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.

Nicolas Nath

Can anyone see if Nicolas Nath has ever played a game of professional football? I can't seem to find him in any of the usual database sites. Spiderone 19:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This indicates that he appeared as a substitute for SC Goa in the I-League in March 2007. That's all I can find. This might also help for GNG but I don't have a subscription. GiantSnowman 19:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The Times of India match report is for the predecessor National Football League, which wasn't fully pro: the first I-League season was 2007–08, which ran from November 2007. If, as Mr Nath's article says, he left at the end of that season, he didn't play in the I-League. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

When was he at Inter? Surely there is something about that? Inter aren't exactly a small club. It may be that he was on the books for the reserves and likes to say that he was in the first team. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The Swedish new articles just mention that he was part of the Inter youth squad, and has trained with the senior squad on occasion. He never played a game of professional football in Sweden, and doesn't seem to have done so in Italy either. He does seem to have gotten some attention that may be enough for GNG anyway, especially considering he's also been an Expedition Robinson contestant. – Elisson • T • C • 12:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think the page pages WP:GNG at this point, should probably be deleted.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This is now up for discussion here Spiderone 11:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Aldwyn McGill notability

What does the community think about this person? I was a bit reluctant to nominate the article right away, but I have strong doubts. He definitely fails NFOOTY and probably violates WP:SELFPUB or something similar, seeing as much of information about him comes from a website where he is a "publisher and chief editor." --BlameRuiner (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Definitely worth putting to AfD I would say. If no sources independent from the subject exist, then that has to be a GNG concern at least Spiderone 10:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"Current Season" results template

What is the agreed upon census for which template to use for results? Some use this one 2020–21 Peterborough United F.C. season#Matches and some use this one, 2020–21 Birmingham City F.C. season#Match results Coventryy (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 133#2020–21 Manchester United F.C. season formatting. Then draw your own conclusions... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

What constitutes a "league cup"?

I'm a bit confused on what a "league cup" is. Are, for example, the FA Trophy and EFL Trophy league cups? Or should they go under "Other" in a player's "Club career statistics"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

They go under 'other'; the English league cup is the EFL Cup. It is a competition open only to clubs playing in the English league system. GiantSnowman 15:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Therefore, there is only one league cup per country? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

No - different English league systems have their own league cups, but those are so minor that they're not really relevant to Wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 15:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

There is only one 'English league system' - there is the EFL and then there is non-league football... GiantSnowman 15:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there's one overarching structure, but different lower league systems have their own league cups... Southern Football League Cup (England)... SportingFlyer T·C 15:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

... which some editors put in the League Cup column, because they are league cups. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

That is wrong IMHO. GiantSnowman 15:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily in mine. The column has never, as far as I'm aware, been consensually restricted to the EFL Cup and predecessors. Years ago, when we used templates for stats tables, I think the structure of the template probably did restrict the column (if present) to a named national league cup, but one of the reasons for ditching the templates was the greater flexibility offered by a wikitable. As SportingFlyer suggested, there are relatively few players where stats are available for non-league league cups, but where they are available, it does seem logical that they should go in that column. We put non-league "league" apps in the league division column, even though they're not Prem/EFL... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A player who begins his career in the Premier League and plays in the EFL Cup will have apps in the 'league cup' column'. If that player then goes on to play in non-league and plays in e.g. the Southern Football League Cup they will also (under your suggestion) have apps in the 'league cup' column. That is (IMHO) confusing. GiantSnowman 16:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Meh, it's fine. If someone plays an EPL Cup game at Fulham and a Southern League Cup game at Alvechurch in the same career, those will be in different rows - and it's no different than someone who plays an EPL Cup game with Fulham and a French League Cup game with, oh St-Etienne. SportingFlyer T·C 16:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

That's what footnotes are for. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A League Cup is a cup where participation is restricted to members of a certain league(s). The Southern Football League Cup is a League Cup just like the EFL Cup - See League_Cup#Europe. Compared to a Domestic Cup which is not restricted to certain leagues and can even include Amateur teams. I've included in Stats Tables separate columns for League Cup and Domestic Cup, and used footnotes to distinguish what appearances were where. RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I am aware, yes - although not every country has one. GiantSnowman 15:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• I would say that the League Cup column relates to the League Cup of whichever league the player played in at the time. And a League Cup in this context is a cup open to all the members of that league but not anyone else. So the FA Trophy is definitely not a League Cup because it is only open to teams from multiple leagues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the EFL Cup open to four leagues, for a total of 92 clubs? I'm not an expert on English football, but isn't the EFL Cup for divisions 1 to 4, and the FA Trophy for divisions 5 to 8? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's only open to the top four divisions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

