Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.

World Football Elo Ratings

The IP who keeps treating this as the ideal space for a statistical database dump has not relented despite previous attempts on the talk page, here, and their talk page... Any further opinion as to how much of the STATS-cruft should be kept/removed is appreciated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Personally I think the only stats that really should be kept is the top 25 rankings (compared to top 100 as it currently is) and the list of number one ranked teams. The rest of those stats can probably be removed. HawkAussie (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: I tried explaining it to the IP, here a long time ago (before I had an account); on the article talk page, and now even on their current talk page, but (and I verified this through xtools) they never, under any of their previous IPs, seem to have participated in any talk page discussion. Let's see if it gets reverted again... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

They're back at it, and they have not answered on their talk page or on the article talk. I'm starting to think the only solution would be a partial block from the article so that they can hopefully attempt discussion? @HawkAussie: In case all of the above doesn't get you a ping. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Kifuta Kiala

Does he pass WP:FOOTY? Having had a look at where he's played, I cant see any evidence of him having played in a WP:FPL, but I thought I'd check it here before starting an AfD. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't seem to find too much online. Most pages are just the bog-standard database-like listings. Googling the full name, "Kifuta Kiala Makangu", yields some results from what looks like either local or niche sources (most of them seem to be in German, so if this player has even some form of notability it likely doesn't reach very far out), but they seem to be mostly run-of-the-mill transfer and game coverage, probably loads of trivial mentions - I doubt you would find much more than that in print sources: The Regionalliga is the lowest tier of the national German structure (there are lower, but only at the levels of the Länder) and so any coverage would likely be limited. It isn't listed as a FPL so that, along with the so lack of SIGCOV, is pretty much the nail on the coffin. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, none of his appearances in Portugal seem to be above the third tier either and thus failing NFOOTY. I'll start an AfD. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I found three major kicker articles about him, I've posted them at at the deletion discussion. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

By date or by round?

In {{Infobox football league season}} there're 4 parameters:

• |longest wins=
• |longest unbeaten=
• |longest winless=
• |longest losses=

Are these values calculated based on by date or by round? If a game is postponed, it can lead to a different result depending on whether we count by date (actual date) or by round round (original date). --Sb008 (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken it's by number of games. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

By date. By round would be madness. But we should give the length in number of games as Nehme says. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't really make sense to do it by date. A team that is unbeaten for 10 matches played within the first 2 months of the season was unbeaten "longer" than the team that won 5 games in 4 months due to suspension caused by COVID-19 (or international break, or whatever). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I know it's a number, but suppose we have 2 teams (A and B) who after 10 rounds have 10 wins. Now suppose only the match of team A for round 11 is postponed and actually played between round 15 and 16. Team B plays according to the schedule and they win their matches of round 11 and 12, and lose their match of round 13. So, team B has a win run of 12. Team A wins their matches of round 12 to 15. Next they play the game which was originally planned for round 11 and lose it. What's the win run of team A, 10 or 14? Depending on that answer "longest wins" will be 12 or 14. --Sb008 (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

A would be 14. They played 14 consecutive games without defeat. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

By date it would be, by round only 10. --Sb008 (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear: when you guys say "by date" do you mean the amount of days? Or do you mean by number of games following the chronological order? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

By round I mean the number of games according to the initially planned dates (so, where the games are ordered by round), by date I mean the number of games according to the actual dates (so, where the games are ordered by date). --Sb008 (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahhh ok sorry. I thought you were saying by date as in "this team is unbeaten for 100 days". Between round order and chronological order I would say chronological order. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

We also have {{#invoke:Sports rbr table|function}} which is called rbr (by round) and not rbd (by date). So, the parameters in the infobox and table produced by the module could conflict, if we use by date for the infobox parameters. --Sb008 (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've lost track of the discussion above, but can I clarify - are some people saying that if a team won its first eight games of the season in August and September 2020, then the next scheduled game is postponed and for some reason not rescheduled for two months during which time they lose all their games, but then they win the rescheduled game in November, we would say "in the 2020-21 season they won nine consecutive games"? Sorry, but that's insane. They won eight consecutive games. The fact that two months later they won one which on paper should have theoretically taken place in September doesn't alter the fact that they won eight consecutive games played....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with ChrisTheDude, that was always my understanding. I was also under the impression that the results by round table was against WP:NOTSTATS and is also a duplication of information that is already presented and can be easily garnered from the results section within season articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ChrisTheDude: I get the sense everyone is at cross-purposes here, but I agree with you that that scenario would be ridiculous and the longest winning streak is the largest streak of consecutive wins. Whether anyone is actually advocating for the alternative, I can't quite work out. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. 100% it's by date order. RedPatchBoy (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Are there independent reliable sources providing this information? Eldumpo (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There are countless match reports that mention how many games a team had won/lost in a row. I've never seen one mention a notional "if all games were played in original order" Spike 'em (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Eldumpo: ESPN list the match streaks. Here's the Scottish Premiership stats for this season https://www.espn.co.uk/football/stats/_/league/SCO.1/view/performance Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the link. To answer the original poster though, we should be following (and directly citing) what sources say, not calculating it ourselves. Eldumpo (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Cyril Dunning

