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.

GK goals conceded in infobox?

I'm sure this has already been discussed, but is there any specific reason to why we don't add the goals a goalkeeper has conceded in his infobox? The Italian wiki already does this (e.g. Rogério Ceni) and I think it would be a good addition to the article. What do you think?

Also, slightly related to this, in case we don't know the appearances or goals scored (conceded in the GK's case) what should be put? A "–", "?" or just leave it blank? Nehme1499 (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope and leave it blank. Kante4 (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Because stats aren't readily available. Leave it as 'goals scored' like all outfield players. GiantSnowman 19:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with GS. Stats aren't generally available for this, so would lead to lots of original research. Also, these lot would end up with pretty cluttered infoboxes. Regarding the other question, yes, leave them blank. Nzd (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Also, if we know that a player has played/scored AT LEAST a certain amount should we add a "+"? E.g. we know that a player has scored at least 19 goals for team X, should I put 19+? Nehme1499 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I do that sometimes, yes. GiantSnowman 08:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The other issue is that some keepers (including Rogério Ceni) have scored goals as well, so it might become a bit cluttered to include both goals conceded and goals scored, so I agree it's probably best to leave goals at 0 for keepers (unless they have scored goals in league matches). I think many Italian users have a lot of stats from Panini books or football trading cards/stickers, etc. Best, Messirulez (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

About transfermarkt

Hi all, I and Edwink85 want to ask about why transfermarkt is not a reliable source. I don't really know the details so I couldn't explain to Edwink85 about it. Maybe someone can give the details about it? Thanks. Wira rhea (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Edwink85 and Wira rhea: Transfermarkt is not considered a reliable source because the content is generated by random users, in the same way that Wikipedia is. That is why WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. GiantSnowman 12:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I tried to explain it in Talk:2019 Bali United F.C. season and User talk:Edwink85 before but....Hhkohh (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Sir Sputnik who may know about it Hhkohh (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

We have WP:WPFLINKS you can see the bottom of the page. But as GS has said, transfermarkt is user generated. Govvy (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I'll respond here, but don't really have anything to add. Snowman has already explained why the site isn't reliable source. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Weltfussball, playerhistory and many other statistics sites are also user-generated, yet no one objects. 109.232.29.145 (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Playerhistory is defunct; no comment on Weltfussball, there have been no issues in the past with that site, whereas IIRC Transfermarkt was abused by vandals. GiantSnowman 08:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

For the record, Weltfussball/Worldfootball is not UGC, although users can add pictures, videos and their own articles. I confirmed this by creating an account and I am not able to edit data. It's published by HEIM:SPIEL (a "service provider for sports data").

Transfermarkt relies on "Data moderators" to keep its stats intact. Any user can apply to be one. Nzd (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hugh McLaren date of death

Please see Talk:Hugh McLaren (footballer, born 1926)#Date of death, thanks! GiantSnowman 10:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

1967–68 Football League First Division

What is going on in the qualification relegation column of the table. Some clubs are qualifying for next season's events (European Cup and CWC), others are indicating that they are playing in the Fairs cup that season, based on qualifying the previous season. Is this what was intended or is desired?   Jts1882 | talk  15:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, I know the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup was played during the season and not a summer tournament. Unless it's indicating that, which it really shouldn't it should really show who qualifies for the next season shouldn't it. Govvy (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There was no qualification process for the Fairs Cup; clubs simply entered it if their city had hosted an Inter-City Fair. I would imagine the text is just there to show that they were playing in the competition that season. Number 57 16:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Initially it was related to the city fairs, but by the late 60s qualification was based on league position. However, there was a limit of one club per city, which led to oddities like Newcastle qualifying in 9th because Everton and three London clubs who finished above them couldn't enter. This limit carried over to the UEFA Cup for a few seasons.   Jts1882 | talk  10:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the question was more about why the article says that teams were qualifying for the 1967-68 Fairs Cup when they should have been qualifying for the 1968-69 Fairs Cup. – PeeJay 17:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk

The official site is swindontownfc.co.uk so what's with swindon-town-fc.co.uk? Is this a fan site or not? I was a little confused and wanted to double check. And the that websites YouTube channel? I've noticed a link used as a citation, should I remove that link? Govvy (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Under "Other" it describes itself is unofficial etc. So definite fan site. Koncorde (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

k, I've removed a reference then, probably copyvio link. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't know how to assess the reliability of a Youtube channel, but the website is quite possibly the best unofficial club site going. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Struway2: Wasn't the website that bothered me, it was the YouTube channel, because I couldn't see any established copyrights. Govvy (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

2018–19 Eredivisie

Is anybody able to make the map smaller, it seems huge on the article!! Govvy (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done To make the map smaller/bigger just change the width parameter (it's set to 400 now). Nehme1499 (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

lol, cheers, o what a simple fix, I really don't know why I couldn't see that code first time I looked!! Cheers. Govvy (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ahahaha no problem! Nehme1499 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Help!

