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.

Template:X team squad

Should these templates include players who have been called up in the season without being fielded? Dr Salvus 20:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have an example? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499 see Template:Juventus F.C. squad. Marco Raina was called up by Allegri for the match against Genoa without being fielded. Should he be included in the template? I'd added him to the template, but my edit has been reverted by another user. Dr Salvus 21:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we should include all first-team players (whether they played or not), and youth/U23 players who have made at least an appearance. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I instead think, we should include all players who have been called up by the first team coach (wheter they're in the first team or not) in the current season. Dr Salvus 21:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If a player has been given a squad number and called up to a match squad, include them. GiantSnowman 21:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: courtesy ping. Btw, I'm indifferent between the two options. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

My personal thought is that the template squad has to match with this section for istance, which includes all the players from first squad source and those with at least one appearance made.--Island92 (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Can someone else reply here, please? Dr Salvus 17:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I usually include all players in the official squad per the club, plus all players that have articles and have played in the current season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Vaurie‎ (talk • contribs)

I have always followed the method described by user:GiantSnowman (all players who have been given a squad number and called up to a match day squad) but recently had this level of detail removed by @EchetusXe: on Template:Rotherham United F.C. squad. Gricehead (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

None of those players are included in the squad list on the Rotherham United article. EchetusXe 23:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

EchetusXe, doesn't matter. They should be included both in the article and in the Template. Dr Salvus 06:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Well Gricehead should put them in both the article and in the template then, rather than put them solely in the template and complain when I remove them from the template for being out of sync with the squad list. 90% of the time the article page is up to date whilst the template is out of date. EchetusXe 10:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree both squad list and template should match. GiantSnowman 10:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

They are included in the squad list of 2021–22 Rotherham United F.C. season. For once I must have forgot to sync up the main article squad list. Please forgive the oversight. Gricehead (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

So, what do we do? I think we should decide. Dr Salvus 10:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Women's Supercoppa Italiana

The competition has the same Supercopa de España format and it's also played in January of the following year (as Supercopa does). Should we use 20xx-yy year format or 20xx year format to refer to the Women's Supercoppa Italiana seasons? I'm asking as @Cozy1298 uses 2021 format which I believe it's wrong and to avoid to be blocked for edit war Dr Salvus 14:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The FIGC's (not-fully updated) honours section list the 2020–21 Supercoppa Italiana (women) as "2020" ([1]). It doesn't matter how the format was (whether it was played in December 2020 or January 2021), rather how the competition itself was branded (or how it was commonly known by sources). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Nehme1499, you may be right but why do we call the Spanish Supercup with 20xx–yy format? This season is for example known as 2022 (look at the es.wiki article) in Spain Dr Salvus 14:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Each country may call its own competition in its own way. We don't necessarily have to have consistency with the naming format. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Nehme1499, so I was wrong.... I'll revert my edits Dr Salvus 14:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I would wait to see what others think. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Fully agree with what Nehme1499 said avobe. Nobody classify Supercoppa Italiana (women) as 'XX-YY' season except Dr Salvus. Stop revert all page as your own standard. even you've acknowleged you were wrong. Cozy 1298 20:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I have protected Juventus F.C. (women) indefinitely so that nobody can edit it other than admins until this matter is resolved. Next time anyone edits in a similar manner at any other article will result in a block. Discuss it and let me know when you've reached agreement - or ask an admin to make a decision on consensus if you cannot even do that. GiantSnowman 16:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, thank you. Cozy1298 has also edit warred at Supercoppa Italiana (women), 2020–21 Supercoppa Italiana (women) and 2021–22 Supercoppa Italiana (women), it may be good protect them from further reverts Dr Salvus 16:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the same level of disruption at those articles - but, again, if either of you (@Cozy1298 and Dr Salvus: edit those articles prior to consensus being agreed you will be blocked for edit warring, OK? GiantSnowman 16:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Field names or sponsorship names

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Women%27s_Soccer_League&diff=1068533629&oldid=1067695812 I'll let the project decide if we pipe to support sponsored pitch names in league articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

We do not use sponsored names. GiantSnowman 09:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with GS. There was a discussion not that long ago which reinforced that consensus. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That was my understanding. It was particularly around World Cup tournaments, but I too agree. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Joe White

We have an article on Joe White (footballer, born 2002) (defender, born 18 January 2002) and a draft on User:GiantSnowman/Joe White (midfielder, born 1 October 2002)]].

If/when the latter makes his debut and becomes notable, should we have Joe White (defender, born 2002) and Joe White (midfielder, born 2002) (my preferred option) or Joe White (footballer, born 18 January 2002) and Joe White (footballer, born 1 October 2002)? GiantSnowman 11:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I'd use their position. Not everyone knows their date of birth Dr Salvus 11:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was thinking. Positions obviously more flexible (some players have multiple), but likely to be more useful than exact DOB. GiantSnowman 11:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Position is a better disambiguator. If you were using the birth date, I would've thought you'd only need the month when one is January and one is October though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I can see why using position as a disambiguator can be better, though it's not impossible at all that the "defender" (who seems to be a full-back) moves up the pitch to midfielder in the near future. What would we do then? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

