... There is no dash on their logo and the club website actually use both versions of the title. I would prefer using the name "Petrocub Hincesti" (or CS Petrocub Hincesti in full). If anything, I think we should avoid at all costs using ugly constructions such as "Petrocub-Hîncești Hîncești" (there were a few similar titles in Russia not so long ago, like SKA-Khabarovsk Khabarovsk, but thankfully they were all redirected to common sense names) --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. And when article is at FC Petrocub Hîncești I see no reason to pipe to "Petrocub-Hîncești" (with dash) rather than the standard without FC, "Petrocub Hîncești" (without dash). Qed237 (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There we go – commenting out the data so can still be seen on source page for calculations, but not view-able when reading page. --SuperJew (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you please give the link of Petrocub's club website? I know only official Moldovan Football Federation page, which can be considered as club's website somehow, and btw there is a dash in the name. And it's not Petrocub-Hincesti Hincesti, it's Petrocub-Hincesti Sarata-Galbena. Hincesti in club's name is because they are permited to use Hincesti City Stadium for their games. 5-ht (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

http://cspetrocub.md/ --BlameRuiner (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Nationalities for clubs in international squads

In pages such as the 2014 FIFA World Cup squads and 2010 FIFA World Cup squads, we currently have listed that AS Monaco are a French club, but Cardiff City and Swansea City are shown as Welsh, Wellington Phoenix are shown as Kiwi and Toronto FC are Canadian. Let's get a blanket ruling once and for all, up in this bitch.

So, are they the nationality of their club's location, or their league's competition? - J man708 (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's the FA they are affiliated with, so the usage described is correct. Number 5 7 23:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure there has been a decision here before, but it seems Monaco is the issue here as they are based in a different sovereign nation. However in general they are competing internationally under Frances so that should be what is displayed, likewise Swansea and Cardiff (although they are did compete with in the Cup Winners Cup for Wales) and also aspiring nations' clubs like FC Barcelona and Athletic Bilbao who are Spanish entrants. I believe the same should apply for the NZ teams in the Australian league and the Canadian teams in the US league. That's the price to be paid for joining a bigger league in another country. Crowsus (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Number 57: we've always listed the national association the club is affiliated to, whatever that is. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems pretty unjust that the Welsh/NZ/Canadian FAs would get credit for achievements made by teams in the English/Australian/US leagues? In terms of the World Cup players, unlikely they would have joined those clubs if playing in their 'own' smaller country? Welsh FA gets the benefit of players developed in the English league by Swansea and Cardiff, not sure why it should also look like the players play in their league system when it's not the case?

But this isn't a case of marking any sort of achievement by the teams – it's simply which football federation the player falls under in terms of where they play. Number 5 7 16:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and I realise it's displayed correctly. It just seems unfair to me that the Welsh FA should even get a flag against players of Cardiff and Swansea. They might be technically in the Welsh federation but play all their competitions in England and that's where the money comes from to pay for these players. I'm all for giving recognition to smaller nations but in this case it seems so undeserved (even when it's just a flag!) Crowsus (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Briggs Sports F.C.

I was doing a little improvement to Les Allen and noticed his first game was for Briggs Sports, however I am confused to were the editor who wrote a lot of it got the information from for the page, I was wondering if anyone know of a good resource to find some information about the team so I can provide some citation. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Some relevant links: London League tables 1928-50, 1950-64, Spartan League tables 1934-55, 1955-83, FA Competition record, some history from a London Senior Cup final programme. The club merged with Ford Sportsto form the club now known as Redbridge F.C.. Number 5 7 19:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Possibly incorrect changes by relatively new user

Hi there. I randomly noticed OsoiEdward (talk · contribs) changing the captain designations in various articles to other players. I am not familiar enough with the topic to easily find sources confirming these changes to be correct, so I was wondering whether someone from this project could take a look and see if I'm just paranoid or not. Regards So Why 06:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: thanks for the heads up. Giant Snowman 06:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Emma Clarke

Would Emma Clarke qualify for an article? TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It was created earlier today at Emma Clarke (football) by User:Fenix down, although I think it should be moved to Emma Clarke (footballer) personally. Sussexpeople (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that there should also be an article about Carrie Boustead.. Sussexpeople (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Division names in career stats tables

Should division names such as the Isthmian League Premier Division and Southern League Premier Division be written in full in career stats tables, or should they be abbreviated like this? LTFC 95 (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally I would go with Isthmian Premier and Southern Premier. The biggest issue is stuff like Northern Premier League Division One South because Northern League is a different division. I have tried stuff like Northern Div. 1 South, but I just stick to the full title now.--Echetus Xe 10:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

When it's linked I think it's less of an issue either way, but she be consistent through pages. --SuperJew (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There isn't consistency in editing habits throughout pages regarding this issue which is proven in the example I included and why I brought it up here. The only consistency throughout pages is with the Northern Premier League divisions where we abbreviate Northern Premier League Premier Division to NPL Premier Division, for example. Personally, apart from the Northern Premier League divisions where the names are too long, I think the full league name should be written. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Christian Pulisic

Christian Pulisic plays in Europe but is American, is he considered a soccer player or a footballer? Also, his biography seems to contain a lot of unnecessary information such as starting appearances and goals in friendlies. I also question whether an 18 year old player with 30 professional appearances really needs three subsections.Danieletorino2 (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Soccer as he is american. But agree that this article needs to be trimmed. Kante4 (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Soccer player as per Kante's reasons, although football is referred to as soccer in South Africa and South African's are considered footballers on Wikipedia (?). A discussion for another day perhaps. The article could do with some slight trimming but most of the content, including some of the friendly information, serves as an intro into the body that follows. Stylistically I don't mind the subsections either. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Malaysia Super League

A user has moved Malaysia Super League and its season pages to Liga Super, saying that's the official name. Can anyone familiar take a look and make sure if it's the right thing to do? Coderzombie (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be fairly regularly referred to as "Malaysia Super League" or "Malaysian Super League" in English reliable sources.[3][4] The operator of the professional setup in the country even refer to the "Malaysia Super League".[5] This should have been discussed before the moves. Hack (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the move. Hopefully that will encourage them to discuss it. Otherwise can we please move protect it? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@JebatMalaya: has again moved the pages back to the titles. I have asked him to consult here first. Coderzombie (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've requested a move revert again. Please can an admin move protect? Anyway, English sources support Malaysia Super League, I believe that's the common name. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone really does need to come in. They seem to be changing everything. LordAtlas (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have been improving most article about Malaysian football league system for years. Regarding the name Malaysia Super League to Liga Super, for your information, the league official name is Liga Super since its inception in 2004 and has been called TM Liga Super for sponsorship reason from 2005 to 2010. The league management has been taken over from Football Association of Malaysia by Football Malaysia LLP (FMLLP) since 2015. The website of Football Malaysia LLP was recently created after that, and it can be seen the article in the website has been poorly written with a mix of English and Malay language. Even the website has taken some of its content from the Wikipedia too regarding the translation as I have been notice.(Yes, the organisation is new, and with new young people in it) The problem with previous article name and even before that, the article name was a "direct translation" instead of the proper name. Even the name Malaysia Super League was the result of my old edit on Wikipedia instead of Malaysian Super League (how the league was properly referred in English, but it was not the official name). However, the changes was made right now is to improve the article even further and keep the article in question to have a standard, consistent and proper name by using its official name as the one used by the the league management since 2004. Its inline with how other league page was referred like in La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, Eredivise, Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, Argentine Primera División, Liga MX and various other league page was written. I assure to you all, the league official name is Liga Super and referred to as Liga Super 2017 for its season. Here I give the proof of its official name including current logo with sponsorship etc.Football Association of Malaysia official website, Various news information located on Football Malaysia LLP news, the website of Football Association of Malaysia League Management, Football Malaysia LLP official Facebook page and example of how the league is referred to as Liga Super by FMLPP Football Malaysia LLP Facebook post, FMLLP repost of information from TV9 the official broadcaster of Liga Super and Liga Super Official Broadcaster JebatMalaya (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Here I gave you various references about Liga Super. FAM official news FAM news. Liga Super official club website - Melaka United Selangor Felda United Perak TBG. Example Major News outlet - Sinar Harian SemuanyaBola The Malay Online Mstar Utusan Malaysia Berita Harian Berita Harian 2 RTM, MSN BERNAMA JebatMalaya (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Here more references by major news outlet.ESPN Eurosport UK Astro FourthOfficial Footballchannel SelangorKini Mediacorp SG JebatMalaya (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A Google News search for the terms "Super League" AND Malaysia returns well over ten times the number of English language results of "Super Liga" AND Malaysia, with similar results when comparing "Malaysia Super League" to "Super Liga Malaysia". This was a controversial move, you need to follow the process. Hack (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