Please help me, I am new to this project. Let me know where to start. Thanks! ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to reek havoc making WP:POINTy edits and trying to rewrite all the guidelines like you are doing in WP:CRIC? Spike 'em (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Spike 'em what no? why? and why not? proper discussions are always open. what do u mean anyways? I am new here and want a fresh experience. So help me rather than this. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

And what do u mean rewriting guidelines? I am discussing. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Doing this on more project pages, looks a bit fishy, tbh. Not sure what you are up to... Kante4 (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Kante4 hahahaha so funny. Nice catch. You guys can't even welcome properly. ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all, I thought I would to your attention three open RM requests regarding the national football teams articles:

1. South Africa (football to soccer)
2. DR Congo (DR Congo to Democratic Republic of the Congo)
3. Timor-Leste (Timor-Leste to East Timor)

Regards – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for the notification. SportingFlyer T·C 02:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BBC Face quiz

[1] Anyone tried this, I got 6 out of 10, but what a laugh. Govvy (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Lol 5/10 for me . ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Player Honours: Supercups in Trophy Counts?

• Hi, everyone. I had a query over a recurring issue in Wikipedia pages to which I was hoping to find a solution. The issue is whether players should be credited with Supercup titles or Cup titles in which they did not appear, even if a reliable source credits them with this title. The problem is that in different countries there seem to be different regulations regarding which players receive winners' medals, and there doesn't seem to be a way to resolve this.

• Obviously I know that in English football regulations are very strict on which players receive winners' medals for domestic titles: usually they need to have made 10+ league appearances for a Premier League medal, and they need to have appeared in the domestic cups or supercups, or they need to have been called up for the final in order to receive a cup medal as well, I believe (although I also saw recently that on the FA Cup website, under rules and regulations, unlike previous seasons where 30 medals were awarded to be distributed among players, staff, and officials of both clubs in the FA Cup Final, now "...The Association shall present 40 medals to playing staff and officials of both Clubs in the Final.". In European football, this is also the case, as players need to be included in the 25-player UEFA list in order to be eligible for a medal.

• Having said that, I also know that in Italian football, things are slightly different, and as can be seen for the awarding of medals for league titles or Cup or Supercup titles on youtube (for example this clip which shows all of the Juventus players receiving a medal at the 2018 scudetto trophy ceremony), all squad members receive a medal, regardless of whether they were called up or if they even appeared in the competition (now, moreover, squad sizes have been limited to 25 players, I believe, and I think 30 medals are issued to a winning team for players and coaching staff – as shown here in an official source regarding regulations for the 2008 Supercoppa Italiana).

• Because of the strict regulations in English Football over which players qualify for a winners' medal, one user, Davefelmer, has also been removing sourced domestic honours from several players' pages, if they were not called up to a Supercup final or if they did not appear in a competition (sometimes even if they did not achieve 10 league appearances as well); I understand this user's concern over inaccuracies on wikipedia footballer pages (as sources such as Soccerway also list that players have won certain domestic honours in England even if they didn't receive a medal if they were part of the club that won that title at the time), and that they likely had the best intentions in mind when doing this, but the fact is that not all football competitions in other countries abide by the same regulations, so to remove certain honours would be unfair and inaccurate. I haven't disputed the domestic honours from other countries that have been removed to be honest, as I am not sure of the regulations and have not found much information on this, but I have disputed the removal of Italian football honours that they removed without knowledge of the league's regulations or the Italian language, as I know that the rules are different to those for domestic competitions in English football. Admittedly, I will go back on what I had previously said and will agree that if a player was not called up to the Supercoppa Italiana (at least prior to 2005 when the regulations were changed), that they should not receive a medal, so I will not dispute those honours being removed, but their Coppa Italia and Serie A titles should not be removed on the other hand.

• I'm not sure what the regulations are in other countries to be completely honest; I don't know if it's fair to assume the regulations in these countries are similar to those in England, and therefore if honours for players that weren't called up to the finals or didn't appear in domestic cups or supercups should be removed, or if it would be better to assume that they resemble those in Italy (but I would be more inclinced to assume the latter, due to proximity, that many domestic football competitions mediterranean countries they would have similar regulations, and that players aren't required to make a minimum number of league or cup appearances to qualify for a medal). I know it's difficult to determine whether a player has won a title or not if they did not appear in the competition or were not called up for it, because different sources – such as Newspaper articles, or club profiles, or common sources such as Soccerway or Eurosport – often contradict one another and sometimes list a title as an honour on certain player profiles, mainly as they seem to take into account what a team won during that particular season and only if a player was a part of the team at the time, while others exclude them.

• But regarding domestic competitions in Spain specifically, I know that @PeeJay2K3: and @Aavelarx: had discussed with @Paulinho28: and me on Messi's talk page that they felt the 2005 Supercopa de España should be removed from his list of honours (while we disagreed), as he was not called up for either leg of the final. However, [2]this official Barcelona source mentions that he and Andrés Iniesta are the players with the most honours at the club and lists them as both having won that title; his official club profile also lists this title under the honours section. PeeJay2K3 has argued that he wasn't even part of the club's "A" squad at the time, as according to this page and this report (I have commented that I'm not sure that these would be considered reliable sources on wikipedia), he wore number 30 at the start of the season and was re-registered as number 19 later on. He also added that players in Spanish clubs' "A" squads had to wear numbers between 1 and 25 at the time, which indicates that Messi was not part of the "A" squad at the start of the season, and that it would therefore be unfeasible to consider the player to have won an honour if they weren't part of the club's "A" squad at the time.

