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.

Charleroi move

Hello. I came across the article R. Charleroi S.C., a Belgian football club. Am I the only one that finds that the name of this article is a bit unusual? I mean, it is not often we see an initial instead of a name in the article. What I'm saying is that I suggest we move this article to Royal Charleroi S.C. or maybe Sporting Charleroi, because having "R. Charleroi" is awkward in my opinion. I didn't move it myself because I wanted to know if I was doing the right thing by moving this. What are your thoughts? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd support a move to Royal Charleroi S.C. following a discussion ay WP:RM. GiantSnowman 19:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Hey, GS, I don't really know how to start a discussion at requested moves... could you do that? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What is your preferred location, and why? I can then start the discussion on your behalf. GiantSnowman 19:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: My preferred location is Royal Charleroi S.C., because it includes the official club name in it as a whole. Also because several reliable sources refer to it as such, including Soccerway. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion here. GiantSnowman 20:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thanks. Not to put a burden on you, but a similar move is in order for R. Olympic Charleroi Châtelet Farciennes in my opinion. Do you agree? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait and see the consensus of this discussion first. Then you can give it a go yourself ;) GiantSnowman 20:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it is a relic that someone mass move all Belgian football article that turn all "Royal" prefix to "R.", may be all other Belgian club name need a review and RM. Matthew hk (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we should maybe revive the discussion at the Charleroi move? We need to make a decision at some point. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It will be reviewed by an admin in due course. GiantSnowman 15:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

College Stats

I know in the infobox, we include only league matches for the infobox, but was curious if it's the same for college stats (for Canadian/American college/university teams). Is it league matches only, or do playoff matches get included as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedPatchBoy (talk • contribs) 21:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I would assume only league games for those too, though the footnote does say "Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I imagine it says "senior" to emphasize that we shouldn't put stats for the youth career. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

College isn't youth though. It's a separate section entirely and stats are easily verified for North America and most player profiles with them have stats recorded. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah what I'm trying to say is that the footnote is ambiguous, as it says that we should only put domestic league stats for senior club appearances. College isn't youth, but it isn't senior either. I am assuming that the footnote didn't take into account the college career, and just put the word "senior" to make sure that people don't put stats for youth competitions. Therefore, in my opinion, we should only put league stats for the college career (and maybe amend the footnote to just say "Club appearances...", instead of "Senior club appearances...") Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatchBoy and Nehme1499: Both of y'all have got to be more specific with "league matches" here. There's no such thing as "league matches" in American college soccer...there's conference and nonconference games, then there's the conference tournament, and then there's the NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Tournament (or the NCAA Division II Men's Soccer Championship or NCAA Division III Men's Soccer Championship). None of those distinctions matter, though, because all of the matches are treated as the same. To use JJ Williams as an example, take a look at the stats tab on his University of Kentucky profile. All four of those "types" of matches are included as the exact same.

Just from the quick bit of research I did, it seems like this is different in Canada, where there's a clear line between regular season and playoff matches...but in the United States, not so. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That's true for the US. I posted this after doing an article on a player in Canada Nicholas Osorio, where it was league + playoffs - a lot more straightforward - I wasn't even thinking of the NCAA style. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep it straightforward - use whatever stats the college publishes on the player bio. GiantSnowman 20:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Aha, I gotcha. Yeah, I think GS put it much cleaner than my whole spiel, to just go with what the sources use. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I am against including college stats in a player's infobox altogether. I think it is fine to include in a career statistics section if easily verifiable but it is the American equivalent of amateur/youth soccer. We do not put Chelsea Academy stats from the PL2 and FA Youth Cup in Mason Mount or Tammy Abraham's infoboxes so I don't think we should make an exception for collegiate athletics in America. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

B team link.

On Morgan Sanson, Mattythewhite reverted my edit. He says there should be no link from "Le Mans II" in the infobox to the main Le Mans FC article. I think there should be. Should we add link for II teams to the main team? (For French clubs, there are no II team articles I am aware of.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I would create a redirect from Le Mans FC II to Le Mans FC and link to that. This way, in case the B team gets created, the player is already linked to the proper page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Many French teams whose B team plays in Championnat National 2 or Championnat National 3 have B team squadlists on the main page. Le Mans doesn't at the moment, admittedly. it does have the National 3 navigation template though, as does every club article where the B team plays in National 3. I would disagree with both Mattythewhite and Nehme1499 here and argue for the continuation of linking to Le Mans with a pipe to Le Mans II or Le Mans B. There are literally thousands of French player articles where this already happens. Edit to add: We definitely don't want to be creating separate B team articles for France per many recent discussions here. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason not to have French B team articles - we do for other countries. GiantSnowman 12:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Literally no French B team article would be notable. They don't compete in the national cup competition, and can't rise above the amateur divisions. Gricehead (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

In which case (GNG notability notwithstanding, of course, in the same way that e.g. Paris Saint-Germain Youth Academy is considered notable) the B team should have a section on the main article, with appropriate redirects pointing there. GiantSnowman 15:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that in the absence of B team articles we should link to the first team. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there is nothing wrong with B team articles. If those don't exist, then linking to the First team is appropriate, but I prefer Nehme's suggestion of a re-direct, since this would then automatically fix later if an article is created, rather than having to go back and fix them all manually. RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

So, what's the conclusion? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Create Le Mans FC II if it passes WP:GNG. If not, create a section for Le Mans FC II in the Le Mans FC article, and create a redirect at Le Mans FC II to the specific section in the Le Mans FC article. Link the player directly to Le Mans FC II regardless. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Le Mans FC II will never be notable; it cannot qualify for cup competitions and cannot access any professional level of French football, the maximum level being the 4th tier. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Remember that WP:FOOTYN is just an essay, not an actual notability guideline like WP:NFOOTY. If the club passes GNG it is considered to be notable (I don't know if it is). If not, Le Mans FC II should still be created as a redirect to Le Mans FC's section on the B team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Abel Ferreira

Good afternoon,

since its inception, this article has been all but improved and maintained by me, save the managerial statistic chart. Several years ago, i added a fourth paragraph in his playing career, which read "From 2008–09 onwards, Ferreira began having stiff competition from Brazilian Pedro Silva. This situation was aggravated from January 2010 onwards, after the purchase of Braga's João Pereira."

Last month, content was removed for not being written in proper English (i fail to see where, hence i come to this forum) and sourced. I re-inserted with two sources (this one backed paragraph until end of the first sentence https://www.record.pt/futebol/futebol-nacional/liga-nos/sporting/detalhe/determinacao-de-pedro-silva-premiada; this ref backed the rest https://expresso.pt/desporto/joao-pereira-o-novo-menino-bonito-do-sporting=f55794), it was removed again with summaries such as "back to good English". First article clearly mentions Mr. Silva "stole" Mr. Ferreira's starting job in the 2008/09 season, and the Expresso piece clearly speaks about both losing their position when Mr. Pereira arrived, in January 2010 which is the timeline i wrote.

My head is spinning like a dreidel trying to see where i went wrong, some inputs would be highly appreciated. Attentively, continue the good work y'all! Is it a matter of grammar or akin? Has to be, because content was sourced in my book. --Quite A Character (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Aggravated isn't a good choice of word for the context. The word 'aggravated' usually refers to a recurring injury or somebody getting on your nerves/annoying you. Switching to "the level of competition increased" or something would make for better readability. Other than tweaking that one word, I see no English issues RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hippo43: pinging other involved user. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't "aggravated" a synonym for "worsened"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a synonym, but some words are used mainly in certain contexts. It's why just plucking a word from a thesaurus doesn't always work because if it's used in an unconvential way, it sounds off. I normally only see aggravated used to worsening 'physical' incidents involving a body, like aggravating an injury.

As I noted when Quite A Character mentioned this issue on my Talk page, Hippo43 explained their removal of the content at (their Talk page): "But, to answer your point about the Abel Ferreira article, you didn't source it. The source did not say "from 2008-09 onwards" and it did not say anyone "faced stiff competition" or similar. You wanted it to say something that it didn't. I don't know if the problem there is your English or your comprehension." I haven't read the sources but that concern would have to be addressed, I reckon. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: I did not ping the other user involved not out of being discourteous, i was told at their talkpage i'm full of myself and to leave them alone. Which i did, coming here for further help.

