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.

Indian Super League

I've just come across this article at WP:RFPP and there seems to be an ongoing edit war surrounding whether Indian Super League is the top-tier of Indian football. I would appreciate some extra eyes on it if anyone has some insight. Woody (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

While no expert on Indian Football, having taken a quick look at the Indian football league structure it appears the Indian Super League (ISL) and I-League (IL) are both level 1 of the pyramid. The IL is recognised as the top tier league with promotion and relegation to the lower tiers. The ISL is defacto a top tier league but has no promotion and relegation to the rest of the Indian football league structure and is a franchise league similar to the MLS is the United States. The only time teams for either of these leagues can face one another in a competitive match is in the Indian Super Cup. 2018 final had Bengaluru (ISL) against East Bengal (IL) but the 2019 final had two teams from the ISL face each other. Also all of the recent call ups to the Indian national football team all play for ISL clubs.

Finally this link -https://www.the-afc.com/media/india-clubs-agree-to-work-together-on-league-roadmap to me makes it look like the league is being restructured and eventually the ISL will have relegation to the I-league, with this league and all subsequent leagues dropping down a level in the football pyramid. Two points of note from this link:

• In season 2019-20, the ISL will attain the status of premiere league competition in Indian football.
• In its recommendation for 2024-25, it is agreed to fully implement promotion and relegation into the top league, and abolition of two parallel leagues.

In my opinion I would say the leagues are on the same level for now but with talk of proposed restructuring of the league system in the future. Wna247 (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, both are top division leagues, with clubs from both qualifying for continental football the following season. Number 57 15:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

As of right now, both the Indian Super League and the I-League are the dual top tier leagues. According to most articles, For the next three seasons, the existing arrangement of two parallel leagues will continue as previously suggested by Patel in July.. The confusion comes from a few things: a) Indian news articles are freaking dumb sometimes and misreport things, especially for football, a lot. b) The Indian Super League press release stated that they were now the premier football league but that is not an independent source and c) the ISL now has the AFC Champions League spot so some people like to put two and two together and well, yeah. I hope I was able to clear things up a little. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for the insight, it's a bit clearer now. I think the crux of the disruption on the page is that editors are seeing the AFC Champions League spot as denoting it being the top tier, rather than one of two in parallel. I'll think about how to make that clearer in the article. Cheers, Woody (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think the only thing we need to do is just state that it is the dual top tier league and then in the history section just state what the current update is. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, re-opening, I am wondering if my interpretation is now wrong. Looking back at official sources like from the AFC, they do say that "with the ISL being recognised as the top league in India starting from this 2019-2020 season." but then has things such as the I-League winner getting an AFC Cup spot and this: "In its recommendation for 2024-25, it is agreed to fully implement promotion and relegation into the top league, and abolition of two parallel leagues." So now I open it to you guys what the interpretation is here. We have two leagues, the Indian Super League and the I-League. Entering the 2019–20 season, they were dual leagues... now, I am not sure. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Following up here for anyone who wants to comment. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it really two top tier leagues just because I-League has an AFC spot? Like ArsenalFan700 said, AFC has deemed ISL as the top league and just for the transition, I-League is given AFC spot, that's my interpretation. Coderzombie (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Any more inputs? The consensus really seems undecided right now. Coderzombie (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, this article from the AFC pretty much hints that the ISL and I-League are still viewed at the same level, at least for now. They have yet to actually differentiate between the two leagues and what is tier 1 and tier 2. But then again, this article is pretty straight forward in calling the ISL tier 1. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

MLS: Teams or franchises?

There's an ongoing edit war at FC Cincinnati changing the hatnote from "This article is about the Major League Soccer franchise. For the United Soccer League franchise, see FC Cincinnati (2016–18)." to "This article is about the Major League Soccer team. For the United Soccer League team, see FC Cincinnati (2016–18)." @Walter Görlitz: has reverted it a several times. The IP editor has a point that there's an inconsistency, but there was also an argument a couple years back regarding the distinction between MLS franchises and normal soccer clubs - a team doesn't actually get "promoted" to MLS, a new franchise is created and the branding is transferred. I personally think "franchise" is a better distinction in the hatnotes for clubs like Portland, Orlando, Cincinnati, but I wanted to bring it here for a discussion considering the ongoing edit war. SportingFlyer T·C 04:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

First, thanks for starting the discussion.

Second, the anon was changing description template, not a hatnote.

Third, the anon makes a valid point. The other MLS franchise articles that had a description that called them clubs. Some did not yet have a description.

In short, it would make sense to have all of the article use the same term. I'm in favour of calling them all franchises. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In conventional English, they are teams. While technically franchises or whatnot, the general public would call them a "team", the general reliable sources use "team" in reports, and the label "franchise" itself is controversial due to the implication. The most neutral term to use would be "team". SounderBruce 04:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SounderBruce. Yes, MLS teams are formally "franchises", but Juventus is formally a società per azioni, Santos is formally a non-profit member's club, Arsenal is formally just the footballing subsidiary of Arsenal Holdings… It's neither practical nor useful to the readers to refer to teams by their administrative status rather than just "team" except when talking specifically about ownership and/or franchising arrangements. ‑ Iridescent 08:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, they are clubs not teams. Teams would be different for the senior squad, U21, women's etc. However, it's certainly better to call them a team than a franchise, which is a term for commercial arms, ownership etc which is rarely what we are talking about. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I second Lee Vilenski’s comment.