We could use the position we can find in the player's club official site. To make an example:here, Juventus consider Cuadrado as a defender although he often moves up the pitch to midfielder (and forward). In this case, we'd consider him as a defender in spite of his style of play. Dr Salvus 13:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Which would be completely useless disambiguation-wise. What if he moved to Arsenal next season, who list him as a midfielder? Would we then have to change the disambiguator from defender to midfielder? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we should cross that bridge when we get there, for now position or birth date should be fine. I have no preference, since presumably the DAB page would help differentiate the 2.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I would go with birth date, although stick with just January 2002 and October 2002 rather than the full date. Position is vague and subjective. – PeeJay 15:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, use month of birth to disambiguate (e.g. Ben Watson). "Defender" or "midfielder" isn't really suitable as it isn't clear to an unfamiliar reader that the person is a footballer. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Ernst Kaltenbrunner and Wiener AC

I see in the article on the Vienna club that Ernst Kaltenbrunner is listed as one of its 'Notable players' without citation or dates indicating when he played. The name links with the Austrian Nazi war criminal who was executed at Nuremberg. (His lifetime of 1903-1946 makes it theoretically possible for him to have played for them as a young man.) I find no mention of him playing football in his wikipedia articles even in the German wikipedia. If this is not be dismissed as a vandalism or joke to be deleted, if this man DID play for them then it would be illuminating if it could be mentioned years he was recorded to have played for the club and in what position, and to feed the detail into the biographical article.Cloptonson (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Different person - most likely Ernst Kaltenbrunner (footballer). I have disambiguated the wikilink. Interestingly, there are two other footballing Kaltenbrunners - conceivably Ernst's father and brother? Paul W (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that explains it. It looked ironic that on the same list as the apparent name of a Nazi war criminal was another who was a prominent victim of Nazi war crime (Otto Herschmann).Cloptonson (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Federico Gatti

The page urgently needs protection. Many editors have changed their club following to a transfer rumour to Juventus Dr Salvus 07:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Chico Flores

I don't get this: (see Talk:Chico Flores) since when is that name a "nickname compound"? I was checking the talk page history and what has been discussed on a possible retitle. For what I know, I have always known his name as this name, though it has been a long time since he was playing in England. Ta, 46.149.249.106 (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I recall something similar on Diogo Jota when it was also moved with the reason "Diogo Jota is a name/nickname compound" which it is in fact the definite common name for the Liverpool player, see Talk:Jota (Spanish footballer) for the discussion as to why that was returned whence it came. Chico Flores could also get a similar outcome as well by having a look at Talk:Chico Flores and I've given my view on it there. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:2021 CONCACAF Nations League Finals squad templates

‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:2021 CONCACAF Nations League Finals squad templates - only contains one template so far. Surely the tournament is too minor to justify it? GiantSnowman 16:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, only the World Cup and major continental tournaments (Euros, Asian Cup, etc.) should have templates. An argument could be made for the (now-defunct) Confederations Cup. Same logic for the respective categories (i.e. Category:2018 FIFA World Cup players) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes the template should be deleted, the same was done for the squad templates created for the UEFA Nations League Finals. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nehme1499 and S.A. Julio: thanks for confirming my suspicions. Now at TfD. GiantSnowman 20:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Notes on national cups

I don't know what to do anymore. Nehme1499 continues to add notes to national cups that are against the MOS and have no consensus. I've already raised a discussion before on this channel. There was not a decision to include these notes as it's too busy and TMI. Yet despite this, Nehme continues to make these edits, and still the user wants me to raise this issue again. Nehme then tries to claim I am bold by making edits in line with the MOS. I am trying to assume good faith and I see a lot of great contributions on wikipedia that the user makes but at this point I am very frustrated that a user is saying I am not following Wikipedia:BRD when I am going by the MOS. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Firstly: This page provides a suggested layout for footballer biographies [...] nothing is set in stone. Secondly, I had already opened a discussion here, and Felixsv7 agreed with me. There is no valid reason at all to remove the notes, as opposed to keeping valid and useful information. Why not remove the league columns then? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

After you didn't get the answer you wanted, you tried changing the wikipedia MOS and were warned by myself and other editors, you then continued to make edits & you created a second discussion without pinging me, and I think on purpose so that I would miss the discussion. One person commenting and agreeing with you is certainly not a consensus when there was a long discussion month previously to not include these notes. As it was said then, they are too busy and confusing. Your notes exist on an island and aren't actually corresponding to the actual stats table because there is no frame of reference for which season or club the notes correspond to. Furthermore, one editor suggested in line notes for national cups, but it was decided that approach was way too busy. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Mattythewhite, dashiellx, Felixsv7, ItsKesha and I advocated for using notes; you and GS were the only ones against. It seems we have different standards of consensus. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Rupert1904: as far as I can see, there is no consensus on this issue, contrary to what you appear to be claiming (unless i misread). if there is no consensus on the issue, editors should really just avoid these lame edit wars and use the existing format on the article. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the existing format though? None of these notes were there until Nehme started adding them recently. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

By existing format, I mean whatever is at the article right now, and I direct this at all users. There's no good reason to change format if there's no consensus on the issue, and reverting a change in format is very unproductive and is just provoking an edit war. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

