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.

End year for international appearances

I know there are prior discussions and sorry for bringing it up again, but I don't really know what the consensus is. And I'm wondering if there should be official MOS (or is there an official WP:FOOTY MOS on this?).

So here's the deal:

1. I added the end year to Dele Alli's England appearance and tweaked the introduction because he hasn't appeared for England since the 2018–19 UEFA Nations League semis in June 2019. That's more than 2.5 years ago. By any reasonable measure, he's not a "current" England player.
2. Haklam1218 unclosed the international years, with the edit summary: Wrong. He does not retire from international football and you won’t know if he will get a call-up again.
3. Most us here have been editing long enough to know that international retirement is, at most, an unofficial declaration, and it's my understanding that if a player hasn't played internationally. for 1-2 years, we can safely add an end date, so I reverted the edit, stating as much in the edit summary.
4. Heklam1218 re-removed the year with the edit summary: No. I have asked the community board before. You can go and raise your question again.. I think by "community board", the user means this forum, so here I am.

It seems pretty clear-cut to me:

• Alli has not played internationally for two full calendar years, over two and a half years. In that time, he's missed the end of Euro 2020 qualifying and all of World Cup 2022 qualifying and barring a miraculous return to form, he'll probably miss the World Cup in Qatar as well.
• Like I said above, "international retirement" isn't actually something we should take seriously. Messi and Zlatan have both returned from multiple international retirements. There are no official papers to sign. There is no formal international retirement process. It's just a polite request to the federation asking not to be considered for selection.
• More importantly, the vast majority of international players don't retire from their national teams. They just stop getting called up. It's an unreasonable standard to wait for a player to declare their unwillingness to play for the national team, when the majority of players get maybe only a handful of caps.
• It's more helpful to readers to know that Alli's 37 appearances for England came between 2015 and 2019, than to come away with the impression that he's actively adding to that number.
• Conversely, a reasonable reader isn't going to look at "2015-2019" and think, "Ah, that Dele Alli, he'll never play for England again."
• It's Wikipedia. If he wins another cap, it takes less than a minute to delete "-2019".

Anyway, here's my proposal:

• A player's international years should be closed if:

• The player has not played for the national team for 2 years, an entire calendar year, or an entire season (July-June for a UEFA-based player)

and

• The player has not been named to the national team squad for an international match window or a FIFA/confederation tournament in the last 12 months.

Support? Oppose? Agree in principle but disagree on the criteria? Whatever we land on, I think it's worth having a set standard for WP:FOOTY. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 18:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Come on mate. If you insist on 2015-2019 it gives people the wrong impression that Alli has retired from playing international football. And I recall that this topic has been discussed before so why raise this up again and again? Haklam1218 (talk 18:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment: If a player does not play internationally for a bunch of years, I would remove the "plays for Team X and the XX national team" from intro (leaving the team only), but I would definitely not "close" his/hers international years. The international retirement is not actually a thing to be taken that informally since you brought up two examples of players who announced their international retirement and later backed down, when a bunch of others actually announced it and never played for their NTs again. I do agree with Hallam on this, adding the "–2019" would give more of an impression that "he would not play for England anymore" rather than "he played for England until that year". BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Haklam1218 @BrazilianDude70 As I said above, "retired from playing international football" isn't a thing that actually happens. You could look at it two ways:

• No one actually retires from international football. Most players stop getting selected. A very lucky few players can ask not to be selected, but even then, it's neither permanent nor official. It's not a really useful or realistic criterion for labeling a player's international years. And I know I only named Messi and Zlatan, but there's also Zidane, Larsson, Buffon, Makelele — I could keep going.

-or-

• Outside of international matchday windows and tournaments, there is no such thing as a "current" international player. Unlike club football, where a player has an ongoing contract to play for a team, being part of a national team. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 19:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• I will honestly not waste time discussing a thing that has been widely discussed a few years back and a consensus was reached twice. It's up to you to respect the actual consensus, because a lot of good arguments against yours have been placed in the past discussions. Cheers, BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know that there's a consensus, when I found this thread from 2018. Sure, I'll respect consensus, consensus can change. You pointed me to two threads, both from 2010, but the question seems to keep coming up, so clearly the consensus isn't that firm. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 19:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

And yes, there was already a major discussion over this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 41#End dates on international careers and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 43#International Years again. Maybe it's a case of adding the formal consensus at WP:WPFCONSENSUS. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, though I thought there were more recent discussions. Those were both from over 11 years ago (not that old discussions aren't worth looking at). Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 19:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that there should be a set standard. In my mind it would be until the player retires or announces that he's retired internationally but if people are looking to end a player's international career due to inactivity then I think that it shouldn't be before a full World Cup cycle is complete, therefore four years, otherwise Pacific islanders would be retired from international football too regularly due to the scarcity in their matches. Felixsv7 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• The notion that we cannot add an end year until a player formally announces his international retirement is frankly ridiculous, because, as Adeletron notes, 99.9999999% of players never announce such a thing. Alli is only 25, he could easily play professionally for another 7 or 8 years and it's highly unlikely he will ever formally announce his international retirement, so are we going to leave his international career "ongoing" until potentially 2030, more than 10 years after his last cap? Should we leave Fraizer Campbell's "ongoing" because he has never officially announced his international retirement? We have to draw the line somewhere....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

How about having the international period having a start year and end year, regardless of when last played (even a player who played yesterday)? Such as is done on List of England international footballers and such. I also wonder if it should be per call-up to squad and not actually playing. --SuperJew (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Though I doubt this would get consensus, this makes sense the most for me. We don't have to set an arbitrary limit on how long we keep the end year open or wait for an international retirement announcement that, for almost all players, never comes. It's also a better reflection of how international football works. It's not a continuous membership like with a club team — your membership begins and ends with each international window.

And I can go with using the most recent call-up date and not the most recent appearance. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 20:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Once a player has officially retired from playing football his international career is over at the sametime thus he is definitely out of the international picture. Let’s take an example, Stekelenburg got omitted from international squad for 3 years, 4 years yet he got caps in two further occasions so to put an end in his international playing career table is absolutely ridiculous. Why raise such change when this topic had been discussed for numerous occasions and everything works this way for such a long period. It does not need amendment. Not at all. Haklam1218 (talk21:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

So your view would be that Fraizer Campbell's international career is not yet over, even though he is 34 years old and hasn't been capped for 10 years? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Mate the lad did that to Dele Alli not bloody Frazier Campbell. Like I point out above a player can be excluded from his international team but get recalled and get caps after a couple of years of omission from the international squad so putting an ending in his international career year table is unreasonable AND unnecessary. Haklam1218 (talk)21:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll point out that putting an end year in the infobox doesn't end a player's international career. Wikipedia doesn't have that kind of power. It just indicates the years during which a player earned international caps. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 21:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Haklam1218:

Once a player has officially retired from playing football his international career is over at the sametime thus he is definitely out of the international picture.

But then, there's no such thing as being "officially retired". They only difference between a retired player and a player who is out of contract is the intent of the player. All retirements — club and country — are unofficial. Technically. speaking, Zidane was already retired when he played at the 2006 World Cup, since he was out of contract at Madrid. In theory, Brazil could call up Ronaldinho for the next round of World Cup qualifiers. We just assume that only active players are selected.

Let’s take an example, Stekelenburg got omitted from international squad for 3 years, 4 years yet he got caps in two further occasions so to put an end in his international playing career table is absolutely ridiculous.

I don't see what's "absolutely ridiculous" about that. Until 2021, it was factually correct that he earned 58 caps between 2004 and 2016. And once that changed, because this is Wikipedia and we can make changes on the fly, we were able to add 4 caps to his total and extend his international career to 2021. Though we should point out that goalkeepers are a special case since they have fewer opportunities than outfield players, so we should consider recent call-ups in addition to appearances.

Why raise such change when this topic had been discussed for numerous occasions and everything works this way for such a long period.

That the topic has been "discussed for numerous occasions" tells me there isn't a consensus and it's worth discussing. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 21:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

there's no such thing as being "officially retired" There is, a player without a club for a season or two. In reality they won’t come back to play games any longer thus you can put an end on their international stats. I do think putting an ending to an individual international career is unnecessary. It makes people feel like they have retired from international football. And the same method has been using for ages there is zero need to change it as this create confusion. Haklam1218 21:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

player without a club for a season or two

That’s neither “official” or “retired”. You’re just creating an arbitrary standard.

It makes people feel like they have retired from international football.