Franchise/club = entity that includes the ownership, players, coaches, corporate staff, and in the case of some clubs, socios

Team = the most public-facing division of a franchise/club that’s limited to the playing and coaching staff

Plus, many continental European clubs have teams for football, basketball, volleyball etc within a single club. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I think team would be the best choice here. While franchise is appropriate in terms of the actual organization, team is more specific to the specific group of player i.e. the first team. I think it would be inappropriate to call teams from the US/Canada "clubs", however, unless there is demonstrated evidence that they operate as a club rather than a franchise. Jay eyem (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 'club' or 'team' rather than 'franchise'. GiantSnowman 07:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Joining this page

How do you join WikiProject Football? AngusMacintosh (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Just edit football-related articles, and chip in to discussions here if you feel like it. There's nothing more to it than that really :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks AngusMacintosh (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@AngusMacintosh: Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Members and add your name to the list. Eagleash (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Eagleash, I had forgotten about that page. To be fair, it doesn't seem to be very up to date, as there are "members" listed who haven't edited for many years...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah, I see you've already done that. Eagleash (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: The page kind of implies that editors who have not edited footy project pages for a year become 'former members'... however, it does say as of 2018... Eagleash (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Petre Purima

On this new article in the info box there is Romania Olympic, is that right? Or should it be written a different way? Govvy (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well the Olympic football team is an under 23 team, and I notice the line above, it has Romania U23, but also linked to Romania Olympic football team. And considering there wasn't an Olympics in 1978-79, and Romania didn't qualify for the Olympics between 1964 and 2020, not sure how they can be classed as playing for the Romanian Olympic team. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the source in question [1], I'm guessing the competition OT means other, rather than Olympics. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, well that's a little confusing, I also thought it odd there was this page Romania Olympic football team with very little on it. Govvy (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well that's where Romania national under-23 football team was directing too Romania Olympic football team, when I thought it should of been the other way around. Govvy (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The Olympics hasn't always been an under-23 competition, hence the need for separate articles for the Olympic team and the under-23 team. Which one did this person play for? – PeeJay 22:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, until the 1988 edition senior teams participated in the Olympics. From 1992 onwards the Olympics became an under-23 competition. The "olympic team" is either the senior team until 1988, or the under-23 team from 1992. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

ATK Mohun Bagan

Hi, currently we have an AfD in progress regarding the "merger" of two teams in India, ATK and Mohun Bagan. This AfD has been around since 17 June 2020 but has slowed down in discussion a lot recently. I just wanted to bring it up so to encourage more participation on a topic that has not reached a resolution yet.

Here is some sourced context for those interested: Prior to 2020, India had two top tier football leagues, the Indian Super League and the I-League. ATK plays in the Indian Super League and Mohun Bagan play in the I-League. However, on 16 January 2020 it was announced that RPSG Group, the owners of ATK, would purchase an 80% stake in Mohun Bagan Football Club, with "Mohun Bagan Football Club (India) Private Limited" owning the remaining 20%. The only information we were given at the time were that the clubs would "merge", include the brand names of ATK and Mohun Bagan, and also play in the Indian Super League for 2020–21. We did not receive confirmation though on the official name of the club, any branding whatsoever, how the two squads would be merged, and whether the history of ATK and/or Mohun Bagan will be incorporated into this "new" club. It was reported that the "merged club" would come into being on 1 June 2020. Obviously, that didn't happen due to the current Covid-19 pandemic. On 8 June 2020, it was reported by Goal.com that the name ATK Mohun Bagan was registered with the Government of India’s Ministry of Corporate Affairs. However, to me at least, that is clickbait since the article doesn't actually discuss the team name but rather the new name of the corporation that will own the club "ATK Mohun Bagan Private Limited". As of today, both the Indian Super League and I-League social media accounts and official pages refer to the clubs as separate entities. Both ATK and Mohun Bagan still run their own social media channels and pages too. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS GiantSnowman 11:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't see how this is canvassing. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

2020–21 Burnley F.C. season and 2020–21 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

I've just noticed that these pages has been created. Although they are likely to be in next season's Premier League, their current total of 45 points is too small for mathematical safety. Just one more win will do for them but these pages may have been created relatively too early. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I was contemplating moving the Spurs one into draft space. Govvy (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

If you think that’s a bit too soon, check out 2020–21 West Ham United F.C. season. Wouldn’t want to bet on a league that’ll be played in.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Well the clubs clearly will have a 2020-21 season, so the articles are valid, they probably just editing to not state unequivocally that they will play in the PL..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

And in the case of the Burnley article, that season won't start on 1 July 2020 as there are still scheduled matches to be played here. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

These season pages often log the transfers and results from a season. As numerous transfers have been announced already (i.e. Chelsea signing Hakim Ziyech and Timo Werner), as well as players being released, I think it's entirely reasonable for the pages to stay up. Having looked at the pages for Burnley, Tottenham and West Ham, there is no schedule for games on any of these pages anyway. They will be added once fixtures are announced. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Premier League and Championship club article seasons 2019–20

Usually seasons end on 30 June this year. But this one won't for these clubs in the divisions for reasons we already know. I've been going around a few random club season articles, all says "The season covers the period from 1 July 2019 to 30 July 2020.". That would be factually incorrect due to scheduled matches in July. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well League Two is finished now. But yeah, League One play-off teams, and and all Premier League and Championship clubs definitely need changing.--EchetusXe 12:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with editing the 2019-20 pages, as their seasons will end later in 2020. However, I think the seasons for 2020-21 should stay as "1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021" because of the transfer market opening on 1 July 2020. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

External links

Hi, in this article an editor removed some external links with WP:ELNO item #1 as reason: "'the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article'. A heap of near-identical links to databases is no good".

