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:Inter Milan squad 2010 FIFA Club World Cup

What specific reason to nominate this template to delete? i forgot. Matthew_hk tc 16:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Longstanding consensus that we don't have 'championship winning' squad templates in football. GiantSnowman 11:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The templates in Category:FIFA Club World Cup winning squad navigational boxes should probably be deleted as well. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

True. Kante4 (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection request for Lucas Biglia

The guy is about to sign for A.C. Milan, but no official announcement is expected before at least tomorrow (due to medicals and stuff). Meanwhile IPs can't contain themselves. Would an admin be kind enough to semi-protect the page for a couple of days? Thanks in advance. Luxic (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Luxic Maybe ask at WP:RPP? There's only a couple of football admins, so you'll get a quicker response there (usually). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected. Personally I find the admins at RFPP tend to be very unhelpful as they frequently refuse protection with the claim that it's a "content dispute" even when there is very clearly an issue. Number 57 11:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Season urls

Hi, I have started this discussion at Template talk:Soccerbase season re Soccerbase changing their urls. I think it's quite important, so any feedback will be appreciated. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: Think I've updated it, assuming the only changes they've made are for 2016 season onwards and there isn't something else that I've missed... Anybody notice anything amiss please report it. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 Latvian Higher League

Babite have been excluded from the league for match fixing. The league site found here has completely removed them from their standings. I know removal from the standings and results tables is not how things are normally handled here, but I generally prefer to do what the official league or FA site says. Any thoughts on how these situations should be handled, not just this particular case but any others as well? Equineducklings (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This says to colour their line black, but I've also seen situations where they're removed completely. -Gopherbashi (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume that is the way to do it. I generally hesitate, though, when I see the league or FA site has it displayed differently. Equineducklings (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I updated the article without removing Babite from tables. I am open to making other changes including removal of Babite if editors believe it should be done. Equineducklings (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

FC Steaua București → FCSB

The club, previously known as FC Steaua București (officially "SC Fotbal Club Steaua București SA"), changed its name to FCSB (officially "SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA") at the end of March 2017 (Translated link to the Executive Commitee of the Romanian Football Federation). The club is commonly referred to by important Romanian sport sites such as ProSport, DigiSport and GSP.ro as FCSB, however its fans call the club Steaua.

The problem is that at the UEFA Champions League draw the club was also referred to as FCSB:

"Third qualifying round draw (matches 25 & 26 July/1 & 2 August) League route FCSB (ROU) v Viktoria Plzeň (CZE)"

CSA Steaua București, the sports club that administrated the FCSB football section until 1998 decided to refound its football club this summer and will commence play in the fourth or fifth division.

So, I am asking, shouldn't the page be moved to FCSB rather than keeping it Steaua Bucharest?

See disscussion here. 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 12:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The funny thing is, the club still refers to itself as FC Steaua Bucuresti on its own website (see here. – PeeJay 12:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how they do it. Even the Romanian Football Federation and Romanian Profesional League refer to them as FCSB.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 12:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't moved yet, the trial is on going. Liga Profesionistă de Fotbal still lists it as the same club that won all the championships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bancuri cu olteni poetici (talk • contribs) 19:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Bancuri cu Olteni the club is the same that won the UCL in '89, it's not about that. The problem is the name.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 21:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Dispute regarding Cherno More's history

En edit war which dates back to 2013 appears to be resurrected by User:Rebelheartous. There was some discussion at the article's talk page but most of it took place at the bg wiki talk page. In May 2016, there was a judgement call made by User:Izvora (bg wiki admin) so it appeared that the dispute has been settled. The history section of the Bulgarian article was rewritten with sources from official/authentic documents and the English version is basically a translation.