So both the EFL Cup and the FA Trophy have the same "status". In the sense that, EFL Cup is for all clubs in divisions 1-4, FA Trophy for all clubs in divisions 5-8. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Sort of, although the FA Trophy is only for non-league clubs. Which kinda defeats the whole "League Cup" purpose. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the FA Trophy is NOT a league cup! GiantSnowman 19:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I still don't understand why (!) Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The League Cup was created as a knockout competition only for teams in the Football League. The FA Amateur Cup also existed only for amateur teams. The FA Trophy was then created in the 1960s because there were some semi-professional teams which were not eligible for either cup, and encompasses four different leagues: the National League, the Southern League, the Isthmian League, and the Northern League, as opposed to say the Southern League Cup, which is only for teams playing in one of the three divisions in the Southern League. SportingFlyer T·C 19:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't the EFL Cup encompass two different leagues: the Premier League and the EFL? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You need to know some English football history - although run by separate entities now (the EFL and the Premier League), the top 4 leagues in English football were and still are known as "the Football League", whilst the leagues below that are known as "Non-League" (i.e. this recent BBC article). The issue is that the EFL Cup was founded in 1960 and until 2016 was called the League Cup (and indeed many still refer to it as such) because it is only open to those 92 clubs in the top 4 divisions. Therefore, the "League Cup" column on English football bios has always referred to that competition exclusively - competitions such as the EFL Trophy, whilst league-specific, are not for the whole "Football League" and were defined as "Other". Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The columns for the Career Stats table don't refer to a specific competition though, since they are general categories. There isn't a UEFA Champions League column, there's a Continental column, which contains UEFA Champions League, Europa League, CONCACAF Champions League, etc. depending on where that player has played. Hence, League Cup needs to follow the same rules and refer to any League Cup (including non-EFL Cups). If the League Cup table can include other League Cups such as a Scottish League cup, a Portuguese league cup, then by definition should also include other English League Cups such as the Southern League Cup. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about other nations, but in the England, the term 'League Cup' refers to the EFL Cup. To refer to the EFL Trophy or FA Trophy (or FA Vase for that matter) as 'League Cups' seems ridiculous, and they should go in the 'other' column. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

For UK readers, however, it is logical to separate them purely because the EFL Cup was for over 50 years "The League Cup", and is regularly still referred to as such. They are listed separately on most UK football bios. Some examples Jermaine Beckford, Grant Leadbitter, Jason Pearce et al. Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A player can appear for a club in the FA Trophy and the Southern League Cup in the same season, pretty self explanatory that the FA Trophy cannot therefore appear in the League Cup column. I agree with Struway that South League Cup data should go in the League cup column if it is available.--EchetusXe 21:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think that's a solution to a problem that generally doesn't exist. Most players in the Southern League Cup aren't notable enough for an article anyway, and some of those don't have biographies detailed enough for a full appearances table. For that very small subset, they've played professionally and have therefore probably played in the League Cup/EFL Cup and it would therefore be less confusing to put the SLC/Trophy games into the "Other" column with footnotes (i.e. see Carl Dickinson). Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

huh, Carl Dickinson hasn't played in or indeed been eligible to play in any League Cup competition besides the EFL Cup?--EchetusXe 08:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

That's because I can't find a player with an article who has (thus backing my point up). I was pointing out how Diuckinson's table dealt with competitions that were "Other" (via footnotes). 12:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Harry Crawford (footballer) is a player who has played in the Southern League Cup, with stats for that going under 'other', whilst Tommy Wright (footballer, born 1984) is an example of one where it is listed under League Cup. I agree with Black Kite that they should go under 'other' as it's less confusing. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed the former isn't sourced. A better example is Luke Gambin. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree they should go under 'other' and only the League Cup/EFL Cup should be in 'league cup' column. GiantSnowman 14:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with GS and others. The "League Cup" / EFL Cup is a specific English competition with unique stats and distinct profile to "other" cups and trophies. Koncorde (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late to the conversation, but I'd have to agree with those who suggested that any league cup should go into the league cup column, with notes to say which League Cup they played in, as is sometimes required with those who've played in multiple countries. As for the FA Trophy, Vase et al. I'd say that it's the organiser who matters more. Those are FA competitions, a League Cup is one which is open to all members of the organising League (plus guests in the case of the EFL Cup. Asterixtintin (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Anyway, this question was specifically for Hady Ghandour. He played in the FA Trophy and EFL Cup, and is(-ish) eligible to play in the EFL Cup (Charlton were eliminated before he got to make an appearance). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring over national team entities