the term you search are not right. Its "Liga Super" AND Malaysia. Not "Super Liga". If you check again using the term "Liga Super", the number are reversed. 6.2 million results for Liga Super AND Malaysia while only mere 1.9 million for Super League AND Malaysia. If you go into a specific search of "Liga Super" AND Malaysia, it come out double the number with 808,000 results compare to "Super League" AND Malaysia with only 398,000.JebatMalaya (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Liga Super is not what's commonly used in English. Naturally it'll end up skewed if Malay folks look up the Malay name. LordAtlas (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's also happen when you used the term Super League as there are so many different country using the same term. Thats why, as one of the major contributor for Malaysian football Wikipedia, I would like to improve the article by using the official registered competition name the Liga Super that was used since the league was created in 2004. Most of article in internet regarding Liga Super has been flawed with misconception by the used of multiple different direct translation of Liga Super for years. So, by using the name of "Liga Super" which is the official and common name (as the league article is about Malaysian football), I do hope to improve the overall quality of article regarding Malaysian football. JebatMalaya (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that no one has had any problems until now kind of proves you wrong. LordAtlas (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Define no one? I gave you one major simple example, The league is called officially as "Liga Super" and the league management has also used the same name. However, some website used multiple different direct translation as Malaysian Super League or Malaysia Super League. Thats the problem. JebatMalaya (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The page has been Malaysia Super League since forever. No one has complained. Everyone says Malaysia Super League. You are literally making a mountain out of a mole hill for no reason. LordAtlas (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong again. The article has not been named Malaysia Super League like forever. It was named as such during my earlier work with Wikipedia in 2015. Before that, the article not even up to current standard with a name of "Super League Malaysia" and couple other name which was used to make it sound like an English translation. You said "Everyone says Malaysia Super League"? who? that everyone? Have you done any improvement on Malaysian football related article in recent years? Back to the topic, with the used of official and common name as the Liga Super article name will help bring up the quality standard of the article in question. The name of Malaysia Super League can still be used as a redirect to its main proper article name. This include with various other search like Malaysian Super League. JebatMalaya (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

My mistake about the word order - Super League is still five times more commonly used than Liga Super (the results of which are skewed by a large number of Malay results), a pretty significant disparity. Hack (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If you compare the search of "Super League" AND Malaysia with "Liga Super" (as what league is officially called) the result is about double, not five times, mind you, the result with term "Super League" are skewed as well as its a generic term. If you directly compared another results of "Malaysia Super League" with "Liga Super", you will get about the same number of search. Which this discussion is about, the article name of "Malaysia Super League" to "Liga Super". JebatMalaya (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, when you are comparing about the search of Malay results, you have to understand, this is a football league in small country located in South East Asia, not a popular global league like La Liga, Bundesliga, Eridivise or Serie A. So, this WikiProject Football is about improving the quality of the article. This is a another step to improve the quality, by using the proper name which is consistently used by the league management and major media as I have provide the sources above.JebatMalaya (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Another simple search can be made, use the term "Liga Super" and compared with "Malaysia Super League" on google image, what will you see? Both will show a vast image of official league logo with a word of Liga Super. (Recent logo have Malaysia intact in it) If you limit the search to before 2012 you will see the official name of "Liga Super" but you will never find official logo of "Malaysia Super League" as that wording as I said was used as one of many other direct translations. So, the move of the article made here is a move to improve the quality of the article to be consistent with what being used by the officials rather than just a random work. So, as a person which has been doing a lot of research and involve with Malaysian football, this is the right move to create a consistent name of the article in question by using its official and common name used by the people which care about the league in general. JebatMalaya (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, the name commonly used in English-language reliable sources trumps the WP:OFFICIALNAME.

Malaysian news sources

Bernama, the official new agency of Malaysia, uses Super League.[6][7][8]
Malaysiakini uses Super League.[9][10][11]
The Star (Malaysia) uses Super League.[12][13][14]
The Sun (Malaysia) uses Super League and Malaysian Super League.[15][16][17]
Malay Mail uses Super League.[18][19][20]
FourFourTwo Malaysia uses Malaysia Super League.[21]
New Straits Times uses Super League.[22][23][24]

Other sources from the region

ESPN FC Asia uses Malaysia Super League and Malaysian Super League.[25]
The Straits Times uses Malaysia Super League and Malaysian Super League.[26]
AsiaOne uses Malaysia Super League and Malaysian Super League.[27][28][29]
Channel NewsAsia uses Malaysia Super League and Malaysian Super League.[30][31][32]

The official site of Football Malaysia LLP, the administrator of the professional football league in Malaysia refers to the league as Super League in English on their site in the website navigation[33] and about us section.[34]. The content of the logo or the name in Malay is not relevant as the league is commonly known in English as some variation of Super League. Hack (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

As you stated above, per WP:COMMONNAME and the WP:OFFICIALNAME, when there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. As listed by you above, there are three variations of english version used, the Malaysian Super League, Malaysia Super League and Super League and all of these confusing english version inevitably refer to the official and common name, the Liga Super used in all media and official sources whether its English or Malay language. Football Malaysia LLP only point out the use of both different version of direct translation, the Malaysia Super League or Super League in the website, however they have consistently used official and common name, the Liga Super in most of its article, media release information and broadcaster information.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] This is echo by the previous league management and the national football association, the Football Association of Malaysia in all its website, management site and news.[44][45][46] Which has been then used by the various news outlet local and international.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] It is also supported in used by the club competing in the league official website.[68][69][70][71][72] That's the main reason why all three English variations (and some others such as Super League Malaysia etc) has led to confusion and should be point to the main common name used, the Liga Super.JebatMalaya (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Mind you, we are talking about a small football league located in the third world country in South East Asia, with a national football team which has never reach a world cup and have a FIFA ranking of 160+ out of 200 and where the majority of the fans or coverage will be locally which mean most of the news will be in physical form instead of easily obtained online which for most people from around the world will easily dismissed the important of the said league and just find whatever news they can read in english and dismissed any references they cannot read. Here we as in the WikiProject Football community is about improving the quality of article regarding a football related information and as a fellow editor which focus on improving the quality of Malaysian football article, this is a right step to improve the said article in order to avoid confusion especially with a lot of misinformation nowadays. I would like to point out which even the RSSF record has addressed the league name properly.[73][74][75][76][77][78][79] JebatMalaya (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo

I invite editors to assist with expanding the article about the recently unveiled Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. There are additional sources shared on the article's talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Does not make it notable per se. It can be added to his article in a few sentences, but not more. Kante4 (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

And what is this? Statue of Cristiano Ronaldo Kante4 (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I suggest you merge both those articles into Cristiano Ronaldo, otherwise they will be AfD'd. Cheers, Number 5 7 15:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't plan to merge either, but thanks for the suggestion. @Number 57: The work has received a lot of coverage:

Some sources

---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Now at AfD then: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. Number 5 7 16:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with above that both bust and statue should be merged into other articles (bust into airport, and statue into CR7). --SuperJew (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved to draft space: Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Romano Sion

Did this chap really play for Millwall? FORADEJOGO says he had one appearance to kickstart his senior career, and two different interwikis also claim he appeared for them (but the timeframes do not match), has zero credit without a source of course.

I begun to have second thoughts on this after reverting an anon user in the piece who may have been in the right even though the info was inserted shabbily, now come here to find closure. Attentively --85.242.133.151 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a better source but it seems he did play for Millwall. Link: [80] Liam E. Bekker (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That link doesn't work for me. Anyway, he is not listed at Soccerbase, Neil Brown's site, or Barry Hugman's site, so if he was ever on Millwall's books, he didn't play first team football -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No sign of him here (the season when FdJ claims he played for them) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That's the wrong season, he played in the Anglo-Italian Cup vs Portsmouth 29 Sep 1992 [81].Cattivi (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW there are more errors on foradejogo He only played 13 league games for Emmen (on loan from Groningen in 1996-97, he didn't play for them in 1997-98). Groningen and RBC (another loan) are OK. He signed for (SVV)/Dordrecht one year later. 21 league games in 1991-92 , 11 in 1992-93. Millwall was a trial. Haarlem should be 5 league games in 1991-92, 27 in 1990-91, 6 in 1989-90 and 4 in 1988-89. Cattivi (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks y'all, info retrieved to article! But i have another doubt, if you please: if he was only a trialist, do you folks think a club category should be added? --85.242.133.151 (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If he actually played first team football for Millwall then of course he should be in the Millwall players category. The fact that he was a trialist is not relevant -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

James Demetriou creation?

Hi all.

