Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

Bolton being promoted in 3rd place

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

someone tell brentford's manager that getting promoted to the premier league for the first time in 74 years means nothing. speaking of someone added it to all the brentford players, so uh, time to delete!Muur (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't mean "nothing," but it's not specifically an "honour." Nor is this a conspiracy against lower league clubs and I'm honestly kind of miffed at that general accusation even though it's not targeted at anyone. This is an exercise to gain a consensus about what constitutes an "honour" which will need to be applied world-wide, not just to English competitions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

and what is the definition of "hounour" here?Muur (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:POINT. Removing a load of sourced honours when you yourself agree that they are notable for inclusion is disruptive. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

but consensus is now that it doesn't count? @RedPatch: already did the same thing for dundee.Muur (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion (well, !vote) is leaning that way, although I don't think there's been a consensus established yet. While we're discussing it, I think those !voting should acknowledge, promotion/relegation outcomes aside, that play-offs are competitions in their own right, with trophies, medals etc given to winners. What other competitions do we exclude when they've been won outright? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

it was already stated multiple times that being given a medal and trophy means nothing. read the entire discussion. I even showed pics of players in 2nd/3rd place promotion with medals and trophies over the last few years. multiple people said that "just cuz you get a medal and trophy for second doesnt mean its an hounour and only winning the league counts."Muur (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

In the case of leagues where play-offs incorporate teams from multiple tiers, "winning" the competition may be more of a relief to a team that doesn't get relegated than an honour. We need to maintain consistency, and there's no reason why winning the play-off can't be discussed in prose. SportingFlyer T·C 23:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand why promotion-relegation play-offs are put forward as some "gotcha" moment that proves winning play-offs aren't an honour. No. The logical conclusion is that the promotion is the honour. Teams that avoid relegation by winning a play-offs are not promoted, thus no honour.--EchetusXe 12:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone has been adding Chelsea's Champions League win to player's honours section. Is it really an honour though? They have a trophy and medals but it's been established that those are meaningless when it comes to defining honours. Someone made the point that a team wins a promotion, individual players. This is also true for cup competitions. EchetusXe 12:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems like you are now grasping at straws because consensus is going against your personal preference. People were saying to not include promotion playoffs because basically its a team that had come in 3rd-7th. Obviously there is a difference between finishing 3-7th and 1st like a CL victory. The top-tier equivalent to winning promotion is qualifying for the UCL/UEL finishing non-first. We don't add those to the honours. Should we add relegation playoff winners to honours? It's the same thing, they won a 'play off'. What about promotion playoffs where it ends up being a team that finished 3rd in the lower league versus a team that finnished 19th in the higher league. Potential honour for one team only then (the lower team). Needs to be something equal for all teams not just one. No one ever said it needs to be completely omitted in the wikipedia page, rather just put it in the prose section where it is more appropriate. RedPatch (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

By winning the play-off, you have, by definition, finished 1st (i.e. winner, champion). How you qualified for the play-off competition, by finishing second, third, etc, in your regular league season is immaterial. In the same way we wouldn't exclude the Champions League on the basis that teams can qualify for that competition having finished as low as fourth in their league. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That isn't a championship playoff, I know you're well aware of that. It's not really a "playoff", it's more of a "Play Off" - note the space. They're playing for a second crack at it. If they're in it, it's because they specifically did not come in first. In these League Two ones, the league 1st placers, nor the 2nd placers aren't in it. There's trophies for a lot of things that are not true honours. I don't go around adding the Trillium Cup to players honours sections. There's a trophy involved: see here, here, and here's Jermain Defoe holding it. We don't go around adding the International Champions Cup to articles, but there's a trophy like here and here. Honestly, I feel people have different standards when it comes to English teams that there are special rules and everything there is more important. It's like when I made a suggestion to add a Playoffs column to the MOS for the stats table for players who played primarily in Championship Playoffs in North America, which are more important than league games and domestic cups and basically got told it should stay in other because not all leagues have those, but something like League Cup couldn't be put in other, even if the player only played one year in England and had dashes for that section everywhere else. Same as when someone wanted to include the L5-8 League Cup in the League Cup section, despite meeting all the requirements, there was a whole lot of pushback because they wanted to protect the importance of the English League Cup. If this discussion had started over someone adding Belgian second or third division playoffs, I feel like there would be a totally different sentiment. RedPatch (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with this notion of there being "true honours", it's not for us to judge how 'worthy' a competition is. I mean, the FA Community Shield is essentially a glorified friendly, the result of which is of no real consequence, but we still include it because it's a senior, first-team competition. And I don't know where your insinuations of English bias are coming from, perhaps there's some previous here I'm unaware of here. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I might be mixing up the English bias with a discussion I've had elsewhere not on wikipedia and applying it to some I've had here, so I'll strike out that comment since it'd be biased of me to make that claim and apply it to all. But to go back to my original point way at the beginning of this discussion last week, these just open up a can of worms. 2nd/3rd place auto-promotion, what about 3rd place in leagues without promotion. Promotion playoffs that award a trophy, what about promotion playoffs in countries that don't give a medal for that, what about promotion/relegation hybrid playoff between two different level teams, what about relegation playoffs. If we say yes to some of those and not other, then we are judging worthiness. As an added point, though I'm of the less is better crowd. The more things that are included, the more complicated it gets. A point was raised earlier about things like Player of the Month awards, etc., I don't believe those should be included either. I'd limit those to Player of the Year at the very minimum and only those of major recognition like a Ballon D'Or or maybe a League MVP awarded by the league if at all (not a player of the year from some random website). RedPatch (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You are forgetting WP:POLL. Consensus isn't reached by polls where a majority of people say "I don't think play-offs should be an honour because I don't think it's an honour" and do not engage with any actual discussion. Your points are asinine. "what about 3rd place in leagues without promotion" - I would suggest that in those cases where teams do not finish in promotion places then the players do not have the non-existent promotion listed in their honours section. The previous consensus was that "medals or promotion = honour", now this poll seems to be suggesting that "medals = honour (except in certain circumstances)". Talk about opening a can of worms, I'm just asking for clarification on what these exceptions will be. I agree with you that honours section can become bloated. There are about 100 lines each of Cristiano Ronaldo and Zlatan Ibrahimović's honours section, deciding that promotions are no longer honours does not remove any from those or any other excessively long list.--EchetusXe 13:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