I have reverted User:Rebelheartous' edits from 16 July and politely asked him to adhere to the bg wiki discussion. He has reverted my edit without explanation and claims that en wiki is a separate entity (which is formally true) and User:GiantSnowman has resolved the dispute there by banning User:Vtd and warning User:Okalinov. These actions by User:GiantSnowman were entirely appropriate, because the edits at that time were unsourced. This is not the case now. In any event, banning a user for a particular disruptive action is not equal to resolving a dispute involving that user.

My question is, what is the proper action from now onwards? Should we go through the same discussion again on en wiki (in English), or an en wiki admin can review the decision made by his bg colleague? An administrative involvement at the WP:AN/EW seems rather harsh to me, so I am seeking advice. Yavorescu (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to confuse bg wiki with en wiki. My edits here are simply based on where we left the discussion last time when User:GiantSnowman took actions against there two users. Sources provided by Okalinov now are 1) Cherno More's official site and 2) his personal website retrofootball.bg which is WP:SELFPUB in my opinion.

The aforementioned official documents refer to bg:ФК Тича article which is a completely different defunct club at present. Any history moments based on these documents should be referred to the respective article. As FC Ticha article is still non-existent in en wiki, I suggest we create it and place the information there.--Rebelheartous (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Naturally, both Ticha and Vladislav do not exist in their original form as they were forcibly merged in 1945 by the so called communist regime. Are you disputing the authenticity of the documents or just the neutrality of the site they are published at? These documents are editions by the Bulgarian Football Union which is the official entity governing football in Bulgaria, so WP:SELFPUB seems inappropriate to me. Anyway, if you wish to resurrect the discussion at en wiki, feel free to do it on the article's talk page. Starting an edit war is not the proper way to defend your position. Yavorescu (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter if they voluntarily merged. What matters though is both clubs ceased to exist in 1945 to form Cherno More. Their distinct histories remained intact, accordingly. Similar case is when Septemvri and CDV were merged into CSKA in May 9, 1948. CSKA does not claim its roots long before this well-known foundation date, although there are some far-fetched red fans that believe this story.

The uploaded files by Okalinov are just typical football handbooks of that time. They are not officially recognised documents of BFU which was called Bulgarian Football Federation (BFF) during communist regime. It is rather hard to imagine BFF would have issued such documents as it would compromise much of football history in Bulgaria, not just Cherno More's. It would've given many clubs the right to 'steal' from others and trace back their histories to whoever knows when.

Kindly check this user's edits on both wikis, as well as Vtd's. They are no ordinary contributors, rather than the type of fans i mentioned earlier - fanatics deeply obsessed with their team of interest spreading stories hardly anyone would find plausible. This is why no discussion whatsover is likely to happen. Since I started clearing up Cherno More's article several years ago, nobody has supported their theories. On the contrary, I already provided you with an opinion of another user on bg wiki. Understandably enough, this guy doesn't want to take part in any useless discussions.

I don't know if you've traced article's editing history. Did you know they used to cite 1909 as Cherno More's foundation year through this IP address? And later, they reverted it to 1913 claiming different beginnings. None of them sourced except for the personal fansite created for that purpose.--Rebelheartous (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what CSKA claim regarding their history, their article is incorrect anyway because the current club has nothing to do with the original club from 1948 -- it is simply renamed Litex Lovech and there is a truckload of official documents for that. It doesn't matter what type of users are Okalinov and Vtd; as far as I am concerned, all ordinary users have equal rights. There is only one truth (usually) and that's what really matters; our obligation as editors is to stick to the facts. What makes you think these documents are not officially recognized by BFU? How about a more recent document from 2013, the honorary diploma at bg:Иван Моканов? It is issued on 16 September 2013 and is signed by the current president of BFU Borislav Mikhailov. It says: "for particular great contributions for the development of Bulgarian football and in connection with the 100th anniversary of PFC Cherno More". Regarding the foundation year 1909, that is debatable. Yavorescu (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You are clearly missing my point with CSKA. All I was saying was that as CSKA is not entitled to claim earlier history and convert it into theirs, such is the case with Cherno More or whoever club you could think of.