You’re making assumptions about how bunch of strangers feel without any evidence. Anyway, we’re not concerned about how we make people feel. We’re simply communicating verifiable facts by informing them that Dele Alli earned a few dozen caps between 2015 and 2019, and if that changes, the wonders of Wikipedia allows us to communicate a new fact. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 03:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus on the 2010 thread (archive 41), other than 1 of the involved editors claiming victory because things had gone quiet. I agree with those saying that we should plainly state the range of years that international caps were gained in, whether that be this year, last year or 5 years ago. Spike 'em (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

One year is unreasonable for me, two works better.Muur (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I think 24 months is fine, though I’d personally go with a full calendar year. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 03:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

And I'd say that as there is no rush to declare someone out of the international picture, why not wait four years? Felixsv7 (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Why 4 years; that is a personal value judgement? We should report the facts, which in this case is the verifiable range of years that a player has represented their country. At a stretch I'd go with one year, as that seems to be how long we report someone as being a recent squad member on international team articles. Spike 'em (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Not at all, as I said in my previous statement it should be considered ongoing throughout a player's career but if we were to decide on an expiration date then make it a full World Cup cycle as, looking at it from a non-Euro centric lens, some nations play significantly fewer international matches in a calendar year and according to Wikipedia their international careers would be considered over rather than just dormant using the proposed new system. I really don't see what the rush is to stick an end date on the international career is anyway, there's no need to change how it currently operates, but if we do decide to change then we should definitely wait until it would be considered surprising if they were to receive a call-up - hence four years. Felixsv7 (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Mate the lad did that to Dele Alli not bloody Frazier Campbell. - Haklam1218, apologies if I misrepresented you, but you seemed to be saying that we should only be considering a player's international career over when he has actually completely retired from professional football. Therefore, on that basis both Alli and Campbell's international careers would be ongoing, because neither has retired from professional football, and the fact that one was last capped three years ago and one ten years ago wouldn't be a factor...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• I would support a limit of any length of 12 months or greater. 12 months would be consistent with the national team articles themselves. e.g. England national football team#Recent call-ups doesn't list Dele Alli (or Frazier Campbell!) because he hasn't been picked in the last year. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• 12 months is too short IMHO - each case should be judged individually (i.e. in the unlikely case that an international player's career takes a sudden nose dive and he drops down the leagues, we can probably close off the international career quicker), but as a rule of thumb anything from 2-3 years is acceptable. Let's also not forget that if a player comes back on the international scene, we can simply...update the article to reflect that! GiantSnowman 10:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm good with 2 years. 1 year seems a bit short as there could be various reasons (injury, lack of fixtures, etc) that a player could have a year between call-ups. I remember this being discussed sometime in the last year or two here and there was support for closing it off after a couple of years. As GS said, all it takes is one edit and pressing backspace four time to remove the year if a player gets a call up years later, it's not a huge deal RedPatch (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

A year? 2 years? 3 years? These are all rather arbitrary, aren't they? Having the last date called-up is clear-cut. And as said by a few, it is quite easy to change the last date called-up. And the best thing to clear everything up is to have the note in the infobox reflect the meaning. --SuperJew (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Using England as an example (and WP lists as a source) : The median number of caps is 3 and the mode one (683 of 1269 England internationals have made 3 or fewer appearances). Most internationals therefore make a few appearances and then fade away from contention. 45 of the 99 currently active England internationals have not appeared since 2018, in may cases much longer, and I'd be surprised if more than 5 of these ever appear again. Keeping the international career span open for players who haven't appeared recently misrepresents the careers of many times more players than the occasional ones who make comebacks after a significant absence. Spike 'em (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I seem to recall that the international career of Matt Jarvis was still shown as "ongoing" when he was about 33 and playing in League One, because some editors were so wedded to the idea that it couldn't be closed off until he "officially retired from international football", as if he would ever make such an announcement after just one cap. The chances of his ever being picked again at that point in his career were so astronomically small that implying he was still an active England player just made the article look daft -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with SuperJew. A note should be put in the infobox clarifying if the players current situation with his/her national side. As for the time period, I would say that it should be 2 years from the last call-up. So if a player was called-up in March 2013 then the cut-off would be March 2015, not June 2015. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I would close it off after 12 months of inactivity, in line with removing the player from the "recent call-ups" section of the national team page (for consistency). If 12 months is too short, then we should also extend the "12-month period" of the recent call-ups to 24 months (or whatever). Using an end year, regardless of whether the last cap was made 10 years ago or this year, gives the false impression that someone who played today has retired this year. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: There is no false impression if we extend the standard infobox note to ‡ National team caps and goals correct as of 2 February 2022. Time period is from first call-up until most recent call-up.. And there should be a side consensus if to use "call-up" or "appearance", which I think we should use call-up, as PeeJay says to reflect more correctly fringe players (A fringe player could be part of the national team for a decade but only play a handful of games, but if those games are closely grouped (say around an injury to a key player), then it gives a different impression if one uses appearances as the decider). --SuperJew (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Regardless of whether the player appears or not, a call-up to the national team should indicate that their international career is still active. This is important for third-choice goalkeepers, who might make only sporadic appearances but still be part of the squad. For that reason, I would suggest that a player's international career be marked as closed a year after the last game they were called up for, not necessarily the last game they played in. However, if a player announces their international retirement, that should supersede the one-year requirement. Yes, retirements can be reneged on, but it would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to ignore an announcement of retirement just because the odd player has come out of retirement in the past. As far as we're concerned, if they say they're retired, they're retired, but such an announcement shouldn't be necessary for us to consider their international career over once a certain amount of time has passed. – PeeJay 13:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I like Nehme's suggestion of extending the Recent Call-Ups to 24 months to match the closing of two years if we do go with that. If you're on the national team page, your career is open; if you're not, it's closed (exception obviously being formally retired players). Makes logical sense. If you get re-added, it reopens in the infobox, which is an easy and simple fix. RedPatch (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what RedPatch just said.--EchetusXe 13:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

No one who is throwing numbers around hasn't explained why we should use 1 year or 24 months or any other number (apart from one comment about 4 years being a normal World Cup cycle). --SuperJew (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

We need an arbitrary number for convenience, simple as that. In 1 year, the average national team plays around 10 games (for ~5 call-ups). If a player isn't called up for 5 (or 10, for 24 months) consecutive times, it stands to reason they aren't a current NT player. The year span can always be re-opened if they get called-up again. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

No, we don't, we just need report the time-span that a player has either played for, or been called up to the national team. This is the only thing that is both verifiable and free of personal opinion of how long a player remains an international. Spike 'em (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Where's the issue in matching the player infobox to the list of players in the NT recent call-ups section? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Spike 'em's view that we should just put an end date immediately, because it's entirely free of personal judgement, arbitrary or otherwise, and based completely on verifiable information.

But for practical, consensus-building purposes, I think it makes sense to keep it open for players who are actively receiving call-ups. Here's my suggestion, though I'm really spitballing and open to suggestions:

• If a player has received call-ups during an ongoing tournament qualifying cycle, keep it open until at least the completion of that tournament.
• Close it if a player did not receive a single call-up during the qualifying campaign and was not named to the tournament final squad or the list of alternates
• Close it if a player was not called up for an entire calendar year
• Close it if the player's last call-up was over 24 months ago

I think it's worth reiterating that putting an end year is not declaring that a player is retired. It's just a way of showing when the player was actively with the national team. It's just like putting an end year on a politician's term in office — we're not declaring that the politician's career is over. So I really don't get the idea that closing the years after a year or two is "too short". We're not misleading anyone here. We're actually being more informative.

And again, "international retirement" is a concept that's best ignored — it's completely unofficial and non-binding, and it's not just Messi and Zlatan. We're also talking about Zidane, Larsson, Weah, Milla, Pirlo, Thuram, Makelele, Carragher, etc. And then there's Jamie Vardy, who said the door's not completely shut when announcing his international retirement, so even the players themselves don't think it's definitive. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

No, international retirement should not be ignored. You're right, it's not an irreversible decision, but most players who retire stay retired. If they announce it, we should respect it. If they choose to undo their decision, that's on them. – PeeJay 15:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, we should respect it, but we should recognize that only a tiny percentage of players announce their international retirement, and from that very small sample size, a not-insignificant percentage of them end up going back on their word. It shouldn't have any bearing on how we communicate basic career information.