RedPatch was clearly demonstrating that just because someone receives a trophy or even a medal doesn't necessarily imply that it's an honour worthy of the honours section of a Wikipedia page. Honours are pretty well defined in my mind - did you win a sanctioned trophy of some sort, or a sanctioned award of some sort? I don't have much issue with lower league championships, but extending this to promotions doesn't make a lot of sense, and it appears consensus is clear that's a correct argument. SportingFlyer T·C 14:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You claimed that my point is that medal = honour "sometimes" and is inconsistent and yours is consistent medal = honour - and I feel it is the opposite. Mine is very consistent in my mind - 1st place and 1st place only. "First place for the 3rd place game" - which is basically what that promotion playoff game is - a glorified 3rd place competition game - is not 1st place and thus very consistent with my point. I listed an examples actual trophies which do not merit inclusion because they are not real 1st place trophies. Players get random "Man of the Match" trophies all the time. Are those honours because they got a trophy? If the Serie A had a 2nd and 3rd place trophy would that mean 3rd place in Serie A could be included, but 3rd place in La Liga could not be because there was no trophy. My point is very clear - 1st place only to prevent a can of worms. You claim that my points are asinine, but really it's you don't agree with my point so you're automatically dismissing any opposing point as meritless. I've never said that promotion is irrelevant, but I've said a line needs to be drawn somewhere. I never said ignore promotion entirely, I said put it in the prose - include it, just elsewhere. For many clubs, avoiding relegation in the top flight is a tremendous achievement, why isn't that an honour, it's just as valuable as promotion to those clubs. It's actually more important, would that team rather be in the top flight for five straight years or get promoted, immediately relegated, promoted back 3 years later for 2 years of 5 in the top flight? Again, its not that promotion isn't important, it's that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. If it was a true playoffs, that 1st place team in the league would be involved as the top seeded team, instead they're not in it at all, so those promotion playoffs are a "best of the rest" not a "best of the best" compeition. Honours section should be for the "best of the best". RedPatch (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes: I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to have my say on this sort of thing, but after being notified of this policy while adding this honour to the winners of the most recent League One play-off final I thought I'd put forward my view. This entire discussion seems like unneeded pedantry over what constitutes an "honour". Isn't the purpose of the honours section just to showcase the achievements of a player/club in a concise manner? Promotions, via the play-offs or not, are no doubt worthy of a mention as a very notable achievement even if they aren't outright titles. Morecambe have "won" promotion to the third tier for the first time in their history today but apparently it isn't worthy of mention under this policy. They are all huge moments for the fans and significant achievements for the players which come as a result of the team excelling in the league. I don't see what is to be gained by removing all of these honours other than to needlessly water down those of clubs without a plethora of actual titles and make the lesser honours much, much harder to discover. Is there a genuine concern that there will be an inability among readers to ascertain that a promotion, runners-up or play-off victory are worth less than a title? And that the only way to address that is to have them pushed behind the curtain? It all seems pointlessly reductive to me and I'd like to see them kept. If not then I believe a separate section should be created to list these sorts of things as they should certainly be presented somewhere without forcing readers to scour through articles for the information. UTMP1887 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the previous comparisons for medals are pre season tourneys. Non competitive matches obviously don't count. Getting a medal is the only reason people consider third place in the World Cup to be relevant, so I don't see how third place in the World Cup is any different to 3rd place/runner up that comes with promotion. And *no one* is going to list coming third in the Premier League on someone's page. If they do, you tell them that is worthless, and it's only relevant with a promotion in a lower league. they aint gonna give out medals for qualifying for the Champions League. Winning promotion is competitive, not friendlies. If this truely pulls through then i'm going to motion to remove third place in cups.Muur (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

One one pre-season, the other was not. Involved competitive league matches. RedPatch (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Trillim Cup means nothing. It's a fake trophy made up by the teams involved. the EFL make promotion trophies.

And the promotion trophy was a made up trophy for that promotion game. How many teams will go into the season and say our goal is to win the promotion playoff trophy? No, the goal is to win the League One/Two title. The promotion playoff is a consolation match. I'm saying an honour should be what the primary goal is. The goal is to win the league. The goal isn't I hope I come anywhere between 3rd and 7th so I get a second chance. What about leagues that have promotion playoffs but don't award a random trophy for it? I've been consistent all along. 1st place and 1st place only. Even for Cup finals, I still would say winners only not runners-up (that wasn't being discussed here, although some others have referenced those although I don't agree). The only one I would say were 2nd/3rd could be is Olympics, not because I feel its different, but because that'd be more of a WP:SPORTS thing than a WP:FOOTY thing. RedPatch (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

So should those players that won the Europa League after dropping out of the Champions League get their honours removed too? Europa League certainly wasn't the goal at the start of their season, but they won the competition that was put in front of them. UTMP1887 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

also I get yelled at for removing play offs from brentford players, yet @GiantSnowman: can remove it from Morcambe players without being yelled at? brentford players still have play offs listed. this is getting hella inconsistent now. I'm also kinda worried if I start to go through the 200 seasons and remove all promotions I'm going to be banned, lol.Muur (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case then the double standards are ridiculous. And using "promotion honours are quickly forgotten" as a justification is even more ridiculous; any sources on that claim? UTMP1887 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not right that @GiantSnowman: removes these honours while this discussion is still ongoing. Also, as the editor who "yelled" at @Muur: for removing the Brentford honours, I wasn't aware of the Blackpool ones being removed, although I don't have the time or inclination to engage in mass reverting at this hour. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"And the promotion trophy was a made up trophy for that promotion game. How many teams will go into the season and say our goal is to win the promotion playoff trophy? No, the goal is to win the League One/Two title." actually, they always just say "the goal is to get promoted". the teams dont care if its 1st, 2nd, or 3rd as long as they get promoted. Like I said, that Trillian thing is made up by the teams. if man united beat man city and give themselves a trophy, it doesnt count lol. if the EFL make a trophy and give it, then obviously it counts. runners-up and play off winners are relevant for honours, they get medals and trophies and players talk about their promotions years later. no one would go "oh yeah in 2005 I qualified for the UCL that one time". winning promotion apparently wont be remembered, but the time a guy won best young player of the month in the cambodian 4th tier will always be remembered.Muur (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is clear here, and my removals were justified. GiantSnowman 10:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If editors (currently @Rupert1904:) could please stop adding these as 'honours' in player articles, when the consensus above is clear, that would. be grand. GiantSnowman 14:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this discussion before but I think a promotion play-off is worthy as there is a trophy presentation and all the players receive a medal. It's an officially sanctioned trophy by the EFL so think it's just as worthy of an inclusion as say the Community Shield which is a glorified pre-season kick about. But if there is a consensus not to include that is okay too as I also think it's not noteworthy to include the team that gets automatically promoted in 2nd place. Rupert1904 (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Second place teams *also* get given a trophy and medals and lift a trophy, though. people here said "trophies and medals mean nothing."Muur (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

So it's currently 5 supporting Yes the play-off honours should be kept, against 7 supporting No they should be scrapped. Is that really what counts as a clear consensus around here? UTMP1887 (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE (even though the numbers are in favour of excluding them as you say). It's strength of argument. GiantSnowman