@Robby.is.on: and others, i'm retired, so i should not care less if Mr. Ferreira's article (or any other article for that matter) is improved or not. Strangely enough, i do. Robby, the Record newspaper article says Silva began starting over Ferreira at Sporting in the 2008/09 season, why do you say it does not? --Quite A Character (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Retired? It seems you edited as late as three days ago: 2001:8A0:7667:5801:DC2:B76A:DCAA:24AE (talk · contribs · WHOIS)?

I didn't say that, I quoted Hippo43 and said I didn't look into the sources. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies @Robby.is.on:, my bad in reading your comment. --Quite A Character (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I said nothing about discourtesy. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: I know kind fellow user, i was just setting the record straight. Thank you for the assistance. --Quite A Character (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked again at the sources today, but the comment on my talk page explains my thinking - "But, to answer your point about the Abel Ferreira article, you didn't source it. The source did not say "from 2008-09 onwards" and it did not say anyone "faced stiff competition" or similar. You wanted it to say something that it didn't."
I considered it an example of an editor trying to insert a narrative that was not present in the sources. It would be good to get the thoughts of other editors. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking again at the Record source, it says (dated March 2009) that Pedro Silva had broken into the team and played 3 of the last 4 games, and that Abel had been on the bench. It obviously doesn't say "from 2008-09 onwards" as it was not writing about the following seasons. I don't think it says anything about "stiff competition" or any similar phrase.// Hippo43 (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The Expresso source only says that João Pereira went straight into the starting eleven, into the spot that Abel and Pedro Silva had held. It doesn't say anything about how often Abel subsequently played (if he got his place back, or played in another position, for example) or how much competition there was.
Again, this to me is trying to construct a narrative - it may be correct, but it doesn't appear in these sources. // Hippo43 (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Promotion honours

I have not seen this often, but I was wondering: do we include "promotion" honours? I know we don't include 2nd place finishes in the top tier, but do we include an honour for being promoted as a 2nd place team?
And do we include an honour for winning the promotion/relegation play-offs? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally I don't think promotion or winning the play-offs counts as an honour (I assume we're talking about clubs here). Number 57 19:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess in clubs too, but I meant more for a player. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's not honours for both. It's quite enough to develop the promotions/relegations in the club's history section, I think the same goes to players (definitely not in "honours"). MYS77 ^✉ 20:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Bury, Fulham, Derby, Crystal Palace Boreham Wood, West Brom, Cardiff City etc etc passim ad nauseam list promotions on their honours page. But on the other hand a minority of users don't like it. Difficult to say really.--EchetusXe 23:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean, of course those clubs are going to list promotions on their own websites. It makes them look good. – PeeJay 23:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Norwich have listed being UEFA Cup participants, FA Cup semi-finalists and finishing third in the Premier League in their honours,[1] so I'm not sure we can consider clubs as reliable sources for what counts as honours... Number 57 00:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Promotion shouldn't count as honours in my opinion, unless they win their respective leagues.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Ortizesp.
Does this mean that in Joe Bryan, the EFL Championship play-offs honour should count? Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Think about what your asking. Should an honour be placed in the honours section? Does a promotion honour count as an honour? I will never get my head around the mental gymnastics some people use to remove honours from the honours section.--EchetusXe 16:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Bryan played in the play-off final and the source in the article has an image of the medal ribbon around his neck. That is more than enough to justify the inclusion of the play-offs in the honours section. Promotion as a second-placed team can be included in the honours section if the player concerned receives a medal. The same would apply in England for EFL League Two where players receive medals for a third-place promotion. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Tough one as there is a physical trophy for the EFL Championship play-offs, League One, and so on. I do find it quite odd that we list that play-off win in player and club honours, i.e. Jack Grealish or Tim Ream, but don't seem to do the same for the players and club that is automatically promoted in second place and therefore had a better season. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

2001 FIFA Club World Championship

Hello, I am hoping for some input regarding the 2001 FIFA Club World Championship article. The tournament was cancelled just over two months before it was planned to begin, but the participants and match schedule had been confirmed by FIFA. For the last 15 years, the schedule has been listed on the article. Recently I decided to reformat the schedule using the standard {{football box}} template, though Sportsfan 1234 has now removed the matches as they "never took place" and supposedly give a "false impression these matches happened" (despite the fact that the infobox, lead and matches note the cancellation). Even though the tournament was cancelled, I believe the information is still noteworthy to include, just as is done with other cancelled tournaments (for example 2020 CONCACAF Women's U-17 Championship) and walkovers (for example 2018 CAF Champions League qualifying rounds and 2020 AFC Cup qualifying play-offs). Thoughts? Also pinging BlameRuiner, who also restored the matches but was reverted. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If everything was cancelled, meaning no match took place, why even include any of this? In my opinion it's meaningless. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The tournament was organised and on the verge of taking place. If they'd never scheduled any of the matches, I'd agree with you, but matches had stadiums and kick-off times assigned. – PeeJay 20:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I also disagree. If FIFA themselves confirmed the match schedule, is much more informative to keep the matches listed, providing that an explanation saying that FIFA confirmed the schedule and the tournament was later cancelled, of course. MYS77 ^✉ 20:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If the matches was scheduled to take place but was cancelled than why remove those groups especially if FIFA themselves confirmed the schedule. HawkAussie (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the scheduled matches 100% and I think the bold removal was inappropriate. --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it adds much. Just makes the artilce so much longer. Just linking then schedule would be ok for me. -07:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No reliable sources for an international footballer with 34 caps?

Can anyone here take a look at Eric Omondi Ongao? This stub is basically only sourced to this entry at National-Football-Teams.com, which describes 34 international matches for the Kenya national football team.

There are a few old articles with similar claims (Bleacher Report and a Pittsburgh Riverhounds SC Press Release), but it's a bit odd that there is a dearth of higher quality sources for such claims. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Also this. Not usual to be lacking online sources for someone whose carer was 20 years ago, pre-mainstream internet. GiantSnowman 08:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

NFT is very reliable in my opinion. Just use what NFT has. By the way, I'm pretty sure we include non FIFA matches too, so you should put them in the infobox as well. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No, we do NOT include non-FIFA matches. GiantSnowman 17:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't, true. But NFT is inconsistent in what games are non-FIFA and what games are. They aren't a good indicator for that. RSSSF is more reliable. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not "very", as they often make mistakes. Still, they wouldn't just create a hoax player out of nowhere. Worst case, NFT has underestimated his actual cap count (but not his existence). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not finding any pictures of him playing in a Kenya kit at a first glance search. I think this is a hoax. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

See RSSSF, he played for Kenya at the 2000 CECAFA. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and assistance, everyone! By the way, is NFT generally across WP Football as a (somewhat) reliable source? — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21: NFT is reliable, yes. However, if NFT say that a player has 10 official caps and 1 unofficial cap, it doesn't mean he has 10, or 11 caps. It may be that he has 25. NFT doesn't have full detailed information of all games. But still, NFT wouldn't just create a player out of nowhere, so all players available on NFT have existed and have played internationally. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I don't have any opinion on whether we should or should not include non-FIFA stats, but they are often included for players who have played for non-FIFA national teams, such as Ryan-Zico Black and Herdi Siamand. Should these be removed? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

In those situations, no. GiantSnowman 17:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a bit of information about him as "Eric Omondi" in Kenyan sources but you need access to allafrica.com. Hack (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Friendly match score in text.