Stumbled across the player James Demetriou on Soccerway and noticed he has made one appearance for Karmiotissa in the Cypriot Cup. According to the fully professional leagues page the Cypriot First Division is classed as professional, I know the app. wasn't in that competition but it's my understanding that if a player has made an appearance in a cup competition for an FPL club he is eligible for a Wikipedia article; although I'm not sure if that's 100% the case, it isn't quite clear. To get to my point, I was going to create the page but realised I couldn't due to it being deleted three times previously (pre-this Cypriot Cup appearance), so now only administrators can create it.

In short: A) Is he now eligible for an article? B) Could an admin create it, or is there a way to remove the admin only creation? I'm not sure for certain either way.

Cheers. R96Skinner (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Demetriou passes WP:NFOOTY, as both Karmiotissa and AEK Larnaca play in the Cypriot First Division. You can file a request at WP:RFP or ask an administrator to remove the protection (see WP:SALT). S.A. Julio (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@R96Skinner: I've restored the article. Please can you update to show notability? Giant Snowman 07:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! R96Skinner (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Country vs international subheading in honours

Hi. Recently I've noticed Messirulez change the country subheading to "international" (which I thought was fine because that's usually how I see it) but Macosal reverted an edit like this on Matthew Ryan per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. To me, international would make more sense as that's usually the subheading we use for international stats as well. Country doesn't seem correct in some cases if a player has played for more than one country. I would propose an amendment to the guideline if enough people agree for the sake of consistency. Thanks, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Kante4 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Also agree. Number 5 7 21:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. LTFC 95 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

For consistency sake I prefer international. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. R96Skinner (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Spain national under-17 football team

Would someone from footy mind taking a look at the edits of Rickym2525. The editor is new seems to be making good faith attempts to improve national youth team articles, but most of what they are adding looks like a bit of WP:ORish and is not supported by any sources. I've undid a few of the edits, but I'm not sure how to clean up Spain national under-17 football team. FWIW, if the edits being made are actually OK, then feel free to undo my reverts. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

2 point count for a win

How is it possible that to modify Template:Fb rs in a season article, so a won match results in 2 points, not in 3 points? I'd like to use it for a season when 2 points were awarded for a win, so the point account is "real". -Lemmy- (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@-Lemmy-: Just updated the template, you should be able to use |wp=2 to switch the win value to 2 points instead of 3. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :-) -Lemmy- (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

details for old players

Hoping to get some assistance regarding personal details of a couple of early 20th century Scottish players who by coincidence both played for Liverpool - Thomas Robertson (footballer, born 1875) and Donald McKinlay. I won't bore you with the details but I think they were born in the same place however the sources I can view don't confirm this. If it seems like something that you could help with or would be interested in, I have put a bit of explanation on the article talk pages already (but no replies there). Thanks.Crowsus (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Crowsus, I hope these links help. (1) Thomas Robertson: [82]; (2) Donald Mackinlay: [83]. Please also note the year of birth for Tom compared to the Wikpedia page. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but to be honest those don't really help, they are the first things that come up on Google and are already linked in the Wiki articles. And they contain the exact information ('Birthplace: Newton Mearns') I'm hoping to disprove! Non-web stuff is really what I need, particularly given the inconsistencies you have highlighted.Crowsus (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the Smith book I added to McKilnay's article says Glasgow as his place of birth. Giant Snowman 09:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The SFA profile says likewise. As I put in the talk, I think at some point a Liverpool stat person has seen Newton and added Mearns thinking that was it, but the other circumstances suggest Cambuslang is right.Crowsus (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

When should titles be updated?

There's already a few folk updating Celtic's latest title win, confirmed today, in the relevant articles. I'd have thought this isn't a good idea until the season is actually finished as articles might get inconsistent, and other users might update them for a second time at that point. But technically it's correct that they have won the title. What is the consensus on when these things should be updated? Crowsus (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're talking about the infobox, they probably shouldn't be updated until the entire Scottish season (all promotion/relegation) has been decided, otherwise, like you say, things start to get inconsistent. Unfortunately it's difficult to stop IPs and overexcitable editors from doing this... Number 5 7 15:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

When it is confirmed i would say. Kante4 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with updating it once it's a certainty. Leagues/Associations often congratulate the teams securing the premiership early before the end of the season (such as FFA congratulating Sydney FC with 3 rounds to go) --SuperJew (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it should be fine to update once it is confirmed. It also prevents a situation where editors keep having to go back and forth to remove it each time the title is added in before the season ends. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for input folks, I will happily let all accurate confirmed-champion edits remain and just keep an eye out for anyone adding this season's titles a second time in the summer!Crowsus (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't see a problem with this sort of update. The only ones we need to revert are where people change an article to say "So-and-so F.C. currently play in the Premier League" nanoseconds after they clinch promotion, even if they still have five games left to play in the Championship.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Steaua name change

Officially FC Steaua București has changed their name to "FC FCSB" after a dispute with the romanian army (see ESPN article and The Sun). Also sites like Soccerway and even UEFA has already changed team name to FCSB. Should we change as well or should it stay at "Steaua București" per WP:COMMONNAME? Qed237 (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd say to wait and see how independent media will report about them. --SuperJew (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Good article nominations

Hi all, I'd just like to bring it to this page's attention that there are quite a few football articles on the GA nominations page which are awaiting review. Reviewing is not my strong point but if there are any editors who can assist in addressing the nominations please do so. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Franco Vázquez again

Can the "edit war" on his nationality qualified for full page protection? It look silly that recent changes were all about his nationality back and forth from Italian to Argentine. It looks wasting wikipedia resource on such "contribution". Matthew_hk t c 10:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually had a chuckle at the back and forth when I had a look now. The page definitely warrants some sort of protection with that going on. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Did players earn caps for recent abandoned Ivory Coast v Senegal game?

The National-Football-Team.com source has given players caps for this game even though it was abandoned in the 88th minute. In the Ivory Coast national football team artice there seems to have been a decision not to add caps for this game with the following note: "Match abandoned, for field invasion, after 88 minutes on the score of 1-1. Presences and goals NOT to be counted unless official decisions"

Is there any precedent for this and how was it dealt with? If we are not counting it as a cap then we will have to add notes to every relevant player with a NFT.com source. Stuart1234 (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

A friendly between Spain and Scotland in September 2004 was abandoned early in the second half due to a flash storm and floodlight failure BBC. I don't know about Spain, but Scotland still awarded caps for the game RSSSF. The same applied to a previous abandoned game v Austria in the 1960s. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

A Euro qualifier between Albania and Serbia was abandoned after 42 mins and Albania awarded a 3–0 win. Seems nft and soccerway list caps from the match. --SuperJew (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no general rule, and national FAs may recognize the abandoned match or not, for example for the abandoned friendly in 1995 between England and Rep. of Ireland no caps have been awarded.213.156.121.92 (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Antonio Conte

Hey editors. What are your thoughts on the notability of Antonio Conte's Chelsea managerial section? He hasn't even spent 12 months at the club and the section is already longer than his two years with Italy, and three with Juventus:

"His side managed two more wins against Watford and Burnley, before drawing 2–2 away against Swansea City on 11 September 2016."

"On 16 September, Conte suffered his first loss, a 2–1 home defeat to Liverpool,[62] which was followed by a 3–0 defeat to Arsenal on 24 September 2016."

"He then went on to win three straight games without conceding a goal, defeating Hull City, Leicester City, and Manchester United 2–0,[64] 3–0[65] and 4–0[66] respectively; football analysts and journalists opined that his "tactical shift" from a 4–2–3–1 formation to a 3–4–3, with his trade-mark three-man back-line and wingbacks, was responsible for the club's transformation."

This is way too much information and the journalistic opinion on his tactics doesn't seem biographical at all. What are your thoughts?Danieletorino2 (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup, should be trimmed. Kante4 (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be trimmed, without removing key content. I think the first signing is fine but don't see the need to name the second and third, as with the wins and losses - unless they provide background to an important section of the season. For me the shift in formation is an important part of how Chelsea's title-winning* season came about and should be retained. There's a bit of repetition with the Manager of the Month awards as well. I think they can be summed up in one well-written sentence, perhaps an expansion of the last sentence in the section. The records should also be retained. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Get rid of all sports commentary - just cover notable events. We don't need a run-through of every game/goal. Giant Snowman 07:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and trimmed it. Kante4 (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I suggest also taking a look at the Sergio Agüero page which is unbelievable how overly detailed it is. This is a particular problem with Premier League players and some sort of standard needs to be enforced.Danieletorino2 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Malaysia Super League

Can we get Malaysia Super League protected? Especially move protected. @JebatMalaya seems determined to unilaterally dictate the page. LordAtlas (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Protected for a month. A proper RM needs to happen if a move is desired although previous discussions here suggested the current title was the common name in English language sources. Fenix down (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem we are having is that the main editor seems to feel that they are entitled to make any and all changes without regard to what is common in English. Even by looking at the previous discussion, that really isn't going to change until consensus is met here. LordAtlas (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Both titles are fine too me. Doesn't really matter as there are redirects. -Koppapa (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Kenyan Premier League?