So what exactly makes this such a clear consensus? Most of the arguments against seem to boil down to "promotion/play-offs isn't 1st place" which is hardly a hugely compelling argument. If you've spent any time following lower-league football it's obvious that fans and players care massively about promotion and they are hugely significant events in the history of dozens of clubs and the careers of hundreds of players. This discussion just seems to overlook the spirit of the honours section which seems to be to display the accomplishments of the player and not just their outright titles as evidenced by the many existing player articles which already list promotions and play-off victories. As people keep reiterating there are plenty of individual awards which feature and are certainly less relevant than gaining promotion. What is the actual goal of this change? UTMP1887 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

it's simply an admin not liking it. but I feel like that's countered by another admin, mattythewhite, disagreeing making it 1-1 on admins.Muur (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• When there's disagreement on Wikipedia, it's always good to look to see what other sites do. I'd like to point out that other sources don't view this as an honour - not that we use Transfermarkt for anything, but for Ivan Toney they only list his top scorer status and his Trophy win with Barnsley. Football-reference.com lists Jamie Vardy's EPL win and his player of the season wins, but none of his promotions (nor his FA Cup win.) Soccerbase doesn't list any honours. Soccerway.com lists lower league championships, but not promotions. Of the major database sites which might list player honours, none of them list promotions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

One of them not listing the FA Cup kinda throws the entire thing out for me.Muur (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In that case it should be noted that Soccerway records runners-up honours for league titles. UTMP1887 (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A quick look and they do indeed. they list second place in league one, for example which is uh - promtion.Muur (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Except they are doing that for EVERY league, so they are NOT doing it because it is promotion. They are doing it because it is second place. So like I said it's the same can of worms, they do second place for every league which is why League one gets it on soccerway, not because it is promotion. Way to ignore half of it to suit your point. Wikipedia doesn't do runner-up for league, so saying soccerway does it for league one is moot because they do it for every league including La Liga, Premier League, etc where 2nd is not a promotion. RedPatch (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The important thing here is that even though different secondary sites determine honours differently, none of them call promotion an honour. SportingFlyer T·C 10:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Career stats MOS - parent club rows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appearances and goals by club, season and competition

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

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

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

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

Appearances and goals by club, season and competition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one was saying anything about backup goalkeepers. Where are you getting this from? The argument was that if the player isn't playing for the parent club for that season, as they are out on loan with a different club, then there is no reason to have a stats row for the parent club. Same as during the time the player is out on loan we list the current club in the infobox as the loan club and we don't have the player listed in the parent's club squad navbox. --SuperJew (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe this is conflation to do with my point. There are dozens of players who are with the senior team for years and never make appearances, but are available for selection and make various loans to and from clubs. The entire crux of the argument is that Ike Ugbo at all times has not been available so therefore shouldn't have a line because he can't have played for Chelsea - but those lines of of the box are not there to indicate whether a player was eligible for selection, or selected and never appeared - they are there to record appearances for their senior team. Which he made 0 of. As many players do. Making 0 appearances is just as relevant has making 1 appearance (Emmanuel Omoyinmi take a bow). If we start trying to do this "he was away for the whole season" business it is going to need a reliable source saying say because otherwise we are literally creating OR and SYNTH, and defining what "whole season" means and what doesn't count towards being available? Pre season? Post season? Friendlies? U23's? EFL Trophy? Koncorde (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Re:backuo goalkeepers - actually, a player not making any appearances for a club in the middle of their career (such as a backup goalkeeper) has been discussed, with certain people saying in those circumstances the rows should be deleted. Do you disagree with that? This is what I mean - some editors say remove or replace them, but there is no clear consensus to do so and there is no consistency/agreement between those who want to change the MOS as to what it should become. Some would remove only parent rows when a player is out on loan, others who would remove every season where 0 apps made... GiantSnowman 12:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, to paint a picture for you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, per my investigations here it wouldn't be accurate. Koncorde (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Koncorde: - you are absolutely right about making EFL Trophy appearances with the U23 side. Those appearances should have been included in his career stats table. No one is arguing against that. But those were not in his stats table before - it was just blank rows for the Chelsea first team. And him training with the senior side in pre-season and appearing in pre-season friendlies means absolutely nothing. That's not an official appearance by anyone recording stats - whether it be here on Wikipedia, the Chelsea website, Soccerway, UEFA, the FA, FIFA, you name it. You can't compare that to appearing in a season. Should we include pre-season goals in stats tables now in the other section? And should we say that any player who is without a club but who trains with a club to regain match fitness or whatever the case is that they are with the club in their stats table? We're talking about official matches here and representing his stats accurately. And again, he wasn't registered for the Community Shield match and didn't sit on the bench so to say he could have made an appearance is really embellishing it. We are sticklers for sources when it comes to a player's honours, especially in regards to cup finals or a super cup like the Community Shield, so we should use that same yard stick for stats. Also, we can do the research on Ike Ugbo. It's out there in reliable sources that he's not at Chelsea so because we might not have reliable sources for some players in the history of the game, does that mean we can't make articles better for the players we do have that information on? Rupert1904 (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The line in the table has nothing to do with official matches. It is to do with the club they are contracted to at any time and the appearances that they make for the club, be that 0 or 1. He officially and accurately made 0 appearances for Chelsea last season and this season. Your argument is that he wasn't available, various claims about being registered or eligible etc. This has been demonstrated to be incorrect. The only one still with a leg to stand on is this season. It doesn't matter if he did appear in any games so long as he was there, and an option to be selected. As above, for both the Europa League (as he was U21) and Charity Shield he was available.

As for trainees with a team - are they contracted and eligible to play in fixtures? And this has nothing to do with honours.

And you haven't answered the question. I can literally drag through hundreds of players all in the same situation where you are saying we should strike their record without actually stipulating (per my reply to SuperJew above) The entire crux of the argument is that Ike Ugbo at all times has not been available so therefore shouldn't have a line because he can't have played for Chelsea - but those lines of of the box are not there to indicate whether a player was eligible for selection, or selected and never appeared - they are there to record appearances for their senior team. Which he made 0 of. As many players do. Making 0 appearances is just as relevant has making 1 appearance (Emmanuel Omoyinmi take a bow). If we start trying to do this "he was away for the whole season" business it is going to need a reliable source saying so because otherwise we are literally creating OR and SYNTH, and defining what "whole season" means and what doesn't count towards being available? Pre season? Post season? Friendlies? U23's? EFL Trophy? Koncorde (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The stats table has everything to do with official matches. Ugbo was loaned to Barnsley on 17 July 2017. His loan was cut short on 3 January 2018 and on 4 January he went on loan to MK Dons and was there until June 2018. Ugbo joined joined Roda JC on 3 August 2019 and he stayed in Holland for the whole 2019–20 season. Ugbo joined Cercle Brugge in August 2020 and has been in Belgium the entire 2020–21 season. It's not accurate to say he was there at Chelsea or was an otpion to be selected because he wasn't. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources and articles that say Ugbo's last two loans have been full season loans. It is out there in the universe, on the Chelsea website, on his wiki article. Plus his stats with those clubs proves that he was with those clubs for the entire season and wasn't recalled. We should be proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he could have played for Chelsea just as we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that players receive medals and for everything else in their article. And I could toss out different other examples all day to prove my point too. Rupert1904 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, why is there no 2020–21 stat line for Petr Cech with Chelsea in his career stats table or a mention in his infobox? Rupert1904 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