I've been going through some of the 6,000+ unassessed football articles to help clear some of the backlog and I'm not sure if Cyril Dunning is really notable. I've PROD-ed a couple of other articles already but because of this guy's brief amateur international career there might be something there. I wonder though if he falls foul of WP:BLP1E as the most notable thing about him is that he scored a hattrick in Germany's biggest ever defeat. I can't find any evidence that he ever played for Norwich City either but I'd be grateful to anyone with any offline sources that could verify that. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• A quick search of [1] brings up WP:GNG-qualifying results including his professional signing for Norwich (which was a much bigger deal than a routine transactional blurb back in those days from the looks of it.) SportingFlyer T·C 14:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully that means there's a Norwich City expert out there that can confirm he did play for them and we can start to improve this stub. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Dweller may be able to help there, although it's worth pointing out that Norwich did not play in the Football League at the time, so the question would then arise (as was touched on in a recent AfD, I believe) of whether the Southern League pre-WW1 is considered to have been a FPL......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter, honestly - there's probably enough sources out there in a search to get him past WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Dunning played 43 times for the club in the Southern League, scoring 25 goals. He also played 5 times for them in the "United League", which I've never heard of(!), once without scoring in the "N & S League" (ditto) and once, again without scoring, in the FA Cup. These stats in my 1986 edition of Canary Citizens, page 315. I tracked down that FA Cup match, in case it helped you. It's on page 248 of the same book. It was a 1st round tie on 1/5/1909 v Reading, which was played at Stamford Bridge, in front of a crowd of 15,732. Norwich eventually won that tie in a second replay at Villa Park, beat Liverpool in the next round, before being knocked out by Bristol City in the third. The match he played in is actually already mentioned in Wikipedia, though not referenced. It's in our article on The Nest: "An FA Cup tie against Reading later in the year had to be switched to a neutral venue when City's opponents complained that the Nest pitch was not big enough – but the club soon settled into their new home and it was not long before five figure crowds were packing into the compact little ground." I think playing in the first round proper of the FA Cup normally qualifies for our notability criteria, but the citations mentioned above would be far better. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've found reference for that match - page 33 of same book confirms the comment about the ground switch. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And page 34 has more about Dunning: "Top scorer for City in the Southern League in 1908-09 was Cyril Dunning an England Amateur International. Cyril scored his 15 Southern League goals in only 21 matches and found time to score a hat-trick in an England Amateur International against Germany on Saturday 13 March 1909. In all he won 5 Amateur caps and was a fine player but business prevented him from substantially adding to his City appearances. He was born at Manor Farm, Colby on 20 February 1888 and died at Paston on 18 January 1962."

Dunning's goals helped Norwich finish a magnificent 3rd bottom of the Southern League that year. And I can tell you he always wore the number 8 shirt. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dweller: Will you add to the article? Currently, it doesn't even have his dates of birth and death. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dweller: - the United League (at least at the point when Dunning was playing for Norwich) was a competition for Southern League clubs' reserve teams.[2]. Given the team we are talking about, I would guess that the "N & S League" was most likely the Norfolk & Suffolk League...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that can be right. Citizens doesn't include data on reserve appearances - it definitely treats it as first team, and that matches the actual sides put out, which match those fielded for the Southern League games. You're right about N&S - Dunning squeezed in his appearance in it (aged 17) before Norwich dropped out of the league in 1905, when the club turned professional, ending a shamateurism scancal. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe when that source says a "secondary competition", it means a supplementary league......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That would make more sense. It's a smaller league, with fewer teams in it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, my official Gillingham F.C. centenary history book explicitly refers to the team that won the United League in 1909 as the reserves, but that might just be slightly shoddy research, and there's no UL line-ups listed to shed any light...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