Is it consensus now that we should remove these links? I wonder because good articles like Thierry Henry, Bert Trautmann, Lionel Messi, Thomas Müller etc. contain such links. --Jaellee (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said after you re-added the links in violation of BRD, having a heap of near-identical external links to databases at the foot of an article violates ELNO. They should be used in-line rather than as an external link. GiantSnowman 20:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Further - say a player has played in England, France, Germany, and Spain. Just off the top of my head there are at least 11 websites that all are stats databases (Soccerway, Soccerbase, Premier League, L'Equipe, Ligue 1, Eurosport, Weltfussball, Fussballdatenbank, DFB, BDFutbol, LaPreferente) - are you going to include them all? Of course not. GiantSnowman 20:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

We do not need links to every database but I think that some of these links in the external links sections are helpful for the reader. You removed them all and left the reader without easy access to any of the databases. --Jaellee (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that external links for certain players is necessary. The vast majority of footballers don't have either prose noting their appearances and goals season by season, or a career statistics table. If one wanted to check the player's stats season by season, external links are the only viable option. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

External link(s) to athlete stats too detailed to include in an article are explicitly permitted/encouraged at WP:ELYES #3, so there's certainly no problem in principle with linking to databases. There's no point linking to several identical ones, but if they're not near-identical, then I think they should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In this article, kicker is used as an inline source so it's not actually needed as an ext link, although it'd help if the article made it clearer where the infobox stats come from; Soccerway has similar, albeit less comprehensive, content, and is in English, so more accessible for the reader; and the DfB profile is different because it covers his youth international career, which the others don't. Incidentally, the Hannover 96 infobox stats are out of date. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

An easy fix is to change the external links section to a general reference section. Hack (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Struway2. Kante4 (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If the DFB link is used to verify the youth international career, it should be in-line, not an EL. GiantSnowman 11:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point in having Soccerbase, Soccerway and the like as an external link section if they are already cited as references for stats tables.--EchetusXe 12:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

They shouldn't be, that's my whole point! GiantSnowman 14:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement!--EchetusXe 17:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, only one of the the external links in question was already used inline in the article, the two others weren't. So the two others shouldn't have been deleted without using them as inline references first as I understand this agreement. --Jaellee (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

A second link should have been used in-line, and now is. The third source can (and should) also be used in-line for the career stats table. GiantSnowman 17:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that in general it's particularly sensible either to stack additional databases as external links whether they add something extra or not, or to shoehorn them into the article as references when an existing ref would do the job. In this case, the DFB one was correctly moved into the body because without it (or some alternative) the youth stats were unsourced. But if another database added something useful that the existing references didn't, there's no good reason I can think of for forcing it into the article as a reference just to avoid it appearing as an external link. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Transfermarkt

Morning all. I saw that Transfermarkt is considered unreliable on english wiki and wondered why. Looked for some old chat (2012) and read that the only reason why is that the site is users-made, reason that is false. Wikipedia and, for instance, Discogs for music are users-made because everyone could modify data and only after there is a verification. Transfermarkt, on the contrary, has his verification by the internal team before the data are modified: this is called "four eyes control", nothing can be published without a verification. It is a German site, much organised. I know that for some countries, data are exact but poor (Brazil, Argentina and even UK), but I know for sure that concerning Italia and Deutschland the data are perfect and complete, even for youth tournements. The same for national teams competitions. Hence, could the community consider, after eight years, to admit this site among the reliable ones? Thanks.--Tre di tre (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If you can find the same information in another source, it's best to use that, I've seen before and for some reason a fake name being transferred to Tottenham when that never happened! :/ Govvy (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tre di tre: I don't know about Discogs, but Wikipedia is not considered a reliable reference to quote per Wikipedia standards, exactly for the reasons you said - that it is user-made. See WP:CITEWIKI. --SuperJew (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: I think that what he’s trying to say is that Wikipedia (and Discogs) aren’t reliable, as content is user-generated and there is no external control. Transfermarkt, on the other hand, doesn’t automatically publish content written by users, but needs admins to manually approve them. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If there is some editorial oversight I think it's something that should be reviewed, it just depends how rigorous that checking is, after all there is a lot of data to be checked, if the admins don't have time/unwilling to check it all, some rogue stuff could easily slip by. Crowsus (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The content of Transfermarkt is user-generated, even if there is a basic vetting process, and it is not considered reliable. GiantSnowman 11:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: I'm sorry, you can't find all the data, for instance, on Soccerway, that is considered reliable. Could you please tell me the name of that fake player, please? @SuperJew: see Nehme1499 answer: Transfermarkt has user proposals and every proposal is supervised. No modification is automatically approved after source verification. Then, is more reliable than others. I repeat, in my direct experience, italian and german data are reliable even for amateur football. Know less about the rest, but the mechanism is the same: what is there, is verified.--Tre di tre (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're asking me. And it was a good while ago and I can't remember the names I saw, Transfermarkt is not a reliable source from my experience. Govvy (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy:I simply ask for the bugs you found. Anyway, you said "it was a good while ago": things change. If you don't believe me, try to vandalise something and you will find you can't. Regards--Tre di tre (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Transfermarkt has been cited by the BBC as a source. 1, 2, 3. I am a fan of Soccerway, and I have found it to be a generally reliable source of information, but it is not 100% accurate. I'd like to see both approved for use as sources on Wiki, with an understanding that these sites cannot be absolutely accurate all of the time, but that's just me. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a reminder. If I'm not wrong, it seems the majority of who wrote here has nothing against Transfermarkt and who is against his reliability has very old information. Would the community consider to give green light to it or else? Thanks--Tre di tre (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm neither pro or against Transfermarkt. For now, I refrain from using it as it's deemed unreliable by WP:FOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: "it's deemed unreliable" ok, but, why? For me, there's no reason why. Is this the point. See above.--Tre di tre (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Mauro Núñez Bastos

I came across Mauro Núñez Bastos going through the project's list of unreferenced BLPs and was wondering if anyone could provide any insight as to how he might pass WP:NFOOTY. Hack (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Potential COI

Hi all, just to make you aware of a potential WP:COI with @A player of Burnley Football club:, who claims to be a Burnley F.C. player. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I like how the user's user page says "I have kept myself anonymous to avoid publicity." and yet they chose the user name "A player of Burnley Football club" rather than take the more obvious (to me at least) route of picking something which would give no indication of their alleged job at all. I am highly sceptical that the user is genuinely a Burnley player -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Same feelings. Crowsus (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

How many Burnley footballers would call the Premier League EPL? And how many would like the Indian Super League? Seems suspicious. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the above, I highly doubt they're actually a Burnley player but rather an over excited fan/troll. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

All the more reason to keep an eye on him. (Assuming it's a he). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I have dropped the user a note saying that if they are genuinely a Burnley player they should not edit related article per WP:COI and if they are not then they should seriously consider changing user name per WP:MISLEADNAME -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

User's userpage now states "Sometimes people get deceived by my IP address. They ask that why my IP address has location of India. This is due to conflicting networks." - hmmmmm....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The whole userpage is amazing ahahahaha. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

They also seem to be wanting anonymity but also tell people where they were born, which is helpful in working out who they are (assuming they're genuine). All in all, very confusing. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's official: Ashley Barnes is a Wikipedian (who edits using an Indian IP in broken English). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we ask him to sort out the Austrian flag fiasco once and for all? Spike 'em (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

So much for me trying to stop OUTing attempts on his page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, even if joking, WP:OUTING still applies. GiantSnowman 15:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This user page is currently suspicious as to who I think that could possibly be.