that was pointed out before. his loan was ended the same day as one of chelseas games meaning he could've played in it if they wanted to. then they loaned him out a day later. the editor above showed there were matches in every season he was available to play in. as for cech... thats a different can of worms, and people have argued the entire season whether chelsea 20/21 should be listed. I'm the opinion of yes but it seems it was decided as no?. anyway, this is moslty an issue of chelsea with their loan army. as seen with Jamal Blackman theyre content to renew contracts forever and loan players out forever because teams give them loan fees to sign these guys. this ugbo guy could be at chelsea his entire career and be loaned out 15 times. chelsea are a special case with their dang loan army. I wonder if Blackman will spend the next 10 years at chelsea still...Muur (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I will clarify: when I mean it has nothing to do with official matches, I mean it isn't there solely to reflect when someone makes more than 0 appearances. By your own argument to do with him being registered / available to play, he didn't need to be registered, was available to play on several occasions, spent pre-season / post-season with the club, and ultimately made appearances in most of the seasons in question. You are left with, by my reckoning, this season - and even then he remained contracted to, with, and for Chelsea, and if any fixture had been held he would have been eligible (well, maybe not, depending on the the 22+ rule).

And no, you are the one making the claim. It is up to you to support what definition of "whole season" we are using. Our POV is that he is a Chelsea player. He should be listed as such. Making 0 appearances is a fact. We should be internally consistent by making sure our tables reflect the infobox. Koncorde (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If chelsea recalled him, which they didn't but they could've at any point, he would've been eligible even tho he's 22 years old (meaning he'd need to be registered to the 25 man squad to play) they could've played him as they had three left over spaces in their 25 man squad. if he returned and they played him he'd be slot 23. this only counts for players already contracted though, if he was a free agent and lets say signed in december he would would've had to wait till january. but, as he's a contracted chelsea player he could've played. only way he couldn't if if all 25 slots were taken... but they werent. at the least 20/21 should be listed but with dashed for every box instead of 0s.Muur (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

As is consensus on this project we count official competitions. Pre-season? No. Post-season? No. Friendlies? No. U23's in EFL Trophy? We can include them, but under title of "Chelsea U23", not under senior team. If we want to include pre-season friendlies, we will have to list a row for each trialist who tries out. And we have the sources of when he left and returned from loan so again I don't see the issue. Soccerway shows as the way originally suggested here with no blank rows for Chelsea, while Soccerbase shows as was suggested here later with one zeroes line for Chelsea senior, so I don't see how either of these would be OR/SYNTH. If anything adding blank lines would be OR/SYNTH as there haven't been outside sources mentioned which show it that way. --SuperJew (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Eh? I am not suggesting we include any of those stats, nor does the MOS say we should. All I am and others are saying is that where a player's infobox has a senior club entry, the career stats table should reflect that, even if they made 0 appearances in that season (whether they were with the club or out on loan). GiantSnowman 12:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

All of this is making me wonder what the hell we do with players who had an injury from the previous season and missed the entire current season? It never existed because he never even trained besides potential rehab? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If the whole crux of the argument that the 5 blank rows should be included is because although he was never a Chelsea senior player, he was under a certain age seems pretty loose to me. Well according to that, he was eligible in 16/17, 15/16, etc since he was a youth player, so why not include blank zeros for those? What if he never went on loan to Barnsley, MK Dons, or Scunthorpe, played exclusively in the U# teams. Would he have rows for 17/18 or 18/19, you'd say no and would start his blank rows at 19/20. What if he never went on loan anywhere, ever, and only appeared for youth teams? Would he have 5 blank rows? Nope, he'd have no rows, not even a table at all. He has never been a Chelsea senior player and the only website that even lists him as one is Wikipedia, due to a technicality because of the infobox, where wikipedia requires a parent club in the senior section (I'm not going to get into the youth/senior years debate, that's a whole other can of worms and we know where I stand on that). The whole argument in favour of keeping the rows appears to me to be the arguments of: a) He didn't need to be registered because he was U22, but by that logic every U22 Chelsea academy player should get multiple "zero" rows because they were technically eligible as well. That is being consistent, but I doubt anyone will be in favour of that. They'll say it's different (he has senior stats at Barnsley so he has to have senior stats at Chelsea) but it's really not (a 20 year old can go to Europe and legally drink, but then they go to the US, they still can't legally drink even though they legally drank in Europe). Off-topic comparison, sure but it's technically comparing like-for-like ideas. b) The other main argument is I don't want to listen any proposal because this is the way I do it. The argument cites a recommended format of the MOS (which is allowed to be changed), which is not even a rule, also we also have an WP:IAR which literally says if something prevents you from improving, ignore it. Everyone here is trying to improve, but not being open to entertaining discussion is an 'I know best mentality'. Multiple examples of other players who use stats tables with omitted rows for when the player was out for the full season loan. Sure WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but other stuff can be used as recommendations. RedPatch (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatch: Well said and I couldn't agree more. Goes back to my point that at this rate we could include every U21 and academy player in their current squad list which is crazy overkill and not really accurate/truthfu;. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If a table exists reflecting a players career it should reflect their career. If people have been omitting rows for other reasons then you've effectively created internal inconsistencies. Koncorde (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

there's no point adding seasons before he made his professional debut as that's overkill. an exception, perhaps, would be those who appeared on the bench but ended up making appearances. for example this season bolton had a few u21 players on the bench this season in the EFL Trophy, but they didnt actually play. they would have this season in their stats even tho their debut will happen not this season (or maybe never if their 20/21 efl trophy sub appearence are the only time they appear in bolton's 18). maybe even that would be over kill tho.Muur (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone who supports the inclusion of blank rows of Chelsea seniors to back it up with a reliable source. The other side of the argument has been backed up above with Soccerway and Soccerbase. Second point which is important to re-iterate if it was misunderstood: The career stats table doesn't have to mirror the infobox - they serve different functions and if they are showing the same thing, then one of them is redundant. --SuperJew (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I was replying to Koncorde's point above where they brought in pre-season/post-season etc. Not every comment on this section is in response to your points. --SuperJew (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It isn't a case of mirroring - it is a case of being in agreement. If the infobox only shows league appearances, and a reader wants to know about other appearances can you explain how having rows excised helps? Look at that table for Ike Ugbo and tell me who is the parent club? From where has he been loaned each season? How would any reader looking at that table know that he has been a Chelsea player each and every season? Say Watford sign him and send him out on loan...?

A primary case in point right now is Gareth Bale who I can see is missing a line for this season for Real when he was only loaned on the 19th September long after the season started. Again, from where was he loaned? If he is loaned again this season to a different club, from where was he loaned? Is it not significant that he made 0 appearances because he was frozen out of the club on purpose?