Is the Kenyan Premier League considered a fully-professional league to qualify for item #3 of WP:NFOOTBALL? It's not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Average monthly salary in 2015 was about 500$. -Koppapa (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Rochester Lancers

Last night, an American team changed their name from the catchy Rochester River Dogz to Rochester Lancers. There are already two articles about teams with the name at Rochester Lancers and Rochester Lancers (2011–15).

I've moved the River Dogz article to Rochester Lancers (NPSL).

Should Rochester Lancers be moved to Rochester Lancers (1967–80) (with related links and categories updated to reflect the change), and Rochester Lancers (NPSL) be moved to Rochester Lancers as they are the only active team with the name, albeit an amateur one? TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

redirect

With your expertise can you say whether Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_7#Major_achievements_in_soccer_by_nation please? (The fact that WP:SOCCER redirects to WP:FOOTBALL suggests it may not be.) Si Trew (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Essex Senior Cup

The second table down says Wins by club, but it has 0 with runners up in rank 37 and 0 for rank 35 and 34 for runners up, I was curious is those runners up really that notable? Govvy (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Either delete those then or call the section final appearances. -Koppapa (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Football in South Africa

I don't know if this is an appropriate place to ask for people who want to help me get the South Africa leagues pages up to date? Freddie2016 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. Is there any particular area that needs updating most? R96Skinner (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm also happy to get involved if you can give some indication of what you think needs doing. Jellyman (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Freddie2016, R96Skinner and Jellyman. This looks like it could be quite a project. I'd use the Premier League page as a benchmark. It would be good to add a section on origin / foundation (perhaps including a brief section on pre and post Apartheid football in SA). Structure could also be expanded to include continental qualification and relegation / promotion format. The current clubs shouldbe added and, if possible to source the information, a list of former champions, wins by club, awards etc.. The league isn't as renowned as the EPL so I don't think it's necessary to go into as much depth but adding the above would be a good start. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. The original reason why I requested this help/information, is because Wikipedia is always a easy access point for me to follow certain leagues. I have limited access to internet where I stay, and Wikipedia is best for this limited access I have. So when I go to any of the leagues' pages, and it isn't up to date, I get a little frustrated. Now, I am willing to help to get all those pages updated, but I don't really know where to begin, or where to get all the information, especially for the lower leagues. I also struggle to update existing items, such as league tables, and so on.

The 2016-17 South African Premier Division is always up to date. I didn't even think to look at how up to date the Premier Soccer League page is, or how that can be bettered. I like the ideas that you gave User:Liam E. Bekker. I am going to do some research for those ideas. I'd love if you would check in every no and then to see if you can make anything better (especially in terms of the look of the page(s). All the other leagues (2016-17 National First Division and 2016-17 SAFA Second Division, and not even mentioning the SAFA Regional League and the leagues below the Regional Leagues' pages) are so far behind and/or non-existant. Where do one get info for all those leagues? Any suggestions will help. Freddie2016 (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Timestamps

I was involved in a dispute with the user Efc1878 earlier over incorrect timestamps. He has been adding them correctly recently by typing five tildes like I told him. However, when I changed edits on Everton players pages when I noticed incorrect international update timestamps, he reverted me for some reason.

Can a third party here change the edits back on Idrissa Gueye and Mason Holgate's articles because I have already reverted this user a good few times and don't want to be dragged into a needless edit war over something so trivial.

Cheers. Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This user is continuing to revert changes I had made earlier on other Everton players' articles. What can be done about this user? Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't see what was wrong with the international timestamp at Idrissa Gueye? Have I missed something? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It should have been 04:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC) when this user made the change but he put 22:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC) instead, basically just changing it to the date when the match took place. Timestamps reflect when the update occurred and not necessarily the date when the match had occurred. Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a bit of a misunderstanding, I'm afraid. The timestamp feeds the statement at the bottom of the infobox that says "correct as of...": it's supposed to reflect a date/time at which the stats are unambiguously correct.

Mr Gueye's last international appearance was on 23 March in a match that according to Soccerway, kicked off at 20:00. Efc1878 set it to 22:03, 23 March, which is after the end of that match, so was correct. If you're bringing the stats uptodate as of "now", it's better to use the timestamp generated by five tildes (if you're editing with a device that has that character readily available), because there's less chance of making a mistake than if you just change the date to that of the match without changing the time. But so long as the timestamp is after the end of the last match included in the stats and before any other match in which the player appeared, it's correct. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mórtas is Dóchas: Try pointing users to guidelines or documentation in case of disputes. @Efc1878: Template:Infobox football biography#Parameters says:

{{{club-update}}} (previously {{{pcupdate}}})

A timestamp (~~~~~) at which the player's infobox club statistics are correct (not needed if the player has retired).

{{{nationalteam-update}}} (previously {{{ntupdate}}})

A timestamp (~~~~~) at which the player's infobox national team statistics are correct (not needed for former players).

Without reading the documentation it isn't at all clear that this is the intention of the parameters, and I don't see a problem worth fighting about if somebody manually adds an earlier time. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing is he has been doing this with all Everton players. For example this shows that on Séamus Coleman's article, he added a timestamp which was over 17 hours before the match had even started. I'm trying to be consistent with it. Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Except that in the first place, he added a correct timestamp, which was then changed, mischanged and re-changed by you, him and others. I understand from his post at User talk:Mattythewhite#User:Efc1878 that he intends in the future to use the tilde timestamp method. Hopefully that will solve this specific issue. But please do bear in mind that the timestamp is a date/time at which the stats are correct and need not be the date/time at which the update was made.

Thank you @PrimeHunter: for supplying the link to the documentation: I should have done the same. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but things get messy if it's a date/time at which it was correct instead of the exact time leading to cases like the Coleman edit. Cheers. Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

For me, I don't like using the tildes to update timestamps because of the very reason that it defaults to when you updated it. If I were a reader I would want to know the date of the last match played, not when some random editor decided to update it. This may also cause confusion when another editor goes to update the timestamp since it may not be apparent up to which match the timestamp was updated for. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Vaseline, I only use the tildes if I'm updating the stats straight after / on same day as the match. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I have no idea until now that Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) actually started this conversation with the moditaor and stabbed me in my back. Nice. I concur that the exact time figure of the timestamp can be more precise. I am not denying that, at all. In fact, I started to add additional timing figure (with UTC) for my editing from yesterday. Nevertheless, I agree with Vaseline and Liam. A reader would want to know the date of the last match a player had participated in a domestic league or on international duty, not when some random editor decided to update the timestamp when nothing regarding the statistics can be updated. For instance, the case of Seamus Coleman. Coleman last played for Ireland and thus broken his right leg on 24 March 2017. My initial intention was always plain and simple, that is, to provide the most accurate statistics for readers. We learn from the page the exact date of a game being played by an individual and not edited by someone who deemed he can edit the timestamp whenever he likes even there is nothing to update. Bearing in mind Coleman's 43rd cap for Ireland came on 24 March 2017 and that is the reason why my timestamp was so precise and that was dated 24 March 2017 even I edited the page a couple of hours following the match between Ireland vs Wales. Mortas and his multi reverted my editing and timestamp when they deem they are not happy with the exact and precise statistics (like the Coleman case, he had to keep changing it to 2am 25 March 2017). All the initial update and statistics were done by me a few hours, sometimes a day later...after the matches. This applied to all those pages involving Everton players. Vaseline was spot on and continued to make another great point "this may also cause confusion when another editor goes to update the timestamp since it may not be apparent up to which match the timestamp was updated for". Kindly consider our viewpoint and suggestion on this issue. Cheers mods. Efc1878 (User talk:Efc1878) 9:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.140.168.46 (talk)

The point is, "A timestamp at which the stats are correct" means exactly that: a timestamp at which the stats are unambiguously correct. Using the bare date that the match was played isn't unambiguously correct, because the reader can't tell for certain whether the stats were updated before or after that days's match. OK, they could make a reasonable assumption, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so we shouldn't be expecting them to make assumptions. If the advocates of bare dates have never come across editors who bring stats uptodate as of the morning of a match, updates that lead the reader to infer that the stats include that day's match when they don't, they've been fortunate.