The text shows that he is a certain number of years younger than this player and the first section claims "I have so far managed to score a few goals for my team".

By using this player's date of birth with reliable sources confirming it, I have narrowed it down to five possible players who were all born in the same year. Then by using one of the opening sentences, I have narrowed it down to three players as two of them (both born in June of that year) have scored just once. The user also said he is a fan of Burnley (might be his home club?). If that's the case, there's only one possible person who that could be.

See if other users can investigate like User:Daemonickangaroo2018 who has undid a few of the user's contributions and User:Joseph2302 who has advised the user to remove the career section. User:ChrisTheDude may also assist. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on all the information available at one point on there, there is only one player that it can be. Not sure we should actually be trying to guess/tell everyone who though, per WP:OUTING. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

He has already been (not really) outed in the COI section above. Spike 'em (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I would imagine the player in question would know that this statement, which previously appeared on the userpage, makes no sense geographically: "I was brought up in Somerset. [....] When we shifted to Lancashire,I signed for Paulton Rovers" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that it is highly unlikely that this user has any connection with Burnley FC, but is more likely a glory hunter from India, judging by the style of English that he uses. A quick look at his edit history shows that many of his edits are done early in the morning UK time. How many Premier League footballers are up and editing Wikipedia at that time? Also is it just a coincidence that the actor with the “funny name” that he met in a restaurant has the same initials as the Burnley player allegedly “outed” above. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

User has been blocked now. JMHamo (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers all, I was wondering where my new section went to when visiting this page again.

I'd just looked at the edit preceding the current version where it shows the club career, looks like what User:Nehme1499 says could be right. The person I thought of has no connection with Paulton Rovers or Somerset but the Daemonic Kangaroos have edited plenty of times on that page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m at a loss to understand the reference to myself in the last comment. Rest assured, I am neither Jay Rodriguez nor any other footballer but a retired bean counter. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The edit history of the page shows lots of edits made by the person in the past to "clean up vandalism" in many cases. No COI's are involved on that page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This must be one of the most bizarre discussions I’ve seen on WP. Perhaps I should change my username to User:Not Jay Rodriguez. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

What I thought the blocked user was him but Nehme1499 says it is Ashley Barnes from Somerset. I wouldn't have said anything about Rodriguez if I'd noticed that section before starting a separate one which was then merged. Also I failed to notice what the user has posted on Mattythewhite's talk page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Wigan Athletic F.C.

Sadly, Wigan Athletic F.C. has gone into administration. There is bound to be high traffic on this article and Wigan related articles, extra eyes are appreciated. JMHamo (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The first of many.--EchetusXe 12:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll lend and eye (two if I can spare them). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Loan contract expired, but transfer window still closed?

Take Robin Olsen as an example. His loan contract from Roma to Cagliari has expired (he won't complete the season). However, the Italian transfer window doesn't open until 1 September. Therefore, his transfer back to Roma can't be fully registered until then. So, since he currently can't play for either clubs, should the article say that "he plays for Cagliari on loan from Roma" or that "he plays for Roma"? // Mattias321 (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Plays for Roma. Let's not over-complicate this. GiantSnowman 16:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Release list

I was just curious, are we going to put the 1 July released players in this extended season or the next season pages? Govvy (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I always put end-of-contract releases in "this" season. They're released when their contracts expire at the end of "this" season, and take no part in the next. Struway2 (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes me too. Though the Coventry guy that updates most of the club season articles puts them in the following season.--EchetusXe 22:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think following season makes more sense - they affect the next season much more than current season. Someone reading about the 2019-20 season wants to know what the changes to the squad are since the previous season. --SuperJew (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure consensus has been developed here before. I might even have raised it myself with respect to what "the Coventry guy" was doing. Gricehead (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I've always found it strange that these are put in the following season too. The players have a contract until the end of the season and then have no relationship with the club in the next. Spike 'em (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I always let them stay on both articles at first. Don't want to get into an edit war with Coventry guy. And yeah on the off chance that someone wants to know what's new about the current season then it might be useful for them. But once the new season has got going then I remove them, because they shouldn't be there. EchetusXe 11:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say it's better to have them in the following season, since their release indicates a change from the previous season's squad. Having their releases listed in the previous season makes no sense to me since they were released after all the matches were played (well, not in the case of this season, but you know what I mean), so the first season their releases have any meaning towards is the next one. – PeeJay 11:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems we are following the old rules, which seems to be different per person here! But I've followed the same process as PeeJay, Govvy (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Shock horror - why not include in both? GiantSnowman 11:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Because we try to avoid unnecessary repetition of information? --SuperJew (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I've always seen them in the 'next season' pages, as the season pages are often defined as covering the period "from 1 July 20xx to 30 June 20xx", thus the players released on 1 July should be included on this page, and not the previous season. Also, as mentioned above, this is more likely to affect the 'next' season, as most players released will find new clubs during this season, and this information can be added via efns, as seen here. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Roberto Firmino

Can somebody please tidy up the WP:NPOV/WP:SYNTH violations of @Barton Dave: at Roberto Firmino? I'm about to reach 3RR - he has broken it. I am also about to explode with frustration. GiantSnowman 21:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