There's no point in waiting for something that doesn't happen for the vast majority of players and doesn't affect a player's availability for selection. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 16:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, It would be interesting to see a graph that shows which percentage (Y) of 21st-century international players come back to their NT after (X) months of absence. Perhaps it will help us to reach consensus on when to close the period. --BlameRuiner (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be very helpful, but not sure how on earth to go about getting the data. When the example of Stekelenburg was given above, I really wanted to reply "But only 4% of players who have not played an international for 3 years ever play one again", as we shouldn't be using edge cases to determine a general policy. Even though my goal would be to explicitly record the spans, I would go along with the suggestions above that we close the spans when a player moves off the recent call-up list as a second choice. Doing the research above, I found Longest gaps between England appearances which is a start at working out a really excessive upper bound. Spike 'em (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I tried a basic manual analysis, again using England players. From the lists on here, and the linked player pages, there are 166 players who have played for England since 2000 AND have not played since 2020 (so at least a 1 year gap). Of all the players who have played in that time frame, 52 of them, on a total of 67 occasions have a gap of at least 1 CALENDAR year before playing another international. If we treat these individual gaps the same as the ones after last appearance, then there is a 29% chance (67/67+166) that a player will play again after a 1 year gap. HOWEVER, this assumes that none of the players who currently haven't played in a year will never play again, which is clearly very unlikely. I can't decide quite how to add some proportion of these players back into the equation, but trying a couple of different ways, I estimate that the chance of playing again after such a gap is about 35%. Spike 'em (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

35% is still a high number, which weights against adopting this style of closing the international career. I'm more in favour of keeping the current standards (keeping the int. career open) with a bit of sense, using extreme examples like Fraizer Campbell aren't very considerate. Of course Campbell's international career is over, since he's not playing top tier football for a top tier nation, but call-ups are mainly based on form and player moment, so we can't quite measure how those call-ups would go, nor when the player's international career definitely ended. That's why the "international retirement" announcement is an important thing.

As for the case brought up here (Dele Alli), I would keep his int. career open, since he is still playing in a top tier league, and is still held on high regards by Southgate, so I would say that he still has a good chance of being in an international call-up in the future. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this approach. The media also handles these cases as "returning to the national team" (see Balotelli's recent call-up, for example). Syncing the recent call-ups section with having the international career "open" in the player infobox is the most sensible solution. Whether the timeframe should be 1 year or 2 is another point. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Balotelli is a midiatic example. A very "obscure" example: Fe Palermo was called up to the Brazil women's team back in 2019, played one single appearance and was not called up again, until two days ago, when Pia called her for an international tournament. She was always playing in Brazil's top tier league, and is still aged 25, why closing her international career? BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Closing the international career doesn't mean it will be closed off definitely; in case a player gets called up again, they will have their career reopened. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

it's reasonably high, but it also means you are misrepresenting the careers of twice as many players than not, and those players are still easily amendable should they get a recall. Spike 'em (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

By your reckoning we should still list Martin Kelly, John Ruddy, Tom Cleverley and Jay Rodriguez as internationals as they still play for Premier league teams, even though they last played for England over 8 years ago. Spike 'em (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: "By my reckoning", I recall using the word sense. Makes sense to keep Alli's international career open. Doesn't make sense to keep these other guys' int. career open. Just as it is now (or at least was). Even though I agree that a limit may be established, that's still not the best scenario in some cases, such as Alli's one. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Spike 'em Thanks for doing the math. Do you know the recall rate after two calendar years? 35% is definitely higher than I thought, but I imagine it drops quite a bit after two years, since we're talking about an entire World Cup or Euro qualifying campaign.

And it bears repeating, the end year is not, and has never been, a permanent marker. If Dele Alli's infobox shows "2015–2019" for his international years, it does not mean his international career ended in 2019. It just means he earned his cap between 2015 and 2019. That's it. There's no subtext there. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 17:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It was about 20% after 2 years and 10% after 3 years, though I'm still unsure if my method is valid and whether it is a large enough sample size!Spike 'em (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus

So, in an attempt to gather WP:CON, shall we put this up to a vote? This discussion is going to the same points back and forth, and I do think that a vote on four or five options would be more direct and provide clearer conclusions.

I'd suggest:

1. Keeping the current format (leaving the international career open until the player's retirement);
2. Closing the international career after the last cap (which would make a current international's career displayed like XXXX–2022);
3. Closing the international career after two years from his last cap and expanding the latest call-ups in the NT's article;
4. Closing the international career after two years from his last call-up and expanding the latest call-ups in the NT's article;
5. Closing the international career after one full World Cup cycle from his last call-up and expanding the latest call-ups in the NT's article.

BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think the "expand latest call-up section" needs to be a separate discussion, but I would vote for 2 then 34 (but in line with current 1 year timeframe), and would vote against 1 and 5. Spike 'em (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• I would vote option 4 (indifferent whether 1 or 2 years); meaning that, if a player made his caps between 2015 and 2017, and has been called up in 2022, his infobox would display "2015–". If he stops getting called up between 2022 and 2024, his infobox would be closed as follows: "2015–2017". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3, closely followed by Option 4.  Question: Not to get too far in the weeds, but are we talking about two full calendar years or 24-month from the last cap? An advantage to using calendar years is that you can edit a whole bunch of players at the beginning of each year, instead of needing to keep track of different players and making updates piecemeal. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 - As I pointed out, some players may remain involved with the national team despite not playing in any games in a given international window - take third-choice goalkeepers, for example. Hence, if a player is still getting called up, their international career should not be considered closed even if their last cap was more than 2 years ago. I would also support expanding the "Recent call-ups" section to include all players called up for EURO or World Cup qualifiers, but then remove them if they continue not to be called up for the qualifiers for the next tournament. – PeeJay 15:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 5 - As there's no rush. But if we're doing ranked choice voting then Option 4. Does the Recent-Callups section really need to be expanded? Felixsv7 (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 - I'm against expanding the recent call ups section as two years ago is hardly recent. It would also be inconsistent with the results/fixtures section which only goes up to a year ago. I think someone who is called up but isn't capped is still part of the national team so I think option four is most sensible. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3: 3rd goalkeepers are often called up but they never play. Indicating their last cap is a lot more indicative . Otherwise, this is my "hierarchy": 4, 5 and 2 Dr Salvus 16:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4. A player's call up means that his coach takes him in consideration and could be fielded. Dr Salvus 17:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 works for me. A player who is still getting called up clearly has an active international career, even if they never actually make it onto the pitch. Mind you, that does prompt the ancillary question.....if a player has been called up but has never actually played should we show them with an international career but 0 caps? Or should we just ignore cases like that? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'd ignore that. I wouldn't even consider him/her as an international player Dr Salvus 16:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• What about if they were in a World Cup Squad? Sat on the bench in a friendly? Koncorde (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: I would say to show an international career with 0 caps. We don't delete a club line from a player's career because they didn't make an appearance. A player who was called-up to the national team but wasn't capped is generally considered better than a player who isn't even called-up. --SuperJew (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4 - 2 years since last call-up is probably right. GiantSnowman 17:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Seems to me we are voting on something when we haven't even decided what the thing is actually for. A proper RFC of the football infobox would be better than this. Koncorde (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 Makes the most sense and is the easiest to be consistent with. Also, as others mentioned, second/third string goalkeepers are the most likely to have gaps. Two years also makes sense. Injuries happen and its not uncommon for a player to be out for about a full year, where they would be unavailable for a cap. RedPatch (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2, but regarding last call-up as per my comments above. Easiest and most clear-cut. I'd also a note explaining as mentioned above. --SuperJew (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4Muur (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 makes sense for me. Clog Wolf _Howl 08:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm just checking, people aren't suggesting that if a player receives a cap this year then isn't called up for two years that we would say their international career ends in 2024, right? We would still say their international career end date was 2022, the two-year span is just the amount of time we have to wait before we can add the date of their last cap to the infobox. – PeeJay 14:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, (surely) their international career still ends in 2022. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The 'end' date' is the date of their last cap, not their last call up. GiantSnowman 16:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Well that depends which option from the above is favoured...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

That's why I'm asking. I don't want people to misunderstand the question. As far as I was concerned, there was never any suggestion that the date would be different, just that we would have to wait a certain amount of time before inputting that date. If my last cap is this year, my international career ends in 2022 but you have to wait until 2024 to put that in. – PeeJay 18:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

PeeJay my comment was in response to GS's statement "The 'end' date' is the date of their last cap, not their last call up". At the moment consensus seems to in fact heavily favour the date of last call-up -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