Having said that, though, I'd have no problem with using a bare date so long as it was made explicit what it meant. The editor who used to update Everton player stats (see e.g. Séamus Coleman 2013-ish) used to put |club-update=match played dd mmm yy, which IMO was neat, tidy and unambiguous, but some editors took against it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

In my point of view, timestamp is the edit time (or ~~~~~) or the last game he played if the data is sufficiently fresh, it is no difference unless you updated the player stats to the last game he played during watching him playing live on TV. But in my case on Italian footballer, i could only dig out the stat. when the player was a pro, but need another site or two for their amateur stats. (below Serie D was difficult to dig), so, putting the date of their last professional season or last available data is ok. For international caps, ~~~~~ seem better than last game he played. Matthew_hk t c 16:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

And it look stupid to me on UTC thing, it is hard to confuse editor for timezone (match played on day A, timestamp on day A, but on another timezone the match was appeared to played in A+1 day, a confusing editor think it is not update?! If stupid enough to update the stats. on the matchday before the match, why not loosen the rule by modified the timestamp to a day before the day edit that page?) An experienced editor should even check the stats but summing it up, not simply +1 on caps. (if people forget to update timestamp, would it be +1 and then another editor +1, making it +2 for one match?) Matthew_hk t c 16:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully the administrator will make a decision on the issue. The like in Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) and his friends reverted the timestamps I modified in the first place to suit their agenda. I literally got banned temporarily for putting precise statistics (by reverting his change recently) and timestamps when the players were played on the material day. If possible, I update the statistics and timestamps on the day when a player played. Shall I continue to update the pages because some users kept changing the timestamps and the things I add (with reference of course) to the pages? Efc1878 (User talk:Efc1878) 17:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Guys, the back and forth on Tom Davies' page is becoming excessive. I don't pretend to speak with any authority here but there was a general agreement that either method would work, as long as it comes after his last match and before the next - as Struway2 succinctly put it. It's not worth it to start an edit war over the use/non-use of tildes. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent significant changes to an article

There have been multiple changes to List of association football competitions today. It may just be a case of personal preference because I can't say definitively that either version is better. Although, I think some competitions have not made it to the new version (I have not had the chance to check yet). What are the project's guidelines in situations like this? Equineducklings (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I tried to look more closely and is seems like some of the smaller competitions are now missing (UEFA Nations League, Caribbean Cup, among others). It's hard to tell what all is missing after the changes. I'm not sure if reverting all of it is the way to go. Thoughts? Equineducklings (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw the account which made these edits had been indefinitely blocked and decided to revert the edits. Equineducklings (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

In general this article could use a lot of work. It's format is inconsistent between leagues and the formatting of colours for different category seems to me to fail WP:ACCESSIBILITY, no? --SuperJew (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it could use a lot of work. I believe this article was created very early and the editors who created it are mostly gone. As a result, there has been very little improvement over time. I didn't have much of a problem with some of the changes recently except that the editor chose a format that seemed to be leaving out a number of competitions. Equineducklings (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this broad topic makes a useful article anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

There are other similar articles which just list competitions too. I don't know who gets much use out of them or if it would matter to the project if they were all gone. Equineducklings (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Article move discussion (Rochester Lancers related)

Please come and share your thoughts at Talk:Rochester_Lancers_(1967–80). There's been a dispute over a recent article title change. Thanks. TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Romanian Liga II

I noticed a player is up for AfD saying that Liga II is not fully pro, but as far as I knew it was, all clubs in the first and second leagues have to pay their players, this is why many have financial problems and are relegated to the third tier because that is semi-pro. That and the contract problems of players in the league, if a club is in administration they don't have to pay the players, but will get relegated because of it. 1 Govvy (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

AO Kardia F.C.

Would someone from WP:FOOTY mind taking a look at AO Kardia F.C. and assessing it? Not sure if the club is notable per WP:FOOTYN, and if it isn't then there's no real justification for using a non-free logo in th infobox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks rather local, but plays third level football now, so is notable. (Even the players would be because that level is listed as fully professional at WP:FPL). They also might have won accomplished more in a 60 year history.--Koppapa (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I can gather, that information is somewhat outdated. It appears that since 2013, the former (professional) third tier, Football League 2, has been abolished and combined with the former fourth tier to create the new third tier, Gamma Ethniki, which is amateur. Jellyman (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Koppapa and Jellyman: Thank you both for taking a closer look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Restructuring of French football league system

Tiers 3, 4 and 5 of the French pyrmaid are set to change (by varying degrees) come the start of the 2017–18 season. The changes are as follows:

Championnat National to be renamed National 1, no change in competition format (remains 18 teams)
Championnat de France Amateur to be renamed National 2, no change in competition format (remains 4 groups of 16 teams)
Championnat de France Amateur 2 to be renamed National 3, set to become 12 groups of 14 teams (56 extra teams being promoted from tier 6 at the end of the current season)

I for one am glad about the new names as they will hopefully dispel some of the myth that players in these lower divisions are amateur (the definition of amateur is not the same in France as it is in England, for example). Obviously for the first two it should just be a case of renaming their respective articles, since the competition format is not changing.

However, the question is whether the new National 3, and its considerable departure in form from the CFA2 requires its own new article or not? In effect, the National 3 will become the highest division of regional football (as opposed to the current DH), and the competition will be controlled by the regional football associations rather than the FFF. All input on this matter is welcome.

(On a slightly related note, I opened a discussion at WT:FPL earlier about the professional status of the players in the Championnat National. I'm just leaving a link here as I'm aware that this talk page is watched by far more people than the other).

Thanks, BigDom (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Just wondering for my own curiosity, are there any changes to the Division d'Honneur? - J man708 (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, actually. Having done a bit more research it seems that the changes will affect all leagues at levels 3 and below. As well as the changes listed above, the divisions below (managed by the regional league bodies) will be renamed Regional 1, 2, 3 and so on. Below that, at the district league level, divisions are to be renamed Départemental 1, 2, 3, etc. Presumably, this is to get rid of some of the inconsistencies between division names under the current system. BigDom (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

seem altogether to create new article better. Matthew_hk t c 14:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Chairman or President

I knew some club wikipedia article had a list of "Club President", but not every club had that position (a company must have chairman of the board of directors. but not every club was a company), then what is the right scope of this section, since Chelsea have both chairman and (honorary) president. [84] Moreover, since the chairman of the BoD in Italian language was Presidente, but Italian club often translated the chairman position as "President" (but don't have both Chairman and President, like some company), then should that position (Presidente del C.d.A.) should correctly translated as chairman in wikipedia, instead of president? Matthew_hk t c 17:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Li Yonghong

Is he notable enough? I know he is notable in Chinese media as a scammer/ex-major shareholder in one shares , which he was fined by the Chinese regulator. Then on official record, the investment management company Sino-Europe Sports Investment Management Changxing Co., Ltd., nor it subsidiary Rossneri Sports Investment Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong, the sole owner was Mr. Chen nor Mr. Li. Chen certainly an associate of Li as Chen acted as director role on official record, but no one know actual contractual relationship between Chen and Li. And now it is more obscured as the takeover SPV was Rossneri Sports Investment Lux, and the funding of send installment of €100M was from a BVI company "Rossoneri Advanced Co., Ltd.". Notability can't be transferred to from the club to related topic, so Li as the reported owner/actual head of the consortium, is he notable? Matthew_hk t c 17:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd think he's notable now that he's bought A.C. Milan. It was tagged for speedy deletion today, but was overturned quickly. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Major rewriting and inserting the full detail of the "ownership". The deal always shady, given some short-seller like Xiao Jianhua (arrested by Chinese government for another reason) likes to use proxy person in the ownership and directorship , it seem need to add full official detail of the deal. Matthew_hk t c 18:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 Dallas Cup

Hi all.

Probably a noobish question coming up. Does anyone know how to properly update the tables in the 2017 Dallas Cup article? I have had a fiddle around, looked at a few Wiki articles, but can't work out how to rightly update them. When initially putting them into the article, I used the same type of table you'd find on the FIFA World Cup qualifying tables. Have I forgotten to add something along with it, or is there a certain way the table has to be sorted in the edit? I generally have no idea.

