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.

RfC on youth career in infobox

How should we display, if at all, a footballer's youth career in the infobox? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This has been an area of contention in this WikiProject for some while. In the archived discussion, some editors believed that a youth career stops once a player makes his senior debut, regardless of the fact that the player might have played youth football again following his senior career. Others believed that the year span should overlap with the senior years if needed, as long as the sources are there. No consensus was formed. We have started another discussion (see discussion above), and seven suggestions have been put forward:

1. the status quo (youth career ending upon the first senior appearance)
2. the youth team years and senior team years overlapping, such that the youth team years reflect matches played at youth level
3. suggestion 2 but with common sense (i.e. a 30 y/o player not being shown as a youth player)
4. using the club's official website as an indication of whether the player is youth or senior
5. merging the youth and senior sections of the infobox
6. a system that varies based on how many appearances they made, what sources are available, etc.
7. removing the youth career section altogether from the infobox, keeping only senior years

As of now, the preferred options are 1, 7, and 2/3. Still, no consensus. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Vote

• Option 7 - Likely omit altogether. Carve out for common sense exceptions. The very nature is that youth career is unlikely part of the professional career. If they are included they should probably be accompanied by a footnote for readers explaining why they are there. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 (status quo) or possibly option 5 (merge) - nothing else will work in practice. GiantSnowman 13:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• I prefer option 1, we've done it that way for a long time as far as I am aware. Govvy (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3, or option 7 - e.g. if a player has won the U19 league with a youth club, a season after having played 1 minute of senior football in the 7th division, why shouldn't the youth club be displayed? Either we include all youth clubs with their correct year ranges, or we don't include any at all. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 7 - These two are the only two which can actually work in reality. I liked option five but no one came up with a system by which youth career could be distinguished from senior career where no statistics are available for a player's senior career. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I support Number 57's proposal and thus prefer Option 1 (b). After a player has made their professional debut, I don't feel It is appropriate to list subsequent clubs in the youth section (meaning Arsenal does not appear as a youth club for Freeman), since it's purpose here should be to detail a player's career prior to their senior debut. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 7 - In most cases, the youth career is barely notable, half the time we don't know the beginning years and end years. This section should be covered by a short paragraph in prose. --SuperJew (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - I don't see why this is so contentious. I personally have no problem with overlapping years if it is truly is what is actually occurring in reality. We allow overlapping years in cases with Player-manager roles. How is that really any different? See the overlap in coach/player years in Peter Reid (Manchester City), Bryan Robson (Middlesbrough), Gianluca Vialli (Chelsea), Ryan Giggs (Manchester United). There are also examples of overlap in coaching two teams at the same time: Guus Hiddink (Australia and PSV), Sir Alex Ferguson (Aberdeen and Scotland). We have MAJOR OVERLAPPING within Senior divisions with A, B, and C teams - for example: Lionel Messi, Pedro, Jeffrén Suárez, Sergi Roberto. Overlapping is allowed in all of these instances. We don't divvy it up - (for example in the case of Jeffren) 2006 Barca C 2006 Barca B 2007 Barca C 2007-2008 Barca B 2008 Barca A 2008-2009 Barca B 2009-2011 Barca A - we just allow overlapping. So what is so contentious about showing youth 2010-2015 Team Youth 2013-2018 Team Senior, in my opinion, it is the exact same as the A/B/C team overlapping. If a player can play for A and B concurrently, they can play for youth and A concurrently. Just my two cents. Allowing overlap in some infobox areas (coach/senior or senior/senior), but denying it in others (youth/senior) is inconsistent. Barring this, my second choice is Option 7. We don't do it for other sports. Luka Dončić joined Real Madrid's basketball program in 2012 as a youth player, is mentioned in the prose, but his infobox only records his professional years beginning in 2015. RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or failing that Option 7 The WP:FOOTY convention that the youth career ends as soon as a senior match is played is in direct contravention of WP:V. It is possible to show many instances of a player continuing to be a youth player after this event, and I'm yet to see any sources outside WP that say that a player's youth career has finished at this point either. The people who say that Option 1 is the only workable one are deliberately ignoring verifiable information. Spike 'em (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 They can surely overlap. Kante4 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. You're right, overlapping shouldn't be contentious. NOT Options 1 or 7. Option 1 has served its time: the idea that Luke Freeman's youth career ended at 15 is unverifiable nonsense. I recognise that some editors think youth career isn't important enough to go in the infobox, but it's not a view I share. As to implementation: if Mr Freeman had moved to a club where he spent three years in the youth system without going out on loan, would that club be omitted from the infobox because it's part of his youth career? The readers would think we were daft. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Once someone's played for the first team, returning to play for the youth team is basically the equivalent of a senior player playing for the reserves – it's a team they play in when they're not on first team duty. As such, I am not sure this really counts as a 'youth career'. IMO, this part of the infobox is basically meant to detail which club(s) a player came through the youth system of before they started their first team career – I think it's worth including, but maybe to solve the issues mentioned, the year function could just be removed and clubs listed without dates (Option 1 (b))? Similarly, the heading could be changed from 'Youth career' to 'Youth teams'. Number 57 21:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 I don't see why the two can't overlap. I think the youth career could be relevant on a case by case basis. Comatmebro (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 (b) Agree completely with Number 57 (above). Keep the club, remove the years. Exact dates for youth careers are hard to source and the club for a player’s youth career is more important than a range of years especially as what defines a youth career is contentious.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 and/or Option 6 The youth section should reflect reliable sources. If a player makes his senior debut at one club, but then joins another club's youth ranks, this should obviously be reflected as "youth career". There is then a separate question as to when, within one club, a player moves from youth to senior – but for me, merely making one appearance shouldn't end youth career, e.g. where a player gets a senior call-up for one cup game but then returns to the youth team full time. Macosal (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 7 There is no reason to include it in the infobox. ~ HAL333 19:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 7 I don't want to see a player's youth career info in the infobox. It has to be in a section elsewhere. - hako9 (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1(b) plus Option 3: take out the years parameter and allow overlapping when this clearly occurs, in cases where a player plays for a small club at senior level, moves to a big club when still young enough to play in their youth teams and does so. Crowsus (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1b or 7.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3, and strong oppose to option 1b and 7. Players can be in both the youth team and senior team during the same period, we should follow reliable sources of when they participated in the youth team to determine the end year for the player. Some players also debut for the senior team (such as during an injury crisis) but do not remain a regular and return to playing for the youth team, in this case using strictly the start of their senior career as the cut-off for the youth career does not reflect the reality of the situation. I strongly oppose outright removing such information, the infobox is meant to help summarise and structure information for the readers. Many readers are interested in the youth careers in understanding the career path of a player, as long as the information is properly sourced it should be kept, removing it would be to the detriment of the encyclopedia. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2/3. Oppose 1b. I'm fine with the status quo as it is. It has never caused me any problems when reading. I can understand doing 2/3 for the sake of accuracy, but it would be a lot of work to get that fixed for many players in my opinion. And I oppose 1b per S.A. Julio.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

For everybody !voting for option 3 above, how are we going to source that? How are we going to have any kind of consistency between articles? Who decides what is "common sense" - how many senior games make a senior career / how many youth games after a senior debut mean a player is still considered 'youth'? GiantSnowman 21:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Could someone clarify what counts as "matches played at youth level"? Are U23 matches counted? (I hope not, as these include some over-age players). Number 57 21:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see how saying someone is a youth team player until they stop playing youth team football (as a youth, rather than over-age player) is any more difficult to implement than the "1 minute as a first-teamer" rule the other way. Could you, or anyone else voting for 1, please share any external sources that follows the same logic as the current WP:FOOTY rules? Spike 'em (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hence why I think it might be best to just rename the field 'Youth teams' and avoid the years altogether. Number 57 22:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd happily go for a 3(b) option of an undated list of all clubs that a player is part of a youth system for. Using the Luke Freeman example, 1(b) would seem to exclude him from being listed as an Arsenal youth player, which is demonstrably wrong. Spike 'em (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm also fine with a 3(b) option. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, @Number 57 and Egghead06: by "Option 1 (b)" do you mean what Spike 'em and I call "Option 3 (b)", or do you mean Option 1 (so, once a player makes his senior debut, no further youth clubs after that are displayed) without the years? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

