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.

Bolton being promoted in 3rd place

@Muur: has added 'Honours' to all of Bolton's players after they finished 3rd and were promoted; is that an honour or not? I say not. GiantSnowman 21:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• I appreciate you trying to get consensus, but I believe this is a plainly obvious "no." SportingFlyer T·C 21:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

There are hundreds (prob thousands) of instances of players and managers being listed on wikipedia with promotions. I don't recall where it was listed, but when there was a discussion on if league runner up counts as an honour and it was stated that it doesn't, unless it's a lower league that comes with promotion.Muur (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you aware of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? If a league a runner up doesn't count (by your own admission), why would 3rd place? GiantSnowman 21:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Players for the club who finishes third in League Two receive a bronze medal, so this is usually included in the honours section. This addition to the respective player articles is not unusual as they are added after the end of each season. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

If that is the case and a medal is awarded then fair enough - but we need an explicit reference saying that the player in question has won the honour, not just a match report saying "the club was promoted after this game". GiantSnowman 21:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

it was only stated that it doesnt count for top leagues, cuz its not an honour apparently. however, it counts for lower leagues because promotion is an honour. the EFL literally gives trophies to the teams that get promoted, such as bolton in 2016/17 since bolton are relevant here. watford, having been promoted today as well as runners-up in the championship lifted a trophy today.Muur (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Read what I said - that is fair enough (if true), but where is the specific reference saying players X and Y received a medal? you cannot simply assume every squad/contracted player has got one. GiantSnowman 21:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

EFL regulations state: "To be eligible to receive a Championship, League One or Two winners medal, a player must have been named on the team sheet in at least 25% of the club's league fixtures in that season. Any medals agreed over and above those detailed above will be at cost to the Club concerned." I would assume this applies to the second and third-placed clubs also. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source that second/third place also get medals? GiantSnowman 21:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

as for stats, I notice people usually include the players's stats and the league table to show they played that season+where the team finished that season, but I figured the match was enough for the players who played since it showed they were promoted. if that's enough we can just switch to the stats+table for everyone. my only qualm is on if the players who played in the first half of the season then left on loan in january count (so Liam Gordon, Ali Crawford, Jak Hickman, and Jamie Mascoll). I didn't list those because they left on loan in January, but all of them other than Hickman played more than 5 games. also, the EFL state to get a medal you need to appear on the team sheet in 25% of matches (not even play, interestingly, just appear in the 18 for 25% of the 46 matches, which would be 11 matches) here. since again, this is bolton, we see 2016/17 captain jay spearing and josh vela here with their promotion medals when bolton came second.Muur (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

We need a source saying that 2nd/3rd place clubs get medals in 2020–21, and then we need a source saying that player X and Y has got the medal. You rightly point out the issue of players who left on loan. Were you just going to ignore them, even though they might have got a medal? GiantSnowman 21:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

looks like leaving in january *does* get you a medal, as this showed that Sébastien Bassong got two medals in in 14/15 due to playing for two teams who got promoted from the championship that season. so yeah I guess all four of those loaned out bolton players count.Muur (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

here's crewe stating they got promotion medals in 19/20. here's a newport player saying he would get a medal for getting promoted last month (oops, they bottled it, he'll have to make do with the play offs)Muur (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the sort of article you would need to use as a source, which shows Plymouth's captain with a bronze medal for their third place finish in 2019–20. However, this wouldn't be sufficient for the rest of the Plymouth's squad that season. LTFC 95 (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

there are multiple of these talk pages that state promotion is an honour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Players/Archive_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_116 consensus seems to be that being promoted counts (and like I said, its listed on thousands of player articles here on wikipedia.) This one is most relevant. it states "They are included for cup competitions, not league competitions (unless it's a promotion, in which case it's a promotion honour not runners-up honour)." so perhaps that means the formatting should be changed as it seems the accepted it "promoted", not "runner-up" (or in regards to league two, third place). note that this is from december 2020. promotion counts as an honour that can be listed. (with the technicality that the *promotion* is the honour rather then 2nd/3rd place. thats why I made sure to state promotion on them, as its a promotion hounour)Muur (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Muur: you need to use better sources than the league table on Soccerbase btw. I have added a Guardian article on the promotion for now - but please find specific references confirming players in question have a medal, otherwise I will remove them again. GiantSnowman 08:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on this picture, it passes the duck test. Can anyone spot any differences from picture?--EchetusXe 10:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, my main point now - where is the source confirming which specific players have a medal? GiantSnowman 11:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

All four teams involved could've finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th on the final day. they obviously weren't going to have all the medals and trophies in just one of the 4 places. Morecambe missed out, but it easily could've been bolton, chelthnam, and/or cambridge missing out and ending up fourth. the efl will send medals to the three promoted teams now that its confirmed. its why the trophy itself and winners medals werent involved in the cheltenham celebrations as seen in that pic the other guy linked, they hadnt won the title until the final whistle blew. cambridge and bolton could've walked out as champions instead. so they will send the trophies and medals out to the teams (covid stuff prob wouldnt have allowed them to go from, lets say, bolton to cambridge to swap medals depending on who was 2nd/3rd). with past promotions it was usually confirmed weeks before. for example in 2018, as seen in this picture they had cardiff's runner up trophy and medals (medals shown in pic) ready cuz they couldn't win the league on the final day, so were already confirmed runners up. BTW, here's a source that states "But even if United miss out on winning the league, the EFL have confirmed that they will be presented with a smaller trophy on the final day – and all the members of the squad will be handed runners-up medals for their efforts in the promotion campaign." so theres confirmation the entire squad gets a medal (though having to appear in 25% of the matchday squads will presumably still be in effect). according to the same source the first time they had runners up trophies/medals was in the 2010/11 season, so i guess any time before that would not pass as an honour cuz they got no trophy before 2011. i specifically remember southampton in league one complained that they wouldn't get anything for coming second and the EFL said "fair enough" and created the medals and a trophy for the runners up (and third place in regards to league two, always thought it was stupid league 2 had 3 automatic spots). right now we dont even have pics of the cheltneham team medals cuz they didnt give them out yet. if you want we coudl put a citation needed thing on it? also here's the guys who actually make the trophies and state that they also make medals to go alongside the trophies. but anywhere there's a source stating the entire squad get a medal, and there was previously an image linked of Plymouth's bronze medal from 2020. (and actually, it seems third place get a "Sky Bet League Two silver salver" for third place going by that plymouth pic, but also get medals. the medals are the relevant part.)Muur (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

So to cut a long reply short, there's a source up there that states all members of the squad get a medal. and in regards to the EFL's 25% match day squads, all the bolton players it was added to were involved in more than 25% of the 46 match day squads.Muur (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

But is it really an honour? Just because someone gets a medal doesn't mean they actually won anything. If the Football League started giving out medals recognising every club all the way down to last place, would we consider all of them honours? Coming third earns you promotion to the next division, sure, but it's no different than finishing in the top four of the Premier League and qualifying for the Champions League, and we wouldn't put "Champions League qualifier" in someone's list of honours. – PeeJay 12:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with PeeJee that it really shouldn't go. Many of those "pre-season international touraments" like the International Champions Cup give out a trophy, but we don't include those in honours. Referees get medals for reffing in a final. It's more of a token. If a league starts giving out participation trophies to every team like youth soccer, would those be honours then? RedPatch (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree - but where does that leave us? Shall I remove the entries? GiantSnowman 14:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I think the fact we're struggling as much as we are to prove the EFL hands out medals to teams that didn't finish top shows that it's not really a notable thing. I'm still in favour of removing them from the honours. SportingFlyer T·C 14:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 17:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

IMO, promotion is pretty obviously an honour, as it is the main aim of a lower-league team's given season. Also, we include play-off wins in the honours so leaving out automatic promotion would be rather odd. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. A third place promotion is listed as an honour for the club, so why not the player? Chris (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

first place and play offs counting but not the other team that gets promoted is really stupid. thats why the EFL created a trophy and medals in the first place. there are more people saying it counts here than not, there's no consensus that it doesnt. also pre-season tourneys aren't competitive matches and the EFL obviously aren't going to give anything out for coming 15th or whatever. counting 1st and play offs but not runner-up (and 3rd in league two) is really really stupid.Muur (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't even put the promotion playoffs. That's like a "oops you failed, here's a second chance" option available to a couple teams. I'd put league winner and that's it. An honour, IMO, is something that every team had a chance at and one team succeeded at. This year 40 teams are going to be promoted to the Primera División RFEF....should all 40 of those teams get an honour because they won promotion to a higher division because they are revamping the league structure. A line has to be drawn somewhere. If third place is an honour for League Two then third place should be an honour for every league in every country - there should be consistency, which gets to be a bit much. If there are different rules for different countries, then it could result in arguments of "why is your country is more important/better than my country". 1st place is a much simpler way. Really from my own experience, people/teams only bascally 'show off' a 2nd/3rd place honour when they have no real championships. Once they get 1st places they stop talking about those 2nd/3rds because they're not important or memorable after a while. As a Bolton fan, in a couple of years say you're talking to someone highlighting the clubs history, you'll say things like "we were in the premier league for X number of years and we're 3 time Championship winners". Would a "3rd place in League Two" fall in the same level or be mentioned. It'll be very quickly forgotten. If it's forgettable, it's not an honour RedPatch (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatch: isnt third in the world cup the same though? the two losers fight over a third place medal after having already lost.

Agreed. League winner and cup final winner/runner up is enough. Coming 3rd in the 4th tier? Getting up in playoffs? No. GiantSnowman 14:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Something being "stupid" in your view is not reason to edit war. There is no consensus for inclusion. GiantSnowman 14:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean Bolton's promotion in 2017 is still brought up pretty often enough. a league being restructured obviously is different, that isnt earned on the pitch. the "runner-up" isnt the honour, the promotion is. (the *earned* promotion, not a league re-structure). thats why 2nd/3rd in the PL means nothing. past discussions over a decade (as I linked further up) had/have people agreeing they should be added, which means current is to include them. the place where it is right now, unless agreed otherwise, in a new thing, is that promotion is an honour. I linked multiple talks on it before where the agreement is that promotion is an honour. wikipedia currently counts it as such. you realise there are thousands of articles where promotion is listed right? the "status quo" is that they count.Muur (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually the two conversations you link mention nothing of the sort. I just looked them over. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_116#Isthmian_Division_One_North_Playoffs has no consensus at all like you are claiming and ONLY ONE EDITOR said for an automatic promotion to be listed, the rest talked about playoffs, of which there was no consensus -some in favour some against and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players/Archive 5 is a) about players not clubs and b) is a RFC that discusses runner-ups but no third place/auto promotion (one user who was the same as the previous discussion mentions it briefly offhand, but it is not referred to again since it wasn't the purpose of the RFC). So, what you are saying is because 1 editor agrees with you in past discussions, we have to include it and ignore the many more editors who don't agree - meanwhile in this current discussion its split 50/50. Basically, your point here is WP:ILIKEIT You mention Bolton's "promotion in 2017" is still talked about. That still falls under WP:RECENT given its their most recent promotion, hence why it would be compared and discussed with their current promotion and their last successful season where they finished above 21st. How much discussion do their 1995 or 2001 promotions get now? If anything, an RFC can be started to come up with a consensus, of which none currently exists (for or against) RedPatch (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

literally an article talking about every single promotion bolton have had only a few days ago. here's one from this week that talks about the fact that sarcevic has been promoted four times from league two in his career (2014, 2017, 2020, and 2021). here's one where matt gilks's promotions in 2010 and 2018 are mentioned (alongside 2021). anyway: "about players not clubs" this entire thing is about players, not clubs. as for runners-up, third place for L2 counts alongside runner-up for champs and L1 due to how that league is structured for automatic promotion.Muur (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I misread it and thought this was about clubs not players. With that said, the past rfc discussion you linked as consensus does not discuss this topic and is therefore irrelevant. Also, linking non-wikipedia articles does not affect wikipedia consensus. Thank you for starting the RFC below. RedPatch (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should club promotion (non-league title) be listed in a player's honours section

Is promotion when not finishing as champions an honour? So runner-up (and in league two, third) and play-offs. Muur (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• No - In a club article, maybe. In a player article, no. Only first place in the league, and winners + runners-up in cups (+ third-place in knock-out competitions with third-place matches). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• No As mentioned above, only league winner should be considered honour. Prevents opening up a can of worms where others will say if third place in League Two is an honour, then 3rd place in La Liga, Serie D, Bulgarian Second Division, USL League One, etc, should be listed as an honour. Mention in the article prose instead if you want to include it. RedPatch (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Those instances aren't promotion.Muur (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said, prevents opening up a can of worms. RedPatch (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

that's why its a promotion honour. you'd simply say "coming second in the premier league isnt promotion."Muur (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