What would be more appropriate, "John Template scored his first goal for Templatonia in a 4–0 friendly win over Samplia", or "John Template scored his first goal for Templatonia in a 4–0 friendly match win over Samplia". (The difference is the inclusion or "match" after friendly.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need for the word "match". Nobody every refers in English to a "friendly match", they just say a friendly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. "friendly match" is a bit redundant. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Eizagirre vs Eizaguirre

Hi all, I've just created Nerea Eizagirre but there is an issue in that her surname is spelled differently depending on which source you look at. La Liga, Mundo Deportivo, AS and Marca all use 'Eizagirre' and this is also the spelling used on her official Instagram and Twitter. Most English language sources I find, including UEFA and Soccerway, have the 'Eizaguirre' spelling. Would we use the spelling that the player herself uses or would we go with what the English-language media tends to use in this case? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you've got the name spelled correctly. I think we can rely on the subject to spell her own name right, surely? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I might be wrong but I think 'Eizaguirre' is the Anglicised version of 'Eizagirre'. I'm sticking with the spelling that the player herself uses for now but didn't know if there was a general rule in such cases or not. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I would go by common name in these cases (which is what I do with Lebanese players for the various "Mohammad/Mohamed/Mohamad", or "El Zein/Al Zein/Zein" etc...) Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

In general this is one of the differences between Basque and Castillian (Spanish) spelling norms, others of this are tx/ch, b/v and k/qu. Historically the name possibly didn't have a U, in the Franco era it definitely would have to 'standardise' names - although it may have been a less forced change as happens over time in all cultures (and Basque names in Latin America are almost always changed to the Castillian spelling and so that's became a more familiar form of some names in football culture, e.g Goycoechea is the same name as Goikoetxea). In the modern era within Spain, some have since amended their name back to the Basque variant, others haven't. And how it's displayed at times depends on the publisher's attitude to the Basque language - some will subtly Castillian-ise Basque spellings, and some on the other 'side' of the issue will Basque-ise Castillian spellings. In this instance, the majority seem to use Eizagirre, including Spanish Wikipedia and most tellingly the player herself (and she is from an area which has a strong Basque language presence so people with that surname living there are more likely to use the 'no U' spelling, although it's not an exact science by any means). Crowsus (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Liga MX playoffs / Liguilla

Hi, this is probably the third time I've raised this question here in last 12 months. Unfortunately, I haven't had enough replies regarding this. So I'd like to give it a third and final try! :)

Should we add Liga MX playoff matches (Liguilla till last season, Repechage + Liguilla this season) in infobox of a player? These playsoffs works just like the one in MLS, and not all teams in league can enter this stage. We don't add MLS playoff stats of a player in his infobox, so logically we should do the same here? I think we should add them under 'other' section in career stats, and not in infobox. (Soccerway however put them under league apps, but they do the same for all playoffs including the ones in Spain & Uruguay!)

I am not sure if we have reached a consensus on this before. Or else, I'd like to know your opinions on this topic. Thanks in advance! Kokoeist (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. They should be added in the "other" section of the career stats, but not in the infobox. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @GiantSnowman:, @Nehme1499:, @Mattythewhite:, @RedPatchBoy: and @Struway2: to know their opinions, as they are usually the most active editors here. Kokoeist (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Play-off appearances are not considered part of the regular domestic league season and as such shouldn't be included in infobox statistics. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that they are 'other' for the stats table, and not included in the infobox. GiantSnowman 14:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Should go in an 'Other' column with a note or a 'Playoffs' column if one exists, like how is done with MLS players for the MLS Cup Playoffs. RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

International women's football sources

Much to my surprise there is no women's equivalent of List of top international men's football goal scorers by country, so I have started a Draft:List of top international women's football goal scorers by country to kick things off. What are good sources? Surprisingly often it is hard to find out who a country's top scorer is. RSSSF does not seem to maintain such a list. Nor does it seem to have player stats for women. (As an aside, feel free to help out with the currently mostly empty list.) Edwininlondon (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: Good onya! I started out by updating my home country's topscorer. Will try and have a look at some more if I have the time. --SuperJew (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the consensus about the source soccerdonna.de? Its coverage is good. It seems to have accurate stats in the few tests I have taken. For example, Miedema's goal tally of 70 is well documented in reliable sources, and soccerdonna has it correct. But I'm not sure if the stats are coming from an editorial team or users. There is an option for users to contribute but I'm unsure if that means the stats are user-generated or whether users can only make suggestions for the editorial team to correct wrong numbers. I have used it 6 times now in the Draft:List of top international women's football goal scorers by country, but I'm starting to wonder if it is actually a reliable source. Views? Edwininlondon (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It the women's version of Transfermarkt – so I would assume it works like Transfermarkt? Robby.is.on (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Transfermarkt is not considered reliable... GiantSnowman 12:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yahia Fofana

Hello. I don't want to start a whole debate, but here's the story: Yahia Fofana made his debut for Le Havre AC in 2019 (in the league cup), and we know that the senior career starts after the first appearance. The thing is, Fofana made 17 bench appearances during 2017–18. I'm pretty sure we said that a player's senior career only starts after the first appearance, but with 17 bench appearances in that season, it looks as if Fofana was clearly a member of the first team on this occasion. GS said that if it was only a GK filling in a few games on the bench it wasn't important, but 17 games for me indicates he was part of the first team. Anyways, I would just like to know if y'all thought it would be appropriate to write "2017–" or "2019–" for this specific example. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say 2017–. However, I still think we should "open" the senior career when he makes his first bench appearance (not necessarily on the pitch). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I think GiantSnowman will get mad if we debate about this again. From what I understood, we start the senior career if the player is a regular with the first team on the bench. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah GS and I have differing opinions. Regardless, I think we can both agree that, at least in Fofana's case, his career still started in 2017 as he was part of the first team 17 times in 2017–18. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting help for suspected stale userspace drafts that are hoaxes

Hello. I was wondering if anyone could help me sort out userpsace drafts made by Special:Contributions/Kyle Nightingale, Special:Contributions/Mahdi Akhtar and Special:Contributions/Ayaz1989. Came across these users after finding a draft in the stale userpsace drafts on Andrea De Luca (footballer) that I suspect is a hoax. Looking at the contributions, I saw that Ayaz1989 edited drafts by Kyle Nightingale. In Kyle Nightingale's contributions, they've edited drafts by Ayaz1989 and Mahdi Akhtar while acknowledging they know each other. Of these users, I suspect at least Andrea De Luca, 1981 Arabian Gulf Cup and 2016 FIFA Freestyle World Cup are hoaxes. Problem is, it's possible that some of the drafts made by these users like Augusto Billard are real but are buried within the hoaxes. Any footy experts in European, African, or Australian footballers could help me sort out all of the userspace drafts made by these 3 users to determine which are real or hoaxes? Thanks!--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth posting a list, then everybody won't be looking at the same ones? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The drafts under Mahdi Akhtar are all hoaxes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gricehead: Fair enough. Then it'd be easier to see which ones are OK/not ok.

• User:Ayaz1989/Uzbekistan Third League
• User:Ayaz1989/Andrea De Luca (footballer)
• User:Ayaz1989/Rui Salazar
• User:Ayaz1989/Jermaine Jackson (footballer)
• User:Ayaz1989/2015 Australian Amateur Summer Soccer Cup
• User:Ayaz1989/Harvey Law
• User:Ayaz1989/Kingston Fort F.C.
• User:Mahdi Akhtar/Gael Hawa
• User:Mahdi Akhtar/Zachary Nguyen
• User:Mahdi Akhtar/Gael Hawa
• User:Mahdi Akhtar/Al-Hunayn
• User:Mahdi Akhtar/Milan Terzic
• User:Mahdi Akhtar/2014 Christmas Island Pro League
• User:Mahdi Akhtar/Federico Molinaro
• User:Mahdi Akhtar/Rory Heathers
• User:Kyle Nightingale/Raducio King
• User:Kyle Nightingale/Ricky Gallagher
• User:Kyle Nightingale/Jens Moares
• User:Kyle Nightingale/Adelaide Wanderers F.C.
• User:Kyle Nightingale/Christmas Island national football team
• User:Kyle Nightingale/Augusto Billard
• User:Kyle Nightingale/2016 FIFA Freestyle World Cup
• User:Kyle Nightingale/Emmanuel Sangdadi
• User:Kyle Nightingale/Goalrush Sydney F.C.
• User:Kyle Nightingale/Australian Super Soccer League
• User:Kyle Nightingale/Castilla-La Mancha autonomous football team

@Struway2: Thanks for letting me know about Mahdi Akhtar. Are the 3 that Kyle Nightinggale took over (Ricky Gallagher, Jens Moares and Christmas Island national football team) hoaxes as well? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there any policy against having such content in one's userspace? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:FAKEARTICLE. Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Struway2: @Gricehead: Of the three remaining bluelinks, are they real ones? If so, then that's all apart from the other ones I have speedy nominated at G3. Thank you! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Raducio King is a real futsal player, as ref#3 in the draft verifies. I wouldn't know whether the content is genuine or not.
2. There is a real Castilla-La Mancha autonomous football team, see es:Selección de fútbol de Castilla-La Mancha, but the content of the draft is pure invention.
3. According to our article, the Uzbekistan Second League is (now) the fourth tier of Uzbekistan football, and relegated teams go to regional competitions, so there doesn't appear to be an Uzbekistan Third League. And there's no sign that football teams in that country have English-style names like Tashkent Rovers and Juma Town F.C.