If you scrapped the years, it wouldn't really matter anymore – only in very rare cases like Luke Freeman would there be an issue, and that could be worked out on a case-by-case basis. Number 57 16:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think cases like Freeman are that rare. It's best to reach consensus once and for all, in order to avoid having to go through all this in the future. I still don't understand your position, what exactly do you mean by "it wouldn't really matter anymore"? For the purposes of this RfC, would you say you are more in favour of a 1b or 3b? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Could have done with some worked examples in the original discussions, to see what the various options look like on real cases. I'm absolutely certain that how I understand a couple of the options differs from how some others do. Especially now possible variations have been added for Option 1 as per Number 57 that might make it more palatable if we could actually see what its advocates envisage. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Struway2, Egghead06, Spike 'em, and Nehme1499: I have mocked up a version of what it would look like without the years in the sandbox. You can see what it looks like here. Number 57 14:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    • The issue with proposal 1(b) (as I understand that proposal - to have a list of youth clubs but no years) is that imagine in eg Luke Freeman example, some people will not want Arsenal to be listed as a senior club, meaning there will be a gap in his senior career in the infobox... GiantSnowman 15:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't see why the gap would be an issue. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Because readers will ask "what was he doing for all those years". GiantSnowman 15:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
          • The premise is that the section is called "Senior career", so only senior "experiences" are included. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
            • As per my comment above, these cases are so rare that I don't think we need to design the infobox with this scenario in mind. This should be decided on a case-by-case basis for people like Freeman. Number 57 16:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
              • Interesting use of Pelé in the examples for whom youth career dates are given when there is nothing in his article verifying those dates. Youth careers are often poorly referenced for dates.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
                • With regards to a gap in Freeman's dates, I would say that Arsenal should be included in the Senior Career because he was on loan while there. But Arsenal ALSO SHOULD be shown in the youth section as well, since he was a youth player for Arsenal. RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'm still puzzled over what some of the proposals are, with so many caveats and side options now on the table. I'd support removing the years if it helped to remove some issues with overlapping years etc. With Freeman, it would allow Arsenal to go in his youth career to reflect the true nature of his time there without it looking weird in a timeline and having to be specific about when he played youth and senior - however, for him and the others who played senior for a small club then youth for a big club, I'd also want the big club in the senior career to fill the gap, even if the stats for that are a big fat 0. If not, then the ambiguity remains over what goes where when, so I don't see the point of all this debate. As a side note, I recall Pablo Hernandez at Leeds being cited as a problem example - this is completely moot. He played for the U23s, not the youth team. The U23s are a reserve team with an age restriction to curb greed and encourage the EPL clubs to develop younger players who have *finished* their youth stage rather than stockpile another entire squad of seasoned professionals - of course, by 23 many players are seasoned professionals so they basically get round it anyway, therefore IMO the limit should be lower. But anyway the fact is that nobody (surely?) would say a 22 year old is a youth. These U23 teams should be treated as reserves, and so count for neither the youth aspect nor the senior aspect of the infobox. Crowsus (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly - a young player who has spent 4/5/6 years playing senior lower league or non-league football is signed by a HUGE team and plays primarily for their U23 team is not a youth player. GiantSnowman 14:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Crowsus: - I completely agree with you. In the original discussion, I used the Pablo Hernandez example as the majority of editors agreed under-23 was considered youth, though I agree it probably shouldn't be. Removing the years parameter and defining youth as anything up to under-18 removes the main bones of contention. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Freeman did play for the Arsenal U18s though his first season there (his age 17 season) according to the Arsenal website. Regardless of whether U23 is youth or not, U18 is definitely youth RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

If U23 is not a youth team then how would people define a player who hasn't made their debut at the age of 20 and is listed as an U23 player by the club? They are too old for the U18s, but have seemingly not started their senior career? Spike 'em (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say they probably have started their senior career by that point, they just haven't made a senior appearance yet. – PeeJay 15:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

In which case, if this discussion goes nowhere (again), then we'll have to go through and amend all players to show their youth careers ended at the end of the season when they turned 18, and possibly bring forward the start of their senior career. As an example, Tyrick Mitchell made his debut in July at the age of 20, but last played for U18s in the 17/18 season, but has played for U23s in meantime: [1]. If his senior career started as soon as he left the U18s then we'd need to amend his infobox in 2 places. Spike 'em (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

But if we deactivate the youth years parameter, what's displayed in terms of teams represented would still be right without having to worry about when exactly youth ends; there's still a debate to be had about when senior career starts (FWIW I'd argue 2019 for Mitchell since he was in squads that year and had already turned 20 so in previous eras would have been described as a reserve player, i.e senior but not selected until his actual debut) but that has more solid criteria to date from, whether that be named in squad or plays. *sound of fresh worm can opening*. Crowsus (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: - no we wouldn't automatically move an 18 year old to 'senior'; their senior career begins when they make their first-team debut. That might be at 17, might be at 19, might be at 21. GiantSnowman 21:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Which would mean that the U23 team is part of the youth system. Spike 'em (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the U23 teams have replaced the traditional reserves. GiantSnowman 10:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - The problem with option 3 (b) compared to option 1 (b) is that if the youth career contains just a list of teams, what is its purpose other than to detail a players career prior to their senior career? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Naming of German and Austrian clubs

What naming for German and Austrian football clubs should we use, in particular for Wolfsberger AC, and should we follow WP:KARLSRUHER or not? Alex (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

We have one user who again keeps making disruptive edits in 2019–20 UEFA Europa League and few other related articles by changing Wolfsberger AC to Wolfsberg. As we know, current consensus, which is being followed for like 10 years, is using WP:KARLSRUHER for naming of German-language clubs. But he just ignores current consensus and refuses to stop edit warring. There was a discussion about that last year [2], but this guy just can't calm down, so we need to discuss it again and decide what naming will be used everywhere. Alex (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Follow WP:KARLSRUHER, good explanation of why it's best to do it that way, and avoids making nonsense translations of German. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Alex95-Ukraine: If you're going to call me out in public, at least have the decency to ping me. Anyway, the only value I see in WP:KARLSRUHER is the instruction that constructions such as "Hamburger SV" should not be contracted to "Hamburger", as we might do in English to remove the F.C. from "Manchester United F.C." to get the club's common name. The fact is, that essay is one user's opinion and yet we have editors here who cling to it like it's the Ten Commandments brought down from the mountain by Moses. If there were a possibility of confusing the Wolfsburg and Wolfsberg sides that competed in this season's UEFA Europa League with any other teams, then yes, of course it makes sense to use their full names as a way of disambiguating, but no other clubs by those names have ever qualified for Europe; these are the teams from those cities that are the best known, and they are well known by their short names, which are indeed in common use. The essay claims that short names should never be used in tables, infoboxes, fixtures, etc. but doesn't give any reason for this. I can see why it's been accepted by the community, as it's a fairly comprehensive prescription of how to refer to German-speaking clubs, but I fear it's never been exposed to any actual scrutiny and people are now just using it as an easy fallback. – PeeJay 10:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Use WP:KARLSRUHER per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Follow WP:KARLSRUHER, as this is how it's done for German teams. Kante4 (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Follow WP:KARLSRUHER, per common usage. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Has anyone yet provided any reason why we follow WP:KARLSRUHER? You lot are all saying "this is how we do it", but no one has given any reason? – PeeJay 15:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:KARLSRUHER demonstrates why we should use it, becaude Karlruher is an adjective and not a noun, and so it makes no grammatical sense to shorten. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    • That's not the section I'm talking about. I know how German works, and I understand that grammatical construction. Of course it doesn't make sense to shorten Karlsruher SC to "Karlsruher", but it does make sense to shorten it to "Karlsruhe". Besides, your argument is circular; you're using assertions in WP:KARLSRUHER as an argument for their own existence. As User:Spike 'em pointed out below, there is no reference in WP:KARLSRUHER to how German-speaking clubs are referred to in English-language media, so again, what reason do we have not to shorten club names to recognisable short versions? – PeeJay 21:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• By way of explanation, the removal FC extensions is a British standard that makes sense in Britain where almost every club is an FC or AFC, but does not necessarily work elsewhere. In the German speaking world, for a variety of linguistic and historical reasons, there is a much wider variety of letter extensions in common ues, resulting the letter extensions often being considered an integral part of a club's name. Shortening, for example, VfB Suttgart to Stuttgart is much more akin to shorting Manchester United to Manchester, reasonable to do in prose where there's context, but not elsewhere. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment the essay would carry a lot more weight if used English language sources. This is the English, not German wikipedia, so we should be writing in a way that makes sense to English language readers. Spike 'em (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Delightfully, BBC Sport refers to them as RZ Pellets WAC, but that does nothing to solve this problem. Looking through archived copies of the Bundesliga table on BBC Sport, full names are generally used (i.e. VfB Stuttgart), though BBC Sport oddly goes with Hamburg SV here. The majority of English language sources use full names for clubs from German-speaking countries, so I see no reason to use shortened names which are sparsely used in sources. WP:KARLSRUHER seems to be the most effective way to approach this problem. Also, having 'Wolfsburg' and 'Wolfsberg' on the same page will surely confuse everyone. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