And I repeat, can of worms. Someone will say third place is third place. If third place is allowed for some leagues, then I can apply it to another league. I'm not saying me, I'm saying what others users will do when they see. Opening a can of worms means "If you 'open a can of worms', you [often unexpectedly] set in motion or discover something that has wide-reaching consequences". You're intending to do 3rd place for promotion only, what could easily happen is it becomes third place for everything. RedPatch (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• No - Per above. Kante4 (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• No, not for a player. Mention it in a club article, yes, but not a player 'honour' - that should be restricted to league titles and cup winner/runner-up positions only. GiantSnowman 16:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

wouldn't that discount things like world player of the year or manager of the month as well though?Muur (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• No as per GS, mention it in club article, but not in honours section of players. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• No it’s an achievement but not an honour. Winning a cup or a title is an honour, coming third, in this case, gains you promotion but that’s it.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You get medals and a trophy too actually. @Egghead06:Muur (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes: IDK if I'm even allowed to vote on it, but I say yes. and you guys all realise this includes play offs too right? so no play off final wins would be counted (which will be relevant as there are three English play offs finals about to happen).Muur (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Question: What do reliable published sources list as player honours? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

whenever a team signs a player they pretty much always mention player's promotions.Muur (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Neither NFT nor Soccerway give Tammy Abraham any sort of title for Aston Villa's 2018–19 EFL Championship play-off win. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

soccerway does mention sheffield united's 2018/19 championshiip runner up tho. (since you mentioned 2018/19 specfically) [1]. also surely if only league titles and cup winner/runner up count in hounours section then literally every award such as world player of the year isnt relevant either?Muur (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

We are only talking about club honours, obviously, not individual honours... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes: Promotion is in itself an honour, regardless of where a team finishes in the table. The articles found by Muur show that sources make little distinction between promotion and winning a league and I personally don't think there is any real difference between finishing 1st, 2nd or 3rd in League Two. Contrary to RedPatch's assertion that promotion honours are "very quickly forgotten", I can tell you about every one of Leeds United's and Crawley Town's promotion's but I can't neccesarily remember where in the league they finished. Also, I can't quite work out from the discussion above but I think 3rd place in L2 gets medals, which would also suggest it is an honour. In response to RedPatch asking This year 40 teams are going to be promoted to the Primera División RFEF....should all 40 of those teams get an honour because they won promotion to a higher division, the answer is obviously no, as that is a restructuring and teams are only moving to a higher tier if they win the promotion play-offs for the Segunda Division and not if they qualify for the new Primera División RFEF, like how Crawley Town's promotion from the 2003–04 Southern Football League was an honour, but Weymouth's second-place finish was not. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

they get medals and a trophy yes. The conversation just before the RFC was "even though they get medals and trophies promotion isn't an honour". That's why playoffs are included in this as well.Muur (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Muur: ok, ta. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• No, promotion is a team honor, if anything, and should remain in the club article. Alyo (chat·edits) 01:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes It's an honour so seems sensible to include it in the honours section.--EchetusXe 22:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Bolton players have now recieved their medals.. @GiantSnowman: @Egghead06: @SportingFlyer: Muur (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: @Muur: So are you suggesting that the receipt of a medal always signifies an honour regardless of where you finish in the league?--Egghead06 (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Well they don't give out medals for those who came 17th or whatever. the efl give out medals to promoted teams (including first place) and cups winners. its the entire reason world cup third place is included, cuz they get a medal.Muur (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• No For all the reasons mentioned above, only league championships should be included as "personal honors." Even then, I am on the fence regarding league championships as personal honors, but the current consensus is that they are listed. Promotion for any reason is a team honor and should remain on team pages. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• No Usually, I would say it depends on who we're talking about but for these circumstances and the reason above, I think it's best not to include it in the honours section. It should however be covered as prose within the career section as for most players, winning promotion is a significant and notable event. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have to say I am a bit bemused by people saying that something can be an honour for the club but not the players. If we regard achieving something as an honour for the club, why would we not also regard it as an honour for the players who actually achieved it by their performance on the pitch.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• No Not in the honours section. It can be included in prose if relevant. SportingFlyer T·C 10:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• No Neither for players or clubs. Agree with Egghead06 that this is an achievement, not an honour. Number 57 10:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• No Not in players' honours lists but to be mentioned in the article body.--Tanonero (msg) 11:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Quick question - where do we stand on play-off final wins as honours? It would seem (to me, at any rate) odd to not credit the players of the team which finished 3rd in League Two with an honour for getting promoted but to credit the players of the team that finished (potentially) 7th with an honour for getting promoted just because it was decided by a single game at Wembley and they got a trophy...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

play offs are included in this for not counting. if this gets a "no", the play off finals are snubbed off as well. also, the runners up (and 3rd in league 2) get medals and a trophy as well, which has been proven multiple times at this point but now its a "even tho they get medals we don't wanna count it anyway" thing, which is why the play offs have been thrown in too.Muur (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Another question And is it an honour to be a runner-up in a play-off final.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

course not.Muur (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Someone better tell Neil Warnock, famously promoted eight times as a manager, that only two of them count as honours. Of course his Conference Manager of the Month award from November 1986 is an honour and getting Cardiff promoted into the Premier League isn't an honour. That makes perfect sense and doesn't make the encyclopedia look ridiculous to bemused readers. The List of Cardiff City F.C. managers featured article will have to be revised as well, seen as a random selection of the promotions will no longer be classed as honours.--EchetusXe 21:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• No Per the reasons mentioned above, It is not an honour but rather an achievement. Sea Ane (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Should winning a promotion-playoff match/final be listed in a player's honours section

This has come up a few times in the RFC, so starting a section for it here. Pinging voters and commenters of the previous section @Muur, Nehme1499, GiantSnowman, Joseph2302, Struway2, Microwave Anarchist, Alyo, EchetusXe, Stevie fae Scotland, Egghead06, Jkudlick, ChrisTheDude, SportingFlyer, Number 57, and Tanonero:

• No Not in players' honours lists but mentioned in article prose. My explanation is in the original commentary. Only league title. Note: This refers only to promotion playoffs. Championship playoffs such as the MLS Cup Playoffs are obviously different, since those determine the actual league champion (not the league table). We don't list automatic qualification to the Champions League/Europa League as an honour, that's the equivalent of the League Two auto promotion. 3rd place in Premier League gets a hybrid "promotion" to the higher level Champions League the next season. Similar to automatic/playoff promotion in my eyes. RedPatch (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• No As a rule of thumb, fine in prose, but not in the honours section. Does it count if say Kilmarnock win the relegation play-off and don't get relegated? This is limited to promotion playoffs only as RedPatch notes. SportingFlyer T·C 11:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes / No: I've said more than enough at this point in regards to my support for it. As for relegation vs promotion play off for someone like Kilmarnock that wouldn't count because it's avoiding relegation, not achieving promotion. although if the situation is that runner-up and third in league two dont count, then I don't thikn play off should count either. so my yes/no depends on how the runners-up are handled. PS, the original RFC included the play offs as well.Muur (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Apologies, I missed that the original RfC did indeed cover play-offs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

some others may not have realised that too, so this makes it more clear at least.Muur (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• No Agree with the above that prose is enough. Number 57 12:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks for tagging me RedPatch. No - Same reason as above, it's a significant/notable event rather than an honour. For countries like Scotland/Germany/France where we have divisional play-offs rather than the promotion play-offs you have in England it really doesn't make sense to consider winning the play-offs as an honour. As a supporter, I considered it much more of a relief in 2016 when Kilmarnock stayed up through the play-offs.

As an aside, I could see merit in including a list of notable events (for want of a better title) in player/club articles when they aren't Lionel Messi or Manchester United and don't have many, if any, winners' medals. It would only really be relevant for players/clubs who have a couple of promotions as a runner up or for play-off winners. It would very much depend on context as a club/player with several runners-up medals or one or two trophy wins might not need it as they have actual honours. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: still feels a tad odd to me that something like a promotion wouldn't count, yet things like world player of the year count.Muur (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Same as result for promotion vote - The honour is with the promotion, not the play-off tournament win. It would be absurd to list a play-off tournament win as an honour but not finishing in an automatic promotion place. I mean, of course it's already absurd to talk about removing promotion honours from the honours section, but here we are. They are listed as honours by primary sources but a few editors don't like it and have come up with a few nonsensical strawman arguements.--EchetusXe 14:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• No In the pre-woke, pre-politically correct world they were winners and losers, not winners and a series of people who were runners-up. To win is an honour. Other than that you are not a winner and that is no honour despite what they may teach in schools these days.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

and yet cup runners-up are allowed. kinda goes against your point.Muur (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Football play-offs are "woke". I've heard it all now. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Didn’t say that, but them you knew that. Giving rewards to those who have failed to win the league they were is definitely a modern day pat on the back for failure just like the top FOUR in the Premier league making the CHAMPIONS League. --Egghead06 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Runners-up in the second tier have been promoted to the top flight since the 1898–99 Football League season. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Think there has already been a discussion elsewhere on whether being a runner-up is an honour? Can’t remember the outcome but personally I think it’s again, an achievement, but coming second or third in the league or maybe even sixth in the case of the play-offs, is no honour.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• No - prose is sufficient. GiantSnowman 15:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• No - I would support including it if we were including automatic promotion, but as there is a pretty clear concensus to not include automatic promotion, the same should apply to play-off winners. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• No - Promotion is a team accomplishment, not an individual accomplishment; it can be included in the article prose but should not be listed as a player honor. However, winning a major international tournament (e.g. FIFA World Cup) is something that can be included in personal honors because of how rarely it occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkudlick (talk • contribs)
  • @Jkudlick: - out of interest, why would promotion be a team accomplishment, but not an individual accomplishment, given that it's the players on the pitch who accomplish it? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Because it takes the entire team to win promotion, not any one individual. Club promotion is definitely suitable for the prose of an individual player's article, but I will always argue against its inclusion in individual honors. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
      • It takes an entire team to win any competition, not just to get promoted. – PeeJay 18:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
      • @Jkudlick: - so by the same logic we shouldn't list any of his four Champions League wins or ten La Liga titles as honours on Lionel Messi's article, because it took an entire team to win each one, not just him......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
        • @ChrisTheDude: That would be correct. However, current consensus is that they are included and this discussion is not about that. I also doubt that consensus will change should I bring it up, so I am content to leave it as it is. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, of course. Even if we decide that promotions aren't deemed to be "honourworthy", the play-offs are competitions in their own right, so why wouldn't we include them? We include the FA Community Shield as an honour, which is a one-match tournament and the result of which is of no consequence, so why not the play-offs, a tournament that includes four (or more) teams and which results in promotion for the winner? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Well someone has now added it for all players of Dundee F.C. with their latest promotion as well. RedPatch (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

because lower league fans very clearly see promotion as an honour. scrapping it will honestly be controversial as shit and will prob cause quite the shit storm once it starts getting deleted from all the pages.Muur (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Well of course, Paul McGowan winning a SFL Young Player of the Month award is more significant than captaining a team to promotion into the Premier League from the play-offs isn't it? I mean come on, this isn't a completely braindead discussion where people just vote "no" without reading any of the points made or knowing the first thing about football you know!--EchetusXe 16:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

people involved dont like lower league football it seems. they support teams like man city and chelsea most likely and dont realise how much promotion means to fans. also, who's going to be the one to go through 200 seasons of english football and remove promotions from every single player? its crazy that a few big 6 fans dont like something and can cause it to shit all over lower league football.Muur (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Players will not actually be released until their contracts end on 30 June 2021

Yes, we're at that point when Football League clubs are starting to announce retained/released lists. Just a polite reminder that in 99% of cases players remain contracted until 30 June 2021, so they will be released only then. Please do not remove them from 'current squad' lists or similar until that time. GiantSnowman 14:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

technically they're released on July 1st, since June 30th is the final day of their contracts.Muur (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. The point is they are not released now. GiantSnowman 10:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

List of Australian international association football caps

We already have List of Australia international soccer players (and sub-articles, broken down by number of caps) - do we also need List of Australian international association football caps which duplicates the information, simply re-organising it? GiantSnowman 11:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The first is only player with over 10 caps. --SuperJew (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I said we also have "sub-articles, broken down by number of caps" e.g. List of Australia international soccer players (4–9 caps) - so why do we also need the 'list of caps' article? GiantSnowman 11:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It's called soccer in Australia so the association football article should be a redirect. I don't see anything in the association football article that isn't in the soccer article but if there is it wouldn't be difficult to add it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Can't see why this extra article is needed. All it does is show where in the overall numbered list of debutants a player is, and If anyone desires to know that, it's in the PDF ref (albeit its retrieved 5 years ago and last updated 15 years ago?? Surely there's a more up to date version) and can be added as a field for all players without much disruption, although with 500+ it would take a bit of time. Crowsus (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll take to AFD in due course, unless anybody fancies it first...? GiantSnowman 10:41, 20 May 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)-source provided by Microwave Anarchist (see below) has been added byCloptonson (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC) added also article page from Nurnberg FC site.Cloptonson (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Karol Kossok (Poland)
• Franz Krumm (Germany)
• 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)
• Otto Nerz (Germany) - died in Soviet captivity within Germany 1949; disputable death date detail, entire article unsourced until I added citation to Olympedia which however has no indication how he died.Cloptonson (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added to article information sourced to Tennis Borussia website article (German language).Cloptonson (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• 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)
• István Tóth (Hungary) - Source provided by Microwave Anarchist added to article byCloptonson (talk) 06:10, 17 May 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.