5v2, to me, is clear consensus to add them. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, there seems to be more support than opposition. Would an RfC clear this up? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

dashiellx said it was too busy in their note on the issue so to be tossing around numbers is a bit much, Nehme1499. And Microwave Anarchist - existing format today is different than what existed a week or a month ago on these articles. At which point in time are we going to go with one format or another? The second it's added we can then say it's an existing format. And as I've said before, the notes don't provide useful information and in fact, I think that they are more confusing to the average reader. You want to include a note at the top of the stats table with a list of cups at the bottom of the table that don't actually correspond to which clubs they represent. Unless the average reader knows which country every club is from that a player has represented and the name of the domestic cup in that country, then this note doesn't make sense. I really don't see the value in having this. I mean take for example the ones in question from today, Rodrigo Bentancur and Dejan Kulusevski, Nehme insists on adding notes about the FA Cup and EFL Cup but these players might not even make an appearance in either competition for all we know. And then if they don't make an appearance in the cup, you then remove the cup from the footnote (which I've seen in stats tables before when Nehme has added these notes) which then adds even more confusion as it seems like an accidental omission. Why are we trying to fix something that's not broken? Rupert1904 (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

dashiellx was specifically referring to the example table he made below when he said it was "probably overkill on [his] part"... Critical reading isn't your forte it seems. The notes don't provide useful information: on the contrary, they indicate what the respective cup competitions are. Removing them for no valid reason at all is not helpful. These players might not even make an appearance in either competition: so what? We don't remove league rows if someone doesn't play a league game. You then remove the cup from the footnote: I don't recall ever doing that... And on the topic of "throwing numbers", I'm not the one using a discussion that clearly favoured using notes rather than not as proof to not use them (!!) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Quit it with the personal insults. And you're using other stuff exists argument about the league rows. I've already given my valid reasons but it seems like anything I write you just pass off as garbage and not worthy of your time or consideration. If your cup notes coherently indicate the respective cup competitions then take Kevin De Bruyne for example. Why does it just say Belgian Cup, DFB-Pokal, FA Cup? If it's reflecting his career, it should be Belgian Cup, DFB-Pokal, FA Cup, DFB-Pokal, FA Cup. Why wouldn't it match the full trajectory of his career? Just because you know that Chelsea & Manchester City are in the same country and play in the same domestic cup doesn't mean that every user would. Why no Copa do Brasil for Danilo? And it's just a couple examples on each issue I take umbrage with but there are loads others where it can get even more confusing and too busy. Rupert1904 (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I've never personally attacked you, don't make false allegations. The league rows argument isn't WP:WHATABOUT, it's me trying to show you that your argument about removing the cup notes makes no sense whatsoever. Why arbitrarily remove the domestic cups, but not the continental cups, other cups, or leagues? It's funny how you have an issue with my (supposed) "other stuff exists" argument, then proceed to fall into the same argument you are arguing against. I don't know why Danilo or KDB's tables look like that; I didn't edit them personally. If it were for me, all cups would be included. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not arbitrary. No notes need to be added for leagues, national cups or league cups because they all have their own individual column and these headlines clearly spell out what the competition is. While notes for the continental and other columns are important as there are multiple continental cups that a club can participate in a given season; for instance, SK Slavia Prague, FC Midtjylland, PSV Eindhoven, FC Flora, Celtic F.C., ŠK Slovan Bratislava, FK Žalgiris, Neftçi PFK, and FC Kairat have all played in 3 different UEFA competitions this season. It is important to have notes for the players on these clubs to indicate that stats were made in all these different competitions since we only have one column for continental stats. We don't have strict UCL column, UEL column, and UECL column - and I'm not advocating for that either as it's too much. And notes are especially important with the other column since it's catchall of every super cup both domestic and international. For instance, FC Bayern Munich players in 2020–21 played in three different "other" competitions, the DFL-Supercup, UEFA Super Cup, and FIFA Club World Cup. There's only one national cup and league cup per country (for the country's that even have a league cup) so this note is redundant, busy, and like I indicated above with examples in my previous note are confusing. Rupert1904 (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

And again, please stop with the personal attacks. Saying that I'm not able to read critically and that my argument "make no sense whatsoever" just because you don't agree with it are both personal attacks. You can argue your point without having to bash my intellect and attempt to get under my skin. Rupert1904 (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Critical reading isn't your forte it seems sounds like a personal attack to me.Spike 'em (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

There's only one national cup and league cup per country (for the country's that even have a league cup) so this note is redundant I agree with this. We should only add notes where ambiguity exists. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I believe tables should provide as much information as possible without making the user look for unnecessary clarification. Would an average reader who is not familar with the subject understand that England has two domestic cups, but others only one? Does the average reader understand teams dropping to the EL from the CL? If we can agree on a way to note which competition the stats are from when the category can include multiple I think we should. However, I will admit, that I did not believe the previous conversion about this had "officially reached a consensus". --dashiellx (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather it just say "national cup" and "league cup" and even then only when players have played in more than one country, since for example you can just write FA Cup or Scottish Cup etc if they spend their entire career in one country.Muur (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about FA Cup or Scottish Cup. I think keeping it standard "national cup" and "league cup" across all footy would be preferred. --dashiellx (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Luke Bolton

I am experiencing issues with @ItsKesha: at Luke Bolton - he has blindly reverted me, describing my edit as 'nonsense', but in doing so has simply removed a valid reference and undone my updating of the career stats box. Can somebody please review the article? GiantSnowman 21:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Three sources is quite clearly excessive, the two sources in place suffice for "player loaned to Luton Town". And why are you repeatedly blindly removing the players squad number? Didn't mention the fact you did that, did you? Why? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