Cheers. R96Skinner (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit: SuperJew has updated them now. Thanks! R96Skinner (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries :) Apart from the reports link, do you know of any info about the matches? The reports don't seem to list the players' names. --SuperJew (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought they would, strange. On the Dallas Cup official website (http://www.dallascup.com/) they do recap reports on the games, naming the goalscorers. R96Skinner (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I updated what I could find, but the latest news on the official website seems to be an article naming last year's champion. --SuperJew (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, if you click the "News" button at the top it weirdly directs you to old news. However, if you go to the homepage and scroll down it gives you a long list of articles, including recaps. Odd! R96Skinner (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Manuchar Machaidze

Are Category:Soviet Cup and Category:FC Dinamo Tbilisi matches the correct categories for this article about football player? Player is not the cup season and player is not the club match. What is wrong in my logic? My removal of that categories was reverted by two users without any logic argumentation. [85] 194.50.51.252 (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You used no edit summary, when deleting. So reverting with "unexplained removal of content" happened. Maybe those categories were added, because the was a lot of mathc info in the article. I have removed those football boxes though. -Koppapa (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Article move discussion

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Footballer of the Year in Russia#Requested move 23 March 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Article move discussion

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Footballer of the Year in Russia#Requested move 23 March 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Kreshnic Krasniqi

I was looking at Billericay Town F.C. to look at the players there, I noticed one Kreshnic Krasniqi, surely he fails WP:N right? Govvy (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. He's played in the Cypriot First Division (with Ethnikos Achna), which is a fully-pro league. --SuperJew (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the league only became fully pro from Feb 2016 and Krasniqi played for a semi-pro club in 2015. Govvy (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The reference for it on the list is from June 2012 --SuperJew (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

CONCACAF U-17 Championship player's team names

CONCACAF have published the squad listings for the 2017 CONCACAF U-17 Championship today. Unfortunately, the names that they have used for clubs do not match with what we have on WP:Football. Any help updating the article so that the club is accurate would be appreciated.

In some cases they've added the name of the school that the player attends in place of a club. I'm not entirely convinced that the school names should be included and think they should be displayed as 'Unattached'. What do others think? TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on updating the links. But seriously mate, did you even give it a try? A lot of them are very simple. The Cuban teams for example was for every one just adding FC at the beginning. The first one (Villa Clara) takes you to a disambiguation change which is an easy click away from FC Villa Clara, Cuban football club. --SuperJew (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Article move discussion

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Footballer of the Year in Russia#Requested move 23 March 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Kreshnic Krasniqi

I was looking at Billericay Town F.C. to look at the players there, I noticed one Kreshnic Krasniqi, surely he fails WP:N right? Govvy (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. He's played in the Cypriot First Division (with Ethnikos Achna), which is a fully-pro league. --SuperJew (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the league only became fully pro from Feb 2016 and Krasniqi played for a semi-pro club in 2015. Govvy (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The reference for it on the list is from June 2012 --SuperJew (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

CONCACAF U-17 Championship player's team names

CONCACAF have published the squad listings for the 2017 CONCACAF U-17 Championship today. Unfortunately, the names that they have used for clubs do not match with what we have on WP:Football. Any help updating the article so that the club is accurate would be appreciated.

In some cases they've added the name of the school that the player attends in place of a club. I'm not entirely convinced that the school names should be included and think they should be displayed as 'Unattached'. What do others think? TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on updating the links. But seriously mate, did you even give it a try? A lot of them are very simple. The Cuban teams for example was for every one just adding FC at the beginning. The first one (Villa Clara) takes you to a disambiguation change which is an easy click away from FC Villa Clara, Cuban football club. --SuperJew (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Flagicon for Alexander Nouri

What flag should be used for Alexander Nouri? Nouri was born in West Germany to an Iranian father and German mother, and holds dual citizenship to both countries. Nouri was never capped for a senior national team, but he played for the German U15 to U18 national teams in his youth, appearing in some youth tournament squads. GTVM92, however, seems to believe the Iranian flag should be used, as Nouri was invited to an Iran national team training camp (per this interview), but he never actually took part due to injury. Thoughts? S.A. Julio (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

In what context is the flag icon used? If it's related to Iran teams then I'd say Iran, but if (as I think is the case here) it's related to him coaching Werder Bremen I'd say German as it's a German team --SuperJew (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, related to his position at Werder Bremen, some IPs and users continue to switch the flags from German to Iranian and vice-versa on 2016–17 Bundesliga. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

He's German, so we use the German flag. Giant Snowman 10:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

GTVM92 seems to have reverted again without discussion. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

S.A. Julio What is your source for your claim that Nouri played for German youth teams?! I never see this! At this Persian interview that Nouri himself spoke Persian, Nouri said that he is in love with Iran and knows himself an Iranian. This is another interview that he said Iran is part of my life. GTVM92 (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Here it says that he played for the U-15/16 teams for Germany. It also says that he was in Iran lately in 2005 with his father and speaks just a tiny bit persian. He was born in Germany, so the flag should say Germany. Kante4 (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Again an Iranian IP continues to change the flag from Germany to Iran. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

just warn the ip, quoting it is the agreement in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football the flag is depend on international (youth) cap, if they defy, report a block from ANI or vandal page (disruptive edit). So far it partially works on Franco Vázquez, just new ip and new pattern of vandal. Matthew_hk t c 20:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

and/or request protection for the page(s) --SuperJew (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

so far page protection on Vázquez was declined again. may go through warning individual ip and ANI work better. Matthew_hk t c 03:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Categoría Primera A

Hi.

I was wondering does anyone know when the Colombian Categoría Primera A went professional? Going by the reference added to the league at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, it became pro in 2011? The reason I ask is because a few players I've seen played in the league in 2010 and don't have articles. If it did become pro in 2011, I assume these players who played in 2010 wouldn't be eligible for a Wikipedia article. Correct? R96Skinner (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the league was fully-pro when it commenced in the early 1950s. Many foreign professionals joined the league at that time. Jogurney (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Stale discussion

No comments since January, please can uninvolved admin (or BOLD NAC if applicable) close Talk:Lagardère Sports and Entertainment/Archive 1#Merger Proposal? Giant Snowman 18:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

List of honours question

Since the change from old First Division to Prem, and the new First Division changed to Championship, shouldn't each honour under the new structure be listed in the correct incarnation? For instances if you take Newcastle United F.C. for example, it has Football Championship won three times, when really they have only one it once in that incarnation of the league, should that not be split between the old version name and the new version? Govvy (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's too confusing for the general reader to split it into the different names for what is basically the same thing - winning the second tier championship. Arsenal, United, etc. don't have their First Division and Premier League wins on different lines. Ditto the various teams who have won the European Cup both before and after it became known as the Champions League. Like those teams, Newcastle should have a note explaining the name changes over time. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Hudson

Is Anthony Hudson (current NZ manager and former Bahrain manager) notable enough for his article to be changed to just "Anthony Hudson"? Currently, it's at "Anthony Hudson (manager)", which is a little deceiving in itself, and the Anthony Hudson article refers to a Australian sports commentator. Or should the Anthony Hudson article be changed to a disambiguation page, such as the one for Leonid Slutsky? APM (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Neither is the clear primary topic, so a dab page would be the most appropriate solution. I agree that the current "manager" disambiguation is unsatisfactory, as it makes no reference to his sport. It appears someone had it moved from "Anthony Hudson (footballer)" on the basis that he's only really known for his managerial career, but we normally use that format for someone's who has had any sort of playing career. It should either be that, or – at a push – "Anthony Hudson (football manager)". Jellyman (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I also think it should be moved to "Anthony Hudson (football manager)". TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jellyman, "Anthony Hudson (footballer)" in my opinion. "Anthony Hudson (football manager)" works too. R96Skinner (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it to "Anthony Hudson (football manager)". APM (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, noticed you talking about this persons page and it is a page I've been making edits on lately. Those newspaper articles talk about his football career before he became a manager, I can't seem to find much that backs up him actually playing for some of the clubs mention. They only appear to be mention in newspapers but nothing about actually games. Do you have any advise, websites you might use to find this information? NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to have anything to do with the Anthony Hudson article, which has been a mine of disinformation and puffery ever since its creation. However... He never played first-team football for West Ham or Luton: if he had, he'd appear on Soccerbase, and he doesn't. He joined NEC Nijmegen ahead of the 1999/2000 season, not in 2001. This season preview dated August 1999 in a Dutch newspaper lists him in NEC's squad and gives Luton as his previous club. Dutch sources from when he took over as NZ coach say he signed a two-year contract wih NEC but didn't see it out: e.g. this and this. The NEC website has match details going back nearly 30 years; the 1999–2000 ones seem complete, so if he'd played first-team football, his name would appear in a search of the site, and it doesn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Top work, Struway. Always found it a bit odd with a career that started in the late 1990s, that it wasn't until 2006 that he actually got some caps to his name. Feel justified now in moving the page to "Anthony Hudson (football manager)". APM (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Struway2 this is the problem I am having with the page, there appears to be one or two users (User: Nzwhiteout) whose goal is to make the page read like a puff piece or Linkedin page to show him off, while I'm trying to keep the article natural. It does appear to myself and some others I've shared it with, that the people making these changes work closely with the person the article is about. NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to comment