In acknowledgement to those who commented but was too late to make reply:

• SportingFlyer T.C said: 'The Dinamo history website says Babić died after the partisans entered Zagreb, which implies he was a victim of the war.'
• Comment: Citation to establish manner of his death still sought.
• Microwave Anarchist said: 'ISBN 9783895332418 looks like it may have some content on the Germans, but I don't have access to it.'
• Comment: Someone else may be able to look this up.
• Microwave Anarchist said they found what 'looks like an adequate reference for Toth, but I haven't added it yet as I would prefer a Hungarian speaker to confirm what the source says.'
• Comment: Hungarian speakers, look up the previous posting in archive page 140.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloptonson (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: this would confirm that Georg Köhl died in military service. @Norden1990: As a Hungarian speaker, would you be able to confirm that this source verifies the information given in István Tóth's article. Many thanks, Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: Quick query - publisher of the book the mention appears in? (Does not show clearly.)Cloptonson (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: The publisher is WSC Books (the book publishing branch of When Saturday Comes) and the location of publication is London. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now added the source to Kohl's article.Cloptonson (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I have also added an article page on the German language FC Nurnberg site, which sheds more light on his war years.Cloptonson (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: Yes, the source verifies the information, Tóth was executed by the pro-Nazi government Arrow Cross Party in February 1945. --Norden1990 (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added that source to Toth's article.Cloptonson (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: this would suggest that Nerz died at Sachsenhausen from cerebral edema in 1949 after being taken prisoner after the war, though Tor! says "Nerz would practically starve in Soviet captivity and passed away from meningitis (I assume that caused cerebral edema) in 1949, although some of the other detainees claim he was dead as early as 1947". I am unsure whether his inclusion on the list would be justified given that he died well after the war in Europe ended. Either way, its an interesting article, and a few other good sources exist on him ([2], [3] as well as earlier pages of Tor!) should anyone wish to expand the article. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The 'List' is not exclusively confined to those who died solely inside the dates 1 September 1939(invasion of Poland)-2 September 1945 (the Japanese surrender) but also includes few who died in the few years following hostilities in circumstances consequential to their involvement in the war, in which could be counted those who died as POWs (like Nerz) or those executed for war crimes. Note that some national war grave agencies have differing cut off points; the British Commonwealth War Graves Commission classes as Second World War dead those who died after end of hostilities up to 31 December 1947 who were serving in armed forces or died as result of service, enemy action injury or enemy captivity. The German (VDK) and Italian agencies may have a longer remit because of the varying time lags until their POW nationals were repatriated.Cloptonson (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@MicrowaveAnarchist: I have just read the magazine article (the first source you brought up), it sheds more light on his wartime activities than his wikipedia article currently shows, and to which I may add detail on the strength of that source. As an SA Obersturmbannfuhrer who in his medical capacity had been attached to a military hospital he had qualification to be a POW.Cloptonson (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Repeated links in the infobox – WP:OVERLINK?

Hi folks. Having frequently come across infoboxes with repeated links over the years it recently struck me that I couldn't come up with a good reason to flout WP:OVERLINK in that case. Is there one?

Take the recently deceased Torkild Brakstad as an example. He had quite a few stints at his hometown club Molde FK – as a youth player, as a senior player and as a manager. It seemed blatant overlinking to me to link every one of those instances so I decided to only link the club once in every section ("Youth career", "Senior career", "Teams managed") of the infobox. What do others think? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:REPEATLINK, "a link may be repeated in infoboxes". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Full quote: Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.

Applying that to the example of Torkild Brakstad, would you say more links would be "helpful"? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I personally would like every instance in the infobox. GiantSnowman 20:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Tables and templates (which include infoboxes) are exempt from OL. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Can you point me to where this is written in policy? MOS:REPEATLINK states "a link may be repeated" "if helpful", that's not a blanket exemption. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that specifically says after that "a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." - this is obviously on a personal level, but in practice there's rarely reasons not to link these items. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, WP:OVERLINK would be one. For instance, I don't see how it would be helpful to link "Molde" six times at Torkild Brakstad when they've had few stints elsewhere. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Robby, but it seems that Lee Vilenski’s argument is strong. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: I'm seeing more personal preference than arguments. "if helpful" would suggest to me that linking more than one instance should be the exception to the rule, not the other way around.

Why "in practice there's rarely reasons not to link these items" remains opaque. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, if I had seen Brakstad's page without context a part of me would have thought that maybe the unlinked "Molde"s were referring to an amateur team, different to Molde FK. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That's likely because currently we link everything but amateur teams and that's what you're used to seeing. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. That is ambiguous statement: it could mean that you can repeat multiple times in infoboxes, or that you can repeat a link that's in the article in the infobox as well. I've always taken it to mean the second. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the statement is ambiguous, but that we should try and keep things consistent across Wikipedia. Since most other infoboxes are filled in, I would prefer if all instances of Molde to be filled in for his infobox as well, even if it's admittedly superfluous.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Play-offs column?

Should we keep the play-offs column in the season to season table at Juventus F.C. Under-23? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

no, not needed. GiantSnowman 10:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wait, why would we remove them? They still participate in the playoffs, should probably be included, no? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see why we would delete that column. – PeeJay 17:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I personally find the column a bit much (especially if we were to also add a "play-outs" column for the relegation play-outs). I don't really have a firm opinion though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, it is a notable post-season tournament in Serie C. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Layton Maxwell

I've added the personal life section of recent events about this former footballer. I was wondering how should I deal with the lead paragraph, footballer turned gangster? Govvy (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I had a similar issue at Tyrell Robinson. He has not been convicted or sentenced, so I would not update the lede until that happens (in due course given he pleaded guilty). If it does, mention it in a brief, neutral manner like at Mr Robinson. If not, it does not need to go in the lede. GiantSnowman 09:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

K, cheers for the input, updates on article. Govvy (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Players bought outside the window of the football market

Juve bought McKennie (bought outright from the loan) and sold Douglas Costa to Grêmio. Should these two transfers be put in the article about the current season or the one abuot the following season? Dr Salvus 15:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

When will they come into effect? Start of the next transfer window. GiantSnowman 16:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman,  Done permalink Dr Salvus 17:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Bernardo Silva

There's a user who has a disruptive behavior and is constantly edit warring who frequently adds non-encyclopedical or biased info in pages about S.L. Benfica. I frequently remove this kind of info but he continues to revert me.

Regarding Bernadro Silva, I think it is irrelevant what club Silva supports and I think it is non-encyclopedical info. It does not add anything by knowing if Silva is a Benfica or a Porto supporter. What do you think? P3DRO (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You raised this with me on my talk page a few weeks ago - and I said that information like that is valid if it supported by a reliable source, which it appears to be. This is a personal issue between you and this editor, who have had beef for years. GiantSnowman 17:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

FC Gagra

Someone should take a look at Football Club Gagra. I wanted to request a move to FC Gagra to match other Georgian clubs' names, but it seems that an article was created there in 2008. On 30 March, VilsonF5 created a new article under the longer name, and on 29 April they apparently copied the entire content from the old article into their new one, creating a redirect in the process. Most of the existing links seem to point to the old article name. Phanto1999 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the manual move, and warned them on their talk page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Phanto1999 (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Pelé

An exceptionally arrogant editor has made a few changes to Pelé recently to "correct" some stats because apparently "it is my duty to re-change your EXRERIMEMNTAL STATS. IF YOU DON'T KNOW, I KNOW." They did raise a talk page discussion in March but no one responded so now they've decided to take it upon themselves to make the changes to the article without consensus. I'm sure we've been over Pelé's statistical record many, many times, but given that it's an absolute minefield, I thought it would be better if someone with more knowledge of the situation than me took a look at it. Cheers. – PeeJay 12:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It relates to the List of footballers with 500 or more goals article, which is also flawed.--EchetusXe 12:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This user seems to have made it their mission to impose their opinions on articles about old footballers who's goal tally's are perhaps not 100% due to how long ago they played. The Josef Bican article had a similar issue in January. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Career stats MOS - parent club rows

@Rupert1904: has edit warred (conduct issues raised separately at ANI) to remove the Chelsea parent club parent rows in the career stats table at Ike Ugbo, on the basis that he made no appearances in those seasons as he was out on loan. I pointed him to the MOS (at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics) which clearly shows that parent club rows remain in the career stats table, even if there were 0 apps. That is to show who he was on loan from, and to reflect/provide a complete career history (otherwise there would be significant and confusing gaps for players who have spent different times out on loan). The MOS is widely used, common sense, and should be followed. Rupert thinks we can ignore it. What are people's views? GiantSnowman 16:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Examples why I think the parent clubs should remain even if they have 0 apps:

A player plays for Team A. He then signs for Team B but makes no first-team appearances, and goes out on loan at Team C. If you removed the parent club entries (so no Team B), it would look like he was on loan at Team C from Team A; or

A player spends 5 years at Team A; then signs for Team B for 5 years but makes no senior appearances; and then moves to Team C. If you removed Team B on the basis that he had 0 apps there would be a huge and confusing gap. GiantSnowman 16:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No. As the MOS clearly states, it is a recommendation and is subject to change and should not be followed word for word. You think it's gospel that needs to be followed blindly and is not open to change or improvement BUT the MOS says it is open to change. On Ike Ugbo you insist on putting in blank rows into his career stats table for the 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20, and 2020–21 seasons with parent club Chelsea. This is wrong and inaccurate for so many reasons. He has never been registered or given a number with the senior squad. So he has never been included in the squad list for ANY competition during those four seasons. He has been sent on loan to other clubs before season starts so it is factually inaccurate to include these seasons with Chelsea in a stats table because that would suggest that he was in a lineup or could have featured for the club during that season which is not true. Then when I ask why you won't fix this supposed MOS problem on other player articles you refuse to answer the question because you think you're above me. You then tried to start a discussion about this on my talk page and you brought in another editor into said discussion but they sided with my argument and not yours so now you're all upset. And lastly, you have a pattern of following my edits and reverting me and you even admitted to having my talk page on your watch list. That is incredibly weird and not appropriate. You need to stop! Rupert1904 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Why did you remove my talk page post here? You cannot pick and choose which arts of the MOS you simply with; that way anarchy lays. GiantSnowman 16:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything and you are really grasping at straws by suggesting that editing wikipedia is akin to anarchy. This is an encyclopedia that I thought we were both trying to improve. This isn't global politics. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That diff clearly shows you removing my post, and respectfully, you clearly don't know what is meant by "anarchy" here. Lawlessness. That is what happens when editors decide what parts of MOS they do and not not like, and what they will and will not follow. Your comment that "oh well the MOS is not supposed to be followed" is absolute nonsense. GiantSnowman 16:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Where did I say "oh well the MOS is not supposed to be followed"? I said it should not be followed verbatim. Which the MOS clearly says it should NOT be followed verbatim and that it is subject to change. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

So when are we supposed to follow MOS, when are we supposed to ignore it, and how do we decide what bits to ignore/follow? GiantSnowman 16:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Rupert's erasing of GiantSnowman's comment, I think it was done by mistake (maybe an edit conflict?) as it doesn't seem to change Rupert's case. Regarding the MOS, as per WP:IAR and per the MOS's wording This page provides a suggested layout for footballer biographies. While nothing is set in stone, the MOS isn't an iron law. When are we supposed to ignore it? When we think it betters the encyclopedia and the article. So in this case Rupert thinks that not including the parent club is a better representation. GiantSnowman thinks otherwise. And that is what the discussion is about. --SuperJew (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It indeed was. Thank you, @SuperJew:.Rupert1904 (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The points that Rupert is making are very important here. If a player is not registered to play for a club in any competitions, then it is not possible for them to have any stats. It is relatively simple these days to find squad lists of registered players on competition websites. If indeed a player was not eligible to make any appearances in a particular season, then it makes no sense to have the row in the table. However, if they were eligible to play in only one competition but did not make an appearance, that is enough to justify including the row. LTFC 95 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the point is this - was a player contracted to the club and considered by us to be a first team player? How else will you get around the issues in the examples I listed initially? What about players who played before the advent of registration lists being available online? GiantSnowman 16:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ike Ugbo is not a first team player at Chelsea. That is exactly our point. Now three different editors have told you this.Rupert1904 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