At no point did you say that you felt three sources was excessive - but unsure why you have chosen to remove the official club announcement. also I missed you adding the squad number because a) you never mentioned it in your edit summary and b) you were generally messing with the infobox layout. GiantSnowman 21:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You need it spelling out to you that three sources is excessive... why? This is Wikipedia 101. Oh and thanks for admitting you blindly reverted my edits, the very thing you accused me of 👍. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Huge difference between not noticing a 2 digit number, and removing the career stats (as you have been and keen on doing). Further difference is I have realised my mistake - have you? GiantSnowman 21:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing a third source to state that a footballer went on loan to Luton Town is not a mistake. Removing seasons in a statistics table where a player wasn't even at the club is not a mistake, you keep banging on about the MOS but it makes absolutely zero mention of this circumstance, and therefore you are not telling the truth. I gave an example of Marco van Ginkel of statistics not appearing in the table when a player is loaned out for the entire season and you disregard this as "other stuff exists". Can you argue your reasons for why you think these seasons warrant inclusion for a player who never even made a first team appearance for his parent club? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

because it makes it more clear where he was on loan from during said loan spells?Muur (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Three sources might be valid if each source offers something unique. However, I do agree we could all be a bit more descriptive in our edit summaries, but we could also WP:GOODFAITH a bit more and be more WP:CIVIL in our discussions when we don't agree. --dashiellx (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

End year for international appearances

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

So here's the deal:

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

It seems pretty clear-cut to me:

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

Anyway, here's my proposal:

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

-or-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Haklam1218:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

player without a club for a season or two

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus

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

I'd suggest:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Runners-up and playoff winning promotions in club/player honours - consensus?

I notice on Will Grigg's page, his second place (runner-up) promotion from 2014/15 with MK Dons was removed from his 'Honours' section for not being notable. I see there have been numerous previous discussions on the topic of whether runner up/third place/playoff winning promotions are considered 'Honours', but I can't see if a consensus was ever reached. If the consensus is 'no', then there are likely thousands of player pages which require edits to remove them. In the meantime, I have re-added the honour to his page.

I am strongly in favour of these being included, for several reasons:

1. It is a promotion to a higher division.
2. Clubs receive a trophy or some other kind of silverware (e.g. a plate for L2 3rd place promotion). Playoff winners receive a trophy. L1 runner-up receives a trophy. Players involved in all of these receive a medal (e.g. a bronze medal for 3rd place promotion in L2).
3. ALL Premier League/EFL clubs that have achieved a runner-up, third place or playoff promotion list these achievements in the Honours section of their club pages. If it is notable enough to be included in an entire club's honours, then surely it is notable enough for an individual player.
4. Some (not all) websites include playoff wins and runner up promotions amongst player honours.
5. A runner-up for a cup competition is deemed an honour (e.g. EFL Trophy runner-up - player receives a medal), so a runner-up for a league which involves a player receiving a medal should be treated equally.
6. Having checked a dozen or so EFL official club websites (e.g. Bolton Wanderers), all list 'runner-up' promotions and playoff promotions in their 'Club Honours' sections.

Overall, this strongly leans towards these types of achievements being included in the Honours section of player pages. If consensus is 'no', then all club pages featuring these as honours, and obviously all player pages, will need to be edited to remove these (we're talking thousands of pages). FilthyDon (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that it is clear-cut that every honour that appears on club pages needs to appear on player pages too and I wouldn't include promotion as an honour on a player page. Spike 'em (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Why should an honour deemed notable enough to appear on a larger entity (i.e. a club) not be notable enough for an individual player? A club is bigger than any one player etc etc. EDIT: I'd also add, just purely for casual readers wanting to know "how many times has [x] been promoted?" a simple check of their Honours section should provide this info. FilthyDon (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally I am not to keen on having promotion listed in the honours section of players articles. As far as I can see it is in a similar vain to qualifying for the Champions league or reaching the quarter or semi-final stage of a cup competition. We don't list how many times a player reached the FA Cup semi-finals or how many times they have qualified direct to the UCL group stage. That's just my 2 pence though. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed a number of times before and I have yet to read an arguement to disbar promotions from a player's honour list that makes the slightest bit of sense. As FilthyDon says, a promotion is an honour worth putting on a club page, a club that is maybe 150 years old... but not on a player's page who has a career spanning less than 10% of that time. I mean... what the fuck?--EchetusXe 13:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Promotion should either be included in both club+player honours, or neither (imo). I don't have a stance on whether they should stay or go, though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Included. it's basically the most notable thing you can do in the lower leagues and removing it is unfair really. and yes, it is seen as so notable that they give out trophies and medals for it. and no, it is not comparable to qualifying for the champions league that is just not understanding lower league football. honestly, no one cares about winning the league in the lower tiers. promotion is what is important. And you usually do get clubs signing players where they go "this guy was promoted 6 times during his career, thats why weve signed him". or "this guy was promoted last season, so we hope he can do that with us too this season". I would compare it to the Olympics, people with silver and bronze medals are still happy. but fa cup or premier league runners up are not.Muur (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I don't think there is a consensus though and this has been debated a lot over the years and people aren't particularly interested in another rehash of previous debates. Just make sure any honours are cited by a source and then they won't generally be removed.--EchetusXe 11:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

not true actually, plenty of people remove sourced promotion honours for "not being notable". thats what happened to OP who brought this up.Muur (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

2021 Africa Cup of Nations - original research?

There is a table on this page which has ordered the teams into a table with group-style points being added for knockout games. I have never seen this done for a knockout competition, club or international - given as they play different teams and therefore can't be judged on points like a group stage or a league. The "standings" page on the Confederation of African Football is only for the groups too [2], which indicates the source is "just trust me bro". I would remove it myself, but as an IP, there would be an instant revert for blanking a section. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:BC65:F049:501:3A00 (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Looks made up to me, as sources aren't reporting it. And why would they, as it's just conflating group and knockout stage results to invent a final standings. I see no sources that say Morocco finished 5th in the tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Andy Fisher