• However, although I thought that he made a valid point and that this argument seemed reasonable, I didn't have any reliable sources which confirmed this. I tried looking for information on Spanish articles or official La Liga BBVA sources regarding squad numbers in Spanish football and their correlation with whether players were registered with the A or B team and found no such information (also, Damià Abella was on the bench for the first leg of the 2005 Supercopa de España, and he had the number 32 at the time, so this argument seems somewhat tenuous); I do know that the Messi wiki article cites a reliable source from a biography on the player by Balagué] and mentions that: "On 24 June 2005, his 18th birthday, Messi signed his first contract as a senior team player. It made him a Barcelona player until 2010, two years less than his previous contract, but his buyout clause increased to €150 million." This for me is proof that he was a first-team player at the time (especially as the Supercopa took place in August that year, and he made no appearances for the B team that season, while making 17 La Liga appearances and 25 in all competitions despite injury). I also remember that later in August, after the Supercopa, Fabio Capello wanted to sign him on loan after seeing his impressive performance when he started against Juventus in the Joan Gamper Trophy (which Hunter's book on Barcelona, which is cited in Messi's wiki article, also corroborates); moreoever, the Barca Wiki article for the 2005–06 season also lists Messi as being promoted to the first team.

• If Barcelona have credited him with that title on their official club profile for Messi on their official website, even though he wasn't called up for that match, and listed him as the most decorated Barcelona player ever alongside Iniesta in 2017, and stated that they both won the same Spanish Supercups, then I would think that he must've been assigned that medal, but there doesn't seem to be a way to confirm this at the moment. I wanted to see if we could actually arrive at a consensus over which Supercups and other honours that players could be credited with so that we can finally resolve this problem and any future disputes over this. Should official club sources be taken into account for non-English domestic competitions? Or are sources such as Soccerway acceptable in the case that players did not appear in a particular competition or receive a call-up for a final? Or should they be removed altogether instead? I can see both sides of the argument, so I wanted input from more users. I hope that this post didn't become overly convoluted; please feel free to ask for clarification if you have any questions, and – to the users that I have tagged – please feel free to add any comments, information, or further clarification, so that hopefully we can vote on a mutual agreement, so that this issue can finally be resolved, regardless of our own personal preferences.

Thank you! Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

If a player is not called up to the squad at least, he should not be having this honour here on WP. Kante4 (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that it seems a stretch to give them an honour/medal if they aren't called up at all for a Supercup match, but what about cup competitions which are longer? If they are still listed in a squad for a game but do not appear, even if it wasn't a final? Also, what about the idea of needing a minimum of 10 league appearances to qualify for a league medal like in English Football? That seems to be a dangerous assumption for someone to make about regulations in other leagues. In Italy, every player in the squad is awarded a medal, as is shown by the trophy ceremony at the end of the season. Messirulez (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman 15:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read the second paragraph at least, @GiantSnowman:; I'm posting a lot of information because I want to be objective and show both sides of the argument, so if you could please actually try and take the time to skim read it or look it over quickly, I would be extremely grateful if you could please be of some use or offer some help if you can; if you don't have time to read it or offer a constructive point, then please don't comment, especially with such a flippant and brief comment like "TLDR". I have already apologised for the long post and said that if anything was convoluted to feel free to ask for further clarification, so you could at least show some common courtesy and ask me to summarise my query if you wanted me to do so, especially when I have always tried to be as polite as possible on here. Moreover, like you, I've been on here quite a long time, and have been also working hard to improve football articles and find sources for uncited material, and with this discussion I'm also hoping finally to resolve a recurring issue on football articles. Thank you. Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Ideally each competition should have a metric for who received a medal etc, however it is well known that leagues change their point of view and metrics from time to time. DaveFelmer is a known issue that I have worked with in the past, but this may need revisiting with him to make it clear the correct process for challenging honours.

For honours a club website, as a source of primary facts, is reasonable. However the primary source over time is liable to eliminate this data when players leave. Koncorde (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Koncorde:; thanks for your response. Personally, I've found that I haven't really got on with DaveFelmer on here because of our disagreements over this, and I feel like when we have tried to discuss this issue we haven't really gotten anywhere, so I don't know if it would be best for us to collaborate on this; maybe it would be preferable for someone else to do so. At first I thought that they were deleting titles from players' pages without doing any research as to what regulations were in other leagues, and I politely tried to inform them that regulations were different in Italy and attempted to initiate a discussion, but I did not receive a response from them initially and my messages were deleted, which I felt to be discourteous. Then later when I messaged them again, they responded, and I do understand that they had a valid point when they contested the official Lega source of the number of medals being awarded in the Supercoppa Italiana (and I think probably it would be best to remove those honours from players pages who were not called up for the competition those particular years, but the same should not apply for Serie A and Coppa Italia titles, as they clearly are awarded to all squad members), and that they were merely trying to ensure that everything was accurately sourced, which I appreciate, but I didn't personally find them to be extremely co-operative or understanding, although maybe this was just me and the fact that online discussions can seem quite abrupt and impersonal, and I don't know if it was the case with you or anyone else, so I wouldn't want to make false accusations here if ultimately this just happened to be a misunderstanding between the two of us; but hopefully we can ultimately set our differences aside once this has been sorted out and put the past behind us.