No but that’s my point. The question is unclear. The date should be when he received his last cap but we shouldn’t close it until two years later. – PeeJay 19:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, none of the !voting options above cover whether the actual end date is last cap or last call-up? GiantSnowman 19:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, thinking about it, that element isn't covered. If a player last actually played in 2016 but was called up (without playing) in 2018, both option 3 and option 4 would say that his international career can now be considered over, but neither says what end date should actually be entered -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly - but current consensus is (as far as I am aware) to only include the dates of caps. That is why if a player is called up in 2018, 2019 and 2020, but does not make their international debut until 2021, the infobox international career starts in 2021. Same goes for end. GiantSnowman 20:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm voting on the basis that, in 2024, we will close off a player's int. career by writing "2022". I think that everyone else who voted did the same (though I don't want to talk on behalf of everyone). I agree with GS's logic regarding opening the career in the infobox. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That was my belief also. The dates of the players caps would be used but we would wait two years before considering the international career over. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should use dates of call-ups. In club career we have years by contract, not by games played. In international football career, call-ups is the closest thing. A third choice goalkeeper who was called-up consistently between 2010 until 2020 but only made one appearance in 2015, to show his career as only 2015 is a gross misrepresentation IMO. --SuperJew (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that not all databases show the matches a player was called-up to without participating. For example, while Soccerway and GSA do, NFT (the most-used database for int. football here) doesn't. This would create inconsistency between players. It's the same logic why we don't display cup stats in the infobox imo. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Some players (for example from small African countries or small CONCACAF countries, especially female) it is hard to find info even of participating in international matches. Perhaps we shouldn't include any info in the infobox then so as not to have inconsistency? --SuperJew (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Having missing stats is not a problem. Having a goalkeeper with just 2015 because we just know his 1 cap in 2015, and have no info about his call-ups between 2010 and 2020, and another with 2015–2020 because we do have the info is not good practice, and would create more problems in the long run. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

They're both missing information. --SuperJew (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

SuperJew - a player is called up at age 18 and then again age 38, but never makes their debut. Are you really going to give them a 20 year international career in the infobox? GiantSnowman 20:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

GiantSnowman - a player is capped at age 18 and then again at age 38, but never in the between. Are you going to give them a 20 year international career in the infobox? --SuperJew (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

GiantSnowman only refers to call ups, not caps. If a player had been capped aged 18 and is then capped aged 38, I'd give 20 years (people would easily understand if we indicated the player was capped twice) Dr Salvus 22:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@SJ: one is partial info which we can work with, the other is missing. Not knowing the bench appearances for some players and knowing them for others is aking to knowing cup stats for some and not for others: we only display the lowest common denominator. Not knowing the caps at all is the same as not knowing the years at all (completely missing information): we'd just keep the relevant fields empty. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 08:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that option 4 has a clear consensus here, though we may need to split out a discussion about expanding the recent callups section. I'd record just the range of actual international appearances, anything more detailed (inclusion in squads etc) can be included in prose in main body of article. Spike 'em (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm voting 4 on the assumption that the two-year (or one-year) span is the same for both the recent callups and the years in the infobox. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 we had this discussion some years ago and nobody took a blind bit of notice of me then either, but I like option 2 because it is always current. Admittedly the popular option 4 is better that the previous consensus of leaving it until they retired, but too many players last played any game at all several years ago, and their internaional career was still open ended. At least with option 2 when someone updates their stats they put the year of that cap so if they never play again it is right, and if they do, it gets updated with the new year so it is again right. ClubOranje^T 09:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

With option 4, if someone was last called up (2) years ago, the career would be closed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

If you set it to 10 years and someone was last called up 10 years ago the career would be closed. What's your point? That the career end would be out of date for two years?. That's only if someone updates it. There are over seventeen thousand articles without the career span closed out currently. And the thing about players who stop playing...not so many people bother updating their pages regularly. Would be so easy to just keep it reflective of what they have done rather than what they might do. ClubOranje^T 10:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Consensus? As this is liable to get archived if we don't actually come to a conclusion, does anyone disagree that Option 4 is the consensus best choice (or even least bad choice)? Spike 'em (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Are we keeping the "Recent Call-ups" section at one year or are we expanding it to two or do we need a separate consensus in order to amend that? Felixsv7 (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose expanding the recent call-ups to two years? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No opposition from me for either (close after 2 / callups for 24 months). RedPatch (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I would oppose the section from being expanded as the Fixtures and Results section only includes the last 12 months therefore the Recent Call-ups matching that would make sense. I would however agree that in the Records section, a player will no longer be listed in bold once it has been two years since their latest call-up. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

What about closing the period in the infobox after 12 months, to match the recent call-ups section? Or, alternatively, if we also expanded the features and results section to 24 months? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Well we've just obtained the consensus to close the infobox after two years so I don't feel we can change that! On the NT pages: the Features and Results section can already get pretty long (as can the Recent Call-ups) and I don't think either requires expanding - especially as someone who updates the latest squads. I also don't think that the Player's infobox and the National Team's sections necessarily need to be correlated, I just feel that the information should be consistent on the page itself. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Expanding the Recent callups to 24 months from 12 makes the most sense, especially with the closing the infobox after 24 months. If I remove someone from the recent call-ups on March 1, 2022 because it's been 12 months, am I going to remember to close their box 12 months later on March 1, 2023? I guarantee I won't remember. However, if I remove someone from the recent callups because it's been 24 months, I'd just close their infobox at the same time since it's the same time frame. It's the best way for consistency. RedPatch (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

RedPatch, no. For example a player could get injured and be ruled out from the national team for one year for various reasons but I partially agree with you so I'd reduce the length from 24 to 18 months Dr Salvus 16:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with anything I said. I never talked about why a player would be dropped. This discussion is about matching recent call-ups to the infobox. Like I said it's easiest to edit the infobox and recent callups at the same time as opposed to doing one now and one 365 days from now, which is why I'm in favour of expanding to 24 months (ie. make longer/bigger) for both (from the current 12). Maybe you misread my comment and thought I wanted to shorten it, when I'm in favour of the opposite. Injury was one of the reasons why I suggested to make it longer a couple weeks ago in the first place. RedPatch (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with RP's analysis above. I voted for 4 conceptually, but not specifically regarding the timeframe. The key thing, for me, is to have the timeframes synced. Once I remove a player from the recent call-ups after 2 years (or 1 year, or whatever timeframe we decide is most appropriate), I'll go to his infobox and close the international career. It would be very difficult to keep up with this if, as RP says, I'll have to close the infobox 1 year after having removed him from the recent call-ups. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It just seems like such a large, unnecessary addition of data to National Team pages - adding another year's worth of call-ups to the Recent Callup and Fixtures & Results. It should probably be a separate conversation thread. Felixsv7 (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, lets not bring the results section into this. That's a discussion for another day. I'm happy with the two year cut off. It doesn't stop us reopening if a player goes three years between international appearances for whatever reason. My only concern with expanding recent callups to 24 months would be the potential length of it, it could make it unnecessarily long but I understand what RedPatch is saying. There's no guarantee that anyone will remember, or even be editing Wikipedia anymore, to close the international career in 12 months time. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I just realise this conversation is on-going and an user has already made numerous changes to the players’ international career, without the so-called consensus. I oppose to option 4 and things should stay as it is. Option 1 is the most sensible option as no one can predict whether a player will be called up again. There will not be a consensus. Discussions after discussions. We should be leaving the international career open until the player's retirement. To put an ending year in a player’s international career column is like you are claiming him to retire from international selection. It makes no sense, at all. Haklam1218 (talk)10:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

There is clear consensus for option 4 here. I'd personally go for a 1 year gap, but seems 2 years is more popular, so I'm not doing closing off anything more recent than that. Spike 'em (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A so-called consensus which is not known to others like me until today. A so-called consensus which is masterminded by your goodself. What is the criteria of passing a consensus and under what conditions? If people are doing this (changing players’ international career columns ie the 2 years cut off line thing) then do it probably, please and in the whole scale not a selection of players. It will take ages to do the job properly basically you have to check every single professional players who have played for their respective countries. Haklam1218 (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Spike 'em, the consensus is clearly for option 4. The question now is regarding the time range (1 year or 2? the same for the recent call-ups and infobox or different?) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've been through the lists of England players and checked / amended all those who are still active but not played in last 2 years. I have no doubt that a subset of those will need to be reactivated at some point, but that is all covered in the discussion above. This talk page is the main place to discuss football-related issues and it has a high enough readership that decisions like this can be taken. Where else would you suggest these discussions take place?Spike 'em (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you please provide trustworthy sources which show players’ last international call-up from their respective national teams? Cheers. And please do it for all players not just England players. Haklam1218 (talk)11:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, England players only for me (or any random players I happen upon for other reasons) per WP:OBLIGATION. Please feel free to do as many or as few as you see fit yourself. Spike 'em (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: Having read through this discussion, I don't see that consensus has been reached. I think you should revert your recent changes to articles in which you implemented Option 3. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