So I'd say 2 and 3 are hoaxes, but I don't know enough the topic of #1 to express a view. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Raducio King has a 11v11 football career as well as a Futsal career. I can't verify the nickname, nor the stats for Manchester Futsal (although I note that the number of goals was in the Manchester Futsal Club article, unsourced, before the draft was created. He has a soccerway profile showing he has played in the Dutch Derde division, and he appears to have had a season with Lynx FC in the top level Gibraltar division. Gricehead (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Linking seasons in career statistics section

I've seen different articles have different things: how would we link a particular season like "2016–17" in the career statistics section? Some articles have "2016–17 Templatonian Premier League" while some others have "2016–17 Sample FC season". What's the correct one? League or club season? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I link to the club season article where possible. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Club season article if it exists (since will show all competitions that are in the stats tables), if no club season article then link to league season article. RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If the club season would be notable, i.e in a fully-pro league, then link to that whether the season article actually exists or not. Link to the league season only if the club season wouldn't be notable: a league season article is almost never relevant to an individual player. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I only link to club seasons if they exist or I can assume they will exist in the near future. The Italian third division is pro, but I won't expect 2016–17 Santarcangelo Calcio to pop up anytime soon, so I just link to 2016–17 Lega Pro. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What Nehme said. I'll check to see if one exists (or others exist in the past) for the club. Otherwise, I'll just do the league. I try to avoid the redlinks in the stats table. If there's some really small league that doesn't have a season page, I just leave it in regular unlinked font RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus please on delayed competition in season articles

A date for the postponed 2020 Copa del Rey Final has now been set (3 April). I see that has been added to Athletic Bilbao and Real Sociedad's 2019–20 season articles, and just wanted to seek consensus about that being the 'correct' location before it's played and any team and player stats get added. I had a look at the participants in the latter stages of the 2019–20 Scottish Cup to see how that was being shown, and found Celtic and Aberdeen have the results and stats in their 2019–20 article, but Hearts and Hibs have them in 2020–21. I don't really care which is preferred, but obviously it should be consistent. An earlier discussion, in fact more than one, on the Scottish player stats in the bio articles went the way of 2019–20 with a note (I haven't actually got round to checking all of the players involved but I will try to do so this week). The club articles will be more straightforward as long as everyone is aware of the community decision on it (fortunately none of the teams involved have played in the current Scottish Cup yet, so all stats displayed there at present are for the previous season). Therefore, pinging @Jmorrison230582:, @Davezo33:, @Blethering Scot: and @Celticbhoy97: who I believe are the main contributors to each of the Scottish articles, and @SteveMc25: and @Sakiv: who heavily contribute to both Athletic Bilbao and Real Sociedad, to keep you in the loop. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Why not just put the final in both and write a one-sentence explanation above it? RedPatchBoy (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My thinking is that statistics that relate to the 2020/21 squad should be included in the 2020/21 article. I think it looks daft to list appearances by players who weren't signed until the 2020/21 season in the 2019/20 article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with RedPatchBoy. It should be included in both articles with an explanation as to why the final stages of the 2019–20 competition were played in the 2020–21 season. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe the 2019–20 final of the competition should be included in the 2019–20 season pages only as it is part of that season, regardless whether players have gone or come in. Sociedad have already been eliminated from the 2020–21 Copa del Rey, therefore these stats are included in their 2020–21 season, yet they are in the final of the previous seasons cup. Just pointing out, Portsmouth and Salford have the same issue with the EFL Final, Inverness and Raith with the Challenge Cup Final as well. Davezo33 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm still hoping to get further input on this. Maybe posting on transfer deadline evening wasn't the best idea, everyone had other Wiki matters to deal with. As Davezo33 has pointed out, other teams are affected by this (or will be when their final is played), therefore pinging @Lbarnett-bl:, @82.44.252.223:, @Cheesy McGee:, @Skyblueshaun: and @Zanoni: as the editors who appear to edit the articles for the teams involved in the postponed Scottish Challenge Cup and EFL Trophy finals, for your info and possibly more interest in the matter than others. As I've said, I don't particularly care which season is chosen as the 'main' one to record the player stats, but surely there can be a consistency between them, which so far the discussion has not provided. As different stats sites are recording these matches differently, on here it should clearly be noted which appearances relate to the delayed competition, as we have the tools to do so. Currently:

• 2019–20 Aberdeen F.C. season records all appearances up to and including the semi, has a general note on the delay but doesn't state which appearances/goals were made seven months after the others, 2020–21 Aberdeen F.C. season doesn't mention the delayed cup match at all;
• 2019–20 Celtic F.C. season records all appearances up to and including the final, has a general note on the delay but doesn't state which appearances/goals were made seven months after the others, 2020–21 Celtic F.C. season doesn't mention the delayed cup matches at all;
• 2019–20 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season's Scottish Cup appearances stop with the lockdown, the delayed matches are recorded in 2020–21 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season, but currently with no note whatsoever in the table to explain at a glance how the players have appeared in two matches when they are yet to play in the 2020–21 competition, and this will create confusion when the current cup run's matches are added unless it's made clear who played in the delayed matches;
• 2019–20 Hibernian F.C. season's Scottish Cup appearances stop with the lockdown, the delayed match is recorded in 2020–21 Hibernian F.C. season with a general note, but this could create confusion when the current cup run's matches are added unless it's made clear who played in the delayed match.

I would agree it's OK to include the match result box(es) in both seasons for info, again as long as the situation is clearly indicated. Obviously this is not a huge deal and fairly easily solved but I'd like to have something here to refer to when amending the tables, and don't want to do all the fiddly amendments only to have them changed because that's not how the usual editor wants to display it. Crowsus (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the approach in the Celtic article is better and have adopted it for the Hibs article now. My concern was about the player statistics, but showing the 2020/21 players separately in the table addresses this. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

UEFA club coefficient ranking

Can I ask, were we removing that from club article pages? Govvy (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Urgent: Block needed

Hi. WP:AIV is very slow. 176.59.35.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been vandalising Vedat Muriqi. Can an admin @GiantSnowman:, @Mattythewhite:, …) please block them? They're clearly WP:NOTHERE. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Might be quicker to go to WP:ANI. Govvy (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on:, leave it and stop edit-waring, I post to ANI then. Govvy (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I've written a report an AN/I. Wikipedia:Edit warring states: "There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons;" Robby.is.on (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I know, but often, it feels like you're adding wood to the fire, playing the game the IP wants to play! :/ Govvy (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I know, but what's the alternative? Leaving the abuse in the article? Anyway, they're blocked now. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

From my experience, yep, they tend to get bored quickly and either stop, or the more damage they do the quicker they get caught. Govvy (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no way I'd leave the abuse in. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This has finally been dealt with. Phew… Robby.is.on (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think you were fine to keep reverting here Robby.is.on. 3RR doesn't apply in cases of obvious vandalism, and especially BLP violations, which this clearly was. It's a shame it couldn't have been dealt with quicker. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, @Amakuru:. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Club red links in infobox