He is considered a senior player, and the career stats table reflects the career. You have not (because you are unable to?) explained how to get around the issues in the examples I listed initially. GiantSnowman 16:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The Rothmans/Sky Sports/Football Yearbooks have the squad lists going back to the 1970s. Sufficient sources exist with this information. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

He is NOT considered a senior player. He has never been promoted to the senior squad, never been given a number, never been registered in any competition, and never made an appearance or the substitute's bench. If a player played before the advent of registration lists 60 plus years ago then we will do our best to make sure what we have on their article is factually accurate. But now that we do have registration lists you want us to just ignore it because players before didn't have that? It makes no sense and disregards facts and sourced edits. And if you are going to bring up examples, why didn't you answer any of my original questions on the discussion in my talk page then? I listed off so many players and you said you didn't need to because you're better than me. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he's considered a senior player. Why would Chelsea even bother to register him for any competitions if he's spent the last four years out on loan? If that's the only technicality we're using to determine whether to list his parent club in the stats table, I think it's kinda spurious. Leaving out the parent club would make the article look like we fucked up. – PeeJay 17:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think the career statistics table needs to reflect from which club the player is on loan from etc. We have that in the infobox and in the prose. --SuperJew (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting for somebody to explain how to get around the issues in the examples I listed initially... GiantSnowman 17:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to explain why you haven't added rows into the examples that I listed initially.... Rupert1904 (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Because I don't have the time or inclination to edit every single article that we have about footballers...and I did you would just revert me per POINT, wouldn't you? GiantSnowman 17:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Rupert that we don't need parent club rows for every single year a player was out on loan. Spike 'em (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. And how do we get around the issues in the examples I listed initially? GiantSnowman 17:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman. If we don't include the parent club, all we see is a player listed as being on loan, but how is the reader supposed to know who they were on loan from? – PeeJay 17:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeing 5 rows of zeros to me is unnecessary, but not having the parent club is also an issue, given that it would appear as if a player was contracted to a previous club. However, I don't see the need to put a row of zeros especially when the player is gone on a full year loan and never had the chance to make an appearance. The zeros also could be considered misleading as if he was available to play in those competitions (versus the fact that the team was, but he was not) - this was discussed here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_139#Career_Stats_Table_-_midseason_transfer_-_missed_competition without a firm consensus established. Personally, one method that could work is a "home row" so to speak, where you list the first (and any years the player made appearances/available for appearances), but just omit the full-year loan years for Chelsea (apart from the first year). This could establish that the player was on loan from Chelsea, but avoid excess redundant space. Maybe something like this? RedPatch (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IMO the career stats table is to show the games played (and goals scored) in all competitions, not to show the history of transfers. Therefore we can list only the rows in which he actually played (or was elegible to play) (much as Soccerway does btw). how is the reader supposed to know who they were on loan from? By reading the infobox and the prose of the article. This table is also barely legible to understand that the parent club is Chelsea and then the loan club is XYZ. --SuperJew (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Going one step further I don't even think the term "(loan)" is neccessary in the career stats table. --SuperJew (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Soccerway shows Chelsea rows though - albeit it for the U23 team - as does Soccerbase ... GiantSnowman 19:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The U23 team is not the senior team (I would have no problem having an U23 row, but that should be after discussion since AFAIK the consensus is not to add youth apperances, even if in a league), and also it's not every season. --SuperJew (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

And we could also add a note at the bottom of the stats table saying he has been on loan from Chelsea. As I and others have said, it is just so misleading and actually factually incorrect for Ugbo in particular since he has never been registered with the Chelsea senior side in any competition as he’s never been “promoted” to the senior side from their U21s rather he has just gone on loan to senior sides outside of Chelsea. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I personally believe we shouldn't have "(loan)" in the table. And if we do, we could just simply write "(on loan from Chelsea)". Or, (loan). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with Rupert that we don't need parent club rows for every single year a player was out on loan. If a player never was in the squad, it makes no sense to suggest that. The career statistics table's purpose is to show the appearances a player has made. Its purpose is not to display when exactly a players joined or left a club or which club loaned him where and when. As SuperJew already wrote, all that information is covered in the infobox and, in a more detailed manner, in the storyline. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree, we do not need to list the rows where he could not make an app. A simple note like above would do the trick. Kante4 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any arguments here to change the MOS other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. None of the arguments stack up. 'Just look at the prose'? Well no, the stats table is separate to that - because if one simply duplicates the other, why have both? 'Remove loan status'? Bizarre. Why not do the same for the infobox? Why would you add 'loan' in notes rather than keep it as we have displayed it for years, without issue? For the specific Ugbo article, the infobox has his senior Chelsea career starting in 2017, but that is not reflected by the stats box. Why the discrepancy? GiantSnowman 19:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: (edit conflict) The arguments are A) It's unneccesary B) The career stats table is to record stats of the career --> therefore we should not include a row for a club the player didn't play for during the season and was not eligible to play for C) The "issue" of the parent club is a non-issue and can be solved easily by a) the reader getting the information from the infobox/prose of the article as that is not the objective of the career stats table, b) add to the "(loan)" bracket "(loan from [parent club])", or c) add a simple note. --SuperJew (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(also side note) The MoS you linked does not mention this situation where the player didn't make any appearances for the parent club, so there is no stable consensus base on this. --SuperJew (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Rebuttal - it's not unnecessary, as myself and PeeJay have explained it shows who he was on loan from, and it presents a complete picture of the career. What if a player spends 2 years with the first team, 3 years on loan or in the Reserves (either way making 0 appearances), and then back in the first team. Are you going to show a 3 year gap?! etc... He was a Chelsea player that season, so we should display his Chelsea stats, even if they are 0. It's clearly not a 'non issue' given this has kicked off and I have had to raise Rupert's conduct at ANI. PS the MOS does support my position - see the 2010–11 season where there are 0 apps for parent club (as out on loan) but still shown in the stats table, as is 2011–12 season with 0 apps. GiantSnowman 19:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem of showing a 3 year gap - if the player wasn't eligible to play for 3 years since he was in reserves. If a player was out of contract for 3 years and then returned, we'd have a 3 year gap in the stats. And in this case it's not a gap - it's stats when he is on loan somewhere else. What if a player left team A, joined team B for 3 years and returned to team A, that would look the same situation - the career stats table records the stats played for which club in which season, not the contract status of the player.

The point editors have raised above is exactly that he wasn't a senior Chelsea player that season.

I apologise if it sounded I was demeaning the argument. I meant that it isn't an issue to solve it - via expanded bracket or via a note, which both look better and are less confusing. Regarding your and Rupert's conduct, that discussion should continue at ANI and not here - here we are discussing the content issue.

Apologies regarding the MoS - I misread the stats of the loan as of the parent club. Anyways, it's hard to tell if this theoretical player in the MoS was a similar case to Ugbo's or if it was a different case, such as signed a senior contract with "Template United", was in the matchday squad on the bench for a month, then loaned out to "Wiki City" where he played 15 games and then returned to "Template United" injured until a few months into the 2011-12 season, when he returned to the matchday squad for 3 weeks when he sat on the bench and then transferred to "Template Rangers". I can make up another few scenarios which can match this table displayed in the MoS, and I don't have any info to support or contradict since in this case there is no prose and the infobox doesn't match the table. This I think further supports my point that to get the "full picture" a reader has to read beyond the career stats table, which isn't intended to give all the picture with all the contract status and history points. --SuperJew (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

But...as MA says below...we consider him a senior player because he makes his senior debut, even if was at another club, and the infobox reflects that - so the career stats table should as well. The MOS is clear. I am concerned that people are simply picking & choosing what part of the MOS they personally like/don't like... when the MOS says "we are flexible" what it means is "not every section has to be set out this way or included". It does not mean "ignore the career stats table layout because you don't like it or find it useful". GiantSnowman 09:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Going by the story I wrote above, the MoS is not clear. It is at best ambiguious. I cannot tell only from the career stats table if the example player is as my story above or if it's any of other number of stories which can fit the stats appearing there. And the fact that a player made a senior appearance for a different club (especially in a different and lower league), does not automatically make him senior-contracted at the parent club. --SuperJew (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the MOS is clear - if a player is 'senior' in the infobox then we include those stats in the career stats, even if they are 0, even if they are on loan at a different club that season. GiantSnowman 10:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You're reading it as you want to read it, and completely ignoring that it can be read in other ways (therefore ambiguious). --SuperJew (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, there's one way of reading it, and there was one way of editing for years until Rupert popped up and deciding to go on his little edit war spree... `GiantSnowman

Not true, GS. The "Career statistics" section of footballer articles is one of the areas I edit most and in my experience a majority of editors treats the issue the way Rupert has. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My experience is clearly different to yours. I'm not saying either one is right, but mine follows the MOS and has been like that for years. Are you saying that people ignoring or being ignorant of this aspect of the MOS is fine? GiantSnowman 10:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm with GS on this. Neither is ideal but to me, it looks less ridiculous to have rows of zeros than not showing the parent club. Also, if Ugbo obviously isn't a senior Chelsea player (as some have suggested), then can someone please explain to me when someone is/isn't a senior player. (Side note: this reminds me of the discussion of the youth career in the infobox, in that people are claiming that the distinction between being a youth and senior player is obvious, but without having any coherent way of defining it) Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: A player is a senior player when he signs a senior contract. If for example a player plays 2 minutes for the senior team because half the regular squad is unavailable, and then returns to playing youth football for another 2-3 seasons, doesn't mean that his youth career ended the minute he played for the senior team. Regardless, for the stats career table the point, as was expanded above is if the player was available for selection for that team in that season - so in this case he wasn't even registered on the senior squad, and therefore not eligible for selection for games, so no reason to have a row for that club for that season. --SuperJew (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you think Ugbo is on a youth contract, being nearly 23 and having spent 4 years out on loan at numerous clubs? Read his Chelsea profile. GiantSnowman 10:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anything about Ugbo's contract. As I said it is irrelevant anyways. The important point is if he was eligible to play in the senior team's games. As he wasn't registered with the senior squad, he wasn't. --SuperJew (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

But he was a senior player? That's all that matters. GiantSnowman 10:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

On a different direction here, why is the solution of having a note (via note format or in brackets) a bad compromise in this situation? --SuperJew (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Because it is a poor solution to a non-existent problem. Why have a stats table at all, why not simply add notes next to club entries in the infobox to explain other appearances? GiantSnowman 10:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a compromise I could live with. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a compromise at all. GiantSnowman 10:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Since there is more than a page of discussion with views on either side, it evidently is an issue. One side of the argument wants to keep empty rows of parent club to prevent confusion (which might arise in cases that it looks like the club is loaned from the wrong club or it will look like unexplained gaps in the career), while the other side of the argument doesn't want the empty rows as they are unneccesary and not correct factually as the player wasn't avilable for the senior team selection in that season. This compromise of the notes fulfills side A's request to prevent confusion (as the note clearly will state from which club the player is on loan) and fulfills side B's request by not having the empty rows. So it is a compromise. In the end, we come to the talk page to discuss and in the end compromise if there are opposing viewpoints (whether by having a midway solution or by one side conceding that the consensus is with the other side). It is a shame that it doesn't feel here that there is flexibility for any compromisation. --SuperJew (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(BTW having all the stats in the infobox is not a bad idea IMO. Having a season-by-season breakdown of stats isn't necessary on Wikipedia. But that's a different discussion anyways and irrelevant to here.) --SuperJew (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No; there are two aspects to keeping the rows in as per the MOS - present a full career picture, and prevent confusion re:loans. The 'note' compromise barely deals with one of those aspects. And having all the stats in the infobox is a bad idea, given the lack of sources regarding cup games for older players, as we discuss every time somebody suggests it. GiantSnowman 10:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Stating it's a "non-existent problem" seems a bit tone-deaf considering there are at least four people in this very discussion only who disagree with you, GS. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but there are others who agree with me and the MOS. So what's your point? GiantSnowman 10:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The point is that repeating that you don't consider the issue a problem doesn't help us reach us a compromise or a consensus. You have cited arguments why you don't consider it a problem, others have cited arguments why they do and both sides don't seem have been able to convince the other side, so we need start thinking about a compromise.Robby.is.on (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

But I cannot see how there can be a compromise reached while people are still advocating for gaps (and confusing ones at that, regardless of any 'notes' added) in the stats table. GiantSnowman 11:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the parent club data should be included whether they played a game or not.--EchetusXe 11:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with GS and co. Basically what we are talking about here is an issue with the way to present data in a table format. We don't have any such issue presenting this info in infobox because of the accepted principle indicating a player is appearing on loan with the indentation.