<-Robby.is.on I'd rather not do any more if you guys think the article should be deleted. What's the consensus? I can't see the other references SportingFlyer mentioned. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

He played cricket in the Minor Counties Championship for Norfolk for several years, according to his CricketArchive profile, which also gives a list of other football clubs he played for. It's a paywalled site, but if you hit Escape quickly enough when the page starts to load and before the subscribe banner covers it up again, it will remain visible. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added the cricket stats, the source also had his dob and middle name listed. It's definitely same person, as the cricket source mentions he also played football for Norwich City (and many other Norfolk local clubs). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dweller: I wasn't sure of his notability which is why I brought it up here but I'm leaning more towards him being notable after reading everything above. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Any other views? I'd like consensus. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd be a firm keep after this research. SportingFlyer T·C 20:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I've updated his article. Struway, Joseph2302, we have a discrepancy in sources over the exact date of death. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!

His probate entry says he was resident at Heath Cottage Paston at the time of his death, which took place in St Michaels Hospital Aylsham on the 18th. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice collaborative work, everyone. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! The article is so much better than it was when this discussion began. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Pelé

There's a situation at Pelé (discussion here) but I can't make sense of what the other user is trying to say. Any ideas? – PeeJay 12:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• I remember reading some controversy about Messi passing some Pelé record except the recordkeeping for Pelé's actual stats meant that Messi had only passed some sort of official record. I'm not sure what's going on here entirely, but I assume it's something like that. SportingFlyer T·C 14:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It's related to this, which I raised about the List of footballers with 500 or more goals article. Pelé scored something like double his official tally of 757 goals if you include "friendly" games organized by Santos against admittedly strong teams. Personally I don't see how it makes sense to not include Pelé's friendly tournament goals when Erwin Helmchen is top of the list for scoring close to 1,000 goals in regional German leagues in the 1930s. I see too that Josef Bican's tally has gone from 798 goals to 948+ in the last couple of months. With respect to the RSSSF I don't see how it makes sense to have players that have been dead for half a century to manage to keep adding goals to their tally whilst Pelé is stuck on the same number. I'd suggest a solution similar to the List of tallest people, where we have a list widely verified from multiple sources and an unverified list where Pelé's extra goals, Romário's extar goals, Helmchen etc are mentioned.--EchetusXe 14:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Timestamps in infoboxes

Hello. When updating a player timestamp for an appearance that was a couple of days prior, do we put the day of the last match played or simply five tildes? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Per the documentation at {{infobox football biography}}: use five tildes (~~~~~) to generate the current date/time in dmy format, or {{subst:mdytime}} for mdy format.. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: The timestamp is to show the point at which the infobox was updated; the datestamp above the stats. table (where one exists) typically shows the date of the last game played. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Bravo Award notability issue

Can you please advise on this issue? --Tanonero (msg) 23:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of adding sportspeople by event

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Sportspeople by event to increase the wording of WP:PERFCAT to include sportspeople by event (examples include Category:FIFA World Cup-winning players and Category:Summer Olympics medalists by year). If anyone has an interest in the discussion it can be found at the link above. Rikster2 (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Page protection for List of Scottish football champions

Protection requested please, it should probably be obvious why, but please check the history if in any doubt. There are other pages in the same boat but this seems to be the worst AFAIK. Suggest keeping it beyond the next Old Firm game on 21/03, there's always drunken 'banter' spikes at that point. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Evergreen FC

In a move discussion, Evergreen FC has been proposed for merging into Northern Virginia Royals. If interested, please participate in the related move discussion. Thank you. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 12:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyone want to chime in on this? Essentially, the background is there was a club named Northern Virginia Royals who in 2015 became Evergreen FC. Instead of renaming the article, a new one was created. In 2021, the club became Northern Virginia FC. The two articles contain the same information, so they should be merged. The Rename is being held up by an editor who voted oppose because he wanted a secondary source sources, but when I provided more sources, he said he didn't want to look at them.RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Coppa Italia finals

Hi. I would like that this article be a FL. It would be possible if this article have the data about the attendance are present. Unfortunately it is not possible. What can I do? Dr Salvus (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