I have started an RM on Talk:Andy Fisher as to determine if that article meets WP:PRIMARY WP:PRIMARYTOPIC since I have noticed there is an Andy Fisher (footballer) on Wikipedia as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Players who have played for the reserve team but haven't ever for the youth sectors nor for the first team

We generally put categories such as "Category:X team players" for players who have played either/both for the youth sector and/or for the first team but I can't really understand the reason we never do the same with players who have only played for the reserve team. In my opinion we should put the category for players who have been registred for the team (regardless if it was the first team, the reserve team or the youth team). For example, the category Category:Juventus F.C. players should be inserted in Emanuele Pecorino although he hasn't ever played for the youth sector nor for the first team. Dr Salvus 21:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

But he is categorised under Category:Juventus F.C. Under-23 players which is a child category of Category:Juventus F.C. players. --SuperJew (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

If a player has only played for the B team (not the youth team, not the senior team) then they should not be categorised in the 'parent' category. GiantSnowman 21:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I could understand that playing for a B team gets the B team category not A team category, but then why does playing for the youth team get the A team category as opposed to a separate youth category? Basically the rule now is C=A but B≠A, meanwhile B is closer to A than C in the stepladder. I saw a recent CfD where there was a category for the youth team that was voted for delete and all the players moved to the A team category (and a separate B team category existed). RedPatch (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I can only agree with RP. The actual format doesn't make sense. If a player has been registered to a team they should be put in the main category. If a player has played for the reserve team they should be put both in the main category and in the reserve team category Dr Salvus 23:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Having come across it with the Spanish system a few times I also agree it doesn't make a huge amount of sense, but I don't have any strong view towards adding both categories, nor any useful alternative ideas. Crowsus (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Would it be a matter of creating a separate subcategory for senior competitions, like Category:La Liga players of _____ and Category:Coppa Italia players of _____. That way, an U23 player isn’t in the same category as a senior player? Or am I misunderstanding the issue here? Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 02:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The U23 team of Juventus is a team that is playing in the Serie C. It's similar to Barcelona B or Real Madrid Castilla. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear (because I was really unclear earlier), I'm suggesting turning Category:_____ F.C. players categories into container categories, with no articles, just subcategories. So this is how it would work for Juventus:

• The main category is Category:Juventus F.C. players
• The current subcategories, Category:Juventus F.C. Under-23 players‎ and Category:Juventus F.C. (women) players‎ would remain as they are
• We'd create a new subcategory - it could be something like Category:Juventus F.C. senior men's players‎, or something to that effect. We could throw all the senior A-team player articles into this new category. Or we could create further subcategories based on competitions, i.e Serie A, UEFA competitions and Coppa Italia, since playing in those competitions would confer senior status.

With this recategorizing, the main Juventus F.C. players would be empty and all players should be under one or more subcategories.

As a note, having the women's players cat be a subcat of the main category is even more illogical IMO. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 14:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• My opinion would be: include Category:Juventus F.C. players only for players who appeared in the first team, Category:Juventus F.C. Under-23 players for players who appeared in the reserve team, and that's all. Youth should not be considered as it is too "volatile" (players come and go from youth categories way more often than in the first teams), aside from cases where the team is exclusive to the youth setup, i.e. Category:CF Damm players. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  In that case, you'd probably want a parent category where Category:Juventus F.C. players, Category:Juventus F.C. Under-23 players‎ and Category:Juventus F.C. (women) players‎, or rename the current main category to Category:Juventus F.C. players (men). Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adeletron 3030: No, I wouldn't. This is very confusing, TBH. Youth career is nothing close to a senior one. Several players may represent Juventus at youth level, but only a few of them play for the under-23 team, and fewer play for the first team. I don't see the actual advantage of having the category for players who only featured in the youth sides, when the normal reader would actually search for first-team players in that category. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree, but what constitutes a senior team player? A youth player who has been called up to the bench of a senior team match, or someone who has actually made an appearance? If it's the former, it creates an inconsistency with the lack of the senior team in the infobox. If it's the latter, it's inconsistent with 3rd-choice GKs who have never featured for the club (but who would still have the senior team category). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that the U23 and women's categories are subcats of the Juventus players category. The way Wikipedia categories work, a member of a subcategory is inherently a member of the parent category. That means that someone like Matías Soulé, who has appeared for both the senior and U23 side, should technically only be in the U23 subcat, because an article should be placed in the most specific category. Or someone like Julia Grosso is conferred the same status of "Juventus F.C. player" because she's placed in a subcategory of a parent category that contains all the senior men's players.

I guess what I'm saying is that the U23 and women's categories should not be subcategories of the senior men's category. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Nehme1499: I'd definitely say the second one. Generally, 3rd choice GKs are young players who don't even have an article yet, or are players clearly signed for the first team (such as Scott Carson and Richard Wright (footballer), who signed for City clearly to be in the first team, never related to youth or B-sides), who would never have any link to youth or reserve teams. @Adeletron 3030: You're miles away from the point, mate. From what I could gather, the main issue is having (or not) youth or B-team players categorized in the main category. All of these cats would be under the main category, and this approach is not wrong, but the attempt for a consensus here is what categories should be placed in a player article, not the structure of categories per se. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't like seeing players categorized for a team if they've only played in their youth sector. So, I'd have two suggestions

1. Each category called "X F.C. players" would have subcategories in which we put players who have played for the youth, another one which has players who have played in the B team and another in which we insert players who have played for the first team.