But I do think that for non UK domestic competitions, one should first confirm whether a players has appeared in earlier stages of the competition before removing the honour, as I would think that an appearance in said competition would suffice, as not all competitions abide by the same regulations as those in British Football Leagues, like those in Italy, for example, or Portugal, as @Quite A Character: has also noted. (And as I said, in Italy even players who didn't appear in a cup competition receive a medal; this can be seen in the medal ceremonies for the 2015–17 Coppa Italia titles on youtube, where Buffon received a winners' medal without even having appeared in those editions, as is shown here for the ceremony for the 2017 final, and it makes sense because he is still a team leader and the captain in the dressing room). I think one should even see whether they were called up as well or eligible to appear. I think that if a club source lists a player as having won an honour, then it would be acceptable as well, but I can see why others might disagree on this. The main reason why I want to come to a consensus is do avoid any future conflict between other users. Thanks. Best, Messirulez (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course the offical webiste credits them with the trophy (not objective), still stand by my point as there were lenghty discussions on the Bale and Ronaldo articles... Kante4 (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Kante4:, thanks for your response. Yes, I completely understand that. But the problem is, what about the issue where well-intentioned users like Davefelmer are removing non-UK league titles from the Wiki pages of players who have made fewer than 10 appearances in said competitions, or titles from players who didn't appear in or weren't called up to non-UK Cup finals, even if they appeared in or were called up to earlier stages of the competition? I understand their reasoning, and to be honest, I can't find information regarding the minimum number of appearances (if there even is one) required to obtain a winners' medal in other European Leagues outside the UK; I can't even find this information for Serie A, to be honest, but I do know that without a doubt, in Serie A, all squad members receive a medal, and if you look at the youtube clip I posted from Juventus's medal ceremony from last season, you will see all of the team's players picking up medals, even though who didn't appear, so it would be wrong to remove these honours from their pages. And this is also the case for the Coppa Italia as well. What model should be followed for domestic honours in other countries then? This becomes a bit of problem, because then it seems that some sources would be acceptable for some leagues (e.g. Serie A), but not for others (e.g. the Premier League), but then to exclude/remove the honours altogether from non-UK football leagues would also be inaccurate. Do you see my point? Thanks. Best, Messirulez (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It is near impossible to read that section and follow what you mean. You should try to break that paragraph up and possibly use some bullet points so people can see what you are actually saying. Spike 'em (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tried to do that now; hopefully it helps a bit. Sorry, I was writing it rather quickly. Best, Messirulez (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I understood the original format fine and didn't find it overly long. I completely agree with the problem, but don't have the solution. It becomes particularly difficult with so many competitions and countries involved with different rules, and the many editors in the project being from so many of these different places and insisting (innocently) on applying the conventions as they know them to articles originating from places with different rules, in some cases supported by reliable sources from Foo which contradict reliable sources on another equivalent player from Bah. Can't see an easy answer. Crowsus (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is that in countries/competitions where a squad has to be registered to participate, only those players should be considered to have "won" those competitions (as well as any B squad players who made enough appearances). In Spain, La Liga regulations state that "A" squads may be no more than 25 players and each player must have a squad number between 1 and 25. At the start of the 2005-06 season, when the Supercup was played, Messi's squad number was 30 (as this page indicates, he started the season as #30 and was then re-registered later as #19), which indicates that he was not part of the Barcelona "A" squad. He had also only played nine first-team matches at the time, none of them as a member of the starting line-up (see here). He was not involved in either leg of the 2005 Spanish Supercup (see here and here), so the only conclusion I can reach is that FC Barcelona is artificially inflating the number of trophies Messi has won. For what purpose, I don't know, but he is their golden boy, so I would imagine it is in their best interests to attribute to him every trophy they can possibly get away with. – PeeJay 08:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree totally with that. Crowsus (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Crowsus:; I am not disputing at all what @PeeJay2K3: is arguing, and I think that they are making a fair point and I appreciate that they took the time to look for some sources; the only thing is that we cannot seem to find a reliable source which confirms that there are regulations which state that A team members in Spain were registered with squad numbers 1–25. Those sources firstly come from websites which wikipedia guidelines do not deem to be suitable, and secondly, they only mention Messi's shirt number. If there were an official source which stated this, then by all means I would gladly accept this. As can be seen below, PeeJay2K3 has kindly posted some sources that they found from worldfootball.net (thank you for this), which is a more reliable source than the others previously posted, of Barcelona match reports during the 2005–06 season which demonstrate that in a game against Celta Vigo on 20 December 2005, Messi was wearing #30 (see here), and then against Espanyol on 7 January 2006, that he was wearing #19 (see here). But although this is all very useful, and I do not dispute any of this as it is concrete evidence which cannot be disputed, all this shows is that his shirt number was changed throughout the course of the season (I know in French football this has happened at times purely for reasons such as players having a personal preference). I just ideally wanted some firm proof regarding the regulations over player registration in Spanish football and what shirt number they were required to have, especially given that Messi had signed a first team contract in June 2005 and was no longer playing with the B team during the 2005–06 season. Having said that, at this point I do think it might be better to remove the 2005 Supercup from Messi's page altogether if he was not called up to either leg of the final, and maybe it would be better to remove players who were not called up to at least one leg of those types of competitions in future, as I think it just becomes problematic do determine whether they "won" this title or not and a major headache, and this would hopefully avoid any future conflicts over such titles on here. I don't think the same should apply for non-UK domestic League and Cup titles, however. Does that seem fair? Thanks. Best, Messirulez (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. However, there is a wikipedia problem with handling it. The source may be inflating Messi's numbers (Barcelona are always making him bigger) but it is considered a reliable source. There needs to be a better source to contradict this.   Jts1882 | talk  09:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that generally the Barcelona website can be considered reliable for factual matters, but I wouldn't rely on them too much, especially when they are basically acting as propagandists for themselves and their players. With the evidence above, I think I've cast enough doubt on the idea that Messi won the 2005 Spanish Supercup that we should just ignore it. – PeeJay 10:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, Messirulez, here is the evidence that Messi's squad number changed during the 2005-06 season. In a game against Celta Vigo on 20 December 2005, he was wearing #30 (see here), and then against Espanyol on 7 January 2006, he was wearing #19 (see here). Worldfootball.net is a pretty reliable source, so hopefully that should be sufficient, but I'll try to find pictorial evidence too. – PeeJay 10:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that 2005 Supercup should be included, since it is an official trophy and Messi was already in the team at the time, he was not a senior member, but still a member of the team (we do also count his first LaLiga title in 2005, which was also before he was a senior player). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintendonix (talk • contribs) 12:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The difference between the 2005 Spanish Supercup and the 2004-05 La Liga title is that Messi actually played in some of the matches during the 2004-05 season. He did not participate in any way, shape or form in the 2005 Spanish Supercup. – PeeJay 12:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