College team seasons

Hi all, sorry to open another can of worms about seasons. Are articles like 2020 Chicago State Cougars men's soccer team within the seasons criteria? I'm aware that WP:NSEASONS says A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable. but my concern is that these seasons don't get enough independent and significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. What's people's opinions on this? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'd vote delete easily. College soccer really doesn't get enough coverage to support standalone season articles. SportingFlyer T·C 14:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with SportingFlyer. The key word is "generally" so the policy presumes that there will be significant coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of a particular team's season. That presumption has to be established and it won't be met in every case. More often than not, it will probably be championship seasons which reach the threshold for an article but there will be exceptions. After a quick Google search, I don't think this is one of them. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say no to college soccer team seasons. I think there are articles for other college sports such as American football, though college American football attracts much more fans and media attention than college soccer. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree these types of articles are not notable. GiantSnowman 17:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Smartyllama:, @Quidster4040:, @Ajax.amsterdam.fan: do you have access to any independent, reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of 2020 Chicago State Cougars men's soccer team of the standard that would pass WP:GNG? Thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree with the notion suggested by several users above that college soccer teams never get enough coverage, but in the case of an obscure school like Chicago State, I find it hard to believe they do. Top teams like Maryland and Georgetown would pass GNG (examples include [3], [4], [5], [6], and countless others), but I don't think all Division I college soccer seasons are notable. I'd need to do a more in-depth search on any specific school, but I don't see Chicago State having that coverage. Smartyllama (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I would agree. Each season for each club should be treated as a separate case. The Terrapins definitely get SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

My comment maybe wasn't clear. What I meant is we shouldn't be saying that generally all college soccer team season articles are notable. I'm sure there's some big teams where they will be notable, but also lots were they won't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus in the past on these types of team season articles is that they are given a presumption of notability if they qualify for the NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Tournament, because those teams tend to gain a higher level of coverage for qualifying for the national tournament, especially if they reach the College Cup. Sometimes articles get created prematurely. I think Chicago State is probably one of those articles. Jay eyem (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Also re:WP:NSEASONS, it mentions weighing the season and the sport, and that post-season appearances at the top collegiate level are often notable. Of course every season is ostensibly evaluated on WP:GNG, but I don't see an issue with the presumption of notability for those teams qualifying for the NCAA tournament. There actually is usually a decent amount of coverage for college soccer if you know where to look, but it's usually behind a paywall. Certainly nothing compared to American football or basketball, but it's there. Jay eyem (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Consensus is if a team either qualifies for the NCAA Tournament or wins the regular season, it is notable. Articles for conference seasons and tournaments are typically considered notable. I think that is too conservative, and generally the basis for deleting college team season articles is usually rooted in WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than WP:GNG arguments. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• In the separate WP:NSEASONS discussion below, I've proposed that a season needs to be continuously covered by secondary sources in order to be notable under WP:GNG, in order to circle the square with the conflict between a bad League Two article being kept and a good National League article being deleted. Although it's just a proposal, I'm not sure how many college seasons would be kept under this guideline, since most teams would only have significant coverage of their tournament game. SportingFlyer T·C 16:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah that's kind of a grey area for me. I don't think synthesizing match reports and transfers is sufficient basis for an article, but it is a team season we are talking about. I personally don't think asking for a season review in retrospect is too much to ask to qualify as WP:SIGCOV, but I know that's a bit contentious. Jay eyem (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Stars or no stars?

Some clubs, such as Juventus F.C. and FC Bayern Munich, don't have the star(s) on their logo, whereas others, like FC Dynamo Kyiv and Galatasaray S.K., do. Should we remove the stars from the latter, or add them to the former? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

What logos do the independent, reliable sources use? Eldumpo (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: In my opinion it would be better delete the stars Dr Salvus (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Are the starts a permanent addition to the club crest? Or do they just appear on shirts? GiantSnowman 22:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by permanent? Do you mean that they are purely ornamental and don't change based on titles won? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

They are added for title wins, but are they actually part of the crest or just displayed next to it? I would lean towards the latter. Which means no stars with the crest in the infobox. oknazevad (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Nehme - bingo. If the star is ornamental and might change season to season then don't include it; if it's a permanent feature of the crest then obviously yes, include it. GiantSnowman 11:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The Galatasaray club website doesn't show stars on the crest. Whereas the Dynamo one does. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Aberdeen's website also has stars above the crest. Unlike the relevant Wiki page. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I would just remove stars from logos if the stars indicate titles won, and can potentially change the next year(s) with a title win. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. IIRC Bradford City A.F.C. introduced a star above their crest for the 2010–11 season, to mark 100 years since winning the 1911 FA Cup Final. GiantSnowman 17:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not agreed. Some clubs integrate the stars in the logo (whereas most have a club logo and only add stars above the logo on the kit etc.) and use it everywhere the logo is used. Why should it matter that the logo potentially might change? Any logo might potentially change. See e.g. the UEFA site for usage. Dynamo Kyiv, Olympiacos, Marseille, Ferencvaros, and more clubs are represented with the star above the logo, while many other clubs aren't. Because the stars are part of the logo, or aren't. – Elisson • T • C • 10:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope, it's simple. If the stars are integrated into the logo, include them. If they are not, don't. GiantSnowman 10:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman. I wonder if this should also be applied to national football teams?--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 21:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