I would argue having another table that does not reflect the infobox has two critical issues:

1. Any user of wikipedia will want to know what appearances the player has made. The infobox shows only league apperances. There is now a gap in knowledge traditionally filled by the table of career statistics.

2. Users are likely to see the absence of any career records as an omission rather than a clarification. Koncorde (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There can definitely be no compromise if you continue to dismiss any suggestions out of hand. I find the tables with multiple rows of 0s, often remote from the same year out on loan as both confusing and uninformative. Spike 'em (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and we can't have multiple rows of 0s when a player was never registered by the club to play in the competitions, which is the case here, as it gives the impression that they were eligible to play, when they weren't. As already mentioned above, Soccerway only has entries in the database for the youth teams and not the senior team, which backs up that he hasn't been anywhere near the senior team. The only possible compromises to my mind are either to have the footnotes as already proposed above, or to have rows of em dashes, to denote that he was ineligible for all of the competitions during those seasons, as we already do when a player is ineligible for some competitions, per the MOS. LTFC 95 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Then here's a compromise - include the rows, but replace the 0s with dashes and add a note saying 'player was not eligible for competitions this season because of X, Y or Z' or similar. That should please both sides, will it not? GiantSnowman 14:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I would support that, but the notes would need to be individually sourced. LTFC 95 (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Any other comments from anyone before I ping all participants for their views on the new format? GiantSnowman 15:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Appearances and goals by club, season and competition

Club	Season	League			National Cup		League Cup		Other		Total
		Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
From 2017 to 2021 Chelsea was the parent club. (There are simple solutions).
Barnsley (loan)	2017–18	Championship	16	1	0	0	2	1	—		18	2
Milton Keynes Dons (loan)	2017–18	League One	15	2	2	0	0	0	—		17	2
Scunthorpe United (loan)	2018–19	League One	15	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	16	1
Roda JC (loan)	2019–20	Eerste Divisie	28	13	1	0	—		—		29	13
Cercle Brugge (loan)	2020–21	Belgian First Division A	31	15	2	1	—		—		33	16
Career total			105	32	6	1	2	1	0	0	113	34

Cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That is not clear (as it looks the same as the header), and what happens if he plays for the Chelsea first team next season, what about when players go out on loan part way through a career etc. etc. GiantSnowman 18:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Per my edit above earlier, If we're going to bracket non-appearing seasons then this would be the only valid solution imho. Whether it's 0's or - is a matter of stylistic choice.

Appearances and goals by club, season and competition

Club	Season	League			National Cup		League Cup		Other		Total
		Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Chelsea	2017–21	Premier League	0	0	0	0	0	0	—		0	0
Barnsley (loan)	2017–18	Championship	16	1	0	0	2	1	—		18	2
Milton Keynes Dons (loan)	2017–18	League One	15	2	2	0	0	0	—		17	2
Scunthorpe United (loan)	2018–19	League One	15	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	16	1
Roda JC (loan)	2019–20	Eerste Divisie	28	13	1	0	—		—		29	13
Cercle Brugge (loan)	2020–21	Belgian First Division A	31	15	2	1	—		—		33	16
Career total			105	32	6	1	2	1	0	0	113	34

At least this way you are giving the same information as you used to, just condensed. Koncorde (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a great idea and looks really good and not confusing. Kante4 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

+1 Robby.is.on (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ye, that can work, because a lot of loan players don't get many games for their top club. There is a however, when do you decide what seasons you're going to split off. For for seasons which are pure away loans, could work. Govvy (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be completely opposed to this solution, though if anything it should be 2017–2021 per MOS:DATERANGE. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. (although I have played literally no part in this discussion) REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to be difficult (honestly!) but what does one line really save over say 2 or 3 or 5? Especially if the parent club changes division... GiantSnowman 19:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if I like this. What if a player goes out on loan in 2017... returns partway through the 2017–18 season, plays a League Cup game, goes out on loan for 2018 and the whole 2018–19 season and then plays 1 game in the League Cup in the 2019–20 season before going back on loan? Are we going to pretend the 2018–19 season doesn't exist for Chelsea? What if he plays 1 League Cup game for Chelsea in 2017–18, goes out on loan end of 2017, returns before 2018, and then never plays again on loan until 2020–21? Are we ignoring 2018–19 and 2019–20? I don't know, I just don't think it would look the best. This is better than the Govvy table though. I personally think it isn't a problem adding the Chelsea seasons for Ugbo. It isn't his or our fault that Chelsea keeps loaning him and other players out a billion times. The grand, grand majority of players are loaned out a couple times like youngsters James Olayinka and senior guys like Konstantinos Mavropanos and honestly, having Arsenal listed for 2020–21 looks fine and is accurate to me. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@GS it doesn't save much, and I also don't think the current system is an issue for the very few players it affects (certainly to this extent). @AF700 if is really only applicable in this situation, and that's kind of the point. This is one of 1 in 500,000 player situation. All other players we have resolved one way or another, and would continue to resolve - this is just a solution here, now, for this player, and potentially other situations where GS and Rupert meet each other. Koncorde (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would just put the first season (2017-18) and then the loans. The first season would basically provide the parent club (and for a new transfer, basically imply that he was purchased for that season, then loaned out immediately). That also solves the problem of a player returning in subsequent seasons and playing portions of a season here or there. It's how it's done in the John Bostock and Martin_Ødegaard articles. Just omit the seasons they weren't with the first club because they were on loan. I also noticed this discussion was had three years ago with the same lack of consensus Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_118#Parent_clubs_in_career_stats_tables. RedPatch (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am okay with this approach as well, @RedPatch:, or the in-line note as others have suggested. My issue with Ike Ugbo, in particular, and as agreed to by other editors, is that Ugbo has never been given a senior squad number at Chelsea and he has never been registered with the senior squad in any competition whatsoever. He has only played for the Chelsea U18s, U19s and U21s. Further, all of his loans have been full season loans or in the case of the 2017–18 season, his loan was cut short with Barnsley and then the very next day, he was immediately loaned out to MK Dons. And based on his profile at the Chelsea website, he has never even been "promoted" to their senior side. Therefore to me, it's not only an extreme stance and over aggressive interpretation of the MOS to add in all of these blank stat lines with the Chelsea senior team from 2017 through to 2021 but also factually inaccurate and very confusing. He has never had an opportunity to represent the Chelsea senior side and having all of these blank stat lines suggests otherwise and presents a misleading narrative. Rupert1904 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is one entry OK but 2/3 not? Why is including '0' apps "misleading" but removing all mention of the parent club not? GiantSnowman 14:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It definitely does make it clearer, especially for serial loanees like Michael Hector, Joel Campbell, David Button, Samuele Longo, Matej Delač, Francesco Forte. Their stats section would look terrible with 7-10 years of zeros and cause confusion beacuse its so messy IMO. With that said, it's not directly tied to this discussion, but I don't really like the non-chronological nature that career stats tables caused by loans because of the need to keep the same club together. For example, a player plays for Team A from 2010-2020, but in 2011/12 and 2014/15 he goes on loan to Team B and Team C. There would be 10 rows from 2010-2020 for Team A, then we go back in time 8 years to show Team B up three years to show Team C, then jump forward 5 years to show his next club Team D. That's where notes, etc, could help by actually making career stats chronological. RedPatch (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It is misleading because Ugbo is not and never has been registered with the senior club so to have 4 blank lines saying he was with the senior team is factually wrong. And I think everyone has consented and agreed to not remove all mentions of the parent club, instead include the first season they are signed (which is not relevant to Ugbo since he is a product of their youth team) or an in-line note. And I would say for Ugbo, we should even say it is a loan from Chelsea U23s since that was the last Chelsea team he was registered for. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Something looking "terrible" is immaterial. There's plenty of things that look ugly here in my view, but they are useful so I get over it. If Ugbo has never been a senior player for Chelsea (despite the infobox saying he is, and despite that largely being an irrelevance), why display one season? Surely none would be better? If you are going to display that, why not just have everything as we already do? And no, players do not get loaned out from the underage sections of a club (in England at least). GiantSnowman 15:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

None is probably better, but displaying one was an idea for potential compromise as opposed to showing 5+ rows of zeros/dashes. Sure many things look terrible, but provide use, but it they can be made to look better while still showing the use, that's even better. I don't see how 5+ rows of zeros when the player was ineligible for selection demonstrates any positive utility. RedPatch (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Chelsea should be on there for each season contracted that he was out on loan. The player in question is even stated to have signed a professional contract in 2015. he's not a youth player.Muur (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between turning professional and being registered by the club to play in professional competitions. The latter is the issue that we are discussing. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

but... you don't have to register U21 players? U21 players don't count under registration rules for domestic competitions. chelsea could play a 4 year old in their next match if they wanted to. Like, you can see here that man city for example didn't list Phil Foden in their 25 man squad because he's U21, but he played 50 times anyway. instead, he's listed in their U21 list. Ugbo is 22, so wasn't registered for the 20/21 Chelsea squad list but before that he as included in their U21 list. here is the 19/20 squad list. Ugbo is listed within Chelsea's U21 players. the only season where he wasn't actually eligle to play for Chelsea is the 20/21 season.Muur (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

So why not say Ugbo is a Chelsea U21 or U23 player in infobox or stats table? Rupert1904 (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Because we do not treat English youth teams as senior teams, unsurprisingly. GiantSnowman 17:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Well @GiantSnowman:, it's surprising that you want to include him in the senior team when he has not been included by Chelsea. Also @Muur:, going by the Premier League squad link you sent above, why did we not then include all the U21 players (Contract and Scholars) into the current squad list for Chelsea in their 2019–20 article or in the main Chelsea F.C. article? Rupert1904 (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Muur: A hypothetical question here as it could happen given Chelsea's recent history with loaning players: if Ugbo was to stay at Chelsea until he is say 26 or 27 (so older than not counting towards the EPL under age 21 registration rule) but be loaned out to different clubs for the entirety of that spell to a new club every season and never be registered for Chelsea in any competition, how would you want that showing in his stats table? Would you want to keep the 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2020–21 seasons with Chelsea showing up as blank even though he was on loans with other clubs those entire campaigns but then remove stat lines for 2021–22, 2022–23, 2023–24, 2024–25 with Chelsea because he was over 21 years old and not registered? Rupert1904 (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean you were free to include all the chelsea youth players it'd get a bit overkill doing so I'd say. and yes if hes there till 27 youd list every season.Muur (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing/muddline infobox, stats table, and squad listings. As you have been told by somebody else, the infobox treats him as a senior player, and the career stats table should reflect that. GiantSnowman 18:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you are actually confusing/muddling the infobox and stats table GiantSnowman. The infobox shows the clubs based on contractual status - so it shows the clubs the player was signed for and that way we have parent clubs and loan clubs are indented. The stats table is to show with which club the player was playing and their stats for that club, and therefore shouldn't show a club he wasn't playing with, such as Chelsea in this case as the player was away from Chelsea on loan at other clubs. Any confusion over "who's the parent club" can be cleared by looking at the infobox/prose, and/or having a note via note format or in the bracket to extend to (loan from [PARENT]). --SuperJew (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

But people have suggested removing rows when a player was contracted to play for a club but making no appearances (such as a backup goalkeeper). How is that representative of the 'club the player was playing and their stats for that club'? Ugbo was a Chelsea player 2017 onwards, how is having no entry for them in the career stats showing the 'club the player was playing and their stats for that club'? GiantSnowman 21:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rupert It is misleading because Ugbo is not and never has been registered with the senior club so to have 4 blank lines saying he was with the senior team is factually wrong. this makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. We literally have an infobox saying exactly this very thing. Not with four blank lines, but with "2017-" and indicating Chelsea as the parent club. This has nothing to do at all with "registered with senior club", and as a table of data we do not stipulate anything like "must be registered" etc (and per Muur above, it would be redundant). Ike also made appearances for the Chelsea U23 team in the intervening periods between loans to 3 of the clubs again indicating a period where he was eligible to play for the senior team if selected. Koncorde (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Also in regards to the 20/21 season, Chelsea only listed 22 players in their 25 man squad so whilst they didn't list this over 21 player in their 25 man squad, they could still play him. He would just simply take the 23rd slot. so he *was* elibigble for this season. also the FA Cup and League Cup you don't even need to register anyone for the compeition, they just need to be contracted to the team. so even if he wasn't registered for their league campaign and they already had 25 players regsitered (but they didnt, they had 22), he wouldve been eligible for the fa cup and league cup (and efl trophy for chelsea U23)Muur (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Muur: Well no they couldn't play him because he has been on a season-long loan to Cercle Brugge in Belgium since August 2020 and since Chelsea never recalled him that would have been impossible to play for both clubs this season. And as I said above, playing for Chelsea U21s or Chelsea U23s is very different than playing for Chelsea. @Koncorde: - I completely agree with you that it is a table of data. That's why I think it's misleading and inaccurate to include blank stat lines for a club he was not with and couldn't appear for. It's not data to include that. During the 2017–18 season, Ugbo was loaned to Barnsley on 17 July 2017. His loan was cut short on 3 January 2021 and on 4 January he went on loans to MK Dons with whom he stayed with through the end of the season. When could he have played for Chelsea that season? During the 2019–20 season, he joined Roda JC in Holland on 3 August 2019 and returned to Chelsea in June 2020. This represents another whole season where he could not make an appearance for Chelsea. During the 2020–21 season, Ugbo joined Cercle Brugge on 18 August 2020, has made over 30 appearances for them this season, and is still contractually tied to Cercle Brugge until 30 June 2021. When could he have appeared for Chelsea during the 2020–21 season? If we all agree that this is a table of data, then these seasons where it would have been physically and contractually impossible for Ugbo to appear for Chelsea, then they should not be included. Rupert1904 (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. If you want to indicate instead rows in the table of "Chelsea U23" instead of "Chelsea" do it. But removing Chelsea entirely means that it is out of line with the infobox which does include this time period. We should not have dissenting data within an article from which we are either concealing information, or omitting information commonly reflected in reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