All members of the project are invited to comment on my request--Kostas20142 (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

11v11.com

Do you peeps consider it a reliable source? Govvy (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's run by these guys, so I should think so. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

k, I wasn't sure to use it as a citation or not, it's a good website but not very professional, but I think I will use it now. Govvy (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

afsenterprises.co.uk, using wordpress template? Look amateur or as startup company. Matthew_hk t c 20:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

They've published books, including one of the Barry Hugman English football yearbooks, so they're certainly not amateurs or a startup! Mattythewhite (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

useful for sure, but it does feel amaturish, even my blog feels more modern! Govvy (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think it's wise to judge a source's status as a WP:RS by how pretty their website is. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, if a looks source looks amateurish, or not right to me, of late I have questioned a number of websites, so I am not always sure what's acceptable, especially after news websites like The Sun, and The Daily Mail can be unreliable. Govvy (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Requests for reassessment

There are a few unanswered requests for reassessment dating back to January. It would be appreciated if someone experienced in assessing articles would answer these. Many thanks. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I see there are even a few from last year. I'll try to do one or two this weekend. There is also a massive backlog for GA nominations for anyone who is experienced in those reviews. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

All of the 2017 requests have now been answered. Thank you to ‎Casliber for taking the time to answer these. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Totals for loans in Career statistics table

Evening all, I recently added totals to the two loan spells Darren Bent had in the career statistics table. The edit containing these totals was subsequently reverted by Mattythewhite - and probably rightly so according to WP:FOOTY/Players. I'm not a big fan of the layout provided in the template and thought I'd bring it up for discussion here.

The lack of a Total row at the end of each club, even if the player was only at said club for one season, breaks the chain so to speak. If you add up all the totals they don't correlate with the Career total because the single-season/loan season don't have totals. This makes tallying up the statistics a chore and breaks the general aesthetic of the table, with some club's having totals and others not. There is also nothing separating the loan spell with the player's next club which makes it seem as if the stats flow until the Total below.

It's a small thing but I'd like to have a discussion on it nonetheless. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you Liam for the reasons mentioned. As it is these tables aren't kept up-to-date very well, so anything which makes it easier should be promoted IMO. I'd even suggest having some kind of template for it which would only need input of seasons and would automatically total the club and career totals. --SuperJew (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Total rows for single season spells are completely pointless. Why do we need an extra row that repeats exactly the same figures stated in the row above? As for the aesthetics of the table, doing this makes it worse not better. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I never thought of the totals rows having to add up to the final row.--Echetus Xe 23:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Having a total row which will just have the same exact number as the row above is not needed. To highlight such a one season case, i agree that there should be done something. Kante4 (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

There are some split views here, can further discussion be had? Liam E. Bekker (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no need for a 'total' row if a player only spent one season at the club (it just duplicates info), and there certainly shouldn't be a 'loan' total. Giant Snowman 07:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand the duplication argument but surely there can be another solution? Look at Kevin Stewart's page as an example of how bad it can get. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The example you have given is actually a good example of how tables should look. I see nothing wrong at all. LTFC 95 (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with is that at first glance you'd say "but 0+11 doesn't equal 31" --SuperJew (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A perfect example like LTFC said. Kante4 (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

My issue is that the Totals don't add up to the Career total. On Stewart's page you have 0 and 20 = 42? While I know that the other 22 appearances are found in between it makes it unnecessarily difficult to tally up. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The totals aren't meant to add up to the career total. The totals are only for club spells spanning two seasons or more. The entire column should add up to the career total, not the totals. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with what LTFC95 says, completely. This is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Giant Snowman 18:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree with LTFC95. R96Skinner (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The aesthetic is a small part of it so it's disappointing that one should try and dismiss my view as WP:IDONTLIKEIT when the main concern was clearly practical in nature, and supported by two experienced editors. My intent was (is) to try and find a way to improve the template and I'm happy to continue dialogue if there is interest in finding an alternative. If not, that's okay. That's what these discussions are for. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. Although I disagree with you on this, it is worthy of a discussion. R96Skinner (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@LTFC 95: The entire column should add up to the career total, not the totals. doesn't work at first glance either, in the case given: 0+0+0+4+0+7+4+11+4+7+5 doesn't equal 31. Yes, I understand that it's sum of seasons, or sum of single seasons and total of multi-season clubs, but the point being made here is that it's not intuitive, which makes it harder for new (and also experienced) editors. You mentioned here that it's a repetition to have a total for a one season stay (Why do we need an extra row that repeats exactly the same figures stated in the row above?), but isn't a lot of the table repetition of what can be found in the infobox? --SuperJew (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus against adding a total row for single season spells. Perhaps you could suggest an alternative proposal? LTFC 95 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I wanted to emphasise the issue, as it seems not everyone's on the same page. Secondly, personally I don't see a problem with adding a total row for single season spells, but as you say there seems to be in this discussion a majority against it. As far as an alternative proposal, two suggestions (or a combo of them): a) not have totals for clubs (we already have it in the infobox anyway), as is done for example for AFL players, b) have the career stats section done with a template which would automatically do the totals (in both directions), it would also make editing and maintaining it easier and minimise the human errors of addition. --SuperJew (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@LTFC 95: Did you see my alternative proposal? Any thoughts? --SuperJew (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The table provides more than the league-only stats in the infobox so suggestion A is out for me but I'd would definitely welcome suggestion B. I'm not sure how one would go about creating such a template and having approved though. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't support suggestion A for the same reason as Liam. Suggestion B would be the better of the two proposals, but I suspect it would take a lot of work to get it right. LTFC 95 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

A little off-topic, but maybe it can help evaluate the value of the different formats of overlapping info, why does the infobox show only league appearances? --SuperJew (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Because there are no reliable historical records for cup appearances, so it's way of having old and new players' stats the same. Giant Snowman 16:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Backtracking a bit, it is worth noting that the page for Thierry Henry (a featured article) makes use of single-season totals. Returning to SuperJew's point on the template, if anyone knows of editors who are skilled at template creation could we please involve them in this discussion. They would also probably be able to advise best on its plausibility. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That may be the case regarding the Thierry Henry article, but the last review of its featured article status was in 2009, whereas the career stats table template was introduced to WP:FOOTY/Players in 2013. Therefore, it only means that no one has updated the table format. It would be worth you reading this discussion where it was reiterated that single-season totals should not be included in career stats tables. LTFC 95 (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. It's interesting that Giant Snowman had previously updated the template to include single-season totals [86] only for it to be changed based on the discussion you have referred me to [87]. Unless I've missed part of it, though, only one person made any mention at all of single season totals. "Not in my opinion" were his/her words. That's hardly definitive. This discussion is therefore far more valuable to reaching a decision as it focus more specifically on that point. Surely based on the information you have provided alone this warrants another look at that point.Liam E. Bekker (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You're bringing up an edit from 3 years ago that has been surpassed by community consensus?! Jeez, scraping the barrel with a large stick. Giant Snowman 17:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't be condescending. The "argument" is not dead just because you say so. My point was simply that there was no consensus from the discussion I was referred to, yet this same discussion is the apparent basis for single season totals not being used. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not being condescending. You are simply repeating the same argument again and again, with no actual explanation based on policy or commonsense to back it up. Giant Snowman 20:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd say there's plenty of WP:COMMONSENSE. The only policy rebuttal to my argument has been consensus - of which there clearly was / is none. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the clear consensus here, in this very discussion?

Facepalm Giant Snowman 07:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Three in favour and five against (two of which are open to further discussion) hardly amounts to consensus. Look, I'm not trying to be difficult here. This was a genuine attempt to solve an issue that I (and apparently a couple others) thought could be improved. At least three of your posts have attacked person rather than problem which is great to see from an administrator. I stand by my opinion that there is no consensus in this discussion, and particularly not in the original one. I'm also happy to involve myself should someone be willing to attempt to create an improved template as discussed above. If not, fine. I'll leave it at that. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm in favour of totals for all clubs (single or multiple seasons) OR no clubs. I feel Liam's original point that the subtotals don't add up can be confusing to the casual visitor is valid. But here is maybe a better alterative suggestion to consider; have Totals for all clubs, but only individual seasons for multi season clubs. I.e. Effectively colour single season lines grey as sub totals. Just need one additional column to label those rows as totals, Effect f which might be mitigated by removing some of the wikicreep multi cup columns. I see Henry has 11, Bent 13, Cr7 has 15 columns. ..combine domestic cups, combine continental/intercontinental, job done, heaps of space. ClubOranje^T 10:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like it could work. I also agree that it must look weird to the casual viewer that you have some bold subtotals and then a grand total at the bottom which isn't the total of the subtotals...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

When I try to update a stats table where the subtotals don't add up to the total at the bottom this requires extra effort to avoid errors. I find this annoying. I would also prefer to have totals for all clubs, but could live with ClubOranje's proposal. --Jaellee (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@ClubOranje: it would be helpful if you could create such a table in your sandbox, so we see what it looks like Giant Snowman 17:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I like ClubOranje's suggestion.. it solves the problem brought up here, while not repeating information which is the issue against it.