At last, someone has provided some real-world examples of WP:KARLSRUHER in effect. Fair enough. But what about this example of the BBC referring to VfL Wolfsburg as just "Wolfsburg"? I'm not trying to use this as a 'gotcha' moment, I'm honestly just trying to point out how ridiculous it is to insist that we refer to these clubs by their full names every time. I've never disagreed that it might make sense to use the long name at the first instance, but this obsession with calling them "VfL Wolfsburg" and "Wolfsberger AC" every single time is utterly potty. Also, I think you're giving readers too little credit to assume they would be confused between Wolfsburg and Wolfsberg; the fact that they're spelled differently should be enough. – PeeJay 22:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. Short names do seem to be used more frequently in prose in English language sources. However, as pointed out in WP:KARLSRUHER, it can create ambiguity and it is generally avoided outside of prose for that reason. Also, Leeds United are often referred to as 'Leeds' in sources (here, here and here), but that doesn't make it correct to refer to them as just 'Leeds'. Also, I get the spellings of both clubs confused, so I'm not sure a one-letter difference is enough. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Follow WP:KARLSRUHER per Sir Sputnik's explanation, this is how German clubs are most commonly referred to. Many English language sources use the full club names (for example here and here), hence KARLSRUHER should be followed. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Follow WP:KARLSRUHER, it should be used consistently. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Follow KARLSRUHER as above arguments/explanations as to why. GiantSnowman 08:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems like consensus to use Karlsruher or? Kante4 (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Premier League club season pages with Results by match day

Krazytea recently deleted the section of Premier League results by match day from the 2019-20 Manchester City F.C. season page citing: "As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_119#Results_by_matchday/matchweek all results by matchday amounts to original research. If you feel they should be included, do feel free to open at new discussion at WikiProject Football.)"

I do accept some of the previous criticisms that the definition of match-day can be vary between users; and that postponements due to weather, cup matches and pandemics can also make interpretation of league position with games in hand less transparent.

However, I feel this metric is becoming more standardised. The Premier League and its broadcast partners have talked more about match days or match weeks in the last 1-2 years (presumably as a nod towards the overseas markets who are more familiar with this concept). The Premier League also refers to matchdays extensively on its' website for news, fantasy league and live match coverage. With respect to the point about original research, the Premier League publishes a graph (click on down arrow on left hand side) for each club showing results and the clubs league position by match day, exactly like the table on the club season pages.
In doing so their methodology appears to be:

• Club positions are stated as of the end of the current game day/week not as of the end of the matches.
• If matches are postponed then the clubs position is reported versus the number of games played not game day until games in hand are played out. As above the position is stated as per the end of the current game day/week (irrespective of how many games have been played).

If users make reference to the Premier League data and these basic rules I can't see why this information cannot be included. Agree? --Ratchet8865 (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

So are we removing that section now, because that results by match-day is still on the last five or so Tottenham season article pages. Govvy (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No I am proposing that we keep these sections in historical and future pages. --Ratchet8865 (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this. Whether you use a table (preferred by MOS) or a stacked set of {{footballbox collapsible}} templates, the colour coding should allow you to see exactly the same information as you're proposing to include. – PeeJay 15:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

True partly the matches allow one to see results in sequence and winning or losing streaks etc., but won't show how the results affected league position at the time (unless this can be added to the table or template as an additional field) --Ratchet8865 (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If you check out any Manchester United season article dating back about 25-30 years, you'll see a "League position" column to give the position the club was in at the end of the day of each match. – PeeJay 17:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

As per previous discussions some two years ago at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_119#Results_by_matchday/matchweek we agreed to remove these sections. Once we had statto that compiled all of this information and it was easily sourced. Now the information must be pulled out of the EPL's main site through OR, these tables are also easily vandalized without notice. While matchdays & matchweeks are discussed commonly in the media, I am not sure what this particular table actually adds to a page and they should be removed. Krazytea(talk) 16:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Hi everyone, User:ItsKesha has been requesting the creation of several matches at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports/Association football (soccer). A couple I have removed as they are clearly not notable, the two which I think might be notable are Manchester United F.C. 1–6 Manchester City F.C. (2011) and Manchester City F.C. 3–2 Queens Park Rangers F.C. (2012). I think that these two could pass GNG, especially the Man City - QPR game. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Certainly both are notable in my book :-), especially the Agueroooooo game. In recent years you could also say that Manchester City F.C. 2-1 Liverpool F.C. (2019) was a highly significant game in deciding a PL Title. (I'm not just picking City wins for the sake of it, I promise) --Ratchet8865 (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The 2–1 game certainly influenced the outcome of the title race but it didn't win the title, unlike the QPR game were it was all or nothing. (For my part I promise that I'm not playing down Liverpool defeats just because I'm a reds fan.) REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Create them in draft and send for review via WP:AFC. GiantSnowman 14:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree about the 6–1 game, but if you can find good enough sources to prove the lasting notability of the game, I might have to reconsider. Contemporary reports won't cut it. – PeeJay 15:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's a few reports/references/rankings I've found, all since 2015. MEN 2019, FourFourTwo 2020, Sky Sports 2016, Irish Mirror 2019, BT 2019, Premier League 2016, FourFourTwo 2016, The42/TheJournal 2015, The Athletic, MEN 2020 As you can see over just the last five years it's been consistently ranked as (one of) the best Manchester derbies ever, the game has had a last legacy, and as I mentioned in the article request it broke various records. ItsKesha (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Whilst I'm the first person to laugh when Manchester United get beaten, especially so heavily, I don't think it's notable. You could find sources similar to the above for pretty much any Premier League game with a bizarre scoreline, especially those including "big" clubs. I'd suggest that the Aguero title-winning game is notable, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised the Agueroooo game hasn't already been made. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If you can find a wide variety of sources discussing games up to nine years after the fact, regularly describing it as the best or second best game of its kind, it had broke all sorts of records and was pivotal in winning a championship for the first time in 35 years, that's notable isn't it? Do people still talk about the Chelsea 3-5 Arsenal game from a week later? A brief search says nowhere near as many. ItsKesha (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the records it broke is that they were specific to those two teams, and even then some were just "the most X since year Y", which isn't a record. I would also argue that "the second best Manchester derby ever" doesn't quite meet the level of notability we should be striving for here. – PeeJay 21:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that you asked for the lasting notability of the game and you received 10 references from 2015 up to, and including, 2020. Joint biggest winning margin in the history of the fixture, joint biggest defeat by a reigning Premier League champion. Nominated as one of the 10 best games for the Premier League 20 Seasons Awards - four of the other games on that list also have pages so there is precedence even in that regard. I believe it passes WP:SUSTAINED, WP:EFFECT, WP:PERSISTENCE. ItsKesha (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