Okalinov and Vtd are NO ordinary users. They keep vandalising pages ignoring warnings and adding controversial facts based on their personal beliefs. They never wanted to contribute with any recent events in Cherno More article. They just want to steal history and attach it to their favorite team’s one.

What makes me think these handbooks are what they actually are – handbooks? Maybe because I am in a possession of a few of these handbooks myself and they are far from being called documents, rather than football guides of the respected season. As I already told you, BFU does not issue any verification documents proving one’s club history or another. This is why football portals like bgclubs.eu exist so they could list as much bulgarian football clubs history as possible.

Both of these foundation years are very, very debatable. You cannot simply indicate a certain date and after a short period of time change it to another one. As Wikipedia:Verifiability clearly states: “Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.“ What Wikipedia is also not is a field of original research. I really don't see how honorary dimplomas prove anything or could make a football club an ancient one. So until any reliable sources proving Cherno More's foundation year is not 1945 appear, I suggest we stick to it and take care of vandalism.--Rebelheartous (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Handbooks or not, this stuff was written for ~50 years by hundreds of different authors and was issued under the aegis of an official institution. On the other hand, there is only bgclubs.eu. The CSKA article at bgclubs.eu is incorrect and is not updated to reflect the fact that the club currently competing in the Bulgarian First League has nothing to do with the authentic club. Now, that is precisely what you call "stealing history". How can you determine this site as reliable source when it doesn't contain a single word about the biggest fraud in the history of Bulgarian football? Yavorescu (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You keep diverting attention with swtiching to other clubs' history and I still don't know why.

It could easily have been written for centuries and still not be an official proof of pre-1945 foundation date. So provide us with a reliable source. Otherwise this discussion ends here.--Rebelheartous (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it was you who mentioned CSKA first. I already explained why I consider your source bgclubs.eu as unreliable. Cherno More's history is documented well enough and it is not uncommon the founding date of a club to be considered the one of its predecessor (Hamburger SV and Admira Wacker come to mind). There are counterexamples, of course. In principle, I agree with you that a lie written for decades doesn't make it anything other than a lie. Please provide convincing evidence that supports your claim. Yavorescu (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

CSKA's foundation date is the same as in its respected article. So what are you trying to prove exactly?

You can check for yourself the number of times bgclubs.eu is mentioned in various articles. This site is a valuable football portal and many Bulgarian football club articles cite it. So until you provide us with a reliable source for an earlier year, there is no reason not to cite bgclubs.eu. After all, you said Cherno More's supposedly older history is well documented so providing a source or two will be as easy as pie, right?--Rebelheartous (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

CSKA (the authentic club) went bankrupt and was dissolved. According to the article PFC CSKA Sofia it still exists and has many honours, which is not true. According to bgclubs.eu it still exists and has the listed honours, which is not true. I am trying to prove that bgclubs.eu is not a reliable source. That is easy enough. I don't dispute the fact that it is used as source in Wikipedia articles. Please revert the edit you just made to PFC Cherno More Varna, that is vandalism or at least is very close to it. The fact that nobody from WP:FOOTY has commented yet does not mean that you are right. Please do the same with bg:ПФК Черно море (Варна), this is not acceptable behavior. Yavorescu (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

So now CSKA's history is not correct. I can see you have issues with many football clubs articles. However, none of them sourced. Everything is simply based on your opinion, rather than just facts. Get yourself familiar with WP:NOR and what a reliable source is.--Rebelheartous (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't come up with the WP:NOR stuff, it is not applicable. The PFC Cherno More Varna article before your changes has properly sourced text as history -- from published sources by an official institution governing football at that time. I already pointed out that bgclubs.eu does not contain correct information regarding CSKA and therefore cannot be considered reliable source. The article PFC CSKA Sofia is also incorrect -- the foundation date is correct, but the club has been dissolved. UEFA, CAS and BFU do not consider the team currently competing in the Bulgarian First League as the authentic CSKA; a fact well known to you. How can you possibly claim that bgclubs.eu's information regarding Cherno More is correct, when they cannot get it right even for the most successful Bulgarian club? Yavorescu (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Jesús Navas Assists

Could somebody skilled at editing tables, please remove the Assists columns from Jesús Navas#Club. Thank you! JMHamo (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Naming

I sincerely don't know why qualifying phases are named "qualifying" for the European Championships and "qualification" for the World Cups at this encyclopedia (maybe someone will enlighten me there), but be it as it may, shouldn't we respect the approach and leave the correct wikilink?

