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.

Enrico dos Santos

• Enrico dos Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) new article
• Aaron Enrico dos Santos was deleted in March 2016 and is presumably related

There is a fuss at ANI (here) which will peter out shortly. It would be good if someone who understands the topic could comment (here or at ANI?) on whether there is any chance the article should be expanded and kept. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Scrub that. Previous accounts have been unearthed, and it appears that someone with more knowledge of the topic than me offered an opinion last March that the topic is a hoax. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Robert Walker (black footballer)

Not much is known about this player, who was an early black footballer and a contemporary of the much better known Arthur Wharton and Andrew Watson. Any more info about him would be much appreciated. GiantSnowman 13:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The best person to ask would have been club historian & Scottish Football Museum volunteer Bob Laird, but unfortunately he passed away last month. Maybe somebody has one of his books. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Swindon Town F.C.

Two different IPs (I assume it's one person) keeps putting the director of football which is Tim Sherwoods job in the Manager slot in the infobox. And Sherwood isn't the manager / coach at the club. I think the article might need to be monitored by a few more ppl as I won't have much time on here over December / Jan much to keep an eye on the article. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That's because there isn't a manager, there's a Head Coach and a Director of Football, and in this case the duties usually taken by the Manager are being fulfilled by the Director of Football. The Chairman of the club described Sherwood's role as including "transfers, the way that we play, the formations and the picking of the team”[1]. How is this not the same as a manager? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.239.174 (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• a, Luke Williams in head coach, aka manager position [2]
• b, Director of football doesn't go in those infobox positions.

So for each time you change it, I will knock it down to vandalism, Govvy (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The infobox position is for manager. According to wikipedia's own description of what a football manager does Tim Sherwood is best described as filling this this role, albeit with a different title. It's not vandalism, it's accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.239.174 (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Luke Williams picks the team and trains the team, hmm, I don't know what you think you're on about. Govvy (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that. The Chairman of the club is on record as saying that Sherwood picks the team. I've given you the link to the article where he is quoted. What is the problem?

Squad lists

Can someone explain to me why articles for American and Canadian clubs use a different squad list template than everyone else? It doesn't make sense that we're not all on the same page, and it makes even less sense that they've chosen to use a template that's considerably worse than the one we're using on the vast majority of articles. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Because there is a certain degree of WP:OWNership when it comes to North American articles... GiantSnowman 21:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Ha, I was going to make a similar comment. Remember when we had the threat of a breakaway American soccer WikiProject? Number 57 21:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It's so ridiculous. I hate reading articles about American clubs and having to deal with a vastly worse format. It wastes so much space by listing everything in a single column, fully spells out positions and countries for no reason (the whole point of abbreviations and icons is that it saves spaces and efficiently displays information), and the color theming is so clunky and bad. I don't understand it at all. (end rant) Wicka wicka (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Some Championship clubs use that too. It's weird, we should pick one standard and stick to it Dudek1337 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The alternative, wikitable-based, format is MOS:ACCESS-compliant. The commonly-used template isn't. That's the main reason the alternative is used. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to matter to many of us. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, also I don't know all the flags of Guam, Gabon, Uganda etc. The sorting is also nice. The little space it uses more could be used for a picture or something. -Koppapa (talk)

We're not saying one is better than the other - we're saying only one should be used, and introducing a 'new' template without WikiProject consensus is not good editing. GiantSnowman 08:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Five years ago, when the alternative template was new, and had been discussed at length, it was added to a number of club pages as a trial. The trial didn't lead to consensus for adoption, nor did it lead to consensus for removal. A local consensus can't override site-wide guidelines, which means that this project can't – or shouldn't – enforce the use of a MOS-non-compliant template. Particularly when the aspect of MOS that it violates is one whose introductory paragraphs highlight its relationship to the WMF's non-discrimination policy. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain what part of wiki policy the current template violates? All you've done is link to an enormous article and that doesn't help at all. This is yet another example of Wikipedia's byzantine rules slowly destroying the utility of the site. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

As I understood it, the issue remaining was that the way the standard templates implement two columns doesn't generate correctly structured HTML, which means that screen reader software can't interpret them, which means that users relying on screen readers to view the squad lists are fed garbage. It's a trade-off: making the tables look what some of our normally-sighted readers think is vastly worse, or keeping them unusable for all of our screen-reader users. I'm not a technical person, so I don't know if this is still an issue. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I just installed a screen reader (Window-Eyes) to compare the two and it turns out the squadlist used on American articles is actually much worse. The main issues for the traditional squadlist are that "No." is read as "No" (this could be resolved by replacing it with #, which does read as "Number") and that the positions are read out as letters, i.e. G K, D F etc (this perhaps could be fixed using alt-text?). However, everything else reads out properly - the flags are read out as countries and player names are read out correctly.