One Premier League record set that season was the closest ever finish to a League title. Only goal difference separated the two rivals; and in addition that separation was only determined in the 4th minute of 5 minutes of added on time at the end of the city-qpr game after united had concluded their season at Sunderland. That should adequately differentiate it from other title deciding matches. --Ratchet8865 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Short names in Infobox football club

Can I ask...why? Why does this field exist? I guess it's been in the template for awhile but someone just started filling it in on a bunch of clubs recently. Where are these short names being sourced from and why are so they important they must be included in the infobox? Lazer-kitty (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It can be useful to show; Manchester United can be shortened to Man United, Short name of Tottenham Hotspur can be Spurs. However you need to watch that field, often editors add acronyms and that's not whats it is for. Govvy (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally I am in favour of removing this field from the infobox. I don't think it adds anything that is worthy of inclusion in the infobox. Alternative names can be listed in the intro. Number 57 11:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: Something like "Spurs" should just go in the nicknames field. There's no need to list a team's common abbreviations in an article, especially not in the infobox. Lazer-kitty (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I am also in agreement with Number 57, I don't see much need for the element to be in the infobox. Govvy (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Lists of transfers by nation

At the start of today, List of Belgian football transfers summer 2020 looked like this. I'm sure most of you would agree that the "Sorted by team" section is pretty pointless given the sortability of the tables that group the transfers by date, so I deleted the "Sorted by date" section and merged the month-by-month tables into one big table that can be sorted at will. This apparently didn't sit well with User:Pelotas, who - after discussion with me at Talk:List of Belgian football transfers summer 2020 – decided to create Overview of the summer 2020 Belgian football transfer window, which is basically the same as the article that existed at List of Belgian football transfers summer 2020 at the start of the day. This smacks of WP:OWN to me, since Pelotas apparently wasn't happy with the way another editor was treating "their" article. I've obviously redirected that new article to the old one, but the issue remains that there are two starkly different styles of article in Category:Football transfers summer 2020. From what I can see, only Australia, Belgium (as of today), Canada, England, Italy, MLS and Scotland use the single-table-sorted-chronologically format, which I would argue is the better format but is in the vast minority. Because of this, I'd like to canvass for opinions about how we should reconcile these differences. No one has yet presented me with any compelling argument as to why the other format is at all preferable, but I'm always open to good arguments. – PeeJay 13:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I totally agree with PeeJay on WP:OWN, I'm just frustrated by the process where all work gets deleted because someone suddenly finds it's not according to policy and then having to discuss to get it back. (Note this format goes back to 2008... I've been creating this for the last 12 years). Not saying it's 'mine', but understand my frustration at least. Anyway, more on topic, I believe there is information in both the listing 'per date' view and 'per club' view which is missing in the other. The two combined are imho what users are looking for when visiting the page, these are overviews of what is happening in the transfer window, rather than a 'basic' list of just transfers (for instance by not including loan returnees) per date. Imho this is probably also the reason why, if you insist on having just one view, you will find more articles listing the transfers per club than when the transfers occurred exactly, as football fans, in particular, will likely want an overview of their club's transfers and don't care whether their star signing arrived on 17, 18 or 19 August. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 14:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC) ... Oh and that's why I created the 'overview' page to start with, if you insist on having a list of transfers which is just that, a list, then keep that but on the 'overview' page elaborate for each club what happened during the transfer window? So keeping the 'by club' view including a written summary for each club maybe? Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 14:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The amount of Belgian national flags on that original page just made my eyes bleed. JMHamo (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah yeah, that was another thing I changed. I think it's been established pretty well that flags should be used sparingly, if at all, and the way we would normally enact that in these articles is by saying "everyone without a flag is assumed to be <nationality X>". – PeeJay 15:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

My real question would be why do we have articles like this anyway? I know we have lots for every transfer window in many countries, but my question is why? Fails WP:NOTSTATS, and they don't seem to serve any useful purpose. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that the overall activity in a transfer window is of encyclopaedic merit. BBC Sport updates an article on their home page with a list of all the transfers each month, not just for each club, so it's not like there isn't precedent. – PeeJay 15:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

So does anyone have any opinions on what format we should use? Apparently a similar topic came up a couple of years ago (here), but only User:GiantSnowman responded. Would be nice to be able to nail down a format (although that seems impossible for this WikiProject in recent years!) – PeeJay 06:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I also don't like flag-icons in these tables and feel we should scrap that, I do prefer tables separated by month myself. However this Belgium table;

• Issue one, date format is wrong, Belgium use DMY.
• No need to use bold text.
• loans and transfers should be separated to different tables.

Cheers, Govvy (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Why should loans and transfers be separate? The average reader doesn't care that technically the contract is different. They care about the movements in and out of their club's squad. --SuperJew (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Loans and transfers should be separate so that you can have a loan table where the date the loan ends is included and the fee is left out. See here for an example. – PeeJay 09:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay: Personally I'd drop both the end date and the fee columns (at least in Australia where I mostly edit, 95% of the transfers are free). --SuperJew (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I kind of agree with this since most transfer fees are undisclosed or free these days, but there are still enough cases where the fee is reported (and substantial) that it makes it useful to be able to sort by the fee to work out what the most expensive (disclosed) transfer was during that window. Also, not all loans are the same duration, so the "End date" column is useful for the loan table (assuming we have one of those). – PeeJay 12:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay: BTW, regarding the example you linked, I'd suggest removing all the English flags from players too and add to the note that Clubs without flags are English that players without flags are English (like done here. --SuperJew (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with that. No need for a metric fuckton of English flags when the article title literally says "English" right there. – PeeJay 12:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

A loan isn't a transfer! It's simply a loan, a loan in a transfer list then becomes misinformation. Govvy (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This is why imho the naming of these articles is wrong. SuperJew is right in that the readers want to know all players moving in and out or a club, whether it's permanent or on loan is less relevant but both part of the full picture, but I can follow the reasoning that a loan is not a transfer. So, rename this to 2020 Belgian football summer transfer window, dropping the 'list' part in the name will allow to create an article which spans what users want... Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 08:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh and on the other comments, I dislike having just a few flags as it is ugly (either use none or use smaller ones ?) and if you split the tables by month then the argument that you can sort to have a view by team is entirely gone. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 08:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not too bother about splitting per month or not, it was just my preference. Because I find that more manageable to navigate and read. Too many people seem to like to use flag-icons, and giving my condition! I kind of dislike the use of flag-icons. If we did an RfC I would vote to abolish the use on transfer articles. On a side note, Someone noted this article List of Chinese football transfers winter 2018 it looks pretty bugged out on the data limit or something. Govvy (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok and what about the split "per month" vs "per club"? The original statement: I'm sure most of you would agree that the "Sorted by team" section is pretty pointless is imho invalid and I haven't seen any remarks in that direction yet rather the opposite. If possible I would like a decision on the format rather quickly as although it is not "my article", I refuse to do any more edits on this article until the format is decided upon as at least it is "my spare time" which I don't wan't to use on articles I don't support, but in the meantime, several transfers have occurred (Barnabás Bese, Dylan De Belder, Kristiyan Malinov, Robbe Quirynen & Trent Sainsbury) Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 08:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to copy the article into your own userspace and make updates there if you don't want to edit the mainspace article. That way you can keep track of everything that's going on without having to contribute to an article you don't support. Nothing wrong with that. But yes, the point of this discussion is not to quibble over minutiae in these articles but to decide what macro-format they should take. Are we doing it club-by-club or are we having a single, master table sorted chronologically? – PeeJay 09:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay: Just FYI: you have no idea how frustrating this is, especially this statement: "Feel free to copy the article into your own userspace and make updates there if you don't want to edit the mainspace article". Should be the other way around imho: keep the current good format and discuss whether there is another one which might be better and if so, then adapt. What gives anyone the right to just change as they deem fit, basically saying "go have fun in your sandbox" while we discuss whether this is actually what we want. I mean for blocking vandalism ok... but these are good faith edits with references. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 13:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pelotas: You know what, that's totally fair. Restore the article to the way it was while this discussion is happening. Better to keep it updated for readers than to leave it by the wayside. – PeeJay 14:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC) - Thanks Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 14:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think a single table is better. "club-by-club" creates a lot of redundant duplicity. The single table can be sortable by column and that way a user can get the same info as seeing "club-by-club" table. --SuperJew (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