Also pinging @Qed237: regarding if they have ideas how to create the stats table as a template or module which would add up the totals automatically :) --SuperJew (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I like the sound of ClubOranje's idea, and second GiantSnowman's request to see a draft. A visual example would be of great assistance in seeing if it would work or not. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

As I have been pinged to this discussion by SuperJew I would like to share my view. As I often come across these tables , I can totally understand why Liam E. Bekker started this discussion. I have myself been annoyed about this when I have been trying to correct the tables on low-profile players often edited by IPs. Something needs changing and that could probably be a template/module, a new table layout or perhaps both. I am looking forward to a sandbox draft from ClubOranje. When it has been decided how the table should look, I can start thinking about making a more automatic table but if I should do something like that you should be aware that my time on wikipedia is very limited since a few months back, so it might take some time. Qed237 (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

In case I miss the end of this discussion, let me know what the decision is. Qed237 (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Time poor and on an iPad at the moment, which is less fun when editing, but I'll try and get a mock up done over Easter...unless someone beats me to it.ClubOranje^T 11:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ClubOranje. Please let us know once you have had a moment to draft an example. Have a good Easter. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good! Do agree that it'll be best to see a draft of it beforehand, though. R96Skinner (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Have you perhaps had a moment ClubOranje? Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User:ClubOranje/sandbox quick sample of how I envisanged it; ignore detail of the columns etc at this stage,just the general format of season and subtotal

idea ClubOranje^T 13:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I definitely like the general idea and direction. Though, I'm not sure about the column with sub-totals, it looks a bit wonky and unclear. I tried playing with it a little. What do you think? User:SuperJew/sandbox. Kudos on picking up the glove! --SuperJew (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Good job, both. I'm liking the layout of it. R96Skinner (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I would probably like what you did with the Totals/Season columns if you right-justified the dates so they aligned with each other all the way down ClubOranje^T 14:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, how's it now? --SuperJew (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

doesn't align correctly for me. Probably better as it was ClubOranje^T 07:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I find those total rows within the table pretty distracting and not really helpful. One thing is that there are years next to the totals, and those overlap sometimes. If totals are wanted, i'd all put them right to the bottom. Rows of Ipswich total, Charlton total, ..., then the row for carrer total. Above that, just all the seasonal stats. -Koppapa (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The years next to totals makes it look clumpsy and complicated (as they overlap). Kante4 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and the bolding seems random. I think either keep it as it is (i.e. with no totals for single seasons, which is preferable) or add totals for single seasons in the same way we currently do for multiple seasons. I can't see a third way tbh. Giant Snowman 17:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the comments regarding the overlapping years next to the totals. I would not support a table in this format, not only for this reason, but because there is no consistency with the layout, particularly with some division names being in bold and others not which is distracting, with the same applying to seasons and years. I do not believe that this format provides an improvement upon what we already have and remain of the opinion that we keep the existing format. I do believe, however, that it is worth looking into developing a template to calculate totals automatically. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Kante, Snowman and LTFC regarding the overlap. I don't really mind whether we want totals for single seasons or not, but the proposed layout is trying to make something work when it just isn't feasible. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The draft templates above definitely have their merits, much thanks to ClubOranje for the effort that went into putting it together. That said, I'm inclined to agree with GiantSnowman to a degree. I'm not sure that the new proposed draft is the best way forward. My only deviation from his comment is that if it is to the stay the same/similar way I would support a call for single season totals. I also agree with LTFC 95 on SuperJew's initial point that a way to calculate totals automatically should be looked into. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The bolding is only there (for years and leagues) because that is what wiki markup for wiki tables does by default for those greyed total type rows. It doesnt have to be like that, I just didn't have the time to spend manually backgrounding those cells. It was a quick mock up for discussion, but I feel there is a lot of idontlikeitsoiwanttokeepwhatwegotcositcantbefixed attitude rather than suggestions and ideas to tweak things to make them good ClubOranje^T 07:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Oranje, your work is much appreciated. I added a version with totals at the bottom. It looks cleaner to me, one could also add clubs with just one season there. -Koppapa (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

2 pages for Puskás Ferenc Stadion

I'm bringing this up here, as I don't think Puskás Ferenc Stadion is on many people's watchlist. Pinging RuthStevens as she's been active on the page recently.

I just noticed that the Puskás Ferenc Stadion has 2 pages currently: one about the stadium before it's current reconstruction and one for the future after. Shouldn't both pages be merged as they are the same stadium? I don't recall opening new pages every time a stadium goes through reconstruction. --SuperJew (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Is the old stadium being completely demolished and a new one built? If so then they arguably aren't the same stadium, in the same way as we treat Wembley and Wembley -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes the whole old stadium was demolished and a completely new one will be built. I agree that this article should be treated as Webley. I live couple of miles from the old stadium and I can assure you that currently there is nothing on the place of the old stadium. RuthStevens (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2017

I'm not entirely sure. Daily News Hungary and Hungary Today seem to say it's to be completely demolished, but then this Hungary Today article says "certain elements will be kept from the old structure". Regardless, if the stadium is in the exact same place and for the exact same purpose why do we need 2 articles about essentially the same venue? --SuperJew (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that having two articles is unnecessary. I don't think it's necessary in theory for Wembley either, but in a practical sense it can be justified there in terms of the amount of information available and article length. As both the Budapest articles are comparatively short, there's really no need to have both. Jellyman (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Linking the words "home" and "away" to the article on the ground where the game was played

Apparently this is standard practice. Personally I've never seen it done before. Any thoughts? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against it but it's not something I've seen before either. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I say it is not needed. Kante4 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

MOS:LINKING says "In general, links should be created to relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully. This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question." A stadium where the subject played is very much relevant when giving details of a specific match. I have seen the practice used in good articles, which is not disputed in the prior review, so I am a little confused by this objection to be honest. LTFC 95 (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the question is whether it is a MOS:EGG (I'm not really sure myself of the answer) --SuperJew (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If the specific ground is that important to the understanding of the article, why not just name it and link it that way, rather than hiding it behind a pipe to "home" or "away"? – Pee Jay 09:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the idea, and no, I don't think it's standard practice – I've not come across it before. I think it certainly is verging on MOS:EGG. As PeeJay2K3 says, name the ground if it's necessary (which in this example, it probably isn't). Jellyman (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion it is WP:EASTEREGG linking and I would not use it myself. It is possible someone clicks on "away" to see what an away game means and then gets to "Stamford Bridge" or something, which is not the location of every away game. I dont like this kind of linking (and never seen it before so I dont think it is standard). Qed237 (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Have to add that i never saw it done in the articles i saw/edited. Kante4 (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It is evident from the responses in this discussion that there is strong consensus against the idea, therefore I will remove the linking. LTFC 95 (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Haldraper

I am finding him highly disruptive and very annoying. He continues to reword articles how he thinks they should be, I often read it and feel the English is far worse off after he has edited an article. I will just get pissed off and will revert every edit he does and I am not sure it's just me. I would like some help please to stop me going to the Dark Side! Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I feel exactly the same. The guy has made such edits to the Manchester United F.C. article for years now, and I've had to make so many reverts in that time that I've lost count. – Pee Jay 18:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

He's been blocked before, and with edits like this (purely nonsensical) he'll likely be blocked again. However please remember to comment on the edits, not the editor. Giant Snowman 18:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Niko Kranjčar

Since Harry Redknapp took charge of Birmingham Kranjcar's article has had a bit of vandalism, I don't think it needs semi-protect yet, but maybe it should be monitored a little more, cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sweeper merge

Hi, I have added a merge proposal hatnote for Sweeper to be merged with Defender. At first glance the text on the section and the separate article looks almost identical but obviously I would check and make sure everything worth including got added. Any input, please add either here or on the merge discussion. Thanks! Crowsus (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Template deletions

I have nominated Template:Association football positions and Template:FA National Futsal League for deletion here, if anyone would like to contribute. Jellyman (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

India national team for GA nomination

Hey guys, recently redid the India national football team page after wanting to do so for 3-4 years now. Not finished obviously, a lot more I want to do but I still thought about nominating it for GA so just in case anyone wanted a crack at it, it's there. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)