Hi. For the first time in a long while I am close to breaching WP:3RR. An IP editors is edit-warring for a change to combine Mladen Krstajić's appearances for different national teams – FR Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Serbia – into one. That change can't be right, can it? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not. I have reverted and warned. GiantSnowman 16:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Robby.is.on (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Technically FR Yugoslavia and Serbia & Montenegro could (and probably should) be combined into one since those were the same country, they just renamed the country - since FR Yugoslavia (S&M only) is not the same thing as SFR Yugoslavia (the original Yugoslavia). It's similar to how Macedonia was renamed to North Macedonia. It was just a name change and we don't split those for the Macedonians. Serbia itself however is different since that resulted from a split and is a different nation from FR Yugoslavia/Serbia&Montenegro. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

FR Yugoslavia and Serbia & Montenegro are absolutely the same team. There should be 2 lines for Krstajić.--BlameRuiner (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I edited it to make it two rows. It seems the most correct way (and perhaps the IP will view it as an acceptable compromise) RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

So many other players have their FR Yugoslavia/Serbia&Montenegro and Serbia stats combined into one, for example Ivica Dragutinović and Nemanja Vidić RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, RSSSF combines all FR Yugoslavia/Serbia & Montenegro/Serbia stats into one. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think they should be considered one. I believe FIFA considers the Serbia NT the sole successor to the Serbia & Montenegro NT, same way S&M is the sole successor for FR Yugoslavia.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Ballon d'Or Dream Team nominations

Hi all, @Mazewaxie: and I have had a difference of opinions over whether or not nominations for the 2020 Ballon d'or dream team should be included on player articles. What are others thoughts on the matter? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. In my opinion it should be addded because is a honour to be chosen as a nomination for an award of this caliber. REDMAN 2019 says that it shouldn't be mentioned because it's only a nomination, and not an award. Using that logic, we should also remove Ballon d'Or runner-ups, third places and so on from every article. That doesn't make sense in my opinion. Being nominated for a France Football all-time team it's still notable, since only 110 players in the history of the game were chosen, leaving out big names like Dani Alves, Paul Scholes and Frank Lampard for example. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 17:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It is just a nomination, so they should not be included. Kante4 (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't include either. Just the eventual final 11 then. -Koppapa (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. – PeeJay 00:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I might include this later, if the nomination ends up being well covered/notable. But for now, too soon. SportingFlyer T·C 00:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Do we remove Ballon d'or runner-ups and third place as well? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd think no, it's a major award. SportingFlyer T·C 11:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, while we might not list being nominated as an honour, this doesn't and shouldn't mean it is not mentioned in their career summmary. It is almost certainly worth noting that "at the end of 2020 X was nominated, but was ultimately unsuccessful" where there are reliable sources to say so. If there is voting and placings in such dream teams then again, mentioning "x finished runner up in nominations behind y for the OMG BESTPLAYEREVER team of the season /year /decade /century etc". Koncorde (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. It's fine in the prose. Kante4 (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Division in each line of career statistics table?