PeeJay you forgot option three, namely to change the article to 2020 Belgian football summer transfer window which includes at least the "club-by-club" list of transfers (and possibly as well the chronological) but most importantly is not restricted to 'transfers' alone but includes as well all the players on loan, retirements, contract terminations etc... to give a full picture of what happened during the transfer window. Also it is more than just a list, allowing to elaborate for each club on the most important changes through a short summary. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 11:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't forget that option. I actually think that's the worst option of the three. As I and SuperJew have noted, including the club-by-club list duplicates every transfer between two Belgian teams, so shouldn't be included (IMO). I have also never said that loans shouldn't be included, but I think they should be in a separate table to allow all the relevant information to be included properly (see List of English football transfers summer 2020). I disagree with including retirements and contract terminations though, as I think transfers should only be listed when a player joins a new club, not simply when he leaves his old one. If readers want to know about a specific club's movements during a particular season, they should go to that club's season article, e.g. 2020–21 R.S.C. Anderlecht season. I noticed there was no transfer info in the 2019–20 R.S.C. Anderlecht season article, but there should be. I don't know if that article just wasn't properly maintained or if people actively thought transfers shouldn't be listed there, but transfer info is always included in English clubs' season articles, so why not the Belgians? – PeeJay 12:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay: By the way on retirements... Vincent Kompany retired three days ago. Seems to me this is an excellent example of a player who is not "transferred", yet very relevant on the page. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 14:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Kompany is a prominent player, that's true, but his retirement is not a transfer. Players retire all the time, at every level of the game, so how do you decide which players' retirements to include? That sort of thing would get us into dicey territory, as we would essentially be deciding our own criteria for that, which is probably a violation of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. – PeeJay 15:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Not proposing to decide between prominent or not... just think they should all be included. But again for me it boils down to the words "list" and "transfers" being in the title which are blocking from putting the required content on the article. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 15:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Pelotas that in my opinion also retirements and released players should be included. Regarding released players (or "transfer" to "Unattached" as it is usually noted), at least where I edit (Australian soccer) there aren't any real transfers, but rather players are released and then signed by another club. And anyway I think the page is useful as an overview of movements, and most movement overview pages in media includes players who left not on a transfer. --SuperJew (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Myeh, but as SuperJew and myself have also noted, users are looking for an overview per club, not a chronological view, so IMHO, the current revised version is the worst option :). I agree that club season pages should contain a transfer overview, but there are fewer Belgian users I suppose so the club season articles are less elaborate (actually this is the first season they all exist in the first place). I've been adding these overviews for instance for Oud-Heverlee Leuven here: 2019–20 Oud-Heverlee Leuven season#Transfers. Notice there's a lot more info there!. However, there is value as well in seeing all simple transfer overviews of all clubs together as well. One club might be strengthened but it's always to be seen in comparison with the direct opponents. But it would be a good idea to have each individual club's section on the new page to be reused on the season article of each individual club indeed. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 12:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the issue of transfers being duplicated from one club to the next though. On page specifically designed to list all transfers, picking a format that actively duplicates information is not the best idea in my book. – PeeJay 12:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

True, but a 'list of transfers' which is just that (whether including loans or not) is imho useless... hence the proposal to draw it open, but yes, there are some duplicates as a limited number of transfers (loans more so) will be between Belgian clubs indeed, nothing is perfect. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 13:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I actually didn't agree with saying users are looking for an overview per club, and like PeeJay I said that such a format creates unnecessary duplicity. In my view it should be one table (or one per window), which is sortable. Once it's sortable a user can get an overview for a specific club by sorting per club. --SuperJew (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies SuperJew, I concluded that from your statement that football fans "care about the movements in and out of their club's squad". On your other remark, it is NOT true that one can get an overview of the transfers per club when the table is sortable. Try that for one of the clubs in the middle of the alphabet, it's impractical to say the least... first sort by IN, then scroll all the way down, then scroll all the way back up to click OUT and scroll down again to see the outgoing players... oh but wait which players came in again? Start scrolling. Not to mention comparing teams. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 10:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

These transfers would also be on the clubs' season pages, where there are only the transfers relevant to that club. I still think this is preferable to having a lot of duplicity on the league transfer pages (especially leagues like the A-League where there's a lot of inter-league movements). --SuperJew (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning. But an overview of the transfer window should in my opinion consist of a series of separate club overviews detailing the in- and outflows per club (what users will look for), rather than a dull list of chronological transfers (fitting the strict definition of "list of transfers"). Note as well that the vast majority of the currently active lists (summer 2020) have kept only the "by-club-view" (Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany, Israel, Kazakhstan, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Switzerland and Ukraine rather than the "by-date-view" (England, Italy and Scotland. Also have a look at Spain which has the "by-club-view" with integrated information of the transfer date, best of both? (But yes, still the 'duplicity'). Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 22:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I should probably add that using the {{fs start}}, {{fs player}} and {{fs end}} templates to build such a page runs the risk of breaking the article itself. If you look at these pages, you'll see that the Wiki platform is literally incapable of rendering the page properly. Wikitables avoid that, although we need to be careful about adding too many flagicons and citation templates. – PeeJay 12:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Notability of individual games

So there's a deletion discussion going on for deleting Liverpool 4-0 Barcelona and it got me thinking; what actually are the guidelines for notable games, and why does every edition of the Emirates Cup, the Charity Shield, the MLS All Star, the Asia Trophy, the last 11 versions of the Amsterdam tournament, etc etc, have their own pages. Apparently a significant and historic comeback in the latter stages of a major competition is not notable, in spite of the fact it's still discussed over a year later. For example just this month John Barnes said it was the best result Liverpool had ever had. Hyperbole or not, he's not plucked a random game out the air, it's this 4-0. A historic match can't have an article as it's not notable enough yet "MLS All Star Game 2013" and "Premier League Asia Cup 2006" are deemed notable? Come on. Yes, Barcelona vs Liverpool in 2007 wasn't notable. Of course Ipswich Town vs Coventry City from 1994 wasn't notable. But I had somebody try and tell me Manchester United 1-6 Manchester City wasn't notable! ItsKesha (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Charlie Lyon - MLS Pool infobox

I have a question about how the Infobox should be displayed for Charlie Lyon. Some background information for those unfamiliar with this aspect of Major League Soccer. MLS has an emergency goalkeeper signed to the league, who the league loans out to teams in case of an emergency where the team has multiple keepers injured. Previously, I listed the fact that he was the pool keeper in his Infobox and grouped his various loans under it - See here (and instead of 0(0) for apps, I left it blank. However, another user reverted me because "MLS Pool" isn't a team, which I know it isn't, however, by not showing it, it makes his Infobox look like he is under contract to another team and going on loan from them - See current. I feel like this is an example of where "an exception to the standard would be better" and provide the reader with a better understanding of the situation. Here's an article explaining his role. Looking forward to hearing your opinions on this unique player situation. Would also apply to Caleb Patterson-Sewell. RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