To start with, if you're going to talk about another user like Davefelmer you should at least have the courtesy to ping them so they can come and defend themselves. I think it's always best to stick to the obvious, if a player physically won a medal, runner up or winners medal that should be included in their honours list. There is a consensus that only competitive medals should be added and not to add medals won from friendly competitions. Receiving a medal for not evening playing, well that's a grey area and I wouldn't even bother putting it on the list. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. The trouble is, Barcelona are claiming that Messi did win the 2005 Spanish Supercup, but that flies in the face of all the evidence. – PeeJay 15:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

So, from what I gather, do the majority of users agree that in order for a player to be credited with a Supercup title (be it the Supercoppa Italiana or the Supercopa de España), they must have at least been called up for one leg of the final, regardless of what club sources state. and that Messi's 2005 Spanish Supercup title should therefore be removed?

Moreoever, do we agree that for non-UK domestic cup and league titles (excluding Supercups), that if a player has made an appearance or been called up for a match in said competition, that they will still be credited with the title, even if they did not appear in the final, or in 10 or more league matches?

Finally, can we also agree that for Italian domestic honours, excluding the Supercoppa Italiana (i.e. Serie A and the Coppa Italia), that all first team members will be credited with title as medal ceremonies demonstrate (as shown here for the former and here for the latter on youtube) that all squad members receive a medal?

• Thank you all for your contributions; I very much appreciate all of your help with this and am extremely grateful to you all! I know this hasn't been simple to resolve, as there isn't a lot of information, but I think this discussion has been extremely useful, and hopefully the outcome will help to deal with similar future issues rather quickly! Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think official club pages should be reliable regarding that ("peril of inflation"), but I definitely agree that if a player plays one cup round but not the final/is on the bench of (for instance) the Supercup he/she should get honour; additionally, I feel runner-up accolades should be included, especially when the given player has not won a lot of stuff.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, lastly, I just wanted to add that @Vaselineeeeeeee: did bring up one good point, which was that in the past I found a picture of Simone Inzaghi with a 2009 Supercoppa Italiana medal round his neck even though he wasn't in the squad for the final (as can be seen in the picture in this article here from a reliable source like Sky Sport Italia). I realise that although 30 medals are given out to winning club players and coaching staff, and that the Serie A squads are now limited to 25 players, that one still cannot confirm who exactly receive a medal if they weren't called up for the match, but I hope that for isolated cases like these, that it is acceptable to use photographic evidence to justify the inclusion of an honour on a player's page, and that users will be reasonable and accept this. Thanks! Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

For Italy at least, the source provided from the 2008 Supercoppa is pretty clear that there are 30 medals to go out to the club's players; what are they going to do, just throw the extras away? Reliable sources such as Soccerway show the titles being listed, but unless a league regulation is used as a counter I don't see how it can be shunned. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Messirulez: I read all of your points and I totally agree with you. You have my support. The case is, if Barca's official website states that Messi is the winner of 2005 Supercup, then he is a winner. The same applies with Ronaldo & Bale in 2016 Supercup (they weren't call up due to injury, but they still received a medal [Bale himself tweeted a photo of him with the medal]), and if a player receive a medal, then he is automatically a winner of the competition. The information of Wikipedia should be based in reliable source, and for this case (Messi), I cannot find more of a reliable source than Barcelona official website.Sadsadas (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

If you think Barcelona's official website is reliable, I will refer you to my comment above about the club basically being Messi's official propagandists. Of course they're going to say he won that competition; he's their poster boy and it makes sense for them to say he won as many competitions as they can get away with. But he wasn't in the first team at the time (see above evidence re: squad numbers); if they had named him in the matchday squad for either leg, you might have a case, but they didn't. Otherwise you could argue that Pitu (#27), Joan Verdú (#31) or Jordi Gómez (#33) all won the 2005 Supercopa too. The only player with a squad number higher than 25 who even comes close is Damià, and that's because he was on the bench for the first leg. As for your spurious argument about Bale and Ronaldo, how do you know Ronaldo got a medal for the 2016 UEFA Super Cup? At least Bale posted a picture of himself with his medal, but that's because he was included in the squad - this page even makes special mention of the fact that Ronaldo was not in the squad for that game, which is backed up by the fact that he didn't travel to Norway (neither did Bale, but he gets a medal because he was in the squad). If he wasn't in the squad, you can't say he won that competition. – PeeJay 10:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree (with PJ): as per WP:RSPRIMARY we should be using mainly secondary sources, which the Barcelona website is not. WP:SELFSOURCE says we can use primary sources if it is not contentious or self-serving, both of which apply here. Spike 'em (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no secondary source to override the Barcelona website. A club website would be considered an acceptable sources for most purposes. Here we have established that Messi didn't play and shouldn't count the medal, but on what wikipedia basis can the one source be ignored, but only in this instance. If it is considered a self-serving site, then shouldn't that exclude its use for anything?