12 out of 14 people who commented have option 4 among their options. However, there is no consensus on whether we should adopt a 1-year span or a 2-year one (or any other timeframe). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(e/c) Really? Most people said that 4 was either the best or second best choice (it certainly isn't my favourite) and didn't object when I tried moving things on after the discussion stalled. On the revert point: I thought I checked all the players before changing their pages against option 4. Whom do you think I got wrong? I was slightly surprised that it did seem that there didn't seem to be any players who played more than 2 years ago who hadn't been in a squad since, but thought it might be a COVID related oddity. Spike 'em (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I have gone through and checked all the England squads for past 2 years, and cant see any of the players I edited today since November 2019, so there is currently no difference between using Option 3 and Option 4 for them specifically. This will not necessarily hold in the future. Spike 'em (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

And a simple vote tally in addition to Nehme's point above: 1 (keep open indefinitely) : nobody; 2: 3 people; 3: 2 people; 4 : 8 people; 5 : 1 person; Lets have an RfC : 1 person. However you want to interpret, there is clear consensus to add end dates before a player retires. Spike 'em (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Considering secondary options, the numbers are: option 1 (0 votes), option 2 (3 votes), option 3 (1 vote), option 4 (12 votes), option 5 (1 vote). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I chose option 1 so to say option 1 with 0 votes is untrue. Just saying. Haklam1218 (talk)19:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I vote for Option 4, I think that's the best option of the five.--EchetusXe 12:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Timeframe

Option 4 has clear consensus above. However, while most people agree with the first part (closing the international career after [X] years from their last call-up), not everyone agrees with the second part (expanding the latest call-ups in the NT's article). Thus, I think we should have a further discussion regarding the timeframe we should apply: Firstly, should the timeframe be the same for both the player infobox, and the national team recent call-ups?

1. Yes, the timeframe should be the same
2. No, the timeframe should be different

Secondly, what should the timeframe be?

1. One year for the recent call-ups, two years for the infobox
2. One year for both
3. Two years for both
4. Other

Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Same timeframe, indifferent time period: for consistency, and simplicity of editing, I would maintain the same timeframe for both the infobox and recent-callups. Once a player is removed from the recent call-ups section, we would simply proceed to close the international career in the infobox. As RedPatch stated above: If I remove someone from the recent call-ups on March 1, 2022 because it's been 12 months, am I going to remember to close their box 12 months later on March 1, 2023? Whether we opt for a 1 year or 2 year timeframe is indifferent to me. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• One year/Two year My personal preference would be one year for recent call ups/two years for infobox as I feel recent call ups could get way too long if it were two years and I don't think one year since your last call up is quite sufficient to say your out of international football. I understand the points about not remembering to remove someone one year later, it would take a lot of work/dedication for some of teams if someone was to maintain a list of recent call ups (it's the only way I would remember) so I wouldn't be against one year for both. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Same timeframe, one year period: If there is a difference in the timeframe, it will almost for sure not be updated properly. There are a select few editors who will remove a player from the recent call-ups section and remember to close their infobox international career a year later. Expanding the recent call-ups to 2 years, will need a massive expansion over around 400 pages, which is quite redundant. Personally, I still think the best thing and the way which will be best updated and most accurate is to "close" the international career with the last match played. For example: Erling Haaland would have 2019–2021 Norway 15 (12), meaning he represented Norway 15 times in the years 2019 until 2021. It doesn't mean he is not available for selection anymore (and there is no such thing anyway, even in cases of "official retirement from the national team" as we saw with Messi etc.) --SuperJew (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Same timeframe, 18 months A player could be injured and be ruled out for 8 months for example and return playing at late November when there are no international matches for 3 months Dr Salvus 13:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: 18 months for both the recent call-ups and the infobox, or just for one of the two? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nehme1499 18 for both Dr Salvus 13:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I've amended the vote. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Same timeframe / 1 year I almost considered 2 years for the closing the career in IB, which is what I used when closing a bunch of players last week. I'm not convinced that those removing players from the recent callups sections will also do the infoboxes, but it might be a prompt for someone else to do at the same time. I did create a list for between 1 and 2 years for England players, but it does run into obvious maintenance issues. Spike 'em (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Same timeframe, and 2 years GiantSnowman 16:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Same timeframe / 2 years for both. Feel like 2 years is reasonable. I don't think it will make an article super long, it's not like there will be so much turnover where there will be 30-40 extra players who played 13-24 months ago but not in the past 12, perhaps more like 5-10. I also feel like there would be less pushback from other editors who see it: "He was on the team last year, he's still on the team" if we go with 12. When it becomes 2-3 years, it becomes easier to close. I don't think there needs to be a rush to re-add all the players from 13-24 months ago. No need to go find that random player called up 22 months ago for every team. Start it now, and it'd be done by the end of 2022 if that's easier as time rolls on. RedPatch (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  Using England as an example: there are currently 8 players in the 13-24 months since last call-up range, but if we tried doing the same thing as it would have been this time last year, I think there would have been about 15. There were 8 who were last called up in Nov 2019 and a bunch in the 6 months before then, but not sure how much of that is a Covid thing. There was a year gap between games, so probably more of sudden cull of players, some of whom would likely have been called up for games in the gap that occurred.Spike 'em (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Same timeframe / 1 year I agree with Stevie but the other issue that I brought up is that Recent Call-ups and Fixtures and Results are linked, not the infobox. If we are looking to host a referendum on this matter I think that this should be addressed. Felixsv7 (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

People also continue to use England as an example but that isn't where the issue of article length is most likely to be obvious. If we looked at Egypt or another African nation, this problem is more likely to be evident due to squads formed from players solely based within their nation and then a separate team featuring expatriates as well - which will balloon the section. Felixsv7 (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I keep using England as an example as I'm interested in that article. Any other editor is free to use another country as a counter example but I won't do so, sorry. Spike 'em (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Consensus Part 2?: If anything this seems to have complicated matters. The first vote came with a consensus of two years to close a player's infobox, however the second vote now leans towards closing the infobox after one year to align with Recent Call-ups and Fixtures & Results. Before this disappears into the archives, what is our collective decision? Felixsv7 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be consensus towards keeping the same timeframe, though not clear whether we should use 1 year or 2 years. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Rescheduled league matches rounds

On season pages, taking 2021–22 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season, for the league games that got postponed, should the round number stay the same? It seems some of the editors are changing the round numbers of games, it's it harder to work out when that game was postponed, as that round seem to disappear. I liked seeing that data before! I was wondering whats the best way to handle the information. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I personally keep the round number the same. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

would be better to just count it as the round it's actually played. so, match 10 is postponed so match 11 is now match 10. then what was match 10 now takes place in match 27, so list it as match 27. doing otherwise is confusing, especially in a "position by round" section. say your team were 15th in the 10th round and the match was postponed. now by the time they play the match, theyve had a crazy run and are now first. but, if you go with the "rounds" being what they were announced day one youd have it like this: round 9: 10th round 10: 1st, round 11: 10th. thats just silly and makes it seem like they changed 9 places twice because of one/two matches. it should be based on matches actually played. "the 10th league match of the season was against chelsea", etc. its also not really counfusing, just have two entries for the match one when it was postoned without a round number and one when it was played with a round number. its why the postponed option even exists in the first place.Muur (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What Muur (talk · contribs) said. Kante4 (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Another +1. Retrofitting rearranged match results / positions into a list is both inaccurate and confusing. Spike 'em (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Position by Round is analytical data and in my view wikipedia should avoid that. WP:NOTLAB ? Govvy (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree it can be confusing, surely it's easier to just say they were in x position after whatever game it happens to be? Any additional context can be added in prose which many of these articles are sorely lacking.

Tbf Govvy, I was also under the impression that position/results by round tables shouldn't be included in these articles (especially because you can include all of that information in the results list itself). I thought WP:SYNTH also applied because, particularly with postponed games, it can sometimes be difficult to work out what should be displayed in these tables. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Govvy See how I managed this issue last season for Manchester City Ratchet8865 (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Govvy See how I managed this issue last season for Manchester City (link corrected) Ratchet8865 (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League Group Stage tables

In the pages about the seasons of the Europa League, we colour the row of teams placed at the third place with yellow. I think the same should be done at UEFA Champions League table for consistency with the Europa League which colours with yellow the teams who relegate to the Conference League Dr Salvus 18:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The different colour represent different levels of competition, changing them would imply that the Conference League was on the same standing as the Europa League when it's actually a level below. The details for which colour should be used in these tables is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season#Table formatting. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

List compilation help

Can someone help out in adding entries to List of naturalized international footballers? I have written helpful tips for finding these players in the talk page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

(Btw, should the article be moved to "naturalised", as we are using "football" and not "soccer"?). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to rethink the scope of this article. Countries with a high level of incoming migration are going to be disproportionately represented. Hack (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hack: Hariboneagle927 is the creator of the article. I think the logic of the article is to only list players who have been granted citizenship with the sole purpose of representing the national team. In the sense that, they wouldn't have became citizens had they not had the intention to play internationally for their new country. But yeah, I agree, it's difficult to set parameters for these kinds of things.