Hi all - just wanted to confirm that we had come to a consensus that the division should be included in each season of a club statistics table? @NZFC: keeps reverting my edits of adding the division to each season of Roy Krishna career statistics table because NZFC thinks it looks nicer with only one mention of the division. I know we've been through this a lot before and I know the footballer player template guidelines supports my edits as well but want to make sure we are all in agreement. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Given that the player MOS states that it's preferable to state the division in each row, I would go with that. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The guidelines say This page provides a suggested layout for footballer biographies. While nothing is set in stone, this layout is used in most of the best biographies as judged by the community, and following it is a good idea. That doesn't mean every single article has to follow them. As I've pointed out, I don't believe it is best for Krishna article and I know it's other stuff exists but Lionel Messi doesn't use it for La Liga because of the so many years in the same league. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 20:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Using your argument NZFC, if the layout that I am trying to implement is used in the best biographies and judged by the community, then we should follow the MOS and include division for each season every time so that articles are at their best versions. I can pick out 1,000+ great articles of footballers that follow the correct style. And frankly Messi's stats table is incorrect and should be fixed. Also, in your reverts you keep double linking to New Zealand Football Championship and you keep adding sponsors to leagues and cups, which are also things we avoid. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The MoS also says as to repetition of league division, this thread suggests that, while "there is a slight advantage in accessibility when you repeat cells, rather than rowspanning them", "our readers won't be disadvantaged noticeably if we don't repeat every cell that contains duplicate data". So the MoS itself says that either way is fine. Personally I think the rowspanned version is neater and looks better and more easily readable, and that is the reason we do it for the club name, isn't it? I would propose that we either have both divison and club rowspanned or both division and club repeated. --SuperJew (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry yes revert has caught your other fixes you've made and I was going to fix after decision had been made. With both leagues, there really isn't divisions, teams in the National Football Championship don't have relegation/promotion either. Same with the A-League so there isn't any lower higher divisions. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 21:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: you are bringing up a thread from 5 years ago. The MOS has changed since then and the decision was to include the division per row. If you go to Cristiano's article now - it follows the current MOS. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rupert1904: What I quoted is what appears in the MoS as of right now. If it is irrelevant to your discussion, then you shouldn't be basing your discussion upon it. --SuperJew (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Please look at the template right now that you just linked to. The MOS supports my argument and editing. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rupert1904: Firstly, I linked a MoS, not a template. Please use the correct terminology so that we are all speaking the same language. Secondly, the MoS indeed uses the format you are implementing, but at the same time it also says to note that regarding the repetition of division, which is the crux of your discussion, that there is no noticeable disadvantage either way, which would mean that there should be no problem rowspanning the division as NZFC did, or at the very minimum we can discuss changing the MoS's default view. --SuperJew (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue itself, not say "The MoS says it's like this" or "It appears in X article like so". What is the actual reason you think repeating the division is preferable to rowspanning it? --SuperJew (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: First off, you just linked to what is specifically called a "Player article template" so don't try to belittle me. Also, my argument is that it is the consensus of wikipedia editors to include the division for each season. NZFC has to present a valid argument other than it's just their personal preference on only Roy Krishna's article. We have guidelines for a reason - they're to be used. Are you okay if I just start putting tables in players articles that record fouls committed or noses picked instead of appearances and goals, or order the clubs and seasons chronologically backwards? Rupert1904 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rupert1904: If it came up for discussion I would oppose these additions. But the reasons I would give aren't "consensus, consensus, consensus", but rather "difficulty to verifiably source at most levels and not having a single agreed-upon definition (same as assists), not a notable or relevant stat for a soccer game, and that the average reader wouldn't expect the order to be chronologically backwards though I can see it's merits and honestly I think it could be fine and if most users think it's preferable we could implement it as long as we keep it consistent on Wikipedia." --SuperJew (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I remember from a previous discussion a few years ago that somebody raised possible accessibility issues (re: screen readers) for 'merged' cells in a stats table, rather than individual lines. Unsure what the basis for that is though. GiantSnowman 21:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman that is in the link that SuperJew posted. Was decided it shouldn't be an issue anymore as readers have got better. Also Rupert1904 there is nothing wrong with bringing up old threads as it brings context to information already discussed. I hadn't seen that before so it's news to me. Lastly it's not set in stone, things can change which is why we are having this discussion again, for this layout, having the rowspan for club and league I believe looks better on the Krishna article. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 21:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure there is nothing wrong with bringing up that discussion but it's out of context now as the MOS has changed in the intervening years. The consensus now is to add the division to each line of a stats table. There is a MOS and guidelines for a reason. We don't pick and choose just based off if we think one looks cuter in one article and then use a different format for another. At this point, why even follow any guidelines? Should we all just edit articles in a vacuum and hope other people think they look good too? NZFC - your argument is not based in any guidelines or consensus but only your personal preference. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Except SuperJew point does show that the context of readability doesn't affect the decision anymore regarding layout. Mine isn't just cuter, nice wording too, comes across petty. Besides it looking better, I did point out that it also makes sense for both the NZFC and A-League to have rowspan because they don't have promotion or relegation, so there isn't league divisions to either of those leagues. I think for cases with like that or for spending a number of years in same league, rowspan is appropriate and should be considered in future. So yes I am asking for a change in consensus when relevant even if these MOS have been like that for years, they can be changed and adjusted. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