On the supercups, they should only count if the player played (or at least was on the bench) as they are one off games. Including other players can lead to the absurd situation where an uninvolved player at another club gets credit.   Jts1882 | talk  10:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The guideline helps us decide whether to use a source talking about itself: there are 5 criteria that need to be met. 1 of them does not seem to be met in this case. Spike 'em (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, like I say, I don't have as much of a problem with attributing the honour to other members of Barcelona's 25-man La Liga squad who didn't appear in the Super Cup, e.g. Thiago Motta and Santiago Ezquerro. They were, after all, registered as part of Barcelona's senior cohort. But if you're not going to include those guys, you definitely can't include Messi. – PeeJay 11:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree that Barcelona's website is not reliable for this information. However, LFP, the organizer of this cup, seems to recognize him to have won. Personally, I find it comical that players can be considered winners in these circumstances, but I don't know if it's okay to disregard LFP's official acknowledgment. — Anakimi_Holler   23:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

U.S. University league cups

Per a couple recent AfDs here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament (no consensus) and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament (redirect), @Jay eyem: has noted we should have a conversation on whether these amateur qualifying tournaments are inherently notable. I personally think it is clear these may but do not necessarily pass WP:GNG, as university sports in the U.S. are frequently only covered by the hosting league or the participating schools. Even the no consensus Big West tournament was not covered by the media until the final, but the final also serves as a qualifying match for the main U.S. university cup. (An analogy in the area of the project I'm working on improving would be the Croatian county cups which serves as a qualifier to the main national cup whose finals are also routinely covered by local media, but they clearly do not pass WP:GNG.) That being said, I want to have a discussion here before I start nominating other articles for redirects. SportingFlyer T·C 22:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not really a league cup, it's a college tournament. College athletics in general gets far more coverage in the U.S. than elsewhere. They're not comparable. Smartyllama (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I would think that true for a sport like gridiron or basketball, but not all of these tournaments receive independent secondary coverage, with the possible exception of the tournament final (since it's the main tournament qualifying game.) For instance, 2017 MAAC Women's Soccer Tournament or 2017 Summit League Men's Soccer Tournament seem ripe for an AfD (the latter is source-bombed, the only independent coverage of the entire tournament I have found is the article here: [3]. In fact, the only 2017 men's articles with any secondary coverage on the article page at the moment are the Big 10 league, the CAA and CUSA league (one very routine story which mentions both tournaments in the same article), Horizon (not actually about the tournament, but about the team that won the tournament's performance in the actual tournament), the Missouri Valley league (final match only), Patriot League (same as Horizon), Southern, and the WAC league (again only secondary coverage is about the main tournament.) Why are these presumptively notable? SportingFlyer T·C 23:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, the final is part of the tournament. It makes little sense to have an article just on the final rather than the whole tournament - coverage of the final is coverage of the tournament and enough to get the tournament past WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

No, they're not inherently notable. What need is there for separate season articles? GiantSnowman 14:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any tournament would become notable just because there is media coverage on the tournament's final match, university or otherwise. Match reports are considered WP:ROUTINE anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 19:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

More honours (and then some)...

Point is getting to be somewhat moot (maybe there'll never be a consensus), but here's another "go"...

Nicolás Otamendi (the lastly added stuff, the last user after me): seriously, is that an honour? A milestone yes, but an honour...

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It's fine noting it in prose, but it's not an honour. I don't know why it's listed in the honours, I've tried to remove them before. Govvy (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Not an honour, cna be used in prose (would have been nice to know before clicking what was it all about ;)). Kante4 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

And @Rupert1904: notifying the editor who wants it included. Kante4 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It is now an official honour bestowed by the Premier League (please go on their official website or the source I used on his page to confirm the veracity of this) and has been added to every Premier League players wikipedia page that has received it. It's not just Otamendi and it's not that I want it to be included per se. But if this is now an official individual honour given out by the league then Wikipedia guidelines suggest it should be included. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It is still a milestone and not an honour, simple as that. Fine for the prose of course when he reached the milestone. Kante4 (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I've got plenty of shields and trinkets like this from my own non-league days. Premier League call it a milestone, they haven't called it an honour!! Govvy (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You're noteworthy of having a wikipedia page though.Rupert1904 (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Based on this comment and your edit history, I’m not sure you understand Wikipedia policies. – PeeJay 22:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss all of my edit history. Go ahead... But back to the discussion at hand, it is an official award started in 2017 that is given to players who achieve 100, 200, 300 appearances and so on and 50, 100, 150, 200 goals and so on. There is a ceremony and medal awarded. You may check the official Premier League website and the source I used for Otamendi's page. Why should these not be included but similar and small individual awards like Goal of the Month, Player of the Month, Manager of the Month, are included. Further, why is Otamendi the only player not allowed to have his milestone awarded in his individual honours section? This is mind boggling that I am accused of vandalism and being a bad editor (thanks PeeJay - that is a really encouraging environment to create for other editors) yet you all cannot agree on a simple policy or guideline.Rupert1904 (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Goal of the Month, Player of the Month, Manager of the Month are not milestones!! Govvy (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