NSEASONS - discussion needed

Hi all,

I think we need to have some discussion around NSEASONS, given the current differences of opinion at AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008–09 Cambridge United F.C. season. As far as I can see it, the situation is that some editors' view is broadly that seasons in fully pro leagues are notable and seasons in non-fully pro leagues are not "per NSEASONS". Note that NSEASONS just says "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements", which could be taken to imply that seasons in non-fully pro leagues can also be created if they meet "the notability requirements" (unspecified, but would presumably be GNG). So the question is - what type of coverage is needed for a season to get over that line? Some of the articles currently up for debate have dozens of refs to BBC Sport, etc, but they tend to be dismissed as routine news. So are we looking for in-depth coverage of the season in its entirety? How many seasons even at the pro level would pass that bar? Has (picking a completely random example) 2003–04 Stockport County F.C. season been the subject of in-depth coverage as a whole? Yet that would probably get a "per NSEASONS" free pass. Also, would that requirement not suggest that almost no articles could be created on seasons still in progress?

Apologies if the above is a bit "stream of consciousness" but I think it's definitely a subject that needs some discussion, as there are clearly definite differences of opinion....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Something beyond mere match reports and transfer news. GiantSnowman 11:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

So if a team season in a fully pro league hasn't received that, it should also be deleted? I bet plenty would fall into that category....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that it could be hard to find sources for early seasons. Like ones from the 1800s and the first 3 decades of the 1900s, although there are plenty of club seasons in that state. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not proposing that season articles for teams in pro leagues get deleted based on sourcing, I am more concerned about reviewing/fixing the current discrepancy whereby season articles for teams in the National League get deleted because "the coverage is all routine", whereas if a season article for a team in League Two was sent to AfD it would probably get kept "per NSEASONS" even if (as would most likely be the case) the depth of coverage was no more than that of the National League team...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• The weird thing about seasons is that most teams, even in the highest professional league, don't get articles written on them that discuss the season as a whole, and we shouldn't be basing season notability on whether a recap has been written. I think a season article is fine for teams that have been consistently covered by secondary reliable sources throughout the entire season - this requires match reports but also transactional news. The goal of WP:GNG is to test whether secondary sources have "taken notice" of the subject of the article, and I think that's clearly met when a publication reports on every game and the routine stuff that goes on during the season. Our current consensus of "fully professional seasons only" does not respect WP:GNG and creates odd results when fully professional teams with significant coverage play a season in a league not in our FPL list.
• Therefore, I propose the rule of "For football, WP:NSEASONS is met when a team's season has been consistently covered by reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. This includes reporting on match reports, routine transactions, and any events that occurred over the course of the season. Teams in a fully professional league are presumed to have received enough coverage." The wording might be improved, SportingFlyer T·C 12:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As a slight change, (not really commenting on what is/isn't notable), but it's worth noting it isn't professional leagues, it's leagues that were fully professional for that season. The league being professional now isn't relevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought we already had that broken out by year on that page? SportingFlyer T·C 12:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I am of the belief that any season article that can't be brought to a state of demonstrating WP:GNG, professional league or otherwise, should be deleted or redirected as per, incidentally, the guidance provided by WP:NSEASONS! Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, if a league is fully-professional, the club season page should be easy to make pass WP:GNG with just a bit of effort. There are many ways you can write in background information and info from the season. Coaches interviews, press conferences about the season, how a match might affect the table... I don't know, just throwing stuff out there. But honestly, if I can find stuff to make an article on an I-League club's season notable then it shouldn't be hard to do. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The two problems: users vote at AfD on WP:NSEASONS alone ("was this an FPL? No? Delete"), ignoring WP:GNG, and people interpret what constitutes WP:GNG differently for these articles, leading to inconsistent decisions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Should NSEASONS have no significance whatsoever on whether an article is kept? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• The issue with the suggested definition For football, WP:NSEASONS is met when a team's season has been consistently covered by reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. This includes reporting on match reports, routine transactions, and any events that occurred over the course of the season. is that most non-league teams, certainly down to level 8 or 9, would have this level of coverage in their local media. We therefore need to have a realistic cutoff, and matching the FPL cutoff seems the most sensible place to draw the line IMO. Number 57 23:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, I think it can be argued that club seasons are simply forks of league season articles, and for non fully-pro leagues, a league season article is a sufficient/appropriate level of coverage and forks for separate clubs are unnecessary. Number 57 23:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't think your assumption is correct. I've just looked for secondary coverage of a few random non-league games and none of them had even a secondary match report online (not National League, I did that too and all of them had coverage). I did find a match report in a hyper-local publication for a match between two of the teams from 2017, but that's probably not independent. Your second argument implies we shouldn't have season articles at all. SportingFlyer T·C 23:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