It's also disproportionate with different citizenship rules. For example, Mario Balotelli gained citizenship by naturalization, as Italy doesn't confer nationality via jus soli. Were he born in the US, for example, he wouldn't have been naturalized. On the flip side, a player from a country with jus sanguinis law would not be naturalized if born abroad, yet a US citizen would have to go through naturalization to become a US citizen. Countries such a Lebanon, who only confer nationality paternally, also complicate matters.

In short, two players who come from exactly the same circumstance (say, born abroad to a foreign mother), would obtain citizenship in different ways (naturalization or birth right), which affects their inclusion in this list. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: I'm just wondering if this is really explained well and is it sourced for such a list. It sounds quite a specific subset. Also, I'm not sure how we are meant to judge intention of players becoming citizens. --SuperJew (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I think different editors/readers are going to interpret the list differently. I would probably nominate it for deletion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a confusing list. "Naturalised" normally means you change/obtain citizenship. But this article is not using countries, but FIFA teams (England/Scotland are not countries that have citizenship, it's UK), which makes no sense as a FIFA nation is completely different from a country that grant citizenship. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

And even then, do we consider "naturalized" by the country's standards, or simply as "obtaining a nationality"? Because numerous players born abroad with X descent have gained the citizenship of X (via jus sanguinis) to represent their national team. Should they be in the list? Because the country doesn't consider them as "naturalized". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Ignacio Giampaoli - notability?

I really don't know enough about a lot of the places he's played, but Ignacio Giampaoli signed a pre-contract deal with Cefn Druids in the Cymru Premier in December 2021, but has not signed for them as far as I can see. He has an article but wondering if he meets GNG or WFOOTY - lots of wordage but can't help thinking not much substance in terms of playing in a full professional league. Any advice on if worth nominating for deletion or can it be cleaned up and expanded? Zanoni (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think he passes WP:FOOTY. The only FPL team in his infobox (unless I missed one) is LA Galaxy II. It says he made 1 appearance but I can't find any record of that. Soccerway and some other sites have good records for that and it doesn't list him on the roster at all. His LinkedIn page says he was with LAG2 for preseason. So he may have played in a friendly, but not in a FPL match. This can probably be taken to AFD. RedPatch (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Given this source, he confirms he was at LAGII for a two-week pre-season trial only. So he made no FPL appearances. I've removed it from the infobox. RedPatch (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that the article was created by someone with very few other edits (except to this page), who also uploaded a professional photo of Giampaoli as their own work, I expect there's some sort of COI involved. Doesn't look to pass WP:GNG either. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably not notable, but I've tidied it up anyway (aesthetics, rather than the more analytical stuff others have done to actually work out what's true). Crowsus (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I set up the AFD page here. RedPatch (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone - my hunch was it would fail both, but good to check Zanoni (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Troublesome IP

[1] - IP is repeatedly inserting seemingly random apps/goals numbers for Kilmarnock players, please be advised...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked them. Cheers, Number 57 16:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Divisional movements table

@Pallone aerostatico: added a divisional movements table to A.C. Monza: I reverted as it's not standard per the MOS, it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE and unsourced. I reverted it. Today, Modoetia magni added it back, on the basis that it's "interesting". I reverted, once again explaining why it shouldn't be in the article, and he is calling me disruptive as I "don't decide for the community". Can someone please deal with this, as I've already reverted 4 times. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

They have now sent me a template warning... (WP:DTR). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Obviously divisional movements for a football club are not “indiscriminate” facts. For the source, I’ve just resolved the problem. --Modoetia magni (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument. Just because you find some stats interesting doesn't mean it should stay on an encyclopaedia. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

How can you consider divisional movements for a football club an irrelevant statistic?? FC Zorya Luhansk as a League and Cup history section: why don’t you remove it? --Modoetia magni (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:OBLIGATION, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Thank not criticize. --Modoetia magni (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Parts and aspects of articles may and should be criticized, but editors should not be. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Remember, if things don't go your way, it's not the end of the world.--Modoetia magni (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Just looked at it and I don't understand what that table is telling me? --dashiellx (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the table should or shouldn't be in the article, but as it is right now it is quite unclear. "Promotions" and "Relegations" mean promotions and relegations to or from that league? What is the cross next to 2015? I would also remove the green and red arrows as redundant decoration. I also think this information could be better represented as a graph. --SuperJew (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that I'm looking to nominate A.C. Monza for GA/FA, I'd rather not have crufty tables in the article. If it should be kept, at least it should be formatted some other way. Does anyone else have other opinions? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Zsombor Senko

His contract is going to end on 30 June. If he neither extends his contract nor play s another game for Juve U23, should we write in the info box 2021–2022 (next to "Juventus U23") or only 2021 (he only played a match in the previous season)? Dr Salvus 09:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

If he was also called up in 2022, then 2021–2022. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nehme1499 Hadn't we decided that we'd considerate the caps and not the call ups? Dr Salvus 11:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Not for club players! GiantSnowman 11:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: I think that logic is for the starting year, not the ending one (I don't necessarily agree with it, I'd go with call-ups for both starting and ending years for clubs). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I hope he's wearing a really baggy shirt in his infobox photo and that he isn't actually that shape! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, I've had a look at some sites and he's only 78 kg. Dr Salvus 12:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Assists parameter in Template fb si player / header

Would it be considered beneficial to have assists parameters added to these templates to record the numbers of assists made by players for their club's to compliment the appearances and goals statistics? Ratchet8865 (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

No. The overwhelming view is that assists are not a stat worth recording, as there is no agreed definition, it is impossible to source for the majority of players, and where it is recorded different sources give different numbers -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that historically there is a problem with consistency and availability of data from before around 2013, but since then many leagues and associations have published official assists stats for their competitions (e.g. Premier League, UEFA) which are also collated by reliable stat sites like soccerbase or fbref. So in time, we should be able to source reliable data for currently active players. Ratchet8865 (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

No assists. It should only be goals, assists are not goals. We should be removing rubbish like yellow cards from there, rather than adding more things to clutter it up even more. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

We're also not a collection of stats. Goals are just fine. (WP:NOTSTATS) Dr Salvus 10:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I have to confess that I have never worked with that template and am not familiar with it, but looking at it now the amount of cruft in it is a bit much IMO. Looking at 2006–07_FC_Barcelona_season#Squad_information, why is it relevant to the article on that season that Messi was on a contract with an end date of 2014 or that Marquez had cost 5M when signed three years earlier? I don't see how either of those is in any way relevant to their contribution to that particular season....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There's so much wrong with that. The contract length, cost are irrelevant. Age? When is this measured? The source for that one specifically states it sources Wikipedia, which isn't even slightly ok. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Notes for cups in club statistics table

Following these two discussions (1, 2): should there be a note, which lists the cups, next to "National cup" and "League cup" in a player's club career statistics table? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rupert1904, GiantSnowman, Mattythewhite, Dashiellx, Felixsv7, ItsKesha, Microwave Anarchist, Spike 'em, and Muur: courtesy ping to the involved editors in the two discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Examples

1) Without notes

Appearances and goals by club, season and competition

Club	Season	League			National cup		League cup		Continental		Other		Total
		Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Wiki City	2010–11	Second Division	15	10	0	0	0	0	—		0	0	15	10
Template Rangers	2011–12	First Division	0	0	0	0	0	0	—		0	0	0	0
Career total			15	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

2) With notes

Appearances and goals by club, season and competition

Club	Season	League			National cup		League cup		Continental		Other		Total
		Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Wiki City	2010–11	Second Division	15	10	0	0	0	0	—		0	0	15	10
Template Rangers	2011–12	First Division	0	0	0	0	0	0	—		0	0	0	0
Career total			15	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Comments