And reaching 100/200/300 games is not an honour. Sure, you have to be a decent player to achieve that sort of longevity, but you don't have to play especially well. They haven't won anything, they've just stuck around long enough to play a certain number of games. – PeeJay 23:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Before the league started giving out the award, I would agree with you that it is just a milestone and should not be included in an honours section but the Premier League has decided otherwise. It's not about our opinions or us making that decision. In the Otamendi section, another editor argued that De Gea is about to get 100 clean sheets but that should not be included in his honours section. But when De Gea does get to 100 clean sheets and IF the league decides to honour him with a medal then it should be included in his individual honours section. Why is this any different than putting in "just a milsetone" in honours sections like goals of the month, players of the month, man of the match in major tournaments and cup finals, top scorers in leagues and tournaments, top scorers for clubs all time, record club and national team appearances, goal of the tournament, goal of the season, club player of the season, young player of the season, team of the season? Why do you all think a man of the match or a goal of the season is an honour that should be recorded in individual honours section? By your argument then, What did that player "win"? This should not be about our opinions but a decision made by a governing body to award an achievement. You all have even agreed with me and the league in calling the medal they receive from the league a trophy. A trophy is defined as "a cup or other decorative object awarded as a prize for a victory or success." The league now has a ceremony to award this "trophy" to the winners of it, much like they do for player of the month, goal of the month, and manager of the month. Before the league started giving out this trophy I was on your side. But since the league is giving out an award/trophy/plaque then we as wiki editors should include that in players honours sections. This isn't about name calling, who is right or wrong, or our opinions, but of fact and what the league has instituted. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

As you can see all editors disagree with you here. I repeat; Not an honour, no matter how the PL calls it. Kante4 (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

And I repeat, use facts and information to support your argument. Don't just disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing and then say you won and I lost. Please actually use reason and have a constructive argument. This is now becoming a wider disagreement about the status of information on wikipedia in general. Wikipedia was created to be a source of verified information, a free encyclopedia, where people could access facts and info whether about history, notable events, countries, food, movie stars, athletes, etc. The league decided that it's an honour to be rewarded with a trophy. To ignore that is ignoring facts and to just blow that off is muddying the waters on having factual content on wikipedia. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You haven't presented anything beyond the fact that the league gives a presentation box. That doesn't make it an "honour" in the strictest sense of the term, i.e. the player has performed exceptionally well and been given a "Player of the Month" or "Goal of the Season" award. Appearing a certain number of times is not an honour. – PeeJay 21:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

If we are being strict then, a goal of the season or a goal of the month is not performing exceptionally well. It is often an arbitrary decision made by a small group of people (in terms of the Premier League - the same group of people that give out the Milestones Award). It is one kick of the ball over the course of an entire month or season! If this much rigour is going into discrediting the Premier League for handing out a trophy to milestone appearances and goals, then why are we not dissecting every trophy and award they give out? By your argument, we shouldn't include a team of a season inclusion in an honour section since that is a player only playing well over one season and they didn't "win" anything but play well over a certain period of time. Also, why should record goals and record appearances be included in individual honours section? That doesn't mean the player was exceptional or won an award - it just means they had a long career. This shouldn't be subjective because you don't like the idea of it being included in the honours section and just want it in the prose. Either all awards that the Premier League gives out (and can be sourced properly) should be in the honours section or none at all. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you just create an "Awards" section split in two, one with "Major Honours" (with actual major leagues/cups won), and one with "Other Awards" which has all the various milestone/minor award type things--Jopal22 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

That is a great idea. I'm fine with that method. I'm fine with really any method that actually has a structure and consensus to it based on fact and reliable sources and not based on subjective opinions of what wiki editors think is a more important honour/award/trophy than another. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