MLS Is Back Tournament and Infobox

Just curious before the MLS is Back Tournament starts, how we will deal with appearances in this in the Infobox and Career Statistics tables. Essentially this is a "World Cup format style tournament with a group stage and knockout rounds" However, group stage matches will count towards the overall league table, while knockout rounds will not. So I assume that we will include the group stage matches in the Infobox, but not the knockout round matches. For the stats table, I guess we could do the same and throw the Knockout round matches in a "Cup" or "Other" column. However, I wanted to see if there was a consensus already established and get other perspectives before it starts rather than to rely on my own assumptions. I didn't see any mention of this in the talk page, so don't know if there is already an idea in place, since this is a very unconventional event. I can't recall any other hybrid league/cup tournaments RedPatchBoys (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@RedPatchBoys: I agree, the group stage is essentially the same as the regular season, with the added effect of determining the teams for the knockout stage. So only statistics from the group matches belong in the infobox, knockout matches should be tallied in the "other" column with a note (e.g. "Appearance(s) in MLS is Back Tournament knockout stage"). S.A. Julio (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Is English transfer window open?

I've got Danel Sinani on my watchlist, and he has now been listed as a Norwich player. Whilst he was intended to sign on 1 July, I thought the transfer window wasn't open until after this season ends? So he'd still be a Dudelange player. Or am I wrong about that? FYI can't find any sources newer than April about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Clubs can receive players previously signed, but they won't be eligible to play any of the remaining games this season. Govvy (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Please review Draft:ZhFC Dnepr Mogilev

This is a draft about a Belarusian women's soccer/football team that I put a lot of time into and is in the women's top division but does not have an article yet. 2601:643:8101:64E1:C5A6:3BBC:2358:658B (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that a bit more text (and sources) is needed. Keep in mind that the sources don't all necessarily have to be in English. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this article necessary?

It seems like Comparisons between the North American Soccer League and Major League Soccer was created recently. What are the opinions of editors here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Also someone might want to have a talk with BornonJune8 as they seem to be creating a lot of these kind of pages, and are continuing to despite the fact that most of them have been AFD'ed. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not needed. REDMAN 2019 - could be worth reporting the editor to ANI and seeking a topic ban if they continue to create non-notable articles. GiantSnowman 11:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It could be worthwhile, such as Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars or Comparison of U.S. state governments. But that football article is strange, why does it consist of tables?--EchetusXe 16:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That seems a strange article to me, and that's not friendly to mobile view, bad use of tables and feels full of WP:OR. Govvy (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael Petros

Has this guy actually played for Iran? I can't seem to be able to verify the sources or find anything. Govvy (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, does WP:NFOOTY apply to futsal players? He seems to have only played football for a lower-tier Iranian team (not fully-pro), while the rest of his career is playing futsal. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at it, I think he played futsal for Iran, and that isn't covered by WP:FOOTY, which refers to FIFA Tier 1 International Match and WP:FPL- both of which only apply to association football. And doesn't look like they pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea, I was just going through the new page feed when I found the article. I've watched some Futsal on Eurosports before, but other than that, it's hard to verify a player like this. Govvy (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. Govvy (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Reserve teams in the infobox

Joshua Zirkzee

I added an arrow next to Bayern Munich II in the infobox, without adding the text "(on loan)", subsequently shifting Bayern Munich above (see dif). The reasoning is that Zirkzee played for both Bayern and Bayern II during the 2019-20 season. The player didn't move from Bayern to Bayern II on a permanent basis, neither did he sign a new contract. Legally speaking he is just contracted to Bayern who, at their discretion, may decide whether or not to send him to Bayern II (assuming that reserve teams work the way they do in Italy). @Walter Görlitz reverted me twice, stating that the player is "not on the roster" and that "he plays for the second team and has appeared on the first team in trials" (dif 1 and dif 2). Thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