• With notes: the average reader won't be aware of each country's national cup. Some countries, such as England, even have multiple domestic cups, which adds to the confusion. Having a note listing the cups involved is clearer. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• With notes: agree with Nehme1499. In addition, I'd also use the notes instead of the name of the cup if the player has always played the same cup. Dr Salvus 14:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'd also use the capital C in "Cup:. It'd be less ugly Dr Salvus 14:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  "cup" is not a proper noun, so it's correctly written in lowercase. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• With notes as people shouldn't be expected to know what the cup competition is (especially in countries that have multiple cups, and for players who've played in multiple countries, and therefore multiple different cup competitions). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Literally don't care - as long as people don't edit war over it. GiantSnowman 14:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• With notes: It does no harm to help the general reader understand what the football reader might take for granted. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• The harm I see is that redundant notes clutter up tables and make them harder to figure out. Most of us at WP:FOOTY are very familiar with the tables but for others, adding unnecessary complexity comes at a cost of readability. MOS:OVERLINKING quotes a study which states that "simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention". Similarly, unnecessary footnotes would compete with necessary footnotes for user attention. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Without notes Some countries […] have multiple domestic cups. There is only one national cup and league cup per country. We should only add notes where ambiguity exists. Notes for the "Other" column will clarify if there are cups beyond the national and league cups, for example the EFL Trophy in England. the average reader won't be aware of each country's national cup. If readers want to know the exact names of the national and league cups they can look them up, no need to clutter up the tables. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• A reader might be confused on whether England's national cup is the FA Cup, FA Trophy, EFL Cup, EFL Trophy, etc... See Malaysia for example, who have the Malaysia FA Cup and the misleading Malaysia Cup (which is actually a league cup). If readers want to know the exact names of the national and league cups they can look them up: following that logic we should also remove the divisions, as readers can look those up as well. I don't see how removing information can be more useful than adding it; a small hatnote isn't particularly cluttering. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• following that logic we should also remove the divisions No, there's a difference: Countries have different league tiers, we need to spell out which tier a player has played in. In the case of Germany, for example, it could be the Bundesliga, the 2. Bundesliga, the 3. Liga, etc. A reader might be confused on whether England's national cup is the FA Cup, FA Trophy, EFL Cup, EFL Trophy, etc... If we assume a significant chunk of our readers doesn't know the difference between national cups and league cups, wouldn't the elegant solution be to link "National cup" and "League cup"? We have a League cup article which lists the league cups for all the different countries, we'd just need one for "National cup". Robby.is.on (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• This won't work - how are you going to link 'National Cup' to cover a player who has played in England, Netherlands, Germany, France etc.? GiantSnowman 15:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think he means we would link to an article called National cup (or National cup (association football)), which covers the general topic of national cups in football, similarly to league cup. I wouldn't be opposed to this solution. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Right. Thanks, Nehme1499. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

All the trophies you've mentioned are League cups (except the FA Cup). A reader, especially for the players who play in the lowest leagues could not understand in which cup he played in. This is the reason we do need notes Dr Salvus 15:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There were 3 replies in a few minutes so I've written this comment without reading them Dr Salvus 15:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• With notes: However, I'm not sure I like the note being in the table header. I would prefer it in the detail with the apps stats. I believe there was an example of this. --dashiellx (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• With notes: But I'd prefer using Tooltip rather than efn. But not vehemently Felixsv7 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Without notes: There already exists distinct national cup and league cups columns. To Nehme’s argument that some countries have multiple cups, that’s why we have these separate columns. Adding a note here is redundant. If we combined national cup and league cup into one column, there would be a discussion to be had about the usefulness of these notes. But as it currently stands, they are separate.

Further, the note is isolated and has no frame of reference to which clubs or seasons they are in reference to. A list of a number of different cups adds no clarity to a reader. It adds ambiguity and creates confusion. Take Álvaro Morata, Pedro Pereira and Douglas Costa’s stats table for reference. These notes are on an island and I do not think a listing of cups brings value or any level of further understanding to the average reader. These notes also don’t accurately reflect the trajectory of any of their careers and movement between countries and their respective domestic cups. Morata is currently playing in Italy but the last cup in his “National Cup” note is the FA Cup in England. You say your edits are better for the average reader but I can’t believe I am the only person who thinks the average reader would be confused by that?

It’s a stats stable. We shouldn’t just add notes for the sake of adding notes. Where do we stop with notes? Should we also have a footnote that says in Costa’s table that only Brazilian clubs play in a state league? Or on Morata’s that only England has a League Cup of the countries he has played in? For Pereira, should we also have notes that Serie A is the first division in Italy, Serie B is the second, EFL Championship is the second division in England, etc?

While I don’t necessarily love the the appearance of all the notes and footnotes in Continental and Other columns as they are very busy, they are necessary because those columns are a catch all. It’s the best solution we have found without creating a stats table with an egregious amount of columns. A European club can now compete in three different continental competitions in a single season as no less than 10 are doing so this year with the introduction of the Europa Conference League (including Celtic, FC Midtjylland, FC Flora, Slavia Prague and more). Therefore, notes are needed in this scenario to indicate which competitions these stats apply to. Same in the case of the Other column; Bayern Munich played in three different “Other” super cup competitions in the 2020–21 season so this note adds value.

I appreciate that Nehme is attempting to clear up a supposed issue and help the average reader but I firmly believe this note is counter to that goal. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• With notes as others have stated this is clear an unambiguous. Would add that I would use the names of the cup directly in the header if they have only played in one country (i.e. the display at Trent Alexander-Arnold rather than Luca Pellegrini). Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Microwave Anarchist - I think linking the cup directly is fine and unambiguous when a player has only played in one country like TAA. The issue I and other editors have is when the player is moving countries as noted above and has a footnote on his article with a list of a ton of different cups that have no specific relation to any stat or season. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    • @Rupert1904: sorry, my comment was unclear. As stated, I think in cases where the player has played in more than one country, there should be a note in the header so it's clear what competition the column is pertinent to. Having said that, I have no preference between the note being in the header or in the body as proposed by dashiellx, but it should be consistent. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• With notes per Nehme1499, Joseph2302, Struway2 and Microwave Anarchist. LTFC 95 (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No one who has said with notes has addressed my legitimate concerns/questions above. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• With notes but I wouldn’t mind either way. SlySabre (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Naturalised association football players by nationality

What's the scope of this category? Is it for footballers who happened to have gained a certain citizenship via naturalisation (without necessarily a specific sporting purpose), or is it for footballers who have gained nationality for the purpose of representing a national team? If it's the first case, I don't see the significance of merging "footballers" with "gaining citizenship via naturalisation" in a category. If it's the latter, the category should be renamed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd assume the same as List of naturalized international footballers Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Is that page even worth while - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of association football players with dual nationality is essentially the same thing. I don't think we need article or category. GiantSnowman 22:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it fits WP:LISTN and isn't a defining category. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Players with dual nationality is just an indiscriminate list of footballers who have more than one nationality. Naturalized international footballers are relatively notable, as it's specific to players who obtained citizenship with the sole purpose of representing a national team (such as Elkeson). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

If it is notable, where are the sources talking about them as a group? That's what we require for standalone lists. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

See these articles, for example: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Club season articles

Hi, I don't usually look at these articles, but found myself at 2021–22 Liverpool F.C. season. Can I get some agreement that the "player of the month" for the individual clubs is not notable? In addition, that we shouldn't have tables with customised colours for each club? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

As long as the colours don't violate MOS:ACCESS, it's fine imo. Player of the month is ok, I think. It's relatively notable to the specific season. If anything, I would remove the disciplinary record table. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

As this is "Awarded monthly to the player that was chosen by fans voting on Liverpoolfc.com" is this even notable? --dashiellx (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thing is, why aren't the colours for the tables uniform across the articles. I don't see how fan voting is in any way notable.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Matt Doherty (footballer, born 1992) move conversation

Even know it looks a clear cut close, BarrelProof closed the conversation even know he voted in it, also Iggy the Swan gave no clear indication he was withdrawing the conversation. This is a terrible close, shouldn't someone else sort it out???? Govvy (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

There was unanimous opposition to that RM and the proponent then appeared to withdraw their proposal. Closing it was merely a formality in that situation. If I misread what the proponent said, or if anyone else thinks the closure was not adequately justified, they can let me know and I'll happily undo the close. It may also be worth observing that the proponent of that RM, Iggy the Swan, also expressed support for the RM at Talk:Matt Doherty Sr.#Requested move 2 March 2022, which makes it even more clear that they now recognize and agree with the need for disambiguation of the title of Matt Doherty (footballer, born 1992). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably not the wisest close. I'd be happy to mediate if Iggy the Swan wants to reopen Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: Just conflict of interest and WP:CLOSE which tells us a non-partisan person who hasn't taken part in the conversation should close a conversation. I hope you don't close that new move request you started. Govvy (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi folks, I had no indication on withdrawing this conversation or indeed asking someone to close it just one day and 2 hours after starting the discussion myself. That closure should happen around 7 days after I started that (or may) so I agree this closure is terrible based on how soon that happened. The comment I gave out yesterday made me realise that Matt Doherty (footballer) is pdab because of the number of Matt Dohertys there are on Wikipedia. I did not forecast that premature closure. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Reopened as requested. Sorry for the misinterpretation. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I have requested confirmation from the nominator that the requested move is indeed being withdrawn before performing a non-admin closure. If the nomination is indeed withdrawn, I will close it. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Question on national team article titles

Why are the men's football teams titled national football team but women's are titled women's national football team? I noticed this was inconsistent with some other sports on wiki and was wondering why. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME, which is why we also have United States men's national soccer team for example. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikitables vs football box collapsible in club season articles

After another instance of a user trying to replace wikitables with the football box collapsible template in a club season article in my watchlist without consensus, I am unfortunately having to raise this subject here again. I cannot understand why this template continues to exist when it is a blatant violation of MOS:COLLAPSE. Users who argue for its use give the reason that it is simpler to use. However, this is not a reason to go against the MOS. Personally I do not find editing wikitables difficult but appreciate that other users do.