And I just want to be extremely clear that just like we don't put our opinions into prose of articles then we should not put our opinions into an honours section. The league has deemed these milestones noteworthy of a trophy and a presentation. It should either be decided that all milestones (goals of the month, players of the month, players of the season, team of the season, manager of the season, goals and appearance milestones) handed out by the Premier League and other governing bodies in football should either be included or none at all. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Again and again, you've missed the point of what an award is. Goal of the Month, people vote for that, it's selected by an organisation. Like the others, like the Oscars. If you can't tell the difference then you're simply wasting your time. Govvy (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to ask, what encyclopedic purpose is served by including all these so called awards? Just because something happens, even if it is backed up by reliable sources, it does not mean we need to include it here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: Generally we don't list Man of the Match awards or milestones in honours, but for some reason there are editors out there that seem to add them even know it goes against generally what is accepted. As far as I can see Rupert1904 is just being disruptive in reverting what was removed and none of the admins here have bothered to punish him for it which seems weak to me. Govvy (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: That is exactly my point. I believe that they should either all be included or none of them should be included at all. @Govvy: it's clear that our difference of opinion really irks you and you have it out for me. Please don't make this about us. I am not sure why this debate has gotten so sensitive to you. In any event, this is not the forum to discuss your personal feelings so please refrain from that. Back to the issue at hand, and as we have already agreed upon above, the organisation in question (the Premier League) has indicated that this is a milestone/achievement they deem valuable and worthy of honoring. So as you say "it's selected be an organisation." I can see the difference between voting and not voting on and if you even bothered to really read any of my posts you would have noticed that I agreed with you until the PL started rewaring players for these individual achievements. And while you bring up the Oscars, they do have an award called the "Academy Honorary Award" or "Lifetime Achievement Award" that is not voted on by the Academy but is given out for individuals who have had legendary careers. I do not edit film articles so don't know the proper edit guidelines/rules but does not voting for that award make it any less memorable? Rupert1904 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: Also, I'd just like to reiterate, that top goal scorers and most clean sheets are awards that are not voted on but based on stats and facts. These are milestones/achievements included in wikipedia honours sections for players in the Premier League and every league for that matter. La Liga even has fancy names for these trophies and awards like the Zamora Trophy (clean sheets/least goals to games award), Pichichi Trophy (given to the top goalscorer), and the Zarra Trophy (given to the Spanish player with the most goals), while the Serie A has the Capocannoniere, the Bundesliga has the "kicker Torjägerkanone", and so on and so on. This is all to say that an individual honour does not have to be voted on like you suggested. The Premier League is one of the best, if not the best, football leagues in the world and the Premier League decided that a 100 appearance milestone is worthy of a trophy, just like they determined top scorer and most clean sheets is worthy of a trophy. People had no issue before including top scorer and most clean sheet awards. If we are going to make wikipedia pages and include encyclopedic content on them, why not strive to have pages as accurate and reflective of this information as they can be? Rupert1904 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Are these milestone awards reported by any reliable, secondary sources (I wouldn't include club websites in this)? If not, then I don't think they are notable enough to put on a player's Honours sections; things like Goal of the Season / Top Scorer are widely reported by multiple sources, so are notable awards. I did a google search for "premier league milestone award" and of the first 4 pages the vast majority were from the premier league website, with a number of the rest being club websites. Spike 'em (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The point of top scorer awards is that they are only given to one person per season, the person who scored the most goals; same with Goal of the Month/Season, they're given to the person who was the best in a given time period. Giving an "award" to someone for reaching 100 appearances is like receiving a telegram from the Queen on your 100th birthday; everyone who reaches that milestone gets one, but you don't have to do anything special to do it, just exist... – PeeJay 10:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Consensus

Well maybe we can put this to bed with a simple consensus.
For 100 goal milestone award from the Premier League, do people want it added to honours list or not?
(For — Against — Abstain)

• Against Listing this award in honours. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Against - it's a milestone, worthy of mentioning in the prose - but not an 'honour' and not included in any 'Honours' section. GiantSnowman 12:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Against - Per GiantSnowman. This isn't something the player has actually won, it's just a quirk of keeping on playing. What makes 100 any more special than 76 or 143? – PeeJay 12:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Against - No sign that these are seen as notable honours by other media organisations. Spike 'em (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Against - Partly because it would encourage the attempted addition of equivalent milestones in honours for players in other leagues where such an achievement isn't even remarked upon. It would be simpler and neater to include in the prose with a standard sentence and ref, which I don't see anyone having an issue with. Crowsus (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Against - As explained above. Kante4 (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Against – For all the reasons outlined above. Eagleash (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Against - No significant notability of the award, relatively routine achievement, not mentioned on most reliable websites as an honour any more than we would list "1 England Cap" (which has a similar ceremony). The source provided is unclear as to how often this will be awarded, and if it is awarded within a season, what the criteria for inclusion is. It ranks alongside "man of the match" which is something relatively common, rather than "player of the season". Koncorde (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Against – Per reasons listed above. Jaellee (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

MLS & UAE Pro-League squad templates

Hi, is there any reason as to why all the teams playing in the UAE Pro-League (such as Al-Nasr, Sharjah, Al Jazira etc...) have that template? I tried changing a team's template (Dibba Al-Fujairah) to the one all teams use but I've been reverted. Nehme1499 (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I have wondered this as well as I have noticed that MLS teams squad templates are the same. I am not sure if there is a consensus or rule on this matter. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

True, maybe someone who has some experience on MLS teams can help us out? Nehme1499 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Any admins about for a well deserved block or protect?

It's not football related but I know this is a busier project. Please check out the recent history of the Limmy article, the same annoying IP (from 2 locations) keeps adding the same. I'm far beyond 3RR but not sure if that applies if it's nothing but vandalism? Doesn't look like they are going away. Crowsus (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Check out WP:ANI, you probably want the edit warring section. SportingFlyer T·C 00:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Junior Mondal

Soccerway has him coming on as a sub on 19 January - but the BBC disagrees, and Soccerbase (which is not that great for minor players) has 0 appearances. I can't find anything on his club's site to verify. Any idea if he's played yet? GiantSnowman 12:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sky Sports says he hasn't made an appearance too https://www.skysports.com/forest-green-rovers-squadJopal22 (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Club site match report says he did. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that the BBC report shows the player coming on as Lewis Scoble, but gives his shirt number as 25, which is Mondal's number...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Confirmation here and here. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks all - article moved to main space accordingly. GiantSnowman 13:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Might want to check his history - he moved to Spennymoor Town F.C. after leaving Middlesbrough. He signed dual registration with Whitby in November 2017, but Spennymoor were the higher club (and he represented them in the FA Trophy in February 2018 per Soccerway). He didn't sign exclusively for Whitby until summer 2018.

I'm on with slight expansion, cheers. GiantSnowman 13:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

BBC Said check back in four hours and said they would fix the error. Govvy (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

BBC still says Scoble... GiantSnowman 21:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Andorra national football team

Andorra national football team, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)