What a bizarre set up. I agree you cannot show him 'on loan' under a previous contracted team, as it appears he is on loan from them. In these unique examples, could you simply get rid of the 'on loan' aspect, and instead add a note using {{Efn}} next to those teams in the infobox explaining? GiantSnowman 21:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We could add a sentence on the MLS page about the emergency goalkeeper setup and set the infobox link to [[Major League Soccer#Player acquisition and salaries|MLS Pool]] with the explanatory note per User:GiantSnowman's suggestion. Hack (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I added a section at Major League Soccer#MLS Pool Goalkeeper. I'm surprised it was not mentioned before. I feel like it should be included in the MLS article, regardless of the outcome here. RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hack's suggestion works. GiantSnowman 10:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hack's suggestion is my preference as well RedPatchBoy (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Pinging User:Milkloverfan who was also involved in the edits as to whether or not MLS Pool should appear in the Infobox for Charlie Lyon to ask for his opinion RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think "MLS Pool" should appear in the Infobox for Charlie Lyon. That sounds unorthodoxy and confusing to the user. "MLS Pool" isn't a team name. Milkloverfan (talk)

Then what is your suggestion? It's far more accurate than having him 'on loan' from a former club... GiantSnowman 14:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Would a compromise be to not show MLS Pool in the infobox as if it were a club, but to show each of the teams he was assigned to with "(MLS pool GK)" or similar in brackets rather than "(loan)"? And with no arrow before it? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to remove the 'on loan' from the Infobox - specifically for the following teams Lyon has been the pool goalkeeper to. Add [[Major League Soccer#Player acquisition and salaries|MLS Pool]] to "but is operating as a pool goalkeeper for MLS". Milkloverfan (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Three options then suggested above and demonstrated here:

Option 1

Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2019–	MLS Pool
2020	→ CLUB FC (loan)	0	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

Option 2

Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2020	CLUB FC	0	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

Option 3

Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2020	CLUB FC (loan from the MLS Pool)	0	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

My preference is option 2. GiantSnowman 15:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)ChrisTheDude's suggestion could work although it is officially a loan. This situation came up last month where Vancouver needed a goalie, but couldn't use Lyon because it was outside the transfer window so his ITC couldn't be sent to Canada and the other pool keeper (Patterson Sewell who they could have used since his ITC is in Canada wasn't available Link). So, I'm okay with this option, but technically Hack's suggestion is more accurate. RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Option 2 seems nice. I'm fine with that. Milkloverfan (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Option 1 is my preference. He is 'officially signed' to MLS Pool and each time he joins a team it is a Fifa-sanctioned loan RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 for me – I think it's worth noting that he's signed to the MLS Pool and this is the neatest was of the two of doing it. Number 57 18:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 makes the most sense in my eyes. Worth mentioning he's signed to the MLS Pool, even if he ends up not being loaned to anyone due to the circumstances of injuries not coming up. --SuperJew (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Well he has been loaned three times already, which is why I feel it's even more important to list it. RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 I would go for number 1 myself. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - given the !votes above, I'm happy to also plump with Option 1. GiantSnowman 15:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Would this be considered WP:CONSENSUS? Can I go ahead and edit this and the other articles with players who have been pool goalkeepers? RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

yep; I think the discussion has been going on for ling enough, there has been sufficient discussion/imput, and the consensus is clear. GiantSnowman 16:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

A surprising redlink

I found a surprising redlink: football match. Any suggestions for a redirect target?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I was going to say Football, but American football generally calls it a "game", not a "match". So I'd suggest Association football. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Glossary of association football terms? GiantSnowman 16:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree with GS and BK. football game is also red, so maybe that should go to Glossary of American football? Crowsus (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of these need linking to a specific sport's glossary. Shouldn't there be a more general article called Match (sport) or something? Although the parameters are different for each sport, the concept of a match is not unique to any of them. – PeeJay 19:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Inter, Milan, and Inter Milan

Is here a consensus on how F.C. Internazionale Milano and A.C. Milan should be displayed in players' infoboxes?

1. Inter Milan, Inter, or Internazionale?
2. Milan, A.C. Milan, or AC Milan?

Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Inter Milan and Milan, or Internazionale and Milan. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Redman. GiantSnowman 16:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

So, Inter Milan and Internazionale can be used interchangeably? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep. I would say you could probably also use just "Inter" for a bit of variation. The only time to use "A.C. Milan" is when Inter are also mentioned in the same context. Usually, just "Milan" is fine. – PeeJay 18:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes but I'm strictly talking about the infobox. Shouldn't we stick to one? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I would stick with "Internazionale" and "Milan" then. – PeeJay 19:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I personally prefer "Inter Milan" over "Internazionale". Whenever I hear the team discussed I usually here them referred to as Inter or Inter Milan (at least over here in North America). For AC Milan, just "Milan" is fine, although also I'm okay with seeing it displayed as "AC Milan" as well. RedPatchBoy (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Bournemouth or AFC Bournemouth

When looking through the Bournemouth player articles some of the players have their club referred to as AFC Bournemouth throughout, (eg. Dominic Solanke) whereas on others it's just Bournemouth (eg. Steve Cook), apart from Diego Rico whose page uses a mix of AFC and A.F.C. Should the club be named the same on all players pages for consistency (if so which way?) or is it just down to individual editors preference? A Well Fan (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say refer to the club as just 'Bournemouth', which in English media (to me at least) is the most common usage, as opposed to eg AFC Wimbledon, for which the full name is used. GiantSnowman 16:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it's Bournemouth for me as well. And indeed, even the Wikipedia article uses A.F.C. Bournemouth so given we don't include F.C.s or A.F.C.s post-name, stands to reason we don't use it for pre-name versions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

AFC Bournemouth in the infobox and at first use, for clarity, to distinguish from Bournemouth F.C. (we're not writing for football experts), just Bournemouth once context is established. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The club's name is AFC Bournemouth (the AFC doesn't stand for anything, a la AFC Wimbledon or FC Halifax Town). What we should be talking about is moving the title of the club article and other associated articles to replace A.F.C. with AFC. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Are we positive that the AFC doesn't stand for anything? For example, I just googled it and some places refer to it as Athletic Football Club such as here although this webpage states that technically their official name is actually Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic Football Club. Granted these aren't the most reputable sources. RedPatchBoy (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

AFC probably stands for Association Football Club. IIRC they put the acronym first (instead of last) to appear more "European" in line with clubs such as R.S.C. Anderlecht, FC Barcelona, K.S.K. Beveren, PSV Eindhoven, ACF Fiorentina, 1. FC Köln, S.S. Lazio, A.C. Milan, R.W.D. Molenbeek, AS Monaco FC, FC Bayern Munich, FC Nantes, 1. FC Nürnberg, AS Saint-Étienne and RC Strasbourg Alsace. The people at Bournemouth who decided this probably didn't realise that French, German, Italian and other languages have grammatical rules that are different from English, so the words go in a different order. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't stand for anything. They renamed it AFC Bournemouth in the 1970s to look cool and modern (and be listed at the top of the fixtures), and it was a pleasant coincidence that the initials harked back to part of the previous name, Athletic Football Club; but it isn't an initialism of those words in the way that the initials are in the foreign clubs listed above because the words aren't part of its name. As to their official name, the 2017/18 FA handbook lists the playing name as AFC Bournemouth and the entity name as AFC Bournemouth Limited. Companies House confirms the company name as AFC Bournemouth Limited. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure AFC stands for "Association Football Club". REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

What part of “it doesn’t stand for anything” did you not get? It’s a vanity, a conceit to get the club placed at the top of the table at the start of every season, but there is no official documentation anywhere that refers to the club as “Association Football Club Bournemouth” or “Athletic Football Club Bournemouth”. It doesn’t stand for anything. – PeeJay 13:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