We are trying to find a compromise so that the parent club isn't removed entirely. Rupert1904 (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And I've already stated I would be fine with putting in ChelseaU23 to the stats table.Rupert1904 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

In which case you would have even more blank rows than if you just put in Chelsea! (and would also be misleading given he was NOT on loan from Chelsea U23). What is it you actually want? GiantSnowman 14:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not twist my words - I did not say add more blank rows. I want a compromise and to improve the MOS for stats tables for Ugbo and other players like him. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And how is that done by adding loads of 'Chelsea U23' blank rows? GiantSnowman 16:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't want loads of Chelsea U23 blank rows. Again please don't put words in my mouth.Rupert1904 (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You didn't want loads of blank Chelsea rows, then you suggested replacing them with U23 rows instead - but the U23 rows would also be blank! If that is not what you mean please clarify. GiantSnowman 17:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I never suggested replacing them with more blank rows. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I want either one row or an-line note saying he was loan from Chelsea as I have said multiple times. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think he meant like this. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am fine with that if the player played in the EFL Trophy with the youth team. And I am fairly confident athat Ugbo has appeared in the EFL Trophy so that should be in his stats table but it was missing. But to me, to put blank Chelsea senior team rows is wrong for a whole host of reasons that I and others have noted above. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:We are trying to find a compromise so that the parent club isn't removed entirely. no, we are trying to reflect the accurate state of affairs while ensuring that the information that is included in the table is internally consistent with the rest of the information we hold, and reflects reliable sources. Removing data from a table at the foot of the page while our infobox says different is incoherent.

It is already confusing enough that the infobox is limit to league appearance only - but to then suggest we omit entirely a players record of playing (or not playing, both are significant) for a team, means that the one place that a reader could go to see if a player has appeared in a cup match is gone... and the reader has no one way of knowing if this is in error, or intentional, or why it doesn't align with the infobox.

So, in conclusion, to the user base our only source of complete statistics is that table. Not appearing for a team is a statistic, just like not scoring in a match. We should be reflecting an accurate and complete career record - not removing seasons, and notes are in and of themselves less than ideal. Koncorde (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

He has no stats to make for Chelsea though as he was signed with different clubs making stats (appearances and goals) for them, so it's confusing to put double 2019–20 lines suggesting that he played for both Chelsea and Roda JC that season when in fact he only played for Roda JC. His profile on the official Premier League website doesn't include a bunch of blank stats suggesting he was with the Chelsea senior team all those years either, just that he was with the U21 team at the start of 2019–20 before his loan: https://www.premierleague.com/players/14593/Ike-Ugbo/overview. On the different end of the spectrum, @Koncorde:, is it not confusing on Arjen Robben's stats table to a casual user who sees the break when he retired with Bayern Munich after the 2018–19 season and then came back out of retirement to play for Groningen during the 2020–21 season? Do you want a blank 2019–20 row saying he was retired? Rupert1904 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The only person currently advocating for your position is - you. Consensus is against you. GiantSnowman 18:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Our table doesn't give to-from dates to indicate that he was there full season, part season etc. Tell me about Tony Warner? Do you know how many GK's have extended seasons of no games when second or third string? What about prolonged injuries?

Also using a Premier League website about whether a player may have appeared in any other competition is exactly the problem...

As for Arjen, the infobox is consistent with the table. We are internally consistent. Koncorde (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

GS, that is not true, many of the people discussing here have similar views to Rupert. Also the infobox is meant to reflect the content of the rest of the article, not drive how information is displayed in the it. Spike 'em (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is not true, several people, including myself, agree with Rupert's position. Also, bringing up keepers with zero appearances is not the same. The case in question has been made that players such as this only who were on loan who have zero appearances [u]because[/u] they were not with the team and thus unable to appear. Keepers or players who just never got subbed on should rightfully have zeros, because they were there just never got subbed on. Apples and oranges comparison. RedPatch (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is also not even close to being against Rupert. I quickly reviewed this discussion and noted 9 people on Rupert's side to remove years where the player was not available or put a note or something similar and 6 on the GS's side to keep the rows there. RedPatch (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Then using the Premier League website to prove your side of the argument shouldn't be used either as some people have done already. If a back-up goalkeeper is at the club then he should have 0s. If a goalkeeper or any player for that matter is in the squad, has a number, is practicing with the squad and appears on the bench but doesn't play, it should be included in their stats that they made 0 appearances or 1 or 2 in a cup game or whatever the case may be. Ike Ugbo is an entirely different case though. He was not at the at all club during this time for the entirety of the 2017–18, 2019–20 and 2020–21 seasons. This is the whole crux of the issue. To put all those rows in for Chelsea is not only misleading but it's inaccurate. We've proven by a number of reliable sources, including Chelsea's own website, that he wasn't with the club then as he was out on loan at other clubs during these seasons. There's not a way for him to have played for Chelsea during those seasons so we create a false narrative and record suggesting otherwise by keeping those rows in his stats table. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't, and have no interest in using a source about the Premier League to say if Ugbo played in any other competition. It's not a false narrative if your assertions are not based on reliable sources that we can verify.

So, to paint a picture for you:

• 2016/17 - Chelsea U23 appearances
• 2017/18 - Chelsea U23 appearances, EFL Trophy, first loan terminates same day Chelsea play a match. U21 therefore elligible to play.
• 2018/19 - Chelsea U23 appearances, EFL Trophy, loan begins after Chelsea's season begins (2018 FA Community Shield on 8th August, 22 days before he went to Scunthorpe) and is one of "The six Chelsea youngsters called up to training ahead of Eintracht Frankfurt Europa League tie" in May 2019 and here travelling to the US for a post season match.
• 2019/20 - Aug 3rd to June 30th, friendlies are played 10th July to 3rd August. Here's him playing in one. I assume he was practicing / training before his loans? After? Between? Right? Or is training with your club not enough to be at the club?
• 2020/21 - Aug 18th to June 30th, Covid curtailed pre-season. Loaned out prior to even friendlies. But was he "practicing"?

Now tell me about Tony Warner. Was he ever on the bench. Ever at the club. Ever practicing etc? How about Michael Stensgaard, Stephen Pears, Jorgen Nielsen? How much research needs to be done to establish if your assertions are actually correct? Koncorde (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Spike 'em and RedPatch: you have clearly misread where I said "currently" advocating (given neither of you have commented recently?), and you'll also remember that WP:NOTAVOTE applies. Strength of argument is key - and there isn't any to change the MOS or its implementation. GiantSnowman 19:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Well the definition of 'recently' is open for interpretation. I commented two days ago (recent in my view) and there was only one comment in this thread yesterday. The discussion then resumed today and I commented today. I also didn't see the need to just comment to repeat my points over and over. Yes, NOTAVOTE applies and strength of argument is key, but the problem with strength of argument is that people will naturally view comments in support of one's view as stronger than those opposed. For example, in this discussion, the reasons given to support the view to remove inapplicable rows seems more well-founded to me than the views to maintain the current status quo which to me mainly seem like the view is you can't remove them because that's what we do, but I recognize that others will see it differently. I don't feel it's right for someone who is 'involved' in the discussion to be the one decide which arguments are "strong arguments" and which are without merit because bias is inherent. RedPatch (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @GiantSnowman: Keeping on saying that your argument is true and the other is wrong doesn't make it so. As mentioned above, there is currently no consensus with both editors and arguments on both sides. Your claim that the side you are advocating is backed by the MoS is wrong, as the MoS is ambiguious as I said above. And the fact that some editors haven't said the same thing again and again also today and yesterday doesn't mean they aren't "currently advocating" their side. --SuperJew (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the MOS is NOT ambiguous. Saying it is doesn't make it true! GiantSnowman 21:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't commented recently because yet again you are bludgeoning the process. I have seen many good ideas, but you chose to ignore them or say they are not relevant. Something looking terrible is a good reason to change, not a case of I don't like it. People who want change seem open to fine tuning things, you just want to reject it forno good reason other than "we've always done it this way" Spike 'em (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

What good ideas? The only workable compromise is the dash idea. GiantSnowman 21:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

So the argument/claim that "Ugbo was not eligible/registered" has been shown to be false. So what are actual arguments against including empty rows for parents club, in compliance with the MOS, beyond 'I don't like it' or 'it looks bad'? Unless anything new is raised, I think there is clear support here for their inclusion, and certainly no consensus to change the MOS (meaning the rows should be re-insterted at Ugbo's article). GiantSnowman 18:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, why is the MOS just suggested? Why is that not the standard for all articles? Definitely feels like it should for players with certain conditions applied. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 16:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

As a side note, adding Chelsea u23s instead of just chelsea is simply factually incorrect as shown above, but there are many scenarios like this where it simply wouldn't work, e.g. Jamal Blackman or Lewis Baker, who despite being 27 and 26 respectively, and both having spent their whole careers at Chelsea, have made 1 appearance for the club between them. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Another good point as to why that suggested change won't work. GiantSnowman 19:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

However, the referenced articles of Jamal Blackman and Lewis Baker are exactly what many of the editors advocating for change are in favour of. Only add the pertinent rows for the parent club as is done in those two. For a player like Ugbo, who was never registered and available for the first team, the compromise was suggested to add one row for first year/range of years, so that it could be structured just like Blackman/Baker. If it 'works' in those articles, then the suggested change, clearly can work. RedPatch (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatch: It doesn't really 'work' per se, as it is very confusing that Chelsea section stops arbitrarily at 2016 (though these edge cases are ones where the rows of zeroes would look a bit ridiculous). I would support just having a date range here otherwise the table would just be unwieldily large. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: How do these cases differ from Ugbo's case - in Ugbo's case adding rows of zeroes would double the size of the table. But anyway it seems that you agree on the principal being discussed here. --SuperJew (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: if they have failed to make any appearances, I have no preference between the two. Omitting the rows entirely, however, is nonsense. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

My point is to make it look like this, which IMO works well. While Chelsea ends at 2017, the loans below signify that they continue under Chelsea's parentage, but the player just wasn't available for Chelsea RedPatch (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

something like this would work better IMO, as I find the Chelsea stats cutting off at 2018 to be rather confusing. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

That's form is good with me as well. RedPatch (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Same. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

One row representing four seasons is not ideal. What was wrong with the dash idea suggested? GiantSnowman 21:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Dashes or not, more than one line indicating the parent club is a waste of space and a source for confusion if a player was loaned out for entire seasons. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I also like Microwave Anarchist's suggestion. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The box says "season". that is going to make people think 2017-2021 was one entire season. Just have them with dashes for the 20/21 and 0s for the rest.Muur (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't, and have no interest in using a source about the Premier League to say if Ugbo played in any other competition.

So, to paint a picture for you:

• 2016/17 - Chelsea U23 appearances
• 2017/18 - Chelsea U23 appearances, EFL Trophy, first loan terminates day Chelsea play a match. Was he available?
• 2018/19 - Chelsea U23 appearances, EFL Trophy, loan begins after Chelsea's season begins (2018 FA Community Shield on 8th August, 22 days before he went to Scunthorpe) and is one of "The six Chelsea youngsters called up to training ahead of Eintracht Frankfurt Europa League tie" in May 2019 and here travelling to the US for a post season match.
• 2019/20 - Aug 3rd to June 30th, friendlies are played 10th July to 3rd August. Here's him playing in one. I assume he was practicing / training before his loans? After? Between? Right? Or is training with your club not enough to be at the club? This article states [https://www.football.london/chelsea-fc/news/chelsea-youngster-frankfurt-europa-league-16209643 "
• 2020/21 - Aug 18th to June 30th, Covid curtailed pre-season. Loaned out prior to even friendlies. But was he "practicing"?