2. We'd do what I've said above but we'd not create the category concerning the players who have played in the youth sector Dr Salvus 09:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Would this be put in place for all countries or only those where the B team plays in the "main" league system? Would we expect to see categories like (picking one at random) Category:Darlington F.C. Reserves players? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, it'd be put for all countries Dr Salvus 09:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, so in England reliable appearances/goals data for the reserve team leagues is almost completely non-existent, so it would be very hard to confirm whether or not a player with 0 first team appearances actually played for the reserves. So if we had a player we know was definitely on the books of a club (as an adult, not a youth) and didn't play for the first team (eg Anthony Scaramozzino at my club, Gillingham) but we can't confirm if he actually played for the reserves, how would we categorise him? Not put him into any player category related to that club at all? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, It is very strange there are no English reliable sources for reserve leagues. It might be better (but I'm not sure) to categorise players we're sure that have played for the reserve team but on the other hand we'd have lots of incomplete categories Dr Salvus 09:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Dr Salvus it's because for decades basically nobody has cared about reserve team football. I just had a glance at some of my Gillingham programmes from the 1990s and although they include (very) brief reports on reserve team games they don't include any line-ups/appearance data - and that's in the club's own programmes! So if the club didn't care enough to provide this information, it's hard to imagine it was captured anywhere else..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, in Italy instead there's only a B team (Juventus U23) and they play in a professional league (the Serie C, which is in the "main" system) and we have a lot of stats concerning them. The same can also be found even for youth teams (some websites provide results and squads also for the under-15s team)! This led me think there are enough stats for English youth and reserves leagues. Dr Salvus 10:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Dr Salvus take my word for it, there definitely aren't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ChrisTheDude: Don't worry, I trust you. Let's discuss to find a solution for this problem. Would it be a problem if we had incomplete categories? Dr Salvus 11:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: I'd say that English football is definitely not a good example for reserve teams here. We are using Juventus U23, which plays in the league system, same as most of the Spanish reserve teams, while English reserve teams have their own reserve league, separated from the league structure. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus

In order to get a WP:CON, shall we do a pool? I believe a pool would be more direct and helpfull

I'd suggest:

1. Keeping the current format (putting in the main category all players who have played for youth sector/first team and putting the players who have played for the category reserved for them)
2. Creating subcategories for players such as: Templatonia F.C. (first team, or something like it) players, Templatonia F.C. Reserve players, Templatonia F.C. Youth Sector players and Templatonia F.C. (women) players. The main category would only be composed by subcategories
3. Not using Youth Sector categories
4. Not using Youth Sector nor Reserve teams categories (due to the problem mentioned by ChrisTheDude above)
5. Putting all players who have been registred for the team in the main category

Btw, the option I prefer is Option 2. If we change the format, it may be better to put such categories only into players' page who have played an official match. Dr Salvus 20:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 I don't think it's a problem that we don't have good sourcing for English reserve matches — we can just not have reserve player categories for English clubs (I think most English clubs loan out their fringe players anyway). A devil's advocate question for @Dr Salvus: for "first team" categories, would we use the squad lists submitted to the league or use matchday squads? For example, Curtis Jones (footballer) is not on Liverpool's 24-man Premier League squad because he's a U21 player, but he's obviously part of the first team. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 21:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• I would also go for Option 2. As for @Adeletron 3030's doubt, I'd say that once the player appears for the first team (plays a single second), he is worthy enough of the first team category. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• A player who has played over 60 first team matches is clearly a first team player, irrespective of this new-fangled concept of "official league squads" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but (again, looking at Liverpool's squad) Tyler Morton and Kaide Gordon have both registered Premier League starts and I don't think I'd consider them first team players. Yet as far as their squad status is concerned, they're no different from Curtis Jones, a bona fide first team player. And it's pretty common for clubs to field teenagers with squad numbers in the 50s and 60s in late-season dead rubber matches just to give them experience. I'm not sure if they're really first team players, but I'm fine with including them in the first team category. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 21:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adeletron3030: Have they ever played for the first team? If so, they are (or I'd consider them as) part of the squad Dr Salvus 22:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adeletron3030: - how I interpret the proposed categories is that they would be: one for players who have played for the first team / one for players who have only played for the reserves / one for players who have only played for the youth team. So a player with first team experience would go in the first team category irrespective of judgement calls about whether they are/were a "real" first team player...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, no. I've suggested to create a category with players who have played for a youth team / another with players who have played for the reserve team and another with players who have played for the first team. If a player has for example played both in the first team and in the Youth team, it should be put in both categories. Dr Salvus 08:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Voting Option 4, I don't see the value in youth/reserve categories. The only exception are reserve teams that play in senior/professional leagues (like in France and Portugal), and the reserves should have their own categories separate from the main team.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ortizesp: You are actually voting for option 3 then. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

2021 FIFA Club World Cup

Issue with final ranking table below the page. Third bronze displayed multiple times. Why?--Island92 (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take care of that edit for the future cases.--Island92 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Olympic footballers

In Category:Olympic footballers of [Country], should I include players that played for the Olympic team but not at the Olympics, but rather in friendly/qualifying tournaments? Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that the purpose of that category is the same as Category:FIFA World Cup players, though I might be mistaken. So, only for those who played in the Olympics (not in friendlies). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

International Managers

Hi all,

Most national team manager sections do not have sources. Is Transfermarkt considered reliable enough to use as a source for nations without the information available on their national team's website?