(ACF Fiorentina also doesn't stand for anything, they were founded in 1926 as "Associazione Calcio Fiorentina". In 2003 they went through bankruptcy and were re-founded as "ACF Fiorentina". ACF doesn't mean anything, it's just ACF; obviously the implication is that ACF = Associazione Calcio Fiorentina, but legally ACF is just ACF). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The idea of it being done for alphabetic reasons doesn't wash with anyone. All the books list them between Birmingham City and Brentford or, in a broader sense, between Bolton Wanderers and Bradford City. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the point is that the club themselves thought it would get them to the start of the list, but all the journalists and writers chose to essentially ignore the AFC and leave them where they were. That's what this book reckons, anyway..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I thought we all knew this! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

If the order of the Club Directory section in their 2018/19 handbook is anything to go by, the Premier League fell for it... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hook, line and sinker. Appears it did wash with one book at least, the Premier League's own directory!! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

For not opening a new section, I have the same question for UD Logroñés and SD Logroñés, both different clubs after the inactivity of original CD Logroñés. Until now, they appear at all articles with UD or SD except in this year's Segunda División. Must be "Logroñés" changed to "UD Logroñés"?. Thank you! Asturkian (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

They really both need to have the prefix for clarity, I know UD are the slightly bigger club and at a higher division this year but there's only one level between them and in theory it could just as easily be the other way around. There's no other way of naming them as far as I know. It looks a bit clumsy but we can't have two different teams showing the same name, and neither has the status to be obviously 'the' team of the city. Crowsus (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

We all know what AFC stands for, you can either use it or not. Open to interpretation anyone? Govvy (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Transfer lists on a season page - Players who leave on a free transfer following Contract Expiration

What do we do with players who leave on a free transfer following a contract expiration/contract release. For example, on a transfer table in a season article in the "Out" section for their new team. I've usually included the new team in the "Transferred To/New Club" section to show where the player ended up and I've seen it done this way many times on many articles. However, I just got reverted by a user who says this is wrong and we have to leave the section blank here saying including a club is misinformation and cannot put the club the player moved to on a Free Transfer. RedPatchBoy (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I think if the player is released to a free transfer, with no information or future contract, then it should be listed as "moved" to unattached. The period of time between the player's release and their joining a new team is variable. Common sense we won't write the team a player joined a few months after being released by original team, so therefore should only be written if it's clear that was released to free so that can join the new team (as happens for example often in Australia A-League due to their being no intra-league transfer fees). --SuperJew (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

If a player is released at the end of their contract then put them as 'moving to' '"unattached" or similar. If they are released early in order to sign for a new club on a free transfer (such as Callum Whelan recently, where he was released by Watford on the same day he signed for Oldham, clearly as part of some kind of transfer arrangement) then put them as 'moving to' the new club. GiantSnowman 07:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, if the player signs for a new team on the same day as the release, it's probably fine to say they moved directly to the new team, but otherwise I would also go with "Unattached" as the new "club". If they join a new club in the same transfer window, however, I would probably include that as a note as we did in the 2019–20 Manchester United F.C. season#Out article. – PeeJay 21:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Professional footballers want Justice from wikipedia!!!

Why a Bangladeshi Professional Football player can't create a wiki page who plays at Bangladesh Premier League (Footbal) ?

Example : Anisur Rahman Zico is the first goalkeeper for the Bangladesh Premier League champions Bashundhara Kings. But we aren't able to create a football player's page for him and other local players who didn't have the debue for national team!! Fahim Mokbul Ur Rahman (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fahim Mokbul Ur Rahman: Footballers do not qualify for a Wikipedia article if they have not played in a fully professional league. Please see WP:NFOOTY and WP:NOTFPL for more information. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually such footballers can qualify if they are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (see [[WP:GNG). Jogurney (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 First Professional Football League (Bulgaria)

What's the different by the two different position by rounds? And I thought we were getting rid of them! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? One is for the main table prior to it being split and the other is for the so-called "Championship round". – PeeJay 20:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Position by round and results by round! :/ Surely it's just the same information, and wasn't there a consensus to get rid of these tables? Govvy (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Position by round is where each team stood in the table after each "round". Results by round is the result of each team's game in that "round". Totally different information....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't seem to recall a consensus not to use PoR tables after the most recent discussion. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That said, I do seem to remember quite a few people saying that Results by round tables were overkill. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I forgot about this, yep, it's over-kill isn't it. Govvy (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

EFL Trophy whitespace

Has reared its head again. I brought it up on the template talk page a few weeks ago. No response there, but KeithD mentioned it in here, after which it was fixed (temporarily, it seems). See here for an example of the issue. - Seasider53 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I've repeated what PeeJay did last time and it seems to be better. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Did it work? It seems fairly obvious to me that the </onlyinclude> tag needs to be on the same line as the curly brackets that close the template or else you'll get an extra line break in whatever articles the tables are transcluded to. Pretty simple stuff, no? – PeeJay 21:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it did. I'm watching that page now to check no one adds that line break back in again. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Annoyingly, it happens automatically when people use Visual Editor... Hence this edit creating the problem. Number 57 16:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a known bug with VisualEditor, happens all the time with biography infoboxes. GiantSnowman 16:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Mongolia v Myanmar (2022 FIFA World Cup qualification)

Is this match notable? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

By the looks of it - no. GiantSnowman 18:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Also;

Netherlands v Russia (UEFA Euro 2008)

Australia v Netherlands (2014 FIFA World Cup)

Poland v Germany (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying)

If we had an article for every match that had a bit of a shock result, we'd have hundreds of thousands of articles. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

All created by the same user, who must be on a spree creating articles on "international matches with surprising results"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll send them to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - could be worth also sending the creator a personalised note asking them to cease... GiantSnowman 10:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Notable players - which flags?

When making a list of notable players for, let’s say, SG Dynamo Dresden or FC Lokomotiv Moscow, you will have players who were citizens of East Germany and Sovjet Union while they where playing for the clubs, but who became citizens of Germany and Russia later in their lives. One reason for their notability might be that they played for the national teams of East Germany and the Soviet Union, but they might as well also have played for the national teams of Germany and Russia later in their lives. Which flags would you use for such players? East Germany and Soviet? Or Germany and Russia? Kindest regards. /EriFr (talk)

@EriFr: I would use both flags if they represented both national teams. However, on the topic of "Notable players" sections: these generally are not included as there is no rigid criteria to determine whether or not a player is "notable" or "famous". The only objective criteria I can think of is a "Hall of Fame" made by the club itself (on their official website, or something like that). Otherwise, it's WP:OR. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Nehme that such lists should be included if there has been some kind of official list published by the club or a in a book/newspaper. As for flags themselves, please use the historical ones, not the current ones. GiantSnowman 21:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

What if Dariusz Wosz was to appear on an equivalent list for Halle? Would you use the GDR flag or the Germany flag there? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

For me, since Wosz has played for both the East Germany and Germany national teams, I would display both flags. If, for example, they were born in East Germany, but only played for Germany, I would only display the Germany flag. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm the other way: since Wosz didn't play for Germany until after he left Halle, I would only use the East German flag for him in a list of notable Halle players. – PeeJay 15:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah sorry I didn't notice that. Yes of course, I agree with you: we shouldn't be anachronistic. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:United States v Colombia (1994 FIFA World Cup)

Should this be considered an instance of WP:1E (though it applies to the biographies) as per this? or it should have a standalone article? I am pinging the concerned user @PeeJay:. Hitro talk 07:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think that match is particularly notable in itself, what’s notable is what happened to Andres Escobar because of it. – PeeJay 08:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It would probably be better to write an article titled Murder of Andres Escobar with the match mentioned in it since the murder is the main focus I would say. Similar to how we separated 2000 UEFA Cup Final riots from 2000 UEFA Cup Final. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there really enough to say about his murder to justify a separate article from his existing article.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Why not? I think the matter is more than just the death of Andrés Escobar. The matter is the match also has a cultural impact on American soccer. At the time when the U.S. hosted the competition, the United States' soccer was in poor shape. Let's give aside from the death of Escobar, what about the USMNT? Wasn't it significant for the USMNT as well? ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 19:31, 2 Septmber 2020 (UTC)