A situation has been going on for years in the Javier Patiño article, where an editor changes from "qualification" to "qualifier", writing it in caps to top it. Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It's funny because neither FIFA nor UEFA refers to the process as "qualifying" or "qualification" any more, they simply refer to the whole set of matches as "qualifiers" (see UEFA and FIFA). n.b. FIFA uses the word "preliminaries" in the URL, but "qualifiers" everywhere else. – PeeJay 15:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why this encyclopedia names the Euro qualification process "qualifying" while naming the World Cup qualifying process "qualification". But all the matches are qualifiers. The process is called qualifying/qualification, a match within that process is a qualifier. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent was everywhere, 2017 UEFA European Under-21 Championship qualification, 2017 UEFA European Under-19 Championship qualification and 2017 UEFA European Under-17 Championship qualification, but for earlier editions qualifying, qualifying round was used. So, is there any MoS / naming convention? Matthew_hk tc 18:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Matías Fissore to mainspace

Could an admin move Draft:Matías Fissore to Matías Fissore? It was move-protected because someone was bringing across poorly translated articles from the Spanish Wikipedia. Hack (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 17:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

styling question

On football players' pages, is it good styling to have the headers for the clubs in "club career" section include the years? For example look at Ivan Franjic. --SuperJew (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

World football transfer record merger discussion

Hi all, please note that there is a discussion to merge World football transfer record with List of most expensive association football transfers. This discussion can be found here here. A similar merger discussion has also been opened for Arsenal F.C. Academy and Arsenal F.C. Reserves - here. Both have been inactive/overlooked for the most part so please share your thoughts. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Overkill

After dispatching the nuisance at Eduardo Berizzo and Pablo Calandria, another seasonal squad template...

Question (even though I imagine the reply will be the same, hopefully): is the 2010 FIFA Club World Cup champions squad template in Thiago Motta not overkill?

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

See above. – PeeJay 14:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, i missed that one. --Quite A Character (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Scotland national football team manager

Why is this article titled so? I realise that there's quite a lot of prose there, but surely this is simply an expanded list and should be titled as such? – PeeJay 21:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I just realised there's an England one too. While managing one's country comes with a certain measure of prestige, that specific role is surely not worthy of its own encyclopaedia article as distinct from Manager (association football). – PeeJay 21:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You proposed something similar with the England article several years ago, but the consensus was to keep it as it was (still is). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

At least one positive I can take from that is that my opinion hasn't changed in the last few years. Anyone got anything to add to the discussion? – PeeJay 22:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

For the record, there are 11 "lists" of national team managers (Algeria, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Turkey and United Arab Emirates) and only 6 "articles" (England, France, Germany, Scotland, Sweden and Wales). – PeeJay 22:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Those are good articles in my view. Certainly more notable than some guy playing a minute in the 3rd level tier in Germany or so. For the naming, I'd say they are more than a list and would keep them there. And could create a redirect though. -Koppapa (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you think I was suggesting they should be deleted? I just think they're wrongly titled. – PeeJay 09:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The England one started out as a "list of" but was quickly moved, with the rationale "No longer a list, more of an article" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles created by Durneydiaz

Durneydiaz (talk · contribs) has just been indefinitely blocked as a result of this discussion at WP:ANI. This user has created over a thousand articles mostly about South American footballers. A few articles have recently moved to draftspace for a number of reasons, including failing to cite sources and poor Spanish-English translation. It may be worth some people here having a look at these drafts as many appear to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Hack (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Cyprus football templates