Could we investigate creating a template using the wikitable format instead of a minority of users contentiously going around replacing wikitables with a template that does not meet Wikipedia guidelines? The main problem has been the same users mass creating club season articles each season using the football box collapsible template without a consensus being reached here and a concerted effort to stop this from happening. I remain hopeful that a solution can be found and hope that we can work together to make this happen. LTFC 95 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree, a template would mean editors who find editing wikitables more difficult would not be excluded from updating articles that use them currently and would also hopefully make converting articles from the football template easier/less time-consuming. I'm not that much of a technical whizz otherwise I would've done it by now. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@LTFC 95: Can you point to some of these club season articles? I'd like to see what it is you're trying to do so I can try to figure it out. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: Different formats of wikitable exist. One example is 2015–16 York City F.C. season, which is a good article. Other examples include 2000–01 Gillingham F.C. season and 1980–81 Ipswich Town F.C. season, which are featured articles. The main objective of the template would be to help users who find editing wikitables difficult and establish a single format with complies with Wikipedia MOS to be implemented across all club season articles. LTFC 95 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@LTFC 95: I'll see what I can work on. It will probably require multiple templates (header, row, maybe an ending template), though I'm not sure I'd be able to make it sortable that way. If you don't hear back from me within a few days, hit me up on my talk page. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

name format of drafts

I see that all the articles in Category:National Women's Soccer League drafts and also the parent article NWSL Draft are formatted with all the words capitalised. Should it be changed that words like draft, college, and expansion should be formatted with a lowercase first letter? --SuperJew (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft is part of the name, so I would say no. Similar to how we have "Final" not "final" in article names e.g. FA Cup Final, as it's part of the name. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Roberto Carlos

In bizarre circumstances, Roberto Carlos played today for a pub team in Shropshire. The game itself was a friendly, but IPs keep adding it to his infobox stats, even going so far as to repeatedly delete the hidden note saying that infobox stats are league only. Just a heads-up..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Add it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection RedPatch (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Adelere13

• Adelere13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This guy is constantly messing around with a couple of footballer bio articles, it's like watching constant edit testing! Can someone have a look at his contrib, to me it is extremely irksome. I don't trust the editor either. Govvy (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that... Adelere13 (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

At it again I see, this time at Pepe Reina. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV. The user has been blocked for this before and is either WP:NOTHERE or doesn't understand that WP:CIR. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Kit disruption

Hi all. As I am currently ill and unable do much, could someone keep an eye on 213.194.181.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? They have been adding false kits to infoboxes lately. Make sure to check any such changes, even ones that seem accurate as their edits are often very plausible. Cheers! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Bad stats updates

See [6] - this IP has been on a spree of updating player stats without updating the timestamp. Would anyone be able to help me go through and check that the stats are actually correct and, if so, update the timestamps? Thanks!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: the first three I checked all had incorrect stats...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Didn't see this before undoing most of them. The stats appear to be all correct and up-to-date, except they're for all competitions rather than league only. I'm guessing it's this chap with a new IP address. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears to be an anonymous Walsall fan who thinks every appearance for the club should be included in the infoboxes instead of the leagues the club plays in. I think that's everything cleared up in terms of that issue. I hope the message Struway2 gave out on the IP address would help understand that chap in what's the right version as of now. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Operating without WP:NFOOTBALL

I really don't understand why all the SNGs are being removed, how do we operate with out NFOOTBALL?? Govvy (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Was this decided? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Go and have a look at WP:NSPORT, BilledMammal is systematically destroying it if you ask me! Govvy (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)? I see a ginormous discussion with various proposals but I'm having trouble identifying any outcomes among the giant wall of text. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

There is this discussion, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability, however I couldn't take part, because I get lost in it, it was too much. Govvy (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

From the TLDR section: "However, there are a couple proposals that received mass participation and have a clear consensus from 2/3 of the participants. In particular, the Main Proposal to abolish NSPORTS received mass participation from nearly 100 editors and was overwhelmingly rejected." That does not square with your claim that "SNGs are being removed". Robby.is.on (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I presume Govvy is referring to this series of edits..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Proposal 3, which is mentioned here as having consensus, is to remove all appearance-based SNGs (which includes NFOOTY). Spike 'em (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

So are we going to see a mass of AfDs? --SuperJew (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's more likely Proposal 5 that will create a slew of AfDs (plus Proposal 3 mentioned a grandfathering clause). I actually don't have any objection to Proposal 5 because if the only source you can find about a player is an entry on a database, they don't pass GNG anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Yep, I saw that edit, now I feel somewhat concerned that there will be an attack on the football wiki project! Invasion from the North, South and East??? Govvy (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

NFootball is gone? Sure there are a lot of stubs squeaking by, but NFootball entirely just doesn't make sense. --dashiellx (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I know noone cares (well, actually most are probably happy), but I am not going to contibute to the project anymore. Not everyone is interested only in Ronaldo, England and USA. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know you but I'm telling you not to give up.--EchetusXe 15:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• A great step forward for Wikipedia if you want to increase WP:BIAS. They may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. On the other hand, I'm seeing little that indicates that a solitary article on the BBC website about the signing of a player, isn't significant. Nfitz (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I suspect this is actually likely to have a worse impact on female players than male players, particularly internationals, as coverage of women's international football seems to be almost non-existent in many countries. On the other hand, it opens the door to thousands of articles on National League footballers, whose articles will be justified on GNG grounds but were often rejected because they failed NFOOTBALL. Unfortunately this whole exercise has been carried out because a small group of editors are very unhappy that there are far more people who want to write about sportspeople than there are who are interested in others, and rather than encouraging more articles on politicians etc, they've decided to try and reduce the amount of sportspeople biographies. Number 57 17:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

A decision appears to have been made to remove any guideline that a sportsperson is presumed notable if they've made an appearance in a notable professional competition, and we should rely on the general notability guideline alone. As a result, one editor seems to be deleting paragraphs from the sports notability guidelines at semi-random, with the result that, in rugby union, only an appearance in the women's World Cup makes you notable. No idea what they're playing at. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the RfC result, WP:BRD follows for policy items. A discussion should be had as to how to change our MOS as per the outcome of the RfC. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

TBH, I think the part of the RfC close that led to the removal of NFOOTY and other team sport guidelines is highly dubious, and a review should be requested. I skimmed over it, and it looked like a quite clear no consensus outcome to me. Number 57 17:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that the main two editors re-writing and trimming WP:NSPORT were both big supporters of ditching most of it at the RfC. Still, we've got plenty of articles about moths that someone made a single note of in 1831 to pass WP:GNG, so everyone is a winner, right? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a 22-27 vote seems too close to call a consensus to overturn long-standing policies, particularly after the rambling thread of proposals and counter-proposals. Removing the appearance-based SNGs should really have been a separate RfC. Spike 'em (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I would have thought (hoped) that at least three admins had worked together on the closure of each proposal too. I've seen this happen before on complex cases/RfCs at WP:AN. Hey ho. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• This seems very bizarre to me... Relying only in WP:GNG would mean that a player who actually is a backup option at FC Barcelona B has more chances on having a page than a backup option for CD Lugo or UD Ibiza, both in a professional division, for an example. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Another example: Jean Chera, a player who scraps by NFOOTY but does get a lot of WP:GNG (mainly due to the expectations created on his youth, which he never lived by anwyay) is more probable on being accepted than Robson Reis, an actual first-team player for Santos FC, a top tier Brazilian team. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The site has gone down the toilet over the last couple of years, first the Olympic vote and now this. This slippery slope was started when we began accepting deletions instead of fighting against them. The football project could be much bigger than it is now, I expect a big contraction and mass AFDs to follow. I'm considering retiring, I see the writing on the wall.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

On the bright side, User:Ortizesp, with the FPL requirement now gone, look at all the League of Ireland players that I've argued against deletion over the years, despite having one significant reference, that I can now go to WP:REFUND with! Not to mention some up-and-coming players and Isthmian Second Division players in town with a strong local paper! Nfitz (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comment requested at Lukas Podolski

Could we please get a summarizing comment at Talk:Lukas Podolski#Revived in 2022. No ethnicity in the lede or retain a more than five year status quo of only German? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)