Now tell me about Tony Warner. Was he ever on the bench. Ever at the club. Ever practicing etc? How about Michael Stensgaard, Stephen Pears, Jorgen Nielsen? How much research needs to be done to establish if your assertions are actually correct? Koncorde (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Notes

Draft:2021–22 Juventus F.C. (women) season

Does WP:CRYSTALBALL applies in this article? Dr Salvus 17:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I think 2021–22 seasons are OK at this stage. GiantSnowman 20:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, At this point I don't understand why did Anarchyte drafted this article Dr Salvus 20:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

There was no real information in the article when it was draftified and there was no mention of CRYSTAL in the process. Spike 'em (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned CRYSTAL to hint at the fact that we may not need an article if it's entirely devoid of anything that demonstrates that it's more than just planned; see the entire 2021 Formula One World Championship. While we don't have a deadline, the mainspace has standards, and having content is one of them (of course recognising that A3 would not apply here). Anarchyte (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Admin help with deleted articles

Kia ora, I'm wondering if it is possible to get deleted articles back and if so, can I get an admin to move them to my draft space to recreate them as I believe the clubs will now pass notability guidelines. There was a whole lot of club merges in NZ that formed new clubs as part of looking ahead to the new National League struture we had, some articles where created prematurely for the new clubs when they wouldn't meet notability guidelines, which now having being part of the Chatham Cup and playing in our new National League, I think I can make them pass. Northern Rovers and Auckland United FC. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 21:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@NZFC: See WP:REFUND. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Nehme1499:, should have known that. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 22:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@NZFC: I'm happy to restore articles deleted by PROD if you wish. GiantSnowman 09:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: thank you for the offer, knew someone here would have been able to do it. They have since been draftified, so going to get them up to notability level now. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 19:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

2020–21 Eredivisie

On the Monthly awards section, is it me, or is that really annoying to look at? With the over-use of flag icons it kinda screws with my eyes!! What do other peeps think of that section? Govvy (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, remove flags from that section for sure. GiantSnowman 09:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

K, Looks like PeeJay already sorted it out while I was at work, cheers. Govvy (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems like User:Sb008 doesn't want to accept this. Maybe they should come in here and explain why it's necessary to include an abundance of flags. – PeeJay 23:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Not much to explain, I've no problem with the flags being removed from the Monthly awards section. As a matter of fact, I don't mind if the complete section is removed. In my opinion the whole section is nonsense and I don't think any player will ever be remembered for winning a monthly award. It's a meaningless award and only an advertising tool for companies, and sadly some people on Wiki think we should support these advertising campaigns. Maybe you should be a bit more careful before you make false accusations. But it seems you like to present matters in a Trumpian way. --Sb008 (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sb008: My mistake, I thought you were complaining about the flags being removed from the table. Apologies. Nevertheless, I don't understand why you're reverting my changes to the hat-tricks table. A hat-trick is three goals, yes, but we don't suddenly say a player hasn't scored a hat-trick if they go on to score a fourth or fifth goal. There's no need to throw around accusations of Trumpiness btw. Bit of a personal attack there, chief. – PeeJay 11:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

A hat-trick is any person who scores three goals in a game. If you score 4 or 5 goals in a game, then by definition you have also scored three goals, and so have scored a hat-trick- this is why for example the featured list List of Premier League hat-tricks includes people with 4 or 5 goals. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: A person who scored more than 3 goals, indeed did score a hat-trick as well. But this player did more than just scoring a hat-trick. Your featured list List of Premier League hat-tricks starts with a table indicating keys like ⁴ and ⁵, clearly to distinguish between people who scored only a hat-trick and those who scored 4 or even 5 goals. According to your line of reasoning we can limit a top-scorer list to those who scored 3 goals as well. After all those who scored 10 or even 20 goalls, scored 3 goals as well. It's very common to indicate more than 3 as 3+. To indicate 3 or more than 3 as 3(+). Then why is it wrong to indicate hat-tricks or more goals than a hat-trick as hat-trick(+)?

@PeeJay: A bit of a personal attack? Look in the mirror, making a false accusation is not a bit of, but a big personal attack. They even came up with a word for it, slander. If you make up your own facts and attribute them to someone else, I call it what it is, Trumpian behavior. You don't like it, behave different. If I would object to the removal of the flags, I would have reverted your edit on the section where you did remove the flags. You don't understand why I'm reverting? Very simple, I don't understand why you start changing things which have been as they're for 4 seasons, without providing any argument, without seeking any dialogue or consensus. WP:AINT You seem to think you decide how things are supposed to be and can ignore what has been the consensus for 4 years. You violate about every rule relating to cooperat(e)/(ing). --Sb008 (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

LOL, that was a good way of accepting an apology. So how about you start by justifying why you need to use the {{goal}} template? Per MOS:ICON, icons should not be used for decoration. My change was justified. Can you also explain why the date format needed to be the way it was? The table sorts just fine if you type the date out, which takes up less space than if you use that inexplicable template. – PeeJay 13:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You understood it correct, I didn't accept your apology. An apology followed by an accusation of a personal attack and ignoring your own behavior is not an apology. An apology doesn't contain any but's, btw's or similar.

You claim that per MOS:ICON icons should not be used as decoration. I would see icons are by definition decoration. It becomes "problematic" when their only purpose is decoration. But since we created a template with an icon to indicate a goal, the template is apparently not considered to be only decoration. If you disagree, I guess we can expect your proposal to remove {{goal}} soon. Why is it any different to use {{goal}} in {{Football box}} or {{Football box collapsible}}? You going to delete all icons there as well per MOS:ICON?

The MediaWiki Time parser function is very well documented. Is there are rule which says we've a lot of parser functions, but we only have them for fun/decoration, you're not allowed to use them cause PeeJay considers them inexplicable. Let's get rid of modules as well, cause just like "#time", "#invoke" with all it's parameters is even more inexplicable. And while we at it, let's get rid of transclusion and templates as well, all those parser functions, it's a disgrace. Maybe you prefer {{dts}} to be used, but then it's just as complex as #time.

It's not up to me to justify anything. I don't challenge the consensus which has been there for 4 seasons. You challenge the consensus, so it's up to you to justify your change. But if you want a justification. If {{goal}} would be in conflict with MOS:ICON, the template wouldn't be there and certainly would not be used elsewhere. If parser functions would not be allowed, Wiki would collaps. You need any more justification? So far, you failed to provide a single reason why the table shouldn't be as it is, you only express your personal preference, which appears to be very selective. On top you ognore WP:AINT and violate WP:EW. --Sb008 (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Announced departures

Several players like Georginio Wijnaldum and Memphis Depay have confirmed they are leaving their current clubs at the end of the season. However, should we put "20??–2021" or should we keep their spell at the club to "20??–" in the infobox? And secondly, until when? When should we put the –2021? At the announcement of departure, the final match, or the expiration of the contract (usually 30 June)? Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Upon the expiration of the contract on 30 June. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - wait until the contracts expire before updating to add '–2021' etc. GiantSnowman 18:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Wijnaldum's is 1st July. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

theyre all 1st of july, since the final day of the contract is june 30 - making july 1st the first day as free agents. Muur (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The Georginio Wijnaldum article may need protecting for a while - lots of IP edits relating to Barcelona. Paul W (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to User:CambridgeBayWeather for protecting the Wijnaldum page. Paul W (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Should this website be considered a reliable source? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have always treated it as such. GiantSnowman 19:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's some random bloke's personal website, so no. However, I've always considered the history pages reliable. The player profiles are another matter, and you do need to be wary: some of them have a lot of content that's clearly been taken from Wikipedia pages. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, speaking of, do we count National Football Teams as reliable? I recently had a conversation where I claimed it was but wanted to check? Felixsv7 (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

NFT is (more or less) reliable but incomplete (and only has partial data from 1992 onwards). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

NFT is also some random bloke's personal website, and isn't WP:RS. As Nehme says, it's incomplete, and there's no apparent indication of what's completely covered and what isn't. It's more or less accurate in that if it says a player appeared in a particular match, he probably did, but total appearances for anything other than recent appearances for countries with reliable published records are likely incomplete. Further, the site owner has his own ideas about what count as "FIFA matches" which don't necesarily correspond to FIFA's ideas or those of national federations. But everybody turns a blind eye... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I would never treat such a source as reliable. Unless Tony Hill or the site itself has been recognized in some way by the club and/or media as being of relevance or being a noteworthy source. Similarly, I was wary of using the "hobby project" ifkdb.se (or ifkdb.com for English) as a database source for IFK Göteborg information, until both the club itself and regional media paid attention to the site. In contrast to the Leeds site, it also clearly states exactly which sources are being used and the methodology of collecting the data. – Elisson • T • C • 14:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

So if I was to nominate a article which has this site as one of it's sources for GA, would likely be told to find a different one in the review? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the richness of differing opinions on Wikipedia, I don't know if it would be likely (and I have personally never bothered with the GA process) ... But at least it wouldn't be unlikely. :) – Elisson • T • C • 15:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

removing the piping in tournaments

SPC27205 (talk · contribs) is removing the piping in tournament leads and instead of having either [[association football|football]] or [[association football|soccer]] (based on WP:LANGVAR) the editor is leaving a bare [[association football]]. Is there consensus to make this change? Does it make sense to do so? I've reverted a few, but the extend seems like there's an underlying plan (although none of the edits are explained). Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's the worst thing to say association football on the first mention and use "football" thereafter, but your mileage may vary. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, football is unambiguous based on context. And making mass changes without consensus is disruptive. They would need an RFC consensus to get a consensus to do this. All these edits should be reverted. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Particularly if there's a link to association football... Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that it's okay to make a unilateral change to multiple articles when there's an established consensus. More that it would not be terrible if the first reference to the sport was its formal name. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

TBF the only articles I could see (at a quick glance) where this change was made relate to the World Cup, and I would argue that, given the global scope of the tournament the simple term "football" is very much not unambiguous.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

New article needed? Or when to re-name?

As some of you will know, the 3rd tier in Spain since the 1970s was the Segunda División B, but this summer a new Primera División RFEF has been created above it (and a new Wikipedia article to go with it). The Tercera División (which was the original 3rd tier as its name suggests) will now become the Tercera División RFEF (5th tier overall) which actually makes more sense with the name. I think a simple re-naming will be fine for its article due to its low profile and the fact that its structure stays the same. But for the 4th tier, which will be Segunda División RFEF, I'm not so sure. It will have the same basic structure as Segunda B with 5 regionalised groups, but if you look at the team line-up for next season, only 36 out of the 90 participants will be from the 2020–21 Segunda División B (which finished its fixtures yesterday, including playoffs). I've created new categories for the 'RFEF-suffixed' season articles which I think is appropriate for clarity going forward, but is a new Segunda División RFEF overview article needed too? The same body (RFEF is organising the new competitions as it did with the old, so it's not really a SFL/SPL/SPFL administrative split situation. I know it's not particularly relevant to us on the English site, but Spanish Wiki have created a new article. If it's considered that just a re-name for Segunda B will be sufficient, when should this be? 1 July? Crowsus (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• If I'm understanding correctly, these changes will have to be made: Segunda División B → Segunda División RFEF, and Tercera División → Tercera División RFEF. I think the old seasons formally end on June 1st, so that would be a good time to make the switches in my opinion. I also wouldn't be opposed to making whole new pages for Segunda División RFEF and Tercera División RFEF, as it's all a bit confusing and it kind of kills the value of their respective categories. Maybe a clean start would make things smoother going forward.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we need a new article(s)? GiantSnowman 09:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I kinda forgot about the player cats, there are existing ones for Category:Segunda División B players and Category:Tercera División players – I think the Tercera one has been applied to players of the 3rd tier from 1930 to 1977 AND for those in the 4th tier from 1977 to 2021. Should this continue to be applied the same way (either with or without a RFEF rename) going forward? and should the Segunda B cat for the 3rd tier players be renamed to Segunda RFEF for 4th tier, or a new one created there too? Surely there are precedents for this situation? I am aware of Category:NIFL Premiership players which seems to apply to all players in the [Northern] Irish top division going back to the 1890s – at least that's how I have been applying it to articles. So that is one where the most modern name is being used although it doesn't match the name that players competed under back in the day. But no sure how equitable that is to the situation in Spain here. Crowsus (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like the old CATs might need to be date ranged. Govvy (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Creating new articles means you would have new cats. If somebody played in the old league, they get the old cat (and vice versa). If they played in both, then both. GiantSnowman 14:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, how about the previous issue with the Tercera División? Not sure if the name changed at all but certainly in 1977 its function changed from being the third tier (4 groups I think, although it had been more than that in the past) to being the fourth tier with 18 groups for the autonomous communities, quite a difference. Should we create a player cat for the 1930-1977 Tercera with a date range? I think that will pre-empt less changes than changing the 1977-2021 version? Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There should be one article with one matching category. If the league constitution changed (i.e. not just a simply name change, like The Football League rebranding as English Football League) then there should be a new article and a new category. Which of those applies in 1977? GiantSnowman 19:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about the constitution; the league body (RFEF) didn't change, and still hasn't changed now for the leagues in question. The major administrative move seems to have been in 1984 when the Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional was created to govern the two two tiers separately and that remains the case. But there was no big split as far as I can tell and no names were re-branded at that time as occurred in England 8 years later. My thinking is that the Tercera players in the top teams of 1976 would have had a very different character to those in the village teams at the bottom of the groups in 1980, so having them in the same category seems unhelpful. But, I'm fully aware that the Football League has had the same cat for everyone playing one game for [insert modern minnow without causing offence] in 2020 to the Victorian superstars of the 1890s to 66 World Cup winners to both sides in Wrexham v Arsenal, and everyone in between. So if the era and prestige of the league isn't that important, maybe more cats aren't needed in Spain? Crowsus (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

If it's essentially the same division, then keep one category and just rename it (like the Football League stuff) - no need for a new article and no need for a new category. GiantSnowman 14:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Saudi second and third div teams

Like Mossdah FC which I just saw in the new page feed, I don't see how the team passes WP:BASIC let alone GNG, then I saw the template!