When it comes to the second version, the header row doesn't get read out (it just says "Sort ascending"), the squad numbers also don't get read out, position names get read out with the disambiguation included (e.g. Goalkeeper association football), as do player names (e.g. Jordan Morris soccer). All of them also get read out twice (so "Sort ascending, sort ascending"). The only thing that works properly is the country name. Based on this, it appears the newer version is the one that is feeding readers garbage if they're using screenreaders. So, seeing as this was the mean reason for adopting it, and it doesn't appear to be valid anymore, can we get rid of it? Number 57 22:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: You are doing God's work. I second that motion. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, maybe we should just go ahead and make the changes you suggest (e.g. changing No. to # and adding alt text for positions)? Wicka wicka (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Not doubting your word, but it does seem odd that the names etc should be read differently. I tried installing Window-eyes to try and reproduce your findings, but it sent my laptop funny so I uninstalled it again :(

I did install the Firefox add-on Fangs, as recommended at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images#Audience, which is a JAWS emulator in text form so you read what the screen-reader user would hear. There appears to be no difference in the way it reads the headings, squad numbers, country names or player names in either version. It reads the position initials GK etc in the traditional one and the written-out positions in the alternative. The significant difference is in the table structure. The alternative, e.g. Seattle Sounders FC#Current roster, is just a simple table:

"Table with four columns and eighteen rows No. Position Player Nation one Link Goalkeeper Link Tyler Miller Link United States two Link Forward Link Clint Dempsey left paren Link DP right paren Link United States"... "Table end".

But the traditional is a large table with two smaller nested tables i.e. the two columns. Using Bolton Wanderers F.C.#Current squad, it outputs

"Table with three columns and twenty-nine rows Table with four columns and fourteen rows No. Position Player two Link Graphic England Link DF Link Lewis Buxton three Link Graphic England Link DF Link Dean Moxey"... then "Table end Table with four columns and fourteen rows No. Position Player", then the contents of the second column, then two "Table end"s.

That makes no difference to us looking at it but isn't desirable logically, per MOS:DTT#Avoiding nested data tables.

Incidentally, and not screen-reader related, I just asked the person next to me to view on their Android phone using the WikiApp. The alternative template came up fine. The traditional one came up as two separate dropdown tables, one for each column (which the person concerned finds irritating) with no flags visible at all even in landscape mode. And I'd forgotten what Koppapa alluded to above, that the traditional template still has flags without even a trigramme to help the ignorant. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess different screenreaders do things in different ways; at least we have some evidence to proceed on, rather than the (now debunked) claim that the newer version is superior (it may be for some screenreaders, but clearly not for others). I also just installed the WikiApp to check what you said and whilst the columns issue is the same for me, the flags appear in both portrait and landscape mode and are clickable to provide the country name.

Perhaps we should seek to address the issues that the original squad list has (I'm sure there's a clever way of coding the table to avoid the nesting issue – perhaps using code that automatically splits a table over two sets of columns (and only when the screen is wide enough) rather than manually doing it with {{fs mid}}). Inserting the trigramme has been suggested before (and I was supportive of it), but I recall it was rejected by editors who did not want to compromise on including the full country name. Number 57 19:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem with just using the flag icons. We use flags constantly in The Real World to denote nationality and it works fine. On wiki we have the added tool of alt-text or just clicking on the flag to determine the country, if you don't already know it. Adding text to make everything totally explicit is clunky and bad UX. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

"Superga air disaster" relation with "2016 Eusébio Cup"