If clubs do not have articles on the English Wikipedia, do we either link to the club article on another Wikipedia, make a red link, or just leave a simple text? Geschichte is reverting on Cerezo Haabo. From editing patterns I've seen, we usually link to other Wikipedias if a page exists, and after that, we just leave as blank text, we never red link. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If the club is notable (and I think a top division one would be), I think this is a valid redlink per WP:REDLINK. Number 57 14:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

IMO, redlinks should be used in preference to links to other language wikis, which display blue, making it looks like they exist. Or we can use WP:Interlanguage links, which display as redlinks with links to the foreign language page, and if the article is created, then it becomes a "normal" blue link. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we should never use [[:it:Article name]], rather {{Interlanguage link|Article name|it}}. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If the page exists on en.wiki, link to it. If it doesn't exist on en.wiki but does on another wiki, link to it through {{Interlanguage link}}. If it doesn't exist on any wiki, and is notable (has played in the top-division, or generally passes GNG), red link to it. If it's not notable don't link. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Robby.is.on (talk)

Sounds sensible. GiantSnowman 18:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

What if it is not notable on this wiki but there is already an article on another wiki because that wiki has different notability? IMO that means we link to the other wiki directly. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, through {{Interlanguage link|Article name|it}}. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This section explains why ill is preferred over hard linking. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ben Davies (footballer, born 1995)

Could someone lend a hand at Ben Davies (footballer, born 1995)? DDP-Trooper1777 (talk · contribs) is insisting that Davies has completed his transfer to Liverpool but isn't providing a source to confirm this, and as far as I can see there isn't any confirmation from Liverpool or Preston yet. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. GiantSnowman 19:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed by Liverpool and updated with source in article. --SuperJew (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

infobox stats

Let's say Tim Template plays for Sample City FC from 2033 to 2035. In the first season, the number of league appearances he makes is recorded: he makes a total of 8 league appearances. In the second season, the number of appearances is unknown. In this scenario, would we make the club appearances for Tim Template 8 or would we leave it blank?
Secondly, for the club total goals & apps: when we know all the stats, of course we add it, but when there is one club for which the player stats are missing, do we still have a total in the infobox? (Of course this is for after retirement.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If we have partial data, we either add a + (so 8+) or just omit it. It depends on how much info is known. If we know 9 seasons out of 10, we should put the +. If we know 1 season out of 10, we should leave it blank. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 16:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

But GS, I had put a + on Oladapo Afolayan and you said to remove due to being incomplete. RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because stats for 50% of the seasons were missing... GiantSnowman 16:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. I found partial stats for the missing season, but not complete. Should I add partial stats with a plus for the missing or is it better to just omit fully if not complete, I did the latter ? RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

On a club row, I'd advise either leaving it blank, or (probably better) include what we do know together with a note that tells the reader what's covered by the figure: which seasons, or which league divisions. Without an explanatory note, 8+ is just a random number. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

My above was started before RPB's 16.23 post: in answer to that, I'd definitely omit partial stats for a single season. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, and guys, what about the "total"? Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Same solution as Nehme1499 stated still applies. Especially for a player who played hundreds of professional games and then ended his career with a season or two at amateur level.--EchetusXe 18:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. If we know that he played 243 games in 12 years, then played 2 other seasons without knowing how many caps he made, we should put 243+ in the total. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Is what I did on Denis Bauda appropriate? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Was there a consensus to start adding Brazilian state league stats to infobox? I just went to update Gabriel Jesus's stats following his goal today for Manchester City and noticed that both his Brazilian Serie A and state league appearances and goals were included in his infobox during his time at Palmeiras rather than just Serie A. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there was. Don't have the link, but I remember the state leagues were decided at one point recently to be allowed in the infobox and in a separate state league section in career stats table RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

See this discussion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Thanks for saying yep. Just one thing, I wasn't sure if you also meant that adding the note (a) is appropriate or not.
And one last thing, would it be ok to add the total for when several clubs are missing like Christian Zajaczkowski? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have never put a note myself, but it definitely seems like a good idea :) Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Zajaczkowski; sure, why not? At the end we know 14/18 seasons, which is pretty exhaustive. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei or Taiwan in Infobox

How should the Chinese Taipei national football team be referred to in the infobox. A page I was editing, I know a few months ago it said Chinese Taipei, but at some point someone changed to Taiwan. Before changing it back, I figured I'd come here. The national team's page is under Chinese Taipei, but the country itself's wikipedia page is Taiwan. RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say Chinese Taipei in line with the article's name. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

China don't allow Taiwan to call themselves Taiwan at the Olympics on threat of invasion. So as a result they have the dumb official name of Chinese Taipei, which sounds like a Pro Evo knock off version of Taiwan.--EchetusXe 19:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Depends on the context. The national team was known as, and competed as, Taiwan until round about 1982/83 (I'm not sure the exact date it changed). Anything prior to that should be Taiwan and anything after should be Chinese Taipei. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should call the article Taiwan national football team in line with the Taiwan article, but make it clear in the first line of the lead that the team competes in international competitions under the name Chinese Taipei due to political issues. – PeeJay 19:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes I remember that it used to be Taiwan officially during the 70s-80s. Is there a reason why Chinese Taipei national football team is located there despite the country being located at Taiwan? We have South Korea national football team and North Korea national football team, not Korea Republic national football team and DPR Korea national football team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I assumed it was because of FIFA's official names, but yeah North and South Korea's FIFA names are different to the article titles. Chinese Taipei is like England being called British London or something so I wouldn't opposed to a page move.--EchetusXe 20:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If you start an RM, I will support the move of England to British London ;) --SuperJew (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should use Taiwan rather than Chinese Taipei because Chinese Taipei is a stupid name and everyone just calls the country Taiwan anyway. I would also support moving the article should anyone start an RM. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe that move from England to British London should happen for WP:APRILFOOLS lol RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that "Country at the Olympics" articles for Taiwan also use Chinese Taipei (for example Chinese Taipei at the Olympics). S.A. Julio (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

But they also use North Korea at the Olympics and South Korea at the Olympics despite the IOC referring to them as the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" and "Republic of Korea" respectively. – PeeJay 19:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

At some point (before 1970) Taiwan use ROC or Republic of China or just "China" as their own name.... For modern usage may be Chinese Taipei? or Taiwan, or Republic of China (Taiwan)? Matthew hk (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

They used ROC as they were the Chinese government in exile. They've been using Chinese Taipei as that is the only way that modern China will allow them to compete in international competitions (namely the Olympics) as modern China still believe that Taiwan is part of Chinese sovereignty. Taipei is just the capital of Taiwan. Felixsv7 (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, before 1970, The ROC (Taiwan) national football team, actually enlisted a lot of Hong Kong born and based footballer. I am not sure how English media to describe the team for that era, but Chinese language (pro Taiwan and Hong Kong) source use ROC (or the Chinese name of ROC) Matthew hk (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Should we start a move request to move Chinese Taipei national football team to Taiwan national football team? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Please do--EchetusXe 22:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That being said... they are the Chinese Taipei Football Association and are registered as such by both FIFA and the IOC Felixsv7 (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

FIFA also uses Korea DPR and Republic of Korea, yet we use the name where the country's article is located per WP:COMMONNAME. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I've started a move request. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Managerial statistics tables

In those stats tables, do we include only the games in which the manager was physically present on the bench, or do we include all team results since the date of official appointment regardless of who is actually on the bench during the match? For example, if the manager is appointed on 30 January 2021, but has to be quarantined for 10 days and therefore the assistant manager is in charge for 2-3 games, are those stats still included?