      • In Suffolk, the Suffolk Free Press covers every AFC Sudbury match and has stories on transfers etc for the club. The Bury Free Press does similar for Bury Town, and the Lowestoft Journal for Lowestoft Town; there are similar newspapers covering other towns with teams at level 9. The county-wide East Anglian Daily Times also contains regular match reports for non-league clubs in the Eastern Counties League (levels 9–10) and above. I'm guessing you may not be finding it because many of these stories appear in the print version, but not necessarily online (many local newspapers have drastically cut back their online content in the last few years – the first two mentioned don't even have their own website anymore, having been merged into a website covering multiple local papers). Number 57 12:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Number 57 - you say that requiring "reporting on match reports, routine transactions, and any events that occurred over the course of the season" isn't sufficient for a season article, which is fair enough, but what I am struggling with is what the greater level of coverage you would be looking for is. Could you give an overview of what sort of coverage you would be looking for? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Due to the level of coverage for non-league clubs I mentioned above, I just don't think coverage is a useful barometer, hence why another cut-off would be sensible IMO. Number 57 12:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Number 57: The point of WP:FPL and WP:NFOOTY is to provide a guideline for assumed notability for players. This assumed notability is based off the assumption that a player playing in an FPL will create significant coverage of them in reliable independent sources. Of course a player who doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY but has the coverage (meets WP:GNG) is notable and should get an article while a player who does meet NFOOTY technically but doesn't have significant coverage (say played 5 minutes and that's it) may be deleted under AfD. Due to this, there is no reason to have an enforced cut-off for season pages either - we can have a presumed level of notability like NFOOTY, but each page is in the end judged on its notability per GNG. --SuperJew (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
      • It's a matter of opinion. Personally I like having clear cut-offs, as it helps editors understand what is worth their time writing articles on, and helps ensure consistency on what we have and don't have articles on (I would rather we did keep articles on players even with one appearance, as it's part of a set, but I appreciate this is a minority view). For me, having the same cut-off as NFOOTBALL makes sense as we're assuming there is a certain level of coverage of these leagues/clubs/players. I'm not looking to have an argument about this, just putting forward my view. Number 57 14:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

NSEASONS is just a guidance and shouldn't be used as an argument to ever supersede GNG, that's just wrong voting that way in my opinion. As for the National League, surprisingly enough, even know it's semi-professional, it near operates fully professional, as anyone of those clubs, even the smallest of chances get promoted to League Two have to put all players on club contracts. I don't know about others, but I feel that NSEASONS should extend into the National League and that's the cut off, period. Govvy (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The National League is certainly the cut-off point at which clubs get significant coverage from the national media e.g. BBC Sport. Maybe the suggested methdology above could be refined to "For football, WP:NSEASONS is met when a team's season has been consistently covered by reliable secondary sources at a national level per WP:GNG. This includes reporting on match reports, routine transactions, and any events that occurred over the course of the season. Teams in a fully professional league are presumed to have received enough coverage." or similar.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Also bear in mind why the National League gets wide spread coverage, is because it covers the whole of the country before being split up in to regional leagues. Govvy (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

NSEASONS is a waste of time and appears to just create ambiguity and inconsistency with site-wide policy like WP:GNG. Chris was generous selecting a Stockport season, I offered 1958–59 Liverpool F.C. season as a non-notable season (per NSEASONS) which seems frankly bonkers. But I also find it strange that we're expecting news outside "transfers and matches" because that would mean most seasons for most teams would be non-notable. I also find it strange that some people think that you can't write an NSEASONS-compliant article using prose about matches and transfers, that's altogether possible. In summary, NSEASONS really provides nothing helpful at all, especially not in the context of the various deletion discussions I've seen it used in as it does not preclude the creation pretty much any season article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Francisco Wagsley

Can someone help me out by taking a look at Francisco Wagsley please, and seeing if you can reproduce a bug?