Template:1969–70 in Cypriot football has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• There is also the wider issue of an editor removing links to European competitions from templates like {{1969–70 in English football}} (that one hasn't had its links removed, but the editor has done so from the Cypriot templates and then nominated them for deletion claiming there aren't enough links). As far as I'm aware there has been no discussion on whether these removals are appropriate, so if editors want to contribute to this debate then I think that is something worth mentioning. Number 57 15:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(Hopefully)minor tweak

Can someone please have a look at Antonio Rodríguez Dovale's reference #3? I have tried any imaginable way, but i still cannot help prevent the italics from unduly appearing.

Attentively, thanks very much in advance --Quite A Character (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Think I've fixed it, is that what you were looking for? Kosack (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely! Many thanks, User:Kosack :) --Quite A Character (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Referencing Squad Numbers in Players Articles

Shouldn't the players squad number be referenced in their article? --Kind regards MJ ^☕ 16:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE applies - reference on the club squad list. GiantSnowman 19:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Women's team's seasons in season templates

Is it okay to link to the season coverage in women's football teams' lists of seasons as this: Turbine Potsdam within overall season templates such as 2016–17 in German football? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sports teams on social media

I was wondering if I am allowed to create a Wikipedia page with information about the most popular sports teams on social media. Here are some examples of sites with the most popular sports teams right now: http://fanpagelist.com/category/sports-teams/ http://www.worldofstadiums.com/sports-clubs-on-social-media/

I think a page with all sports teams with +10 million followers or something like that could be interesting for a lot of sports fans. I couldn't find a Wikipedia page which offers information about this subject yet. It's easy to check the figures, because it's not hard to find the team's figures on their Facebook, Twitter and Weibo pages. User:Houndground

Not notable. This is an encyclopedia, not a clickbait listicle. GiantSnowman 11:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree, not needed. Kante4 (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a social network, try another site. Kind regards MJ ^☕ 12:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Turkish Club Rivalry Pages

Since May of last year, Akocsg (talk · contribs) has consistently been trying to insert various regional and invitational games to the honours section of the Fenerbahce-Galatasaray rivalry and Besiktas-Fenerbahce rivalry pages. This is what each section looked like before and after, for Fener-Gala [1] [2] and for Fener-Besiktas [3] [4]. The awards added included an invitational tournament played four times in 50 years on an irregular basis, a part of a former regional tournament played only between the three clubs in question, and a cup that was played as a consolation game between the losers of the Turkish Cup and runners up of the league. The editor's argument is that since the clubs technically played each other in these games, they are a part of the rivalry and should be included. However, my view is that they arent actual trophies to list in honours counts in these articles, and when you look at the consensus for the rest of these rivalry articles, they do not include similar tournaments. Man Utd-Liverpool's rivalry page doesnt include the Lancashire Senior Cup or the International Champions Cup since they are regional and invitational games despite the clubs having faced off in them which would technically make them 'part of the rivalry'. And Arsenal-Chelsea's page doesnt include the London Challenge Cup for example even though both teams played in it. Talkpage discussions between us have reached a bit of a standstill due to the differences in views so could anyone help out and explain who is in the right here? Davefelmer (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Part of the rivalry, therefore relevant to the article. The absence of equivalent trophies elsewhere is irrelevant. So long as they are sourced, they can be included. There should obviously be a difference between them as Senior Honours, and competitive friendlies, but in an amateur history context that relevance is less important (particularly for the Lancashire Senior Cup which used to be a competition of relevance until the FA Cup and League Cup took precedence). Koncorde (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

So are you saying there should be a seperation into sections for some of the awards? None of the content in question is from amateur times, these are all trophies that have run during the professional era. Now I am not the greatest expert on Turkish football so if someone that is could explain the merit and status of these competitions in Turkey, that would be helpful in assessing their status as 'honours'. Because at present you have four team regional invitational leagues listed, you have competitions for the teams that finished 9th-18th in the league listed there etc and I can't see how those could have official status as trophies in the same way as the national league, cup, supercup etc. By all means include them in the prose or the 'games played' section where you list results, but putting them in the honours section seems like a pretty silly inflation of the section.