In sources, both soccerbase.com and footballdatabase.eu are using fully automated system so I dont know how reliable is that, i.e. all games since the date of appointment are automatically counted toward the manager, since they dont manually put managers in their match reports, only the players. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

All games. If we restricted it to "only the games in which the manager was physically present on the bench", would we also exclude any where the manager was serving a touchline ban? Or was ill with the flu? Or decided to go scout a player instead of attending a game (I remember a former Gillingham manager did this once but I forget which one and I doubt I could find a source to confirm it)? It would be too complicated to try and pick out who was "in charge" for every game and it would probably border on WP:OR anyway (because it would rely on an assumption about a manager's level of involvement - he could be absent on the day but still pick the team, outline the tactics, etc)......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Well isn't that what we do with players? i.e. not have a cap for them if they were serving a ban / were ill / decided to go attend their child's birth instead of attending a game? Should we add a cap for a captain if he was involved in training and leadership during the build-up to the game but didn't feel well on the morning of the game so didn't play? --SuperJew (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Chris - include all games for the manager as confirmed by sources. GiantSnowman 11:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

To elaborate further on the example of captains (which has similarity to the manager position) - we have lists of captains and list them by matches captained (for examples Category:Lists of association football captains). So if a player is the captain of the team the past few years, has trained (and led training) with the team, flown to tournament X, played the first couple of games, discussed the tactics with manager, and generally involved in all the "behind-the-scenes", but then the third tournament he doesn't play due to injury, is there anyone who would argue we should still count the third match as a captain cap for him? --SuperJew (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore you can find sources for such things. For example: Klopp missed Liverpool's FA Cup replay against Shrewsbury Town ([2], [3]), Allardyce missed Everton's away trip to Cyprus in the 2017 Europa League ([4], [5]) and there are more. --SuperJew (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Players and managers are completely different kettles of fish here. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. GiantSnowman 12:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: The statistics of both should be supported by sources. If we have a source (as per examples above) of manager not managing the team for a certain match, then it shouldn't be listed as a match he managed. We don't give a blanket for all matches in the period he managed. --SuperJew (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

So to be clear – on Luka Elsner, the yesterday's Belgium Cup win can be included in the table per source, even though the guy basically havent even met his players and staff yet, as he was flown directly into the quarantine after entering the country on 31 January? Snowflake91 (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Just check out the managerial statistics of Steve Cotterill to see how not to do it. Excludes games he was in hospital but includes those he was directing from online but not at the game. Very much OR and not in line with the stats supported by Soccerbase.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That should be brought in-line with Soccerbase. GiantSnowman 12:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Crewe manager Dario Gradi - see Dario_Gradi#Managerial_statistics - was sidelined for about a month in 2003 having heart surgery. Soccerbase accounted for this temporary absence link. Paul W (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Which in that situation was the right thing to do. GiantSnowman 15:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Egghead06: So you're claiming that matches which Cotterill wasn't at all involved in as he was very sick with COVID19 should be chalked up as him managing the team? Even though we have sources verifying the opposite? (BTW I think also the remote advice (two minute phone call) shouldn't be counted as a match he managed either, and the source also names the actual acting manager). --SuperJew (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Yes, I’m claiming just that. If Cotterill was the manager for those games, then the statistic for those games belong under his name and just as they are recorded on Soccerbase. I can recall West Ham games where Avram Grant was away for a game for a Jewish religious festival or where Slaven Bilić did not take charge for European games or where Big Sam had a heavy cold. The stat was always reported under their named and not a deputy for the game.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Egghead06: But that's exactly the point - he wasn't the manager for those games, as is verified in the sources above (which are frankly more reliable than a stats site like Soccerbase or Soccerway). Also, these instances are rare enough that when they do happen, they are reported on and there is enough verifiable reliable sources to support with. --SuperJew (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: I tend to side with those stat sites. A person is the manager of a club until they are not, regardless of days off for Covid, colds, religious festivals etc. To try and go against those stat sites which verify managerial stats, opens a whole can or worms. Do we really want a series of footnotes explaining individual managerial absences which go against the figures maintained by stat sites?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Egghead06: If footnotes are needed, then yes. If I want information about club matches during the period from when manager X was appointed until he left, I can look at the club's season pages. If I'm looking at the manager's page, I want information about what games he took charge of, and if there are games he didn't then I want to know why and in what circumstances. And as I mentioned above, due to these being exceptions they are actually going to have reports and news about it, and actually be more notable than the run-of-the-mill individual match reports. In general, Wikipedia is a collection of information from many sources, and our information should not be based of one source only. --SuperJew (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think in Mr Elsner's case – he was formally appointed on Sunday but had gone straight into quarantine - that first match ought to belong to whoever was acting as caretaker, with a note to verify it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: The match shouldn't be included. Even Soccerway notes Vanderhaeghe as the coach. --SuperJew (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Bullshit information from Soccerway, Vanderhaeghe was sacked on 31 January, and today became the manager of Cercle Brugge, he 101% wasnt the manager in yesterday's game. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: I see your point there. So basically fell to the same hole of blindly trusting stats sites ;) According to NieuwsBlad, Kortrijk was coached by Bart Meert. Bottom line, we should take info from stats sites with a pinch of salt, as it isn't 100% reliable. --SuperJew (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

hln.be says Elsner will be in quarantine for "his" first 2 games and Meert will take the team for those. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I bet some of the early secretary-managers were absent from games quite often, but we'd never find sources to prove it........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: You could also say about players that earlier years we won't have complete stats in sources..... --SuperJew (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say that games should still be included in a manager's statistics even if they're serving a touchline ban, as they still contribute to the team's tactical plan and the coaching of the team in the build-up to the game. In the case of Dario Gradi missing a month, as mentioned above, or Sir Matt Busby missing the second half of the 1957-58 season following Munich, they're totally uninvolved with team preparation, so I would imagine that sources wouldn't count games played during those absences. That's the important bit, btw - we need sources, not just to add on a game every time we think a manager took charge of a game. If you don't have a source that lists a manager's win-draw-loss record, we shouldn't include it in the article, as it would be original research to count the matches ourselves. – PeeJay 17:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: Okay, so regarding Luka Elsner, as said above, by your logic we shouldn't include the matches until he finishes quarantine (as he is not contributing to the tactical plan and build-up to the game and hasn't even met the players yet)? Also by this logic, the games played while Cotterill was hospitalized because of COVID shouldn't be counted since he didn't contribute tactical plans while lying ill and unable to communicate in the hospital? btw basic arithmetic isn't original research. --SuperJew (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: please WP:DROPTHESTICK, your conduct here is veering into WP:BADGERING. GiantSnowman 17:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This debate is active, and I am not forcing it's revival - DROPTHESTICK isn't relevant. And debating and classifying points is not badgering. --SuperJew (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's how I would do it if I were in charge of counting the games, but that's not the case here. Also, you're right that basic arithmetic isn't OR, but when you have to make qualitative assessments about a manager's level of involvement in each game, that's when it becomes a bit woolly. Obviously there's a point where stats organisations decide that a game shouldn't count towards a manager's totals, but we're not a stats organisation, we just have to report what they say. – PeeJay 17:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Us deciding who the "real" manager for a game is is completely OR. If a club announces a manager and says they are in charge, and RS report it as such, then why would we do otherwise? Spike 'em (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The exact point is that in the examples above the club announced that someone else is in charge (Meert in place of Elsner, etc.) and that is reported in RS. In the end there is a certain discrepancy here between several reliable sources on one side and other reliable sources (stats sites in these examples). What do we do in this case to decide between them? I do not think we should blindly go after the stats sites. --SuperJew (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid we don't have much choice in the matter. You can't just decide to change the stats because you disagree with them. – PeeJay 18:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This season already Arteta, Rodgers, Moyes and Parker have not been present at Premier League games due to Covid issues. In the EFL there are many other instances of managerial Covid related absences. All of the games where the manager was isolating are included in their Soccerbase stats. I believe that is the way to go.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: I'm not arguing to change the stats because I disagree with them. I'm claiming to change what we list on Wikipedia due to other reliable sources which aren't the one stats site the table is based on. This is not a case that says the stats site is the only reliable source we have (with the other source being an unverifiable Tweet or Facebook post or whatever). Rather we have on one hand stats sites which are generally reliable, but AFAIK and as was stated here, use automated or semi-automated tools which can clash with reality and give a false picture, while on the other hand we have a reliable source which was written specifically for the specific match in question and gives a truer picture. --SuperJew (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear. Spike 'em (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I certainly think touchline bans and illness absence (inc COVID) should be ignored once they are in post, and I think that's the majority opinion if not universal. Elsner is a slightly different situation IMO, it's a question of whether he has officially started in the job or not. It's OR for one editor to make that decision off their own back, but there are probably sources that support both stances, so it's a matter of determining which is more accurate based on what they say (was the interim guy known to be taking instruction from the guy in quarantine etc). Same goes for other isolated incidents with strange circumstances, rather than a 'rule' to cover every possible scenario, there needs to be some examination of the evidence available. Crowsus (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