Using the Gambia as an example: Source

Felixsv7 (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Felixsv7, no unfortunately it isn't Dr Salvus 08:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Transfermarkt is not a WP:RS, see WP:TRANSFERMARKT. Clog Wolf _Howl 08:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked at that discussion but it appeared to relate to player statistics rather than managerial history which is why I wanted to check. If we are disbarring Transfermarkt, does anyone have any other source where national team managers are listed? Felixsv7 (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't ever looked at it but if it's only referred to players' stats, I'll see no problems to use TM for coaches' stats Dr Salvus 09:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It might be the case for some national teams that we have to source each manager individually rather than to a list of all the previous managers unfortunately. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Transfermarkt isn't considered an RS since it is user generated. This applies for both player information and manager information. --SuperJew (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't Transfermarkt be better than an unsourced section though (in this particular case)? Obviously should another source be located then that would take precedent but currently the sections are just operating on faith rather than giving users an idea of where the information came from. Felixsv7 (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't saying "an unreliable source is better than no source at all" go against WP:RS....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

If it's unsourced, it should be challenged and if a source can't be found it should be removed. Tbf, anyone coming across a lot of these articles could just remove it if it's unsourced because the burden is on the person that adds the information to ensure it is sourced. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

If Transfermarkt use administrators and data scouts to check information added by users (as per their FAQs), why are we not accepting their information as valid? Again, just for this narrow case. It seems like a similar issue that National Football Teams has as they're both unsourced but seemingly reliable data. Felixsv7 (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Their administrators and data scouts are users of the site. The process is akin to editing a full protected article on Wikipedia. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. Their staff Felixsv7 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Those are the superadmins. The moderators (some of whom are admins) and data scouts are not staff. All this to say nothing of the actual circular reporting problems there have been in the past. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Player awarded medal without playing

There is a discussion underway : Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo#Trophies of Cristiano Ronaldo, also previously at Talk:Gareth Bale#2016 UEFA Super cup regarding specifically the 2016 UEFA Super Cup, this game is an example of a player not being selected to play in the team or squad, but in Ronaldo's case being awarded a part of the first team and receiving an honours. The Ronaldo article refuses to give the honour to the player, this despite sources claiming the player won the trophy (e.g. Real Madrid Ronaldo page). This discussion has previously been archived, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 132#Re-posting this because it was archived but it wasn't entirely finalised and I want this debate to come to a final and definitive conclusion so that we can avoid anymore future issues regarding players' honours, however I would like a sort of recount of this vote, as the logic is simple - the player is awarded the honour for being part of the squad, only the player doesn't get a cap for not making an appearance. This standard should be across the board, e.g. Messi awarded 2006 European Champions league title based on Barcelona's website. These articles are factually based, going to a vote doesn't count for facts. There needs to be clarification, the ruling should be - if a player is awarded a medal, then it counts as a trophy, and it seems Real Madrid's webpage suggests Ronaldo was awarded 3 Super cups, making 2016 an honour in the list. I believe the Lionel Messi#Honours article better explains the situation with a note. As for Ronaldo, the reference is in place to add the honour to his list of trophies, it just needs to be verified with wikipedia editors. Can we please restart this discussion, and this time use a Wikipedia:Requests for comment (RfC) and not a vote. Cltjames (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources do not agree as to whether Ronaldo won the 2016 Super Cup. The fact is that he was not even in Norway when the game was played (his Instagram post from the day confirms that he watched it at home), and there is an archived version of the UEFA squad page that shows Ronaldo was not part of the squad Real Madrid submitted to UEFA for the game. Furthermore, even Ronaldo’s own website at the time did not consider him to be a winner of that competition. However, there are multiple UEFA.com pages that list Ronaldo as having won three Super Cups (2014, 2016 and 2017), and Real Madrid’s website also lists him as a three-time winner. Again, furthermore, Gareth Bale posted a photo of himself with a medal on Instagram, despite himself also not having been included in the squad Real Madrid submitted for the match. Considering for other competitions (like the Champions League), we look at who was registered for the tournament when it comes to attributing titles (hence Lionel Messi being recognised as a winner of the 2005-06 Champions League despite being uninvolved in the final, not to mention he played in six of the 12 games Barcelona played on the way to the final). To that end, I would be happy to list Ronaldo as a winner of two UEFA Super Cups, accompanied by a note that says some sources consider him to have won the 2016 Super Cup as well, despite not having been in the country, let alone the registered squad. – PeeJay 03:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Cltjames. It would not make sense to omit those titles when mentioned in various sources that were actually won by the player even without the player participating in them. I don’t know the reasons that lead to that simple conclusion, lack of investigation perhaps? In any case I will briefly explain how it works with the UEFA Super Cup. The club sends an inscription that the staff, UEFA, validates. That is, there are some players registered, all of the first squad, plus some reserve or list "B" in case of an injured and so the affiliates can participate. (With them there would be debate in including the titles, not with those of the first template, but that is another debate). This serves for the subsequent delivery of medals, which are delivered according to those lists that the clubs present, not only to "those who dispute the final". In the UEFA rules it is very clear to whom the medals of champion and runner-up are awarded: "The winning team is presented with 40 gold medals and the runner-up with 40 silver medals. Additional medals may not be produced." (Art. 9.03 UEFA Super Cup Rules) If the club itself mentions that the player actually won that title, by logic it must be understood that one of those 40 medals was for him and therefore, without more or less, even without playing the game, he is simply champion. If you do not know the subject or are unsure of what I say, you can consult this information (Art. 30) Judasly (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, awarding FORTY medals for the winners of a one-off match where only 14 players from a pool of 18 can actually take the field is really weird...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