Also, as pointed out, there are huge swathes of players who make 0 appearances in campaigns, often for seasons in a row - but they are first team, maybe on the bench - but what we are creating here is a rationale that actually complicates what information should be presented by making it either situational, or requiring looking into eligibility etc. Can anyone actually summarise when a row should be removed (or not displayed)?

As for reliable source for inclusion in a table: the player is loaned from another team. Excluding the other team from the table because a particular website doesn't display it is SYNTH. We know he is contracted to Chelsea (or Real, or whatever). We know he has been loaned from that club. We know that he has made 0 appearances in whatever competitions we list and "other" although he played for the U23 team of the parent club and so on and so forth. We also know where he did make appearances for other teams.

However declarations like we shouldn't include it because he can't have been selected and he was on loan all season etc are observably untrue - and those are the arguments that I am highlighting do not hold water and seem to have been thrown at the screen because "it looks untidy" isn't a rationale.

If we want to make that table footer represent only games played, do it. Say thats what we want to do. Argue to remove all 0 lines in all situations because they are redundant. At least then you are juatified adding a disclaimer saying "Table represents only senior team appearances" or similar. Koncorde (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Look at that table for Ike Ugbo and tell me who is the parent club? From where has he been loaned each season? How would any reader looking at that table know that he has been a Chelsea player each and every season? It doesn't matter. The question the stats table answers is "who did Ugbo represent that season" The player wants to know form where he was loaned? Read the infobox or prose (or we can add a note to the table solves that too). Also, the average reader who will see 5 blank rows of Chelsea and then 5-6 rows of loans won't understand what's going on.

Can anyone actually summarise when a row should be removed (or not displayed)? When the player isn't with the club for the whole season. As in the player was loaned from the beginning of the season until the end of the season. Or loaned from beginning of the season until date X and then loaned the next day until the end of the season (ok technically on date X he could've appeared for the club, but no club ever would do that).

We include info based on reliable sources. If we don't have a source that displays it that way, then that is OR/SYNTH. --SuperJew (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It does seem that in both this and the youth/senior career debate that editors are prepared to overlook such basic pillars as WP:V and WP:NOR in favour of some confusing WP:FOOTY rules that are never actually defined to the casual reader. Spike 'em (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew and Spike 'em: well Soccerbase has Ugbo's senior Chelsea career starting in January 2017...

And only has one line for Chelsea, not five. --SuperJew (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

That's because the table at the top of the Soccerbase profile serves the same function as our infobox, albeit with "Cup" and "Other" appearances included. – PeeJay 22:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

PeeJay is correct. Soccerbase also only has one line for Chelsea for John Terry - our career stats table has 19 (if I've counted correctly). SuperJew, you asked for a source which shows Ugbo's senior career/stats beginning when we say it should be, and have shown you it. What is the problem? GiantSnowman 14:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: No problem. So we can source the table to Soccerbase and have it formated as such with one row for Chelsea and not five blank rows. --SuperJew (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

We're getting there! I still don't see the benefit (or consensus) for only one row. GiantSnowman 18:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding John Terry, we can source the multiple rows for Chelsea via Soccerway. The point of the argument is that for a season that the player wasn't at the club, no outside source (or none has been brought here) shows a blank row for them - Soccerway doesn't include a row with Chelsea for those seasons and Soccerbase shows a row of the whole period. If you have a reliable source which does show blank rows for discussed seasons, please show us. Otherwise we need to format in one of those ways as per sources and not per OR/SYNTH. --SuperJew (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We do not need a source that shows a blank row for us to show a blank row. That's like saying we can only mirror the formatting of another website. By that logic we need to match column headers and so on and so forth (and makes multiple tables elsewhere straight OR which you know is insanity), and at the same time any user making that claim is fundamentally ignoring that the websites universally state "2017-" or similar, that these players were contracted to those clubs.

This argument:It doesn't matter. The question the stats table answers is "who did Ugbo represent that season" The player wants to know form where he was loaned? Read the infobox or prose (or we can add a note to the table solves that too). Also, the average reader who will see 5 blank rows of Chelsea and then 5-6 rows of loans won't understand what's going on.

Does not support this When the player isn't with the club for the whole season. As in the player was loaned from the beginning of the season until the end of the season. Or loaned from beginning of the season until date X and then loaned the next day until the end of the season (ok technically on date X he could've appeared for the club, but no club ever would do that).

Two challenges: # Define whole season using a reliable source: use Gareth Bale as the example seeing as he is missing a row for Real already.

1. Per Ike Ugbo if a player is at a club when games are played, and they are training and elligible, identify a reliable source that says that they were somehow not eligible due to a loan that happens after those games are played, or played subsequent to their return (and for which reliable sources mention them training with the senior team prior to those matches)? Koncorde (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well in this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_139#Career_Stats_Table_-_midseason_transfer_-_missed_competition most said to use dashes for a section when a player was not available for a competition (ie. transferred to club after the club was eliminated), so based on that discussion there should be no 0s for Ugbo, dashes at the maximum. And on a completely irrelevant point, can we make a random subtopic break, it's getting annoying with the amount of scrolling I have to do for this discussion in reading and writing comments, a subtopic would make it earier LOL. RedPatch (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We use dashes when a player is not eligible after a mid-season transfer, nothing about them being out on loan - and in any event you are aware that consensus can change? GiantSnowman 20:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus can change, yes, but that was an extremely recent discussion, so I doubt much has changed, it's not like it was from 2015, it is a discussion from 2021. I brought that up though, if consensus as of less than 4 months ago was "if a player was unavailable to play in a competition because he was not with the club and played for a different team, put dashes" how does that mesh with "for all the competitions this player was not eligible for because he was not with the club and played for a different team, put zeroes" RedPatch (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Then include the multiple 'blank rows' for a parent club, but with dashes rather than 0s in them - something me and LTFC 95 discussed days ago but nobody else latched on to. GiantSnowman 10:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Because it still seems overboard. The whole argument was so you know who the parent club is but it gets messy because you get 5 years of blanks, then go back in time 5 years, then another 5 years of stats. I've never really been a fan of this "jump forwards and backwards in time" stats table. The whole argument was so you know who the parent club is, but 'one row' does that, you look to the last row above that does not have the word loan. A ton of blanks rows provides no extra information. Several other proposals were made for the one row, including a range, which would do the same as the five, but in less space RedPatch (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

But a range won't work where a parent club has played in multiple divisions, and it implies that there was only one season with the parent club, which is not true. GiantSnowman 19:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

How does having a range imply there was only one season? The only way it implies it is if you don't read and suppose that that's the meaning. And so you can write both divisions if the club changed division. Is this a stats table of the club or the player? What does the division matter anyway for a club the player isn't currently playing at? --SuperJew (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Because it's 'one row = one season' except in the cases you are suggesting - and we display division for every other entry, why not parent club? That is (again) useful information for the reader. GiantSnowman 09:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