George Collins (footballer)

Might be a long shot, but does anyone know if the George Collins who managed Gillingham in 1919-20 and the George Collins who managed Darlington in the 1930s are definitely the same man (as the LMA believe)? And if so, what he was doing in the intervening 13 years......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say possibly, but no more than that. When a George Collins took over as manager of Darlington in 1933, he was reported as having "had charge of Darlington Reserves for the past 12 years". When he left them, a brief bio in the Hartlepool Mail has him "connected with the club for 32 years". He was on Newcastle's books, professional for at least one season but no first-team apps, before joining Darlington in 1904 and 3 years later joining Shildon, where he spent 4 years. Then it says "While working at the Darlington Forge Ltd he assisted in the formation of the Forge Albion Club, which after the war became the Darlington F.C."

Assuming we don't have to understand the 32 years connection as meaning he was thereabouts all the time for 32 years, there's a gap between early involvement with Forge Albion and running Darlington's reserves from c.1921 big enough for a season as Gillingham manager in 1919/20, but I can't find anything to either prove or disprove it being the same bloke. Don't suppose any of that helps, but... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Struway2: - thanks for your input -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Darko Kovačević

Can somebody protect this page from vandalism. There is a user who puts fake stats in infobox for years now. Thanks -- 2603:9000:6E0E:7FFD:0:0:0:812 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Club merging and name changing

When a club changes name, I assume we just keep it kind of the same in the infobox, we just change the club name for a player that played at that club when it changed name. But for when a club merges with another one to create a new club, would we end a player's career for the old club and start it for a new one? Like for example, Tim Template plays for Racing Template - in 2034, Racing Template merges with Sample FC to form Racing Sample... would we have two seperate clubs saying "Racing Template" and "Racing Sample" or would we have one club named "Racing Sample"? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we typically just put the new team name, but I wouldn't be opposed to making it Racing Template/Racing Sample in some instances. For example, Ballou Tabla played for Montreal Impact in his youth, then as his first club, then he returned on loan, before being bought permanently again in 2020. In 2021, the team became CF Montreal. I feel like the slash would be beneficial to show that it's the same club that he was on loan with, but I think the practice is to put the new name only, so I've left it like that. Maybe we can add a reference note to say "the club was known as Team XYZ until 2020" RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

We put the newest name, and a note explaining the name change or merger (for example see Vartan Ghazarian). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Career Stats Table - midseason transfer - missed competition

I know typically we use the dash if a team did not participate in a certain type of competition for that year (i.e. Continental column) and 0 0 if the team participated but the player did not play in any of the matches. What do we do if a club participated in the competition, but they were eliminated prior to the player arriving (for example, team was eliminated in November, player joined the roster in January)? I've usually put 0 0 because the club was involved in that competition even though the player wasn't eligible to play for the team in the competition because by the time he arrived they were already out. For example, Gabriel Jesus for Man City for the 16-17 EFL Cup, they were already eliminated by the time he joined. It currently has a Dash, is that the righ way or should it be 0 0? RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally use a dash, as the player couldn't physically play in the competition. To me, a dash means that the player couldn't have ever played, while 0 0 means that he was called up but didn't play. I don't think there is consensus on this though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Nehme1499 - a dash if the player isn't eligible to be called-up (which includes also if a player switches club in the league mid-season after representing the first club in the cup so they can't represent the second club in the cup), while 0 0 is if the player was eligible but didn't play. --SuperJew (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I prefer it blank i.e. '0's; dash implies (to me) that 'club did not participate in this competition at all', not 'player was not eligible'. Use of dashes is confusing. GiantSnowman 11:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Dash for me aswell, explained above. Kante4 (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I always use dashes for these situations. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Snowman, dashes are confusing and unnecessary. But if editors want to spend their time putting them into competition spaces where players/teams haven't been eligible/present then that's fine.--EchetusXe 14:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Nehme1499. Rupert1904 (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Link to disambiguation page

Hi. At 2005 in Ecuadorian football#Friendlies, at the 2005-12-27 Senegal-Ecuador match, there's a link to Mamadou Camara, a disambiguation page. The only person on that page who could be meant is Mamadou Camara (footballer, born 1988), who, while French, is of Senegalese descent. However, he would have been a bit young to play for a national team in 2005 (I think), and more importantly, I can't find any evidence of him having played for the Senegalese national team, so I'm not sure. Can anyone help me solve this? Lennart97 (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Did this match even happen? There's no record on Soccerway of it and even the "other goalscorer" for Senegal is listed as Sidi Keita who played for Mali, not Senegal. RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

RSSSF gives the scorers as Massar Camara and Sidy Keita. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the source Struway2 --SuperJew (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

And now after more searching, I see where the information might be from. The RSSF's list of Ecuador's International Results for 2005 has the information as it was previously in the article. What do we do in such a situation when there is a discrepancy between sources (in this case the same publisher)? --SuperJew (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think in this specific case, the LG Cup-specific source is more recent than the Ecuador general source (not by much), and authored by the statistician who has done all the other LG Cup pages, so is IMO more likely to be correct. If the issue was with an Ecuadorian player, I might lean the other way. But that's just my opinion.

In general, if there's a discrepancy, editors assess the quality of the source, and if one is clearly more likely to be right (more reliable, or a general source consistent with subject-specific sources, or consistent with primary sources), they pick that one. If there's nothing to choose, add a note listing the alternatives attributed to their various sources, and (optionally, at their discretion) pick one of the alternatives to go in the article alongside the note. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

To everyone above: many thanks for solving this one! Lennart97 (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

RWDM47

I am curious, should the page be on RWDM47 or should it be moved too RWD Molenbeek. From what I see on google results, I would of thought that RWD Molenbeek is the COMMONNAME. Govvy (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I've always known it as 'RWD Molenbeek', but it should be 'R.W.D. Molenbeek' in line with Belgian club naming conventions? GiantSnowman 16:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, that problem is that R.W.D. Molenbeek is a different article of the previous version of the club. Govvy (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) RWDM47 are a phoenix club of R.W.D. Molenbeek so there would to be some sort of disambiguation. For whatever reason, the 47 doesn't seem part of the official name, it might be part of the common name though. At the very least it should either be at R.W.D. Molenbeek (2015) or R.W.D. Molenbeek 47. If the phoenix club is the primary topic however, then it should be at R.W.D. Molenbeek and the old club moved to R.W.D. Molenbeek (1909). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Serbia (and Montenegro) in the infobox, again