@ZaDoraemonzu: respectfully, you have a track record of creating articles about non-notable matches. Your enthusiasm would be best served in other places. GiantSnowman 19:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I don't hide my passion anyway. But I have selected some matches carefully, as long as it has some cultural significant here. "Cultural significance", please mark my word. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Any cultural significance this match has is intrinsically tied to Andres Escobar and his murder. Any significance it had in the progress of soccer in the United States can be covered sufficiently in the article about the USMNT and/or the United States at the FIFA World Cup article. There was nothing about the United States' actual performance that made this game significant, just the result and the fact that Escobar was murdered because of it. – PeeJay 15:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Murder of Andres Escobar would be a better topic choice than the article on the match. The match is the background and catalyst. Govvy (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Unless there's a lot more to say about the specifics of his murder, isn't the content at Andrés Escobar#Own goal incident and subsequent murder sufficient? – PeeJay 16:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You are the conservative one here. The United States won the game when its soccer was in poor shape at the time. The death of Escobar is well-known. But what about USMNT? Let's get some life, you are an anti-USMNT or what? ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, upsets happen all the time in soccer, especially when the host nation is involved. The match itself was nothing to write home about, and it didn’t turn out to be particularly significant. The US went on to lose their R16 match, and then crashed out of the next World Cup in the group stage. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Just accept the consensus here that those matches are not notable and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Kante4 (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 Canadian PL - How to record in Infobox and stats tables

So, with the Covid pandemic impacting the league's season, in the 2020 Canadian Premier League season they are playing out a modified shortened season, in a bit of a tournament format. I posed this question on the Talk:2020 Canadian Premier League season page, but posting here for more opinions. So the season is divided as such, in the First Stage, every team plays each other once (8 teams, so 7 games). This is easy in my opinion and these matches should be counted as League Matches. Where it gets tricky, is that the top 4 teams advance to the Second Stage, where they again play each other once. Should these second stage matches be considered "League Games" and get included in the infobox, or "Playoff Games" and thus not included. The top two teams in the Second Stage then advance to the Championship final. Currently, each team has one game remaining in the First Stage. I haven't seen this discussed anywhere previously, so I just wanted to see if there was an agreed upon process as to how to record this. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

How are stats sites etc. going to be recording them? GiantSnowman 19:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, last year (a normal season), the League website and other sites like Soccerway grouped the Regular Season Matches and Playoff Matches (a two-leg league final between the top two teams) into combined stats, but here on wikipedia it was assumed that those Finals matches were "playoff matches" and not included in the infobox and were put into the playoff section. So, I feel like those sites will lump them in together as well. This situation reminds me of the MLS is Back Tournament earlier this year, where Group Stage matches were considered League Matches and included in Infobox, which Knockout matches were not. RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This sounds rather like the way the Scottish Premier League has operated since the start of the 2000–01 season. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like the "round of four" is a playoff and should be treated that way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not quite the same as Scotland though. In Scotland they just divide the league into two halves and they play against their own halves and each team in the league winds up with the same number of games played. Here, half the teams are eliminated. The bottom half doesn't play their own set of games - they get zero. RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Portland Timbers–Vancouver Whitecaps rivalry

An editor has created Portland Timbers–Vancouver Whitecaps rivalry, which is a bit of sourced content and a bit WP:SYNTH. I was surprised to see that the editor started to add the results of every match between a team with the name of Portland Timbers and Vancouver Whitecaps to the article. Aside from the problems with accessibility, is this usual? Suggestions on the article's talk page would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't see any big problems. Clearly there was a rivalry in previous eras and this has been re-ignited in the MLS period. What do you feel is synth, suggest problem text be tagged for specific analysis and hopefully refs that support it, or else removal. Due to the number of matches, it would probably be better to use a table rather than template for the results, it's currently incomplete with the MLS results mostly missing, and there's certainly no need to link the teams every time, but these are minor issues, and it's pretty common to list the result history in such articles. Crowsus (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Would it be better to move the article to Cascadia Cup and include Seattle Sounders in there? GiantSnowman 06:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

There are two problems that this project can address. The first, SYNTH, is that entire paragraphs that are unsourced. The only assumption is that these have been fabricated out of the match results, possibly the season articles for Portland, or possibly a user-generated forum or site.

The second is that the results are more than half the article. Before the results started taking over, it was about 11,538 bytes. After the recent edits it was 46,080 bytes and after I removed all of the unused parameters it was 42,458 bytes. Vertically, the results are 2.5 the size of the prose. When the editor includes the recent (MLS) results, it will eclipse the prose. Is including results in an article like this usual? I have not seen in other derby articles, but I have only seen a few outside of the North American context. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The unsourced paragraphs - remove with glee. The results - same. That level of detail is not normal, see e.g. Arsenal F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry which is a GA. GiantSnowman 07:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The results should be removed for no other reason than the garish colour scheme. I dread to think how some of our visually-impaired readers and editors will cope with seeing that monstrosity. – PeeJay 10:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hang on tho, Millwall F.C.–West Ham United F.C. rivalry is also a GA and it does list the results. I think initially it would be better to tag the unsourced statements unless extremely controversial, and to convert (or have the creator convert) the results to a table format with a lot less colour and better accessibility and page load aspects. Crowsus (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

EFL Cup debuts

Today is the first full day of the 2020-21 English season, meaning many players will be making debuts and having articles created. My list of draft articles can be found at User:GiantSnowman#To do - if a player makes their debut please check there first (and of course feel free to move any draft into mainspace) before creating your own article, to save any confusion etc. GiantSnowman 06:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That's annoying. I've got a few drafts as well and some of them overlap with yours. I think merging might be the best solution. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I've moved my drafts on McGill, Ashford, and Frost into mainspace as they are starting today. Do you want me to merge yours with those? GiantSnowman 11:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great, thanks. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That often happens, I've got a couple of articles in User:Govvy/Sandbox, but I don't think I've been keeping up to-date so well. Govvy (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: I have done - can I leave you to update the articles please, and add any useful info/sources from 'my' version to the live version (which is based on 'yours'?) I always search in 'draft' and 'user' spaces before I create a draft (my drafts of McGill and Frost are earlier than yours, and you were quicker on Ashford by such a small amount that it likely wasn't even created when I searched!), so that could be useful to avoid us duplicating work in future! GiantSnowman 11:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I generally check as well, but we seem to have been working at the same time when these drafts were created. Once I fathom out how iFollow works and watch the Crawley Vs Millwall game, I shall sort these out. Thanks, Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent call-ups section

We should uniform the section; specifically, the notes regarding the explanation as to why the player wasn't called up (injury, retired, etc.)

1. Should the note go next to the player's last game? (Italy, for example)
2. Or next to the player's name? (Belgium)

Thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I would go for option 2. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

football history

What was the first (surviving) British football team to win a Europe cup (including pre uefa competitions) Dexdunkers (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A Portuguese problem

There is a Portuguese editor who has been engaged in a long term systematic effort to undermine the integrity of Wikipedia by inserting grammatical errors into articles about footballers, in particular footballers from Iberia and Latin America. They have edited under at least three usernames, and frequently edit anonymously as well. They have a very characteristic style, with their favourite edit summaries being "fixed horrible display of recent additions" and "nothing hurt whatsoever". Obviously, if one says, over and over again, that one hasn't damaged anything it's a pretty strong indicator that one has.

Before I post all the diffs and details, I'd like to know if anyone else is familiar with this editor and whether their problematic behaviour has been noted before. 185.14.215.74 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)