How is the division of a club the player isn't playing with useful information? I mean it could be, but it's not relevant. --SuperJew (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Well why is the division in the MOS at all then? GiantSnowman 11:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It's useful to know in what division the player is playing in. That's firstly. Secondly, it can't be that all your answers are "why's the MoS like that then?" Having this discussion is from a basis that the MoS is not set in stone and that consensus can change (though most of the stuff we're discussing is not even in consensus and is not clear from the MoS). --SuperJew (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is useful to know about the division - hence my point as to why the 'one row only for parent club' is insufficient. The MOS is clear, unless you don't want it to be. GiantSnowman 18:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The division is useful for the club the player is playing for. If Ugbo is currently playing for Cercle Brugge, then it is irrelevant what divison Chelsea is playing in. Just as in the 2018-19 season on Cristiano Ronaldo's stats table it is irrelevant what division Real Madrid are playing in, and just as in 2012-13 on Paul Pogba's stats table it is irrelevant what division Manchester United are playing in. And regarding the MoS, I have addressed that issue above and explained how it is ambiguious and how a few stories can fit the same table shown. You're ignoring to see it and keep saying that it's clear doesn't make it so. --SuperJew (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Notes

Goals for and against as Manager

So I notice that Carlo Ancelotti and Zinedine Zidane include goals for and against in their managerial statistics, which most manager pages don't include. I feel like this should be removed, it seems easy to fuck up and also screams original research where someone has manually counted each goal.Muur (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

At worst it would be routine calculation. Personally, I don't mind if they are included or not. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As long as the data used in the routine calculation is sourced, I don't have a problem, but we ought to double-check it. – PeeJay 12:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

While it is a routine calculation to sum up the figures, is it worth bothering? I for one cannot recall ever seeing such a stat in outside sources, which is why one would have to add the figures themselves in the first place. In other words, while the calculation may be routine, the fact that no one else has already done it tells me that this is such a trivial level of excess detail that we shouldn't include it. oknazevad (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Feels a bit NOTSTATS to me - and what sources are tracking this kind of information? GiantSnowman 10:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Harry Kane

Is there a standard we go by for the creation of "List of international goals scored by ..." standalone lists? I see that List of international goals scored by Harry Kane has recently been created. Kane is England sixth's highest scorer, and considering that the fourth and fifth highest scorers don't have standalone lists I don't get why Kane should? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This was most recently discussed here and I think there was another discussion that tried to get a number that anyone who had scored more than that number of international goals should have a page (unless they are or have been the nation's top scorer) but I don't know if a consensus on that was ever reached. I'd suggest though that the Kane article would be similar to the Ramos one that got deleted following the AfD which sparked that discussion. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I saw this happen a few days ago, I was thinking of reversing it. It's not a huge list, but I decided to let it be. I don't really have complaints about it being split off. Govvy (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If the Kane list stays then I think the "assist" column should be removed as non-standard for these lists, and entries in the notes column such as "Assisted a goal by Mason Mount" should definitely go. This is a list of Kane's goals, so why would it note that he also happened to set up a goal for someone else? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that totally fails WP:NOTSTATS and should be deleted. oknazevad (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: How do you feel it fails NOTSTATS? The list is pretty clear of what's it about, it's not indiscriminate. So..? Govvy (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Because it's just one player's career statistics. Like, it's literally nothing but an article about a statistic. Merge it into Harry Kane's article. Frankly, it's just not independently notable. oknazevad (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Depends, they often get split off when an article reaches its data limit, these tend to be common content forks. Kane's article is already a fair size and I personally think it's a valid content fork. Also consider his career is not yet over and the article size will only increase. Regards. Govvy (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Most of the text in the lead is unsourced original research, and no evidence it meets WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. And that notes section in the table is just random notes with no benefit at all. And I see no benefit to having a list of every goal scored by players anyway, least of all in a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting that no fewer than 32 similar lists are FLs, so clearly there were no NOTSTATS or NLIST concerns when those were promoted..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Fails WP:NOTSTATS. In February I did create the Ramos' article and List of international goals scored by Kévin Parsemain and nominated them for FL and GA. But both were deleted after few time. I nominated it for AfD Dr Salvus 18:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Kenny Coker

I would just like to point out that Kenny Coker has officially signed for Norwich City and will join them when the transfer window opens on 9 June. It says he is joining Norwich's academy setup first, so I don't know what the procedure is for a player who went pro and goes back to academy. Could someone help me on this? Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This almost certainly re-ignites the debate about when a player's youth career ends........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Are Norwich trolling us: don't they know that once you've made a 1st team appearance that a player is banned from being a youth player because it might confuse someone reading WP? I notice he has signed a scholarship contract, not a full one, so we have clear verifiable information that he is in fact a youth player for Norwich. Spike 'em (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It is really not okay by Norwich. I think an admin should write them a letter explaining the situation. :P --SuperJew (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It has to go in the Youth Career section then. Although knowing Norwich, they'll probably just loan him out to a League One/Two club instead, which will then further complicate things.... Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

He has had 2 seasons of senior, professional play. His age is meaningless. GiantSnowman 10:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting his age is the issue, rather the fact that we have a categorical statement from the club that he will be joining on a youth team contract, not a senior contract..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively he has a grand total of 97 minutes of senior, professional play and twice that already for Norwich's U18 team. Spike 'em (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The type of contract is, in reality (for us), meaningless. You get those on 'youth' contracts who are regular in the first-team, and those with professional contracts who languish in the Reserves... GiantSnowman 10:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

But the club stating that he will be part of the academy setup is not meaningless. Spike 'em (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It says he is joining their academy/development side. And development sides kind of skirt the line between youth and senior career. Either way, I think it would look stupid if the infobox goes back and forth skipping years between youth career and senior career.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it looks stupid if an infobox shows a player who is playing for the youth club consistently and is on an academy contract as a senior player and doesn't reflect reality. --SuperJew (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I never understand this argument. Wikipedia is all about verifiability, but here we have verifiable information that the player is continuing in youth, yet people want to ignore it. Why don't we ignore any and all U17/U20/U23 national team caps after a player debuts for the senior national team? Once they are senior national players, I guess they no longer qualify for youth national teams according to Wikipedia. Explain to me how its different? (Hint: It's not). RedPatch (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Because we display club (youth) and club (senior) in separate sections - but all international in only one. So there's no way to differentiate international apps like we do clubs. GiantSnowman 19:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

you would just list him as a norwich youth player and only put norwich in his senior career should he play for them or go out on loan. I've seen a few players for teams like Man United and Arsenal do that.Muur (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Muur and GiantSnowman: What was the consensus last debate? Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The last debate was an RfC that lasted several months, and reached no consensus. There were something like seven different options though, so if we were to do another RfC there should only be two choices. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Successor national teams