He has not been listed on the first team roster so I'm not sure why you think he, and no one else on the second team who has been called up to the first team for a trial, deserves this honour. Your actions constitute WP:OR in my opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I see you wrote "The player didn't move from Bayern to Bayern II on a permanent basis", but he played the majority of the season for the second team. There is no source to support he is signed to the first team. The club holds his contract and they decide where he plays. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC) He's not on the website as being on the first team, but he is signed to Bayern, is playing on their first team, and is listed there on Soccerway. There is no stand-down period for players under 23. I think readers would have a reasonable expectation of finding him there. SportingFlyer T·C 23:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Any other thoughts? This has larger implications for players who are part of reserve teams. My proposal is to add the arrow next to the reserve team as if he were on loan there (without the text "on loan") if he has also been called up to the first team. It doesn't make sense neither to have him at two teams at once in the infobox (e.g. Bayern and Bayern II both with 2019–) without the arrow, nor to not have Bayern in the infobox if he was called up to the first team squad. We could implement this in the player MoS. Nehme1499 (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Personally I prefer to have the order in which they chronologically debuted for each side. A good example of this is Kwasi Okyere Wriedt, who has played mostly for Bayern Munich's Reserve side, while featuring for the first team on a handful of occasions. What makes this a bit more difficult is that certain players are signed specifically for the second team, i.e. Tobias Schweinsteiger. To me, this sets the second side as it's own separate entity from the first team. Say Mert Yilmaz, who has played in Bayern's second team since 2018, was to make his Bayern debut in the 2020-21 season, would we have to put 2018– Bayern Munich (1) (0) / 2018– → Bayern Munich II (31) (1)? I personally don't like this, as it implies Yilmaz has played in the first team since 2018. I would prefer it to read as 2018– Bayern Munich II (31) (1) / 2020– Bayern Munich (1) (0) Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC) We could say the exact same thing for any loaned-out player. Take Leonardo Spinazzola, who has 2012–2019 Juventus (10) (0), despite having made his debut with Juventus on 12 January 2019 (7 years after he was acquired!). What I'm proposing isn't any more "complicated" than the system we use for loaned-out players. Nehme1499 (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC) I strongly dislike the idea of the arrow, makes no sense here. Whenever he made his debut, just add it like normal with the year he debuted. Kante4 (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC) My thought process is to uniform the way we display both reserve players and loaned-out players. We could follow the Italy wiki system, which displays the years based on their spells, and not necessarily when they joined/left the team (see Leonardo Spinazzola on it.wiki, who doesn't have Juventus 2012–2019 Juventus (10) (0) as the first team of the infobox). However, having to go through all players with loan spells and fix them on en.wiki would be a nightmare. Therefore, the only logical solution is to have both loans and reserve teams written in the same way in the infobox. I don't see what differentiates them. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC) But a player for the second team (like Zirkzee or Kwasi Okyere Wriedt before), can play for the first team at any time when injuries, suspensions or just resting their better player happen. An arrow is just wrong and like i said, for me, makes no sense. Some players may stick to the first team... Kante4 (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC) The arrow is more logical for me since, like a loan player, the player still belongs to the club even if he plays for the reserve team. To list them separately would imply that he played for one rather than the other, whereas the arrow shows it is not necessarily chronological.SFletcher06 (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) Legally speaking, a player who plays for Bayern II is contracted to Bayern Munich F.C., not to Bayern II. The reserve team can't in and of itself buy or sell players, all transactions go through Bayern. Conventionally speaking yes, the player may have just played for Bayern II and moved to some other team, without even setting foot in Bayern's matchday squad. But picture this: let's say that a player first plays for Bayern II during the 2018–19 season, then plays for Bayern's first team in 2019–20. Having 2018–2019 Bayern Munich II (31) (1) / 2019– Bayern Munich (1) (0) seems to imply that the player was purchased by Bayern from Bayern II, which makes no sense. He was always a Bayern player in 2018, he didn't become one in 2019. Also, what about any normal player who joined a team in 2018–19, and made his debut, say, in February 2019. We display him as having joined the team in 2018, not 2019. Even though he didn't play for his team until 2019, he was always legally a player for them in 2018. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Anyone else? It would be ideal to have this issue buried once and for all. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Actually you've raised some good points, I'm happy to support an arrow in the infobox, but I would understand not having one (and just having the II team) if the player never actually makes an appearance for the first team. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Yes I agree with you on this. I'm happy either way if the player has never appeared in the first team's match sheet. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Also agree with the "where first played" principle. Davies played for the first team first and then was pushed down to the second team. Zirkzee played for the second team first and may work into the first team next season, but not yet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Just to be clear, are you supporting the use of the arrow in the infobox? Nehme1499 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC) There is no need for an arrow, the players can move freely between the first and second teams of the same club, so describing the situation as a "loan" is inaccurate. Especially does not make sense when some players will only play for the second team, while others will work their way up to the first team. For the "current team" in the infobox, the team the player is listed with on the club website can be used (if listed with both teams, then the first team can take priority). S.A. Julio (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC) I agree with you, it's not a loan. That's why we shouldn't add "(loan)" next to the club in the infobox. I'm only advocating for the arrow in absence of another symbol. Another alternative could be to add the arrow, and the text "(reserve team)" (or something of the sort), or maybe a note next to the club's name. Nehme1499 (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC) My view - no arrow, no '(loan)' or similar, and no need for the first team to be listed as '0 (0)' if they never play. GiantSnowman 09:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC) I would only list 0 (0) for the first team if the player has been called up to the matchday squad. The same way a 3rd-choice GK would have 0 (0), so should a reserve player who was on the bench in an official competition for the parent club. Nehme1499 (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC) A youth player gets a call up in 2012 due to an injury crisis, spends the rest of his time in the reserves, leaves the club in 2020. Are you going to put '2012-2020' as a senior career? Nonsense. Being in the first-team match day squad is not necessarily indicative of being in the first-team... GiantSnowman 10:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC) A 19 y/o 3rd choice GK is part of a team in 2012, doesn't play, and gets sent on endless loans until 2020, when another team permanently buys him. Would you put "2012-2020" for his first club? Nehme1499 (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Yes, because that's when his senior career began. In my scenario he never plays for any senior team, as I said... GiantSnowman 10:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Technically speaking, both players are registered in the top division as players. The fact that the team doesn't put them in their "First team" section in their website doesn't mean anything. Both the 19 y/o GK and the reserve player were officially registered in the matchsheet, and could have both featured in a first-team match. How can a player (the reserve player) be part of a matchsheet for a top-division game without being part of the club? Legally speaking, a player doesn't sign a contract with a B team (be it Bayern II, Juventus U23, or Real Madrid Castilla); instead, they sign a contract with the parent team who, at their discretion, may or may not decide to send them to their B team. A player cannot be a B team player without simultaneously being a player for their parent club. It's inherited. For example, a few days ago Marco Olivieri, a Juventus U23 player, made his debut for Juventus in Serie A. Technically speaking, however, nothing differentiates him from, say, Pietro Beruatto, who is also a Juventus U23 player who often features on the Juventus bench. See the Serie A club profile for Juventus: all reserve players are included, regardless of whether they played or not (there are 9 in total). That said, I'm ok in not adding the parent club in the infobox if the player has not ever been called in a matchday for the parent club. Nehme1499 (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Pardon me sticking my nose in but I think that the page looks fine as it is right now. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC) We seem to be far from consensus regarding this issue. Obviously I would personally prefer my solution, but I would much prefer consensus to go the other way than for there to not be any consensus at all. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Another opinion, then. On the original question, what REDMAN said. Looks fine as it is right now, except the Bayern II start year should be 2018 because that's when he was first in the team. No arrows: as far as I understand it, he's eligible for either team. Both year ranges open: again, he's eligible for either team. He was a regular in the first-team matchday squad for a couple of months before COVID as well as since, 9 apps, 3 starts makes him a first-team player to all intents and purposes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC) @SportingFlyer, SFletcher06, and Davidlofgren1996: Are you happy in changing your opinion (therefore, to NOT put an arrow) in the name of consensus? This way we can uniform all reserve-team players across, and specify this in the Player MoS. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC) @Microwave Anarchist (the ping didn't work since you changed your username). Nehme1499 (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC) There's a huge difference in my mind between playing for a reserve team and playing out on loan. Further muddling the issue is the fact that at least in the US, some players can play for the USL "reserve team" without having a contract for the MLS team (if not all of them?). The problem I see is that this has gotten so muddled I'm not even sure what I've been asked to comment on, as I don't recall ever discussing whether to use an arrow. If arrow = loan versus no arrow = reserve team, the reserve team should not have an arrow when the player is able to move between the two teams freely, which is the case for Zirkzee as he is under 23 years of age. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC) If the rest of the community is in agreement, I'm happy to follow consensus. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Ok, so I'll take care of the Category:Juventus F.C. Under-23 players, and amend the player MoS. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC) I second Microwave Anarchist's comment, I'm happy to go with whatever the community decide. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Solution: place teams in infobox based on chronological order of debut. No arrows for reserve teams, and the year ranges of the parent and reserve club can overlap. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Luca Clemenza