For me, in my default configuration (Legacy Vector), I can't click on the links for Al-Wehdat or Al-Jahra SC, but I think that's just a symptom. Also, select and copy of the infobox flips to include the entire article when I go past these same rows (sorry, this action is hard to describe).

Interestingly, if I switch skin, the issue (mostly) persists, but sometimes on different rows of the infobox. Similarly, if I go through old revisions, it's sometimes different rows of the infobox affected.

Problem seems to have been introduced in [7] with the introduction of the Romanian language reference as, for me, at that point the São Luiz row of the infobox becomes unclickable.

I initially thought it was due to the right-to-left arabic script in the second reference introduced in that diff, but it seems not.

Edit to add - I can't reproduce this by pulling the infobox and reflist out to a separate sandbox page, either.

Thanks in advance, Gricehead (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I can reproduce this behaviour, though not done a huge amount of investigation into what causes it(using Chrome / Legacy Vector). Spike 'em (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

And if I switch off the Legacy Vector, it is Barito Putera/Borneo that don't work. Switching to Modern it is then Mikkelin Palloilijat / Ceahlăul Piatra Neamț that are problematic. Depending on how wide my browser window is, I have different teams in the IB with the problem Spike 'em (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Me too. Similar issue at Maurice Conroy: at my normal reslution, I can't click the place of death or playing position fields, but if I change my browser width, if affects teams instead. Using Firefox/Legacy Vector. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Without looking at the above-linked pages, I know what you are talking about. I have encountered this as well sporadically in the past 2(?) days. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Having investigated further, I get this with all skins. It is something to do with the interaction between the infobox and the stub template. Whatever is level with {{Brazil-footy-forward-1980s-stub}} / {{England-footy-defender-1910s-stub}} will be the problematic links / text. Spike 'em (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I've created User:Spike 'em/sandbox/fw to test, and have drilled down as far as {{Asbox}} being the problem so have raised it at the talk page for that. Spike 'em (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

2020–21 UEFA Champions League knockout phase

The bracket has been added into the page during this phase of the competition (round of 16, 2legs). In recent years, I don't remember adding it during this phase. It should be added only once, only after the quarter final draw, in which all pairings are established 100%. Island92 (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Bracket should be added after the draw for the QFs onwards is complete. Someone is going to have to swap the last 16 ties around in order to fit the bracket which is just unnecessary work. I have removed it for now. Dougal18 (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. See my talk page indeed. Island92 (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Added again by the same user. Island92 (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverted. I have told Sb008 to come here about it. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn't any of you present an argument why the information shown on the page is supposed to be invalid? All I hear is habit. The pairings and results of the matches as shown in the round of 16 are correct. FACT!!! The bracket as shown doesn't make any claim about pairings starting in the quarters and so on. FACT!!! Present me facts that anything showed is incorrect. Factual information is being removed!!! And it's a lot less work to swap some lines, than to add the bracket. --Sb008 (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No one has stated the information is incorrect. However, the bracket provides no real value until the quarter-final draw, as it includes the exact same information that is already present in the round of 16 tie summary table. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Then why have a bracket at all? All exact same information of the bracket will eventually be present in the summary tables of the rounds. --Sb008 (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

1. We already established that the information I added is correct
2. The information for the round of 16 is not only today, but also tomorrow, next week and even next year the same as in the summary table of the round. The same applies for all other (future) rounds. There would be a problem if the information wouldn't be the same.
3. If the fact that information is the same would be a valid argument to remove the bracket, it applies not only today, but also tomorrow, after the draw or next year. Either you add the bracket not at all, or adding it now is just as good, as adding it on any other day in the future.
4. What remains is the habit. That's non-argument. As I said before, as a baby it was my habit to p**p in my diaper. A habit I luckily don't have any more. And I doubt any of you is going to tell me you still p**p in your diaper out of habit.

If no one comes up with a valid argument, I will re-add the bracket and report who ever removes it, for removing valid and accurate information without a good reason (aka vandalism). --Sb008 (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The quarter final draw will take place on 19 March 2021. Come on, you can be patient and simply wait.--Island92 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Since this is contentious, I agree with not adding the bracket until there's an actual set bracket. Right now, a bracket has not been set, and the information's unnecessarily duplicative. We can add it back after the quarter final draw. SportingFlyer T·C 00:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Great arguments again:

• Just a few more days till the draw, I can wait. Sure I can wait, like you could not bother for those few days.
• It's contentious. When Galileo Galilei said the earth revolved around the sun instead of vice verse, it was contentious too. Trump and thousands of his followers deny climate change, contentious as well. Guess we have to remove the Climate change article.