Can anyone help out with the disruptive IP adding false information to UEFA Euro 2020 qualifying? They continue to add that Ukraine are successors of the Soviet Union, Croatia and North Macedonia are successors of Yugoslavia, and Slovakia are successors of Czechoslovakia. As has been discussed before, UEFA and FIFA only recognise Russia, Serbia and the Czech Republic as successors to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, respectively, which was already noted on the article. The IP is from Ukraine, so it appears they dislike the recognition of Russia as sole successors to the Soviet Union. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I tried reverting and warning them (again), but they're clearly WP:NOTLISTENING. Needs an admin to either block or protect the page. FIFA/UEFA consider Russia as sole successors of USSR, and similarly for Yugoslavia. This IP user reverting cannot change that. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio and Joseph2302: I've issued a final warning - please ping me if they come back. GiantSnowman 20:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman They're back from their block and doing the same edits again.... Joseph2302 (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Already blocked by @Ashleyyoursmile:. GiantSnowman 18:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round

Users in this WikiProject are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round#The Q tag. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Soccerway play offs

Okay so Soccerway count play offs as regular league appearances. This is something people will need to pay attention to because it will cause, and has caused (ive made a few corrections before) errors in stats due to soccerway counting them as regular league apeparences when theyre actually play off appearecnes. this is mostly relevant for non english players since soccerbase tends to be used for english players and *does* specify play offs. for example, Carlos Mendes Gomes made 43 league two apeparences, and three play off appeaences. Soccerway list it as 46 league two appearences whilst Soccerbase are usually accurate but uh, for some reason theyre counting the league two play off final as a regular league match? what the shit. (the totals in the league appearence are correct at least with 74 instead of 75). but still people will need to pay attention here for countries with play offs. england, india, usa, austraila etcMuur (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

For India, there isn't really a way to distinguish so I would just use a note saying "3 appearances included from playoffs" or something. For Major League Soccer, I just link to the website which does differentiate between regular season and playoffs. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

theyre still play offs in india, so go into "other"Muur (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Bukayo Saka's position

I made this edit in Bukayo Saka, since "left midfielder" as a position description is, at the very least, very incomplete and possibly incorrect.

• Mattythewhite correctly pointed out to me that Worldfootball.net lists him as left midfielder and left back. I'd argue this is incorrect (or just outdated information based on his usage before this season).
• If we're being picky, "left midfielder" isn't really a position that exists in today's football at the highest level. Saka has never played on a team that plays the 4-4-2. Instead, he's played a wide position in a 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 or 3-4-2-1, or in central midfield. I realize this is all WP:OR and reasonable people can disagree on the definition of "left midfielder" so I won't die on this hill. I will say that it's not particularly helpful to readers to use the term to describe the left attacking position in a 5-man midfield or a 3-man front.
• More importantly though, Mikel Arteta made a conscious decision to move him to the right, which is where he was most used. England lists him as a forward and even the aforementioned Worldfootball.net link lists him as a forward.
• For what it's worth, WhoScored says he started 19 matches at AMR.

Given the evidence (and I think we have WP:RS to support this), listing him as an "attacking midfielder/left back" is preferable to "left midfielder/left back", which is based, as far as I can tell, on a single, unsigned source. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The position in the infobox should be as "generic" as possible. If someone exclusively plays as a left midfielder, then it's ok to just indicate "Left midfielder" in the infobox. However, someone who plays as a LM/LW/CAM/CF is, in my eyes, a "Forward". The different nuances of Saka's positions can be written in prose (in the lead and/or "style of play" section). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, "forward" is fine, I think there's enough sourcing for "winger", and "attacking midfielder" might work, but "left midfielder" is oddly specific for a player who never plays as a left midfielder. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

seems like you could just put "winger". Saying left back from 1 game in his entire career seems like an "eh."Muur (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Based on reliable sources, an apt description in the infobox/lede would "Left back, winger" or "Left back, midfielder" or similar, and then specifics could should be expanded in a 'Playing style' section. GiantSnowman 20:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates national football team

Before I stray into 3RR territory,

There is a user on the UAE page that continues to revert changes made by myself and @Badass Flare: to bring the page into line with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams template. Could an administrator either put a protection on the page or could others please voice their opinion on the matter either way so we can come to a resolution?

a) Special:Permalink/1027033969

b) Special:Permalink/1027034117

Many thanks,

Felixsv7 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, you have all breached 3RR, and you are all lucky not to have been blocked. Take it to the article talk page please. GiantSnowman 20:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

2020–21 Juventus F.C. Under-23 season

can you help me to complete the page's "overwiew" section? Dr Salvus 18:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I was aware, this would fail WP:NSEASONS and should be deleted. Govvy (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to what the name suggests, Juventus U23 doesn't play in an under-23 league. They are a reserve side that play in the Serie C. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

They can't play in the Coppa Italia, there for, as far as I am aware they fail WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

NSEASONS doesn't say anything about domestic cups. It states that articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues. As long as they play in the Serie C, their season is notable. Regardless, with the fact that it is Juventus' reserve team, it gets a lot of coverage and easily passes GNG imo. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it changed, I thought there was something about having to play in the cup last time.. :/ Govvy (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Cup eligibility/participation relates to club notability, not seasons. But don't forget - GNG rules every around us. GiantSnowman 20:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like being a reserve team kinda goes against the notion of "fully professional league". theyre a reserve team. I think that should DQ a league from being "fully professional". and I don't think the source included states serie c is professional? it just talks about how much theyre paid. if being paid means pro that opens up quite the pandora's box. playing for juventus' reverses shouldnt be considered relevant for things like seasons and player articles. (plus, whilst a league might be fully pro in one year, a semi pro or amatuer team being promoted into it could cause it to be DQed). at the least, I am the opinion that reserves teams wouldnt count the same as regular teams.Muur (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Muur, Italian football sistem is different than English. Italy does not have a league for Under-23s but they play in the third tier of Italian footy sistem without the possibility to play the Coppa Italia. It can be compared to an Under-23 team playing the League One without being able to play the FA Cup and the Carabao Cup. Serie C is recognised as a fully professional league and Juve U23 play in Serie C. If Juve U23 do not meet WP:NSEASON they'd meet WP:GNG since they're Juventus' reserve team Dr Salvus 09:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

still a reserve team though. I feel like there could be added clauses that say resvere teams are too irrelevant to count. like, this will have shit like some 15 year olds playing the odd match since I assume Juve U23 sometimes do that. the U23 isnt the main team, I disagree with all this.Muur (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

What does the team being Juventus' reserve team have anything to do with notability? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Now I've created the article about 2019–20 season of Juve U23 Dr Salvus 05:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The James Rowes

• James Rowe (footballer)
• James Rowe (football manager)
• James Rowe (Australian footballer)

Afaict, the third one is fine where he is, but would it be WP-good to rename 1 and 2 to James Rowe (footballer, born 1991)/James Rowe (footballer, born 1983)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Move the first two to 'footballer, born 1991' and 'footballer, born 1983' respectively. GiantSnowman 18:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The second one should be deleted as a WP:NFOOTY failure, which would go part of the way to resolving the issue. Number 57 18:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Start the Afd and we'll see if that works. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The page definitely passes WP:GNG, they should be moved not deleted.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Started here Talk:James_Rowe_(football_manager)#Requested_move_8_June_2021. As an aside, I just noticed they were both at Aldershot Town at the same time, one as player and the other as assistant manager. Interesting coincidence RedPatch (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The third one should really be at (Australian rules footballer) per WP:NCFIA. Hack (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

How to name category?