While fixing the various Juventus U23 players following the discussion above (regarding Joshua Zirkzee), I have encountered a problem. What should we do with Luca Clemenza? Juventus sent him on loan to Ascoli and Padova, before sending him to Juventus U23. After one season, Juventus sent him on loan to Pescara. If I were to simply remove the arrow from Juventus U23, it would seem as if the reserve team sent him on loan to Pescara (which is incorrect). If I were to add Juventus between Juventus U23 and Pescara, it would seem as if Juventus sold him to Juventus U23 (which is also incorrect). THIS is the reason why I started the whole Zirkzee discussion (a lot of Juventus U23 players are like this, since Juve tends to loan a lot of their youth players around). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

All Juventus U23 players never been part of the first team. This is why, in Italy, if they reach five caps with first team, they couldn't be part of the second team anymore. Then, is simply to see: As long as they haven't five Serie A caps, they are NOT part of the first team, then, all transferts are to/ from the second team.--Tre di tre (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Juventus U23 started existing on summer 2018, then, for me, all Juventus players that went on loan "before" his birth must be considered "sold" or, as an alternative, coming from the youth sector, even if they already played pro on loan.--Tre di tre (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Solution: we keep Juventus as 2017–, and remove the arrow from Juventus U23. Thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

He was on loan from Juventus, not Juventus U23. GiantSnowman 16:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, which is why Juventus U23 has 2019–2020, while Juventus has 2017–. He's at Pescara since 2020, so there is no overlap with Juventus U23. I'm not saying I disagree with putting Juventus U23 below Pescara, just that I'm not sure that not putting the clubs in chronological order is a good idea. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You can't do it without showing him on loan from Juventus U23, which is factually incorrect. GiantSnowman 17:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Then, when he played for Juventus U23 was a transfert? How do you manage it? Quitting that period from chronology?--Tre di tre (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: What about Ferdinando Del Sole? Raffaele Alcibiade must be turned into a Juventus player? There's plenty of these players.--Tre di tre (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

See above consensus. GiantSnowman 17:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus above, however, opted for a chronological order. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Not in this situation. We do not chronologically order national teams, we should apply that rule in these unique situations as well. GiantSnowman 18:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz, SportingFlyer, Davidlofgren1996, Kante4, Microwave Anarchist, S.A. Julio, REDMAN 2019, and Struway2: Thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

just to point out I've spotted this very issue coming up today at Achraf Hakimi, who has played in Spain, Germany and Italy which all use these B team systems. So maybe an example for a subject overseen by various editors from different locations who want to use the box correctly but maybe haven't seen this discussion. Crowsus (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Andy Lonergan

I see that Dimspace just added the Premier League title back to Andy Lonergan's honours, when @ChrisTheDude: removed it as Lonergan did not make a single appearance for Liverpool. Can this be reviewed? JMHamo (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that Lonergan has received/will receive a PL medal (he is not eligible under the usual rules, having played 0 games, so the only way he would get one is if LFC chose to award him one under some sort of special circumstances). Dimspace claimed in his edit summary that the medal win was "sourced", but the source provided does not in any way support the claim..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I read a paper article the other day that said Klopp will make sure squad members like Lonergan get a medal. But until that is confirmed... GiantSnowman 10:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

When i said sourced i meant source of liverpool winning the league. i looked down the edit notes and saw that the honour was removed for lack of sourcing. So I grabbed league sources (replicate from Roberto Firminho article) and brought the sources over. My understanding is that the 5 games rule does not apply to goalkeepers but nobody seems to know where that is stated if indeed its true. He was on the bench for a considerable part of the start of the season when Allison was out injured so its clear he has been part of the squad, and his contract was renewed last month to take him through to the end of the season. Do players qualify as winners only upon receipt of a medal? or if they have been part of the league squad?

(I didnt realise it had been removed over the question of eligibility, i just saw the most recent rollback said lack of sources, user Mattythewhite just stated "unsourced" as his reason for rollback, perhaps he should have been clearer in his edit notes, my mistake, but it was a good faith edit based on his summary). This would explain why the same user is all over my talk page accusing me of being disruptive and threatening me with edit bans.. Dimspace (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Article List_of_Premier_League_winning_players states "At the discretion of the Premier League board, additional medals can be awarded to players who played less than five matches. This special dispensation is usually reserved for back-up goalkeepers and players who did not make the minimum number of appearances through injury" but that appears to be unsourced itself because it doesnt actually say that in the page of the rulebook they ref.. :') Dimspace (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence is cited sources that aren't the rulebook. Did you even bother to check them? Mattythewhite (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Comparisons between Major League Lacrosse and the Premier Lacrosse League

I am confused, but is not a breach of WP:COPYVIO?? Govvy (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, this feels like the worse case of WP:OR, this comparison article? Surely this can't be suitable for wikipedia? Govvy (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Whats it got to do with football?--EchetusXe 13:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely WP:SYNTH, and appears to be self referential. So circular in logic. The main sport noticeboard is probably best place for this. Koncorde (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Why has this been raised with the football project.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: might I suggest that you raise that question at WP:LACROSSE? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

dam, I was thinking football too much maybe, and that Lacrosse project is kinda dead. :/ Govvy (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Lee Johnson (footballer) and Bristol City F.C.