Danieletorino2 (talk · contribs) is reverting my edits at Superga air disaster because he thinks that 2016 Eusébio Cup has "nothing to do with the crash", when in fact, besides Eusébio, the 2016 edition was played in honour of the Grande Torino team. The articles are clearly related. In addition, the link to Sauro Tomà in the "See also" section should not be there according to WP:ALSO guidelines. SLBedit (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Where is your source that the 2016 edition was played because of the crash? This is the same editor that removed Italian youth titles from Bryan Cristante's honours (despite every other player having them) because they were "not notable enough". Now his club's friendly tournament deserves to be mentioned at the end of an article about Superga. Please, try and be a bit more objective. This isn't the Benfica fan website.Danieletorino2 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Official source. Cristante has nothing to do with this (and I don't even remember that). SLBedit (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, I have added the link to Eusébio Cup in the article about Grande Torino. SLBedit (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Match & goals count for a tournament

What's the general consensus on the cases of abandoned and awarded games? Do they count for the total matches/total goals infobox stats? I can see several scenarios like 1) match played in full and result changed later due to ineligible player or other technicality, 2) match started but abandoned due to some incident and later awarded, 3) match not played at all for whatever reason and the result is awarded to either side. -BlameRuiner (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think in cases like (2) and (3) they don't count except in cases where the game is abandoned late and the result at the time stands. Not sure about (1). Number 57 11:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

FPL question

I've raised a question in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Campeonato Gaúcho and Campeonato Carioca - notable enough?. Any thoughts about the subject are very welcome. MYS77 ^✉ 13:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Quick question about manager notability

Would an assistant manager pass WP:NFOOTY if they took over for a match in a WP:FPL? Was wondering about a situation where an assistant took over for a couple of days and was in charge of a match while the manager was ill. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I once asked an admin about this. If the match is within a FPL then I was told it was OK. However, some reliable sources should be added to help the page to reach at least some notability though WP:GNG (that was the case of Miguel Rivera Mora, a page that I've created about a former Almería manager who acted as a caretaker in both La Liga and Segunda División). MYS77 ^✉ 15:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If it's a formally appointed caretaker/interim manager, then I'd say he would technically meet NFOOTY. But if it's just an assistant standing in for a few days while the manager's off sick, which is something that happens all the time, then no. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Struway2: That's the main issue, I guess. What should be a "formal" caretaker appointment? For an example: "full-time manager is sacked, the club release an Official Announcement by saying: 'manager is sacked, some other person will act as caretaker/interim'?" MYS77 ^✉ 16:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That'd be enough for me: if a manager leaves, and the club say that some other person is going to act as caretaker, then it's a formal appointment, albeit temporary acting and almost certainly unpaid. If it only lasted a few days, though, I probably wouldn't create an article that just said he was caretaker of FooFC for one match, against AnotherFC on date ... E.g., Richard Beale was joint caretaker of Birmingham City for two matches in 2014, there probably wasn't enough solid content to make a worthwhile small article for him, so he got his joint-entry in the managers list but that was all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, so if the assistant takes over while the manager is out temporarily, should the match still be statistically (and categorically) attributed to the manager?

I'd say so, but the correct answer is go with whatever the statistical sources do. In 2001/02, when manager of Liverpool, Gérard Houllier had heart surgery and his assistant, Phil Thompson, took the team for several months while Houllier was recovering. Both Soccerbase and LFChistory attribute the entire period to Houllier. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Owain Fôn Williams infobox image

Resolved

A reader has expressed a concern to us through OTRS that the image in the infobox of Owain Fôn Williams is not actually a picture of Fôn Williams. (ticket:2016121310025076) I am not familiar with the subject, but it looks like the right picture by checking it with Google Images, but for avoidance of doubt, could someone please take a look and double-check? Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think it is actually Adam Davies [3], who was also on the bench for that match......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed that now, here are correct captions from Getty.Dudek1337 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for both of your help in getting this resolved! Mz7 (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Country vs. Club games at the under-17 level

I was asked to ask this question here about the India national under-17 football team. The team recently played a tournament in Brazil which involved the under-17 teams of Orlando City, Atletico PR, and Uruguay. So two clubs teams and another national under-17 side. Usually I don't add matches India U17 plays against club academy sides cause those are always friendly matches and don't mean much. There are no tournament rules or anything. I added India's matches against all 3 of these teams here though to the fixtures and results section because this is a tournament and it would be weird to only include the Uruguay game in the section and not the other two from the same tournament just because they were club teams. What do you guys think about this? Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)