How should we name the category for the women's football department of Al-Arabi SC (Kuwait)? Al-Arabi SC (women's football) obviously doesn't work since we would need to include "(Kuwait)". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Al-Arabi SC (Kuwait) (women) or similar? GiantSnowman 14:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Al-Arabi SC (Kuwait) women's footballers perhaps? Two sets of ()s seems too much. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll go with Joseph's proposal. We can always rename it if needed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox years unknown

When it is known a player played for a club, but we do not know which years, why is the standard to have a blank space? Why not the default – on the left? It's a bit useless if you ask me to have "Club X appearances" in the infobox if it's an empty filter. I would just like to put this into question because it doesn't seem like a standard that makes any sense in this WikiProject. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Because blank is unambiguous. GiantSnowman 19:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

KS Cracovia

Should I convert this to a disambiguation page? It doesn't make much sense to me to have this page as an "article" unless it's expanded. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. GiantSnowman 19:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting stats tables for players in Sweden

Hi folks - apologies if this has been discussed on here before but I could not find any discussions. Is there a set system for noting domestic cup stats for players in Sweden? The way their domestic football association has scheduled their competitions is a bit strange to say the least - their domestic league runs over the summer so is defined in one calendar year, i.e. 2021 Allsvenskan, but their domestic cup runs from fall to spring, i.e. 2020–21 Svenska Cupen. I was updating Joona Toivio's stats today and put all 5 of his 2020–21 Swedish Cup appearances into his 2020 stats row. After, I thought that maybe I should break these appearances up per year and make a note of how many appearances he made in each edition of the cup. But that could get pretty confusing to readers because let's just say his 2020 cup stats row could have a note saying he made two appearances in the 2019–20 cup and three appearances in the 2020–21 cup. Beyond Sweden, I know that Estonian domestic football is structured in the same way, and another, bigger example, is the AFC Champions League works on an annual basis but there are plenty of leagues in Asia that run from the fall to spring (Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to name a few) and I rarely see any articles that seem to do a good job defining this divergence. I made notes on André Carrillo club stats table defining how many appearances and goals he made in each edition of the AFC Champions League and I think this looks good but not sure if this is even the correct style? Thanks for any input. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Swedish domestic cups are part of the "first" season (for example, the 2017–18 Svenska Cupen is considered part of the 2017 season). Same idea for AFC competitions (so, the 2018 AFC Champions League is part of the 2017–18 season). The logic is that we should look at when the competition begins: does the "2021 competition" begin during the ongoing 2020–21 season, or during the 2021–22 season? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a European component (the winner of the cup qualifies for European competition for the following season. So it should match up with that. The cup competition that qualifies for the 2021-22 EL tournament should be in the same career stats line as the season that qualifies for the 2021-22 EL. That could be an easy way to do it. RedPatch (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank you both for the input. I'll leave Joona's stats as I updated them then and follow the "first" season logic moving forward. Rupert1904 (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no "official" rule for this, and since most sources do not summarize a "season in a single row", it's difficult to find precedent. But for the Swedish sources I have access to that try to do this, they do one of two things:

1. Treat stats per season of the main competition (i.e. stats per calendar year), disregarding that the cup or UEFA competition stats for a single tournament would be split across two rows. This is amongst others how IFK Göteborg record player stats on their site, and how the official historical records of IFK Göteborg players are kept (both in published books and on https://ifkdb.com/), as well as how AIK record player stats in their annual reports. Most clubs either do not have detailed stats on their sites, or split the stats into the different tournaments to avoid having to deal with the problem.
2. Treat the year a tournament is completed as the main competition season to include it with. This is how the Swedish football yearbooks record stats. E.g. the 2014–15 Svenska Cupen season is treated in the yearbook dealing with the 2015 Allsvenskan season. The same goes for UEFA tournaments in those yearbooks. This is, in my opinion, much more reasonable than using the starting year of the tournament. Both from a record keeping point of view – when the main season is completed, it should be possible to "close the records" for that season, and not having to wait another 6 months. And from just the logical perspective of when the more important parts of a tournament take place – e.g. Svenska Cupen is two rounds of matches (of which Allsvenskan teams join for the second round) in the first year, but six rounds of matches in the second year, including the final.

– Elisson • T • C • 19:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

RedPatch makes a good point above though, regarding the qualifying aspect of the domestic cup. The winner of the 2014–15 Svenska Cupen and the winner of the 2014 Allsvenskan both qualify for the 2015–16 European competitions. Also, for example, 2014 AIK Fotboll season shows the 2014 league and 2014–15 cup, not the 2013–14 cup. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

But the qualifying aspect doesn't really have anything to do with record-keeping, and is just an opinion, like my opinions on the second variant (which are just there to give reason to why sources may do as they do). The qualifying aspect is not a fixed or statuc rule either. For example in the early days of UEFA play, the leading team of the Allsvenskan season at the summer break (halfway through the season) determined the team qualifying for the European Cup, which would mean we should switch the record-keeping around for those seasons? As no sources as far as I can see uses the variant proposed by RedPatch, why should we? Same with the AIK Fotboll season you link, we shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source. :) And you'll find other alternatives out there, like 2019 IFK Göteborg season which basically corresponds to my alternative 1. above. – Elisson • T • C • 19:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johan Elisson: I like your second option. I guess if I implement this in career stats tables, I would just add a 2022 season row for players when they make an appearance in round 2 of the future 2021–22 Svenska Cupen when it starts this upcoming fall - even though that appearance would be in October or November 2021? Also, for example, going back to Joona Toivio, I would just move down a row all of his cup stats and then put 0 appearances in for 2018? Rupert1904 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Arnaud Tattevin

May someone move Draft:Arnaud Tattevin to the mainspace? Just debuted for Central African Republic national team.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Juventus old players (pre 1930s)

I'd like to create as more possibile pages about all Juventus players. I'm pretty sure that the players from 1930s to today are not able (they meet WP: NFOOTY) but are notable Juventus players who played for Juve before 1930s? Dr Salvus 20:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

New Coppa Italia format

Two days ago, legaseriea.it officialized the new Coppa Italia format. Lega Serie A called the rounds: turno preliminare (preliminary round), "trentaduesimi" (Round of 64), sedicesimi (Round of 32), ottavi di finale (Round of 16), quarti di finale (Quarter-finals) etc...

Unfortunatley trenatduesimi aren't contested by 64 teams, instead it's contested by 32 teams. Sedicesimi are contested by 16 teams. How can we name the aforementioned rounds? Dr Salvus 09:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Surely there is an error in that document? I can't read Italian, but it seems to say that the "sedicesimi" features 16 teams, but the "ottavi di finale" also features 16 teams?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)