We had a discussion a couple of months ago about edit warring to separate appearances for Serbia and Montenegro from those for Serbia, when Robby.is.on was close to 3RR. I'm having the same issue at Nikola Žigić, where a couple of IPs and now a registered user have merged them. I posted to the talk page, and invited one of the IPs to visit that page. Some advice would be helpful... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I remember that discussion and remember looking into it more afterwards. Serbia has inherited the S&M footballing history and is deemed to be the continuation, so all caps being listed under Serbia is probably correct. Similar to the discussion above about club name changes, we don't split those, just list the new names. So including S&M caps under Serbia is fine. It's not considered to be a break and then two new nations started, only Montenegro is deemed to have started fresh. (Note: I was on the opposite side in the previous discussion) RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As per above: if a NT is a continuation of a previous one according to FIFA (Soviet Union -> Russia, West Germany -> Germany, S&M -> Serbia), we merge the two under the most recent name (so merge the stats under Serbia). If, instead, the person first played for S&M, then for Montenegro, we would have separate NTs as there is officially no continuity between them. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Serbia is the legal successor team (in that they inherit the historical records) but they are legally a separate team. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So you would also separate West Germany/Germany, Macedonia/North Macedonia, Soviet Union/Russia, etc.? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Macedonia was just a change of the country name, no change in territory or legal/juristictional status of the national FA. And yes I would, just like we separate Wimbledon F.C. and MK Dons, similar principle. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I still believe they should be combined under Serbia, but a compromise could be to list it all under Serbia, but include a note to say X number of games were played as part of S&M/FYR Yugoslavia. Ex. "Serbia^[a] 45(5)" with the note as (includes 25 matches and 3 goals played as Serbia & Montenegro) RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was hoping for informed advice on how to proceed after edit-warring and refusal of the other party/ies (not sure how many individuals there are) to discuss, in the face of edit summaries like "Violation of wikipedia rules" and, particularly, "Bah, so sorry, but you dont know the law, and uefa rules". As far as I'm concerned, I was following the sources and the apparent consensus at the earlier discussion, but "being right" wouldn't justify me edit warring. Struway2 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the best way to decide is if there are separate national team articles. For example, West Germany redirects to Germany and Macedonia redirects to North Macedonia, therefore the statistics should be combined. There are separate articles for Russia (Russian Empire → Soviet Union → CIS → Russia) and Serbia (KSCS/Yugoslavia → FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro → Serbia), so the statistics should be separated. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that they should be separated for all (exception Macedonia/North Macedonia) teams, even West Germany/Germany et al. These were distinct legal.political entities, they didn't just change their name (exception Macedonia/North Macedonia as that is literally just a name change). GiantSnowman 22:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As for practical advice - take it to the talk page? If they won't engage then try WP:ANEW or WP:DR? GiantSnowman 22:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Please people, I see you do not know the law and the rules, it is obvious that Serbian national team is legal successor of FSJ and FSSCG. All people from Serbia and region know that, and there is really nothing to discuss about, just read - https://www.srbija.gov.rs/vest/52712/ugasen-fudbalski-savez-scg.php – Nikgudz 01:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That says (assuming google translate is correct) the S&M FA went under "separation into two independent organizations" and that Serbia is the legal successor to it. So they are openly admitting they are a separate FA. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nikgudz: your editing is disruptive and there is clear consensus that the statistics should be separated. Your repeated talk of "law and rules" is nothing more than Serb nationalism. No place for it here or elsewhere. GiantSnowman 11:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Knowing rules and law is "Serbian nationalism" - facepalm. So, Serbia is legal successor and there is nothing more to say or arbitrarily interpret. See it again - https://www.srbija.gov.rs/vest/52712/ugasen-fudbalski-savez-scg.php. Also - https://fss.rs/selekcije/a-selekcija/?pismo=lat - here you can see all time lists, where everyone from Kingdom of Yugoslavia to these days are in unified list of selectors, appearances and scorers. It IS the same national footnall team, weather you like it or not. Nikgudz 13:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

No, there is Serbia and Montenegro national football team and there is Serbia national football team - TWO teams. GiantSnowman 13:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Serbia national team was a continuation of the Serbia & Montenegro national team, so players with caps for Serbia & Montenegro continued to add caps to that total if there were capped by Serbia afterwards, whereas the Montenegro team started from scratch. Same with East Germany being absorbed into Germany again. The "new" German team didn't start from scratch - players who were capped for Germany before and after reunification all had their caps awarded by the German Football Association, so their totals continued, whereas the East Germans who joined the team had to start from zero. – PeeJay 15:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, if You say so, sky is orange and water is black. Nikgudz 14:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

In those all-time lists, why does the numbered list of Serbia matches start at #1 with the friendly against Czech Republic in 2006? Struway2 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, yes and Stjepan Bobek also has 38 goals for SERBIA from 2006. XD Please, if You want to do something wrong You will find 100 ways to do so. I am trying to tell You the facts. You have all the matches here if You are interested - http://www.reprezentacija.rs/utakmice-reprezentacije-1920-1929/ ...Nikgudz 14:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I see from the 2000-2009 list that the matches from 2003 up to the 2006 World Cup are listed as played by the SCG team. If the Serbian federation can and do list them under the name of SCG, why shouldn't we? Struway2 (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, we could say it is Serbia/SCG team for example Nikola Žigić: SCG/Serbia 57 caps 20 goals. But to separate statistics as if there is no continuity between national team (like he stopped playing for Serbia and started playing for Montenegro or some other country) - simply does not correspond to the facts. Same with FRY/SCG/Serbia national team. We could write like that, but not separate columns. Nikgudz 15:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't have an issue with it being presented like that. Perhaps with a note to tell the general reader why it looks like there are two teams on the same row. Struway2 (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the above. That is constructive way of resolving some problem, not to impose a solution that has no basis in rules and facts. Nikgudz 17:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If this is the outcome, which method would be more preferable? A note or a slash? I created a sample template here with two possibilities. Personally I prefer the note, but if the slash is used I believe it should say Serbia and Montenegro not SCG. Personally, I wouldn't assume people would know that SCG means Serbia and Montenegro. RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Note, as we do for clubs. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

And if you go down the slash/note route (which I don't agree with), to which national team are you going to link, and why? GiantSnowman 18:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The most recent one, following the same logic for clubs. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as the only reason I had no issue with that presentation was because it included the historically correct names of both teams, then slash and note for me. The Serbia and Montenegro needs to be visible, and the reason for two teams having one set of stats needs explaining. We're aiming at the general reader, who might know even less than I do about the subtleties of former Yugoslavia and its football. Struway2 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Gabriel Agbonlahor

Hi folks. Could others please keep an eye on Gabriel Agbonlahor? An IP has been making inaccurate changes. I've reverted them multiple times – I might run to the risk of breaching 3RR – and they have continued after I posted an explanation to their Talk page. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Warned the user and added page to my watchlist. GiantSnowman 11:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Robby.is.on (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

H2H on rivalry pages

So this user, registered in 2005 (almost got my respect for seniority) but oddly only made 10K-ish edits over 15 years, came out of nowhere and keep reverting H2H records on Arsenal F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry for the past days. He said the rivalry "is dead", while there are 4 standalone articles about 4 league matches involving the sides (the most against the same team for both teams), suggesting this is a real deal. Should H2H records be in any rivalry articles? If not, it should be erased from all articles, e.g. Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry, Le Classique, or Derby della Madonnina as well. Flix11 (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, it should not matter how many edits I've made in the past 15 years. It's quality, not quantity, and if I've come "out of nowhere", then I do apologise -- some of us don't edit regularly. As someone who got the rivalry page to GA status from this, I will naturally have vested interest in what is added and omitted from the page. In my opinion the rivalry is "dead", if you actually bothered to read the prose it states that since 2005 the animosity isn't what it was. You are right, there are standalone articles about the teams, and that's why I worked to get these articles grouped together for a GAT nomination. But what the article doesn't need every single result between the two sides in the Premier League. Wikipedia is not a statistics directory, but a head-to-head table like this:

Competition	Played	Arsenal wins	Drawn	Manchester United wins	Arsenal goals	Manchester United goals
Football League/Premier League	204	72	49	83	282	305
FA Cup	16	6	2	8	20	22
Football League Cup / EFL Cup	6	2	0	4	8	15
Football League Centenary Trophy	1	1	0	0	2	1
FA Charity Shield / FA Community Shield	6	4	2	0	14	7
UEFA Champions League	2	0	0	2	1	4
Total	235	85	53	97	327	354

is perfectly fine. But a list of Premier League results is not; you can redirect the reader to 11v11. The other issue is there is a recency bias, why are Premier League scorelines only included and not Football League (when the rivalry 'started'?). And your argument that all the Premier League/Community Shield/European scorelines between the two sides should be listed because that's the case with the Chelsea/Arsenal rivalry doesn't stack up. Firstly, it doesn't meet the WP:GA criteria, and secondly if I was going to work on that page I'd focus on the prose more. There are times when you do need to list the scoreline, but the rivalry is all about on the pitch fracases and incidences and that is what should be focussed. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)