They arent sourced but I think with this stuff, you can always cherry pick sources that illustrate your point. For instance,[5] [6] these sources don't list the competitions the editor brought in, but I'm sure there is one out there that does. I guess I could go and use these to revert the article back to how it was before, but if he brings another source that shows his side of the argument, there will just be another standstill. Thats why I always thought article-to-article consistency was important. That if none of the other similar articles list equivalent info, then one shouldnt be the exception. Since this is an encyclopedia, isnt it important for the info to remain consistent across the board?Davefelmer (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

What is relevant to one team, or rivalry, may not be relevant to another team or rivalry. While we can generally agree that the Atatürk Cup etc wouldn't count towards a "most successful club ever" chart (which would focus only only in officially sanctioned domestic FA, UEFA and FIFA competitions) for the purpose of two clubs that have played each other within the scope of their rivalry, then it is relevant. For the same reason we include the Super Cup on the Liverpool Vs Manchester Utd even though it was just a one off.

The issue would come if competitions were being introduced to create a landslide effect such as where only one team takes part. So for instance a competition available only to teams finishing 9th to 18th seems odd. The individual times they played each other (or if they genuinely had a historical significance) would be fine, but trying to create an equivalence between those trophies and the League Championship is clearly synthesis and not a Neutral Point of View. Koncorde (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Football kit with full-length trousers

I am trying to use Template:Football kit box to produce a historical kit where the team wore full-length trousers rather than shorts. Is this possible? BlueSwede92 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Not currently possible. -Koppapa (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

More nationality nonsense

Could I get some attention paid to Dzsenifer Marozsán. An IP keeps insisting that the captain of the German women's national team is Hungarian. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The IP doesn't seem to understand what nationality is. Another few pairs of eyes would be great --SuperJew (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

IP is technically correct. Hungary and Germany both recognize dual citizenship. Therefore, it's misleading to say she's a "Hungarian-born German" as this would imply she is not Hungarian, only born there. The best way to describe her is Hungarian-German. This is how she's described in the Hungarian article. "Dzsenifer Marozsán is a Hungarian-German football player who represents Germany." I think this would satisfy everybody and be accurate. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, IP is claiming she isn't German at all. Secondly, I agree that she holds both nationalities, but the relevant one to her wikipage which is notable and existing due to her soccer career is the nationality relevant to her career, German. --SuperJew (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Standard protocol in these kind of cases (where nationality doesn't match birthplace) is not to mention it in the very opening, and to explain it later on. GiantSnowman 13:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Maroszan is a professional footballer who represents X and Germany". Following paragraph / section can then explain in more detail. This is especially common for Algerian / French combinations. Koncorde (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

First, her nationality and birth place does match, which is Hungary/Hungarian. Second, there is a sourced interview where she states she considers herself Hungarian which should be respected. Third, Germany does not seem to recognize dual citizenship, in order to be considered German she would need to give up her Hungarian citizenship. Her achievements should be worded to be clear she won international titles with Germany.

Pablo Ferré Elías and Pedro Pablo Ferré Elías

I came across this stub for a Spanish coach/referee named Pablo Ferré Elías who worked in El Salvador and Chile in the 1930s and 40s. Is there anyone with any expertise in this area who might know if this could be the Pedro Pablo Ferré Elías who has been mentioned coaching Fidel Castro when he was young? [7] The details are sketchy but the one in Cuba was identified as a Catalan priest who was also a football coach and referee. The timeline seems to match. This would be an important detail if they were one in the same. Thanks! —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)