These articles are subject to being edited with unsourced content relating to the manager. It relates to the possibility that he is no longer the manager of Bristol City but I should think he is until sources are added. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Has just been announced by the BBC Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Struway2 has just put the ref on the former article. The source on Bristol City is different but relates to the same news. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Premier League International Cup matches

Since when matches of Premier League International Cup are considered not official? 188.222.245.203 (talk · contribs) is removing them from statistics and the source supporting the information at Bruno Lage.

First, IP made an accusation: falsified and made up statistics for Benfica B.

Then IP wrote: The tournament mentioned in the other statistics for Benfica B are not counted as official matches.; Premier League International Cup doesn't appear on ForaDeJogo's website! Therefore are not counted as official matches played as ForaDeJogo only shows league matches, as does the football database website!; removed unnecessary source material as the other two sources do not show the Premier League International Cup; NOT SHOWN IN OTHER TWO SOURCES! Therefore the sources do not back up the source from Zerozero.

Zerozero says Premier League International Cup matches are official. SLBedit (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

And now IP is re-adding flags to managerial statistics infobox. SLBedit (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It's an official tournament, but for reserve teams. It shouldn't be counted in the infobox or the career statistics table. I suppose it counts as an honour for the winning players, but again only of the same status as reserve or youth tournaments they won. Crowsus (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly what I thought. However, the discussion seems to be regarding the Managerial statistics section of Bruno Lage, namely the Benfica B stats. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

188.222.245.203 continues to remove the matches and zerozero source. SLBedit (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be counted in the infobox or the career statistics table. There you go SLBedit (talk) should not be counted in the managerial statistics table! 188.222.245.203 (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 5 July 2020‎ (UTC)

That is your opinion. Zerozero counts Premier League International Cup as official matches; therefore, they are included in the statistics. Stop removing them from Bruno Lage and Benfica B articles. SLBedit (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No SLBedit, you stop including them. Benfica B plays league matches in the senior system, so those matches count for stats. PLIC is exclusively for reserves,so those matches do not count. Its simple. What ZeroZero includes does not equate to what Wikipedia includes. By the way, the PLIC matches are also counted on Soccerway, but they don't count any more than the UEFA Youth league, which it also includes. Of course the competition shouldn't be ignored altogether, but it simply should not count in stats. Crowsus (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't we put all (official) matches in the "Managerial statistics" section? For example, shouldn't we put the Serie A, Coppa Italia, and Supercoppa Italiana for Maurizio Sarri? Note that I'm not saying anything about the PLIC or Benfica B. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"PLIC is exclusively for reserves" Benfica B is a reserve team. SLBedit (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

National team year range in infobox

When should be "close" the national year range in the infobox? Only when the player retires, or after a (few) year(s) from his last cap? It would seem strange to me to have, for example, 2015– for a player who has only played one match in 2015. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

For me I would put it after he played his last cap for the national team. HawkAussie (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I meant for players who haven't formally retired internationally. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I think with players who have never officially announced their international retirement there's not much you can do other than use common sense. Someone insisted that Matt Jarvis still have his England dates shown as open-ended eight years after his one and only cap, when he was 32 and playing in League One, on the grounds that he "hadn't retired". That seems a bit nonsensical to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I am that someone. I followed the rule that if they were still playing and had not announced international retirement then the date was left open however unlikely another appearance was. I accept that for Matt Jarvis this is stretching it. Others in this range are Aaron Lennon, Kieran Gibbs and Theo Walcott. The question is, if they don’t actually announce international retirement then how many years of non-selection are a reasonable amount before we put that end date?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say that five years is a reasonable cut-off, which would cover Lennon and Gibbs. I'd struggle to think of a player who was recalled to the national team more than five years after his last cap (now that I have said that, people will probably name loads :-D ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure there was an Egyptian player who had his second cap something like 10 years after his first - but that's the exception that proves the rule. I agree that if there has been no call up or cap for a few years, close it off. GiantSnowman 08:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The question here is if the range is meant to cover the time played or the time he was eligible to play --SuperJew (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No no, my question is just about players who have last played internationally 3, 4, 8 years ago, and have yet to retire. For the range itself (for players who have retired), I believe we should stick to our current method, which is from his debut to his last cap (even if he might have been called up, say, 3 years later). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct, the years span date of first & last cap, not call-up. GiantSnowman 12:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparisons between the Women's United Soccer Association, Women's Professional Soccer, and National Women's Soccer League

I didn't feel this article is right for wikipedia and I put it forward for AfD to test the waters and see what others think. Govvy (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please be wary of WP:CANVASS; listing it on the main discussion table is sufficient. GiantSnowman 12:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Starting position in table different than 1

Is it possible to "shift" the starting position in a league table to something other than 1? For example, in the 2020–21 Lebanese Premier League there will be Top 6 and Bottom 6 competitions. It would be ideal for the Bottom 6 rankings to start from 7, rather than from 1. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You could use a wikitable instead of a template, that would do the trick. – PeeJay 13:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I would still need to invoke the table in 2020–21 in Lebanese football, which I think wouldn't work with a normal table. Is there no other competition in the world with a similar format? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I know they do something similar in the Czech First League, and this article uses the 'highest_pos' parameter for the bottom half. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Perfect, just what I needed! Thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Timo Werner

Hi, could someone help at Timo Werner, where first-team appearances and goals are constantly being from the infobox and career stats table? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverted and protected. GiantSnowman 17:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)