As to the question about 40 players, the team will present medals to players and management in the stadium, then assign more medals to backroom staff and specific players who greatly contributed to the season, e.g. Messi's case in 2006 UCL. Ronaldo seems to have been attributed an honour on the Real Madrid website (and various sites including UEFA), and this should be fully acknowledged by the editors involved in the article in mention. Cltjames (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Messi is recognised as winning the 2005-06 Champions League because he was part of the squad for the tournament. The same cannot be said for Ronaldo in the 2016 Super Cup. – PeeJay 16:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Why wouldn’t it make sense? I would believe that argument if there were no sources to back it up, but if there were, it would be for something, wouldn’t it? In addition, as I explained earlier, those are the rules imposed by UEFA, regardless of whether they are wrong or not that is not our responsibility. If the club considers him champion, it’s because he is. -Judasly (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There are obviously sources for Messi being in Barcelona’s Champions League squad in 2005-06, since he played in the competition. There is also a source that Ronaldo was not in Real Madrid’s squad for the 2016 Super Cup - I don’t just mean the matchday 18, I’m talking about the squad at large that they registered for that competition. Would you like me to link it here for you again? – PeeJay 22:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I’ve seen it, you don’t have to bring it up again. On the other hand, you want me to raise again a UEFA reference where it mentions that the player did win the title? -Judasly (talk) 24:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you want me to reintroduce the UEFA source that says he didn’t? – PeeJay 00:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, do it, and I’ll pass you the ones that say yes, because I bet your only argument is that it doesn’t appear in the template of that final. -Judasly (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Dude, even Ronaldo himself (via his website) doesn’t even claim he won the 2016 Super Cup. Please stop this, it’s getting embarrassing. – PeeJay 01:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Bro, it is by no means shameful, my intention is clearly to contribute to this issue, perhaps in the future we can contribute to another debate on a common theme for both. But as I say, if UEFA rules have specific parameters, there are official references both from UEFA itself and from important media and the club itself certifies it, I do not see why doubt the veracity of the title, Why is it hard to understand and you come to simple conclusions like "if you didn’t play you didn’t win it"? Also note that Wiki:en may have influenced this despite not being a primary source (I clarify that this is just my opinion) -Judasly (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Look, I can tell English isn’t your first language so maybe we’re having communication issues here, but I never said “if you didn’t play, you didn’t win it”. I said we assign titles to players who were in the registered squad for a competition. Ronaldo was not in the Real Madrid squad for the 2016 Super Cup, he didn’t travel to Norway, you have no way of knowing if he got a medal (which wouldn’t mean anything even if you did since Bale posted a picture of himself with a medal despite not being included in the squad like Ronaldo), Ronaldo himself doesn’t claim the title, and we have conflicting sources from UEFA about whether even they consider him a winner of that title. How many more times do I have to go over this for you? Do I need to get a translation from a Simple English Wikipedia contributor? – PeeJay 01:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

No need, I understand everything perfectly. It is obvious that Ronaldo did not attend that call, as you mention probably just like Bale was given a behind-the-scenes medal because of those 40 are included collaborators, assistants, etc. In a way I would understand your point of not being because there are sources that say if he won the title even if there is not a source or a graphic reference of Ronaldo himself with the medal. But hey, it’s clear that if we keep this up, we’re not gonna get anywhere and we’re gonna stay in this. Since it is a controversial issue I would keep the option I proposed in the discussion of Ronaldo, where it is clarified that the player was not summoned for those finals. -Judasly (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the point of this thread was to establish a reality that honours are awarded without an appearance, for instance Gareth Bale with a medal on instagram, or Real Madrid' website honouring Ronaldo. So this seems a bit of a stalemate, so the second purpose was to bring cohesion to the situation and explain, this correctly. Right now the Ronaldo and Bale articles do not explain the situation of being honoured a medal without playing, and this is being addressed and needs to be rectified to correctly represent the situation. Cltjames (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Village pump proposals

There are several proposals located at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability to either abolish or significantly rewrite WP:NSPORT which may be of interest to this project's editors. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

To be more specific, there are multiple pending proposals that would significantly alter NSPORTS/NFOOTBALL, including the following:

• Subproposal 1: Requiring that "all athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD" and that SIGCOV in multiple sources would have to be produced during the course of the AfD.
• Subproposal 3: Eliminates any portions of NSPORTS that are based on mere "participation". Among other things, Subproposal 3 would repeal WP:NFOOTBALL in its entirety.
• Subproposal 5: Implements a requirement that all sports biographies and team/season articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual SIGCOV.
• Subproposal 8: Eliminates the presumption of notability from NSPORTS. Cbl62 (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how to list requested moves

Talk:FC Bayern Munich#Requested move 5 February 2022. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

2019 FIFA U-20 World Cup

I wanted to ask this last week, but whats with all the broadcasting rights and stuff? Isn't all the content pointless?? Govvy (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Technically uncontracted, but

Was wondering how to handle the case of Nathan Konstandopoulos in his infobox. He has played for Adelaide United since 2017. At the beginning of the current 2021–22 A-League Men season it was announced that he is currently uncontracted with the Reds, but still training with them as he recovers from an ACL tear. Today the club announced that he has recovered, is cleared to play, and has signed a new contract until the end of the season. Should this be treated as two separate spells in the infobox (2017–2021, 2022–) or just one? And on the club's season page, should it be a "transfer out" and "transfer in" or just a "contract extension"? --SuperJew (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I think Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)