Sentimental opinions, but if you lack facts, it's all that's left. And I thought Wikipedia was about facts, how stupid of me.--Sb008 (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Grow up. WP also works by consensus and collaboration, which you seem to be ignoring. Spike 'em (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Citations wanted - potential entries for List of footballers killed during World War II

Reposted and updated version of original now archived.

As main contributor to this article, I would like to flag up for attention of others on the project a number of candidates for the list that are already wiki-articled and known or believed to have been killed in or died as a result of circumstances brought on by the war (eg execution, in enemy captivity, effects of wounds etc) but which so far lack a reliable citation regarding their death which is preconditional to inclusion in the list. A few have no death circumstances described in the text of their article but I note have been put on category lists that suggest someone knew/believed they died in wartime circumstances. I also include those whose death circumstances are disputed - see their talk pages for further detail - and are in need of a conclusive ruling in or out.

• Dragutin Babic (Yugoslavia) - there is a source in Croat language but it is unclear to me it indicates manner of death
• Walter Berg (Germany) - alleged died in Soviet captivity after capture in war in 1949
• Josef Bergmaier (Germany)
• Henri Bierna (Belgium)
• Walter Claus-Oehler (Germany)
• Eddy de Neve (Netherlands) - also disputed death circumstance and identity
• Jozsef Eisenhoffer (Hungary) - also disputed death circumstances
• Hermann Flick (Germany)
• Franz Jelinek (Austria)
• Werner Klaas (Germany)
• Georg Köhl (Germany)
• Karol Kossok (Poland)
• Franz Krumm (Germany)
• Harry Kuneman (Netherlands) - Dutch war grave site citation located byCloptonson (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Willi Lindner (Germany) - source in German language, not fully clear about death details
• Josef Madlmayer (Austria)
• Richard Malik (Germany)
• Alexander Martinek (Austria)
• Otto Martwig (Germany)
• Philip Meldon (Ireland) - disputed death details, not known to CWGC.
• Hans Mengel (Germany)
• Adam Obrubanski (Poland)
• Slavko Pavletic (Croatia)
• Mimis Pierrakos (Greece)
• Alfreds Plade (Latvia)
• Eriks Raisters (Latvia)
• Stasys Razma (Lithuania) - disputed death details
• Fyodor Rimsha (Russia)
• Janis Rozitis (Latvia)
• Holger Salin (Finland)
• Otto Siffling (Germany) - It is listed under the list on German Wikipedia, but says he died of pleurisy. I've added it here in case he is found to have served during the war.
• Aleksandrs Stankus (Latvia)
• Erwin Stührk (Germany)
• Istvan Toth (Hungary)
• Lothar van Gogh (Netherlands) - Dutch war grave site citation located byCloptonson (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Willi Völker (Germany)
• Karl Wahlmuller (Austria)
• Heinz Warnken (Germany)
• Willi Wigold (Germany) - date of death is disputed

There may be additions coming onto the list so I encourage watch this space! Others are welcome to add. Please let us know if sources are found and added into pages.Cloptonson (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Dinamo history website says Babić died after the partisans entered Zagreb, which implies he was a victim of the war. SportingFlyer T·C 00:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Contributions of User:Carlão Junigan Magalhães - vandalising infoboxes of Brazilian footballers

Any admin around who would like to take a look at the contributions of User:Carlão Junigan Magalhães? Spotted on my watchlist changing the infobox of Jairinho to include spells at Flamengo and Real Madrid, despite the sourced career history in the prose. Further investigation found all his contributions from 5 March to today have done similar things on 13 player articles. An earlier editing spree between 19 January and 8 February did the same to 8 other player articles, but may well have been completely reverted by now as none of these edits are still current. User has been welcomed but not warned, prior to my uw-2 for Jairinho. Thanks in advance, Gricehead (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

After further research to check sources, I have reverted all edits in the period 5 March to 15 March, but would still invite an admin to consider whether further action is required. Gricehead (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If further vandalism occurs, please continue to revert, warn, and then report, either at AIV or to me., and I'll block. GiantSnowman 11:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of two football sources

What are the thoughts on the reliability of https://thepeoplesperson.com/ and https://www.thesportsman.com/? SK2242 (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)