How on earth are all those clubs, new articles going to pass? There is clearly an issue here. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

So does no one have any thoughts on all these club articles? Govvy (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised they have all stayed, a quick look and it appears a lot of them have edits that relates to an account that has been banned for sock puppet as well Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mhsohaib/Archive. Not sure you can mass nominate them though, is there anything that could potential keep the articles, like a countries knock out cup that the clubs may have taken part in? Maybe needs someone who has time to go through them all but otherwise if they are just non-professional clubs and there is nothing that potential make them notable with some work, then they should go.NZFC^(talk)(cont) 06:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Josué Gómez del Rosal needs to be moved to Josué Gómez as per WP:COMMONNAME, however that redirects to another footballer's page, Aarón Gómez, whose middle name is Josué. Can someone make the appropriate move? JTtheOG (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a user is creating these without any consideration for their common name. Víctor Isaác Mora needs to be moved to either Víctor Mora (footballer) or Víctor Mora (footballer, born 2000) since Víctor Hugo Mora, Mexican footballer born in 1974, already exists. JTtheOG (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Well this link says that the player goes by Josue Aaron Gomez (first name Josue not his middle name), so seems as if it's a valid redirect. Perhaps that becomes a disambiguation page for both players. Either way a RM is probably the best route RedPatch (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree - please raise at WP:RM. GiantSnowman 18:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Displaying club names in infoboxes

There are few clubs in Uruguay which share their name with foreign clubs such as River Plate and Liverpool. So what would be the right way to display their names in a player's infobox? I usually use River Plate Montevideo & Liverpool Montevideo in both infobox and rest of the article. But recently another editor reverted few of them to just River Plate. I thought it would be a bit confusing for readers who would obviously think of the Argentine club first.

Chances are very less that a player would play for both original Liverpool and Liverpool Montevideo. But I would prefer to use Liverpool Montevideo in the infobox, even if the player have only played for the Uruguayan side. Would like to hear your opinions on this. Kokoeist (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I assume the Montevideo clubs don't mention the country in their actual names, so should we really be doing so? Is there really much chance of confusion? If there really is, maybe a comma or brackets would be appropriate between club name and countryHiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest there is plenty of chance of confusion. Given the number of South American players who have played in the Premier League, if someone saw in a player's infobox that he had played first for Montevideo Wanderers and then for Liverpool, I suspect the first instinct of the majority of people would be to think that he had moved to the English club, who are about 1000000 times more well-known outside Uruguay..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I've seen an edit-war over that in the past, Montevideo shouldn't be removed from the info-box, not only is it disruptive, it makes the information incomplete and miss-leading. Govvy (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this can lead to problems when the difference in notability is less pronounced. I'd lead in the infobox per the name of the clubs as HiLo48 said, and make sure in the prose to clear it (for example: "Templeton joined Uruguayan club Liverpool, based in Montevideo") --SuperJew (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There is the same issue with Brazilian clubs, of which there are a number with different names and we usually disambiguate display by the state initials. For Liverpool in Uruguay I usually use 'Liverpool (URU)'. GiantSnowman 18:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Premature transfers

It's that time of the year when transfer speculation/rumors make their way onto articles. Please keep an eye out for any high-profile target, especially of big clubs.

Today, it's Ibrahima Konaté and Boubakary Soumaré. The former reportedly passed a medical with Liverpool and the two clubs have reportedly agreed to a deal for the latter. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You got to love it. It even spreads down to backwaters like India where you have facebook of all places "confirm" a deal. Anyway, both pages added to the watchlist. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Ping me here if any articles are particularly effected. I'll revert/block/protect as appropriate. GiantSnowman 20:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Promotion Playoff Appearances

Does appearance and goal in a promotion playoff match count in the infobox and career statistics of a player? HobiBalap (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@HobiBalap: No, only regular season league games are counted (+ state league for Brazilian teams). Play-offs/play-outs should be included under the "Other" column in the career statistics table. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Obviously it does form part of the player's career statistics, but it should not be included in the infobox figures -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Nehme and ChrisTheDude for the quick response. I really appreciate it. HobiBalap (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Wait, do we actually add them for Brazilian state leagues? We have a sort of same system in India (moving away from it) and I never add those, just I-League games. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Atlético Madrid season statistics

I was looking at 2020–21 Atlético Madrid season and really find it very hard to read the statistics table,

I was browsing through the older seasons, near impossible for me to read a lot of them, I can't see 2017–18 Atlético Madrid season.

In fact, it's bloody hard to view all the big stats tables all on all the season pages, kinda pisses me off. How can we get away with this WP:ACCESS violation!? Govvy (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The only statistics to be kept are appearances and goals, everything else should be removed. The table should look something like this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. Much more pleasing on the eye. I have no idea what the hell is going on with the ATM ones. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I've managed to decipher the icons at the top of each columns, but I dread to think how someone who doesn't know football would cope. – PeeJay 11:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

What's the column with the boot icon? I can't work that one out......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we should definitely use words not symbols for access reasons. It is hard enough for football fans to work out what they mean, so a casual reader would be very confused, and one using e.g. a screenreader may well be unable to comprehend symbols. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the 2020–21 season, if others could help with the previous seasons it would be appreciated. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: The boot is assists in this case (if you hover with the mouse, there's an alt-text), and they shouldn't appear anyway as has been discussed here many times. --SuperJew (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Much easier to read, thank you. Govvy (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

LTA is back again

[4] - some more random targets for this person's nonsense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

...and they're gone again. GiantSnowman 09:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of the 'LTA is back again', the Spanish Wikipedia page Matthew Lowton has received the same editing behaviour; I'd noticed that because the same IP edited my talk page there also. It seems we can't get rid of the troll unless edit filters can improve the disallow criteria further. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And also at Commons with my talk page again with same nonsense again, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Editing without discussing, again

An IP editor has been editing a few pages without discussing if these players had officially retired from the English team or not, see this edit as an example. Looks like some of us agree that the pages should remain as it is until official news comes in announcing retirement instead of original research being in place. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, if a players has played/been called up in the past few years (less than 5?) then we should not assume they are 'retired' from international football. GiantSnowman 15:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think an end date to national team years is an indication that a player is retired from international play, and I don't think it's a problem to show Dominic Solanke's national team years as just "2017".

For one thing, there's no such thing as "officially retired" from a national team. You can announce it and politely ask the manager to not call you up, but you don't put in formal retirement papers. Jamie Vardy and James Milner can still play for England. There's a mutual, unofficial understanding that they won't show up for camp if called up.

Second, being on a national team isn't a continuous assignment like it is with a club. With a club, a player signs a contract that runs for months or years. With a national team, a player's obligation to the national team is only for a set of matches or a tournament. It's essentially a freelance assignment. Once Euro 2000 is over, for all intentrs and purposes, Harry Kane is no longer an England player until the next set of internationals.

So if a player hasn't been called up for more than 12 months, I really don't see the problem with adding an end date to national team years. It can always be edited if there's a surprise call-up. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Solanke played once for England four years ago. Seems ridiculous to list him as a "current" English international, which we are doing by putting 2017– . If players don't play and aren't in any national squad for a couple of years, we should close the dates, and we can always reopen them if they do actually play again. Setting the limit at 5 years is way too long in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, 12 months or 24 months seem more reasonable. I think "recent callups" section on national team articles usually cut off at 12 months? Ytoyoda (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There's really no official retirement. Zlatan has "officially retired" I believe twice now from Sweden and then subsequently returned. Rooney retired and then subsequently came back for a farewell appearance. There's nothing wrong with closing it off and then if they come back just reopening it. Now I'm not saying close everyone's, but if a player hasn't played in a couple of years and is essentially 'inactive' what's the harm in having it closed and then re-opening it if and when become re-active. Seeing someone closed off at 2018 is actually what I'd prefer, because then I'd realize they haven't been called up in 3 years, we drop players from the recent call-ups in the national team article after 12 months, but infobox has to wait for 60 months, when in both cases, it's just a simple edit of a few bytes of text when they re-join. RedPatch (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, there's really no best way for the way we do it here. If Player A appears once in 2017, then never gets called up again (not even on the bench) but we have to leave it as 2017- Country 1(0), but Player B gets called up in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 but just never ends up appearing in a match, we don't write 2017- Country 0(0), we actually don't write anything, it wouldn't show Country at all. Technically, Player B would be more of an active national team player than A, but the way its being suggested would pose the opposite. Again, I'm not saying we should open up an international section for any player who gets called up and never plays, I just bring that up to say that there's no perfect way. Getting worked up about someone closing an international section for a player who hasn't appeared in 4 years is more trouble than its worth. RedPatch (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I see a lot of articles at List of England international footballers with one cap we can safely edit. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with a cutoff of 12 months, similar to the recent call-ups section. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

At most two years for me. To imply that a player like Solanke has an ongoing international career because he played for 15 minutes four years ago looks very silly in my opinion. Realistically Solanke is not going to officially announce his international retirement after one cap (how pretentious would that be?), so if he never gets called up again would we leave his international career open-ended until such time as he retires from all football, which could be ten years away.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Steve Harper#Career statistics

Apologies for bringing up career stats tables again, but I notice that this table seems to work differently to most others in that it shows the loans he went out on during his lengthy Newcastle career in the correct place chronologically, rather than having many rows for Newcastle and then all the loans grouped below that. I personally massively prefer this format to the one used at, say, David Beckham#Career statistics, where his brief loan spell at Preston in 1994-95 comes between 2002-03 and 2003-04, but wondered if it ought to be reworked to be consistent with the majority.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it should, because otherwise it causes confusion with the 'total' amounts. The formatting of the table as a whole is awful. GiantSnowman 19:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

In that notion, what about Zach Clough? he left bolton, played for Forest for half a season, then returned to bolton on loan for half a season. what would be the correct format there, add the loan to the stats above forest since its bolton or not?Muur (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

released scholars in transfer tables

Should scholars who have been released be included in transfer tables for club season pages (e.g. 2021–22 Leeds United F.C. season), or should they be omitted? It appears that some articles include them and some do not. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I would say include only senior-contracted players. Scholars/academy players are very hard to follow and source - it would open a can of worms IMO. --SuperJew (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming scholars are academy players. That term isn't used in football where I'm from, so if that's not what it means then ignore this. But if it applies to a player who is solely in the academy/youth teams, then they should absolutely NOT be in an article about the senior team. At what point does it stop? A 7 year old leaves the U7 team, do they get included? As SuperJew mentioned, a whole can of worms. I don't know how the youth system works in England, but where I'm from, youth players can and up and leave if they want basically whenever and join whatever new team for the next season. RedPatch (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatch: in English football a scholar is specifically a player who signs a scholarship contract with the club (typically two years long) after they leave the u16s, and is the step in between the academy and signing a pro contract with the club, though the players do recieve a wage (albeit a small one) and can play for the first-team. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: Thanks for the clarification. I was unaware of that kind of structure. Demonstrates how unique our sport is that it's different all around the world. I'd still lean to no, if they had not made a first team appearance. Although if they were to be included, I'd separate the seniors from the scholars rather than mixing. RedPatch (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)