And I think it looks better with division per row so who wins? Are we just going to keep reverting each other until we die? Rupert1904 (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok so no that isn't the point, I just wanted to discuss it first. Normally when someone edits and someone reverts you discuss. Also on that you have current MOS so can see where you are coming from. Have done this so it's changed to your edits as you've requested and per current standards, all I would like to discuss with others who have an interest in this project, is if it's possible to maybe have different MOS in context of different players and leagues having different requirements. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In general, we try to reduce unnecessary repetition, and this is to reduce clutter and improve readability. In this case using rowspanning as opposed to repeating the division is in-line with said target. --SuperJew (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It reduces readability by having missing division rows. The division should be listed in each row.--EchetusXe 08:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@EchetusXe: So why have the club rowspanned? Honestly, I find the oddest thing about this that there's no consistency inside the table itself. --SuperJew (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I can live with rowspans, as repeating the same text over and over looks just, odd. Kante4 (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I personally prefer rowspans, but not enough to get in a debate over it. This shall be my only post on the topic RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's a case such as Lionel Messi where it's the same league for each club, or the same club and the same league, then that's fine. If the club/s switches divisions then it can get confusing.--EchetusXe 12:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

So you're supporting a per case basis as opposed to a blanket rule, and would say that how NZFC formatted for Roy Krishna (which is the specific case starting this discussion) is fine since both the A-League and NZFC don't have relegation or promotion so the clubs don't change leagues. --SuperJew (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

To have this on a case by case basis is really silly though. If it's for readability issue or being worried about the average person who comes on wikipedia for information and doesn't know football leagues around the world as well we do, they will just be confused. The A-League could implement promotion and relegation at some stage or a club could move leagues. Take for instance Roy Krishna's club ATK being merged with Mohun Bagan A.C. a few months ago. Mohun was in the competing I-League before 2020–21. Or something that happens more regularly, players leave non promotion/relegation leagues like the A-League and MLS (which there are only a handful of around the world to begin with) and move to leagues that have a system promotion and relegation. Should Frank Lampard's stats with NYCFC in the MLS be rowspanned just for the last two years of his stats table? Or what about Andrea Pirlo, Didier Drogba, Landon Donovan or Robbie Keane? We can't go back and forth within an individual stats table or on a per player basis. It's silly, confusing, will look incorrect, and we will have to debate it here every time. We should have a standard form as the point of an encyclopedia is to provide knowledge in a clean and concise way. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

But as you say, nothing is clean and concise, there has to be some flexibilty and people can use commonsense. I agree the current MOS is fine for most cases, but I also believe there are cases where a second MOS is appropriate like with Messi and like with the Krishna article. He has been with the same team in the same league twice for several years that I feel it does not make sense to show the division each line. If that happen to change and it got promotion/relegation, then it's MOS could change then as well.NZFC^(talk)(cont) 20:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rupert1904: I still haven't seen an answer to why the club is rowspanned but the league isn't? As you said We can't go back and forth within an individual stats table. --SuperJew (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of repeating the same information again in a cell below, that just adds to data limit and unnecessary extra text, repeat, repeat, repeat. Completely unnecessary in my opinion when you can convey the same information with one line of text in a merged cell. As for speech software, they generally will say the league for the first season cell and then go on to read the seasons and statistics until there is a league change. It will not repeat the same league information for each row until there is a change. I really don't see it as a problem personally. Govvy (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Well if we decide now to rowspan, then it's frustrating how many times I've been reverted over the years for rowspanning leagues in stats tables for not following the MOS to a T. This also brings up the question as to whether colspan in a stats table should always only be 2 spaces or if they can extend to 4, 6, 8, 10, etc depending on how many competitions that player did not compete in that season. I believe the argument in the past has been about WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Wouldn't we want to implement the same ruling here so we're not overly repeating? Rupert1904 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You know, I was looking at a bunch of different player articles, and really, I would say it depends on the players career to how a table should be built. Govvy (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I personally think we should avoid that. I suggest either sticking to division per season or rowspanning - maybe with the exception of a one club man who plays in the same division without a name change in their entire career likee (Paolo Maldini or Jamie Carragher; but even then this might confuse readers. It will get too complicated if we do it on a per player basis and this will also likely cause more debates and reversions/edit wars if we don't have a set rule. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

While I personally would prefer rowspan as the standard used, I can live with it now being as more standard leagues have levels clubs can play for. So I don't think its needed as a per player basis so its becomes different for each player but that we allow a second MOS for these more exceptional cases where it is shown that they have spent number of years with a team/league or the league they are playing in doesn't have levels. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 21:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Islam Slimani international goals

Hi friends, we're having an issue about the number of international goals Islam Slimani has scored. National-Football-Teams lists him with 30 goals (see here https://www.national-football-teams.com/player/47712/Islam_Slimani.html) which is correct but a certain user seems to think it's 29 because "all the players were local" in a friendly match against Mauritania in 2013. However, the match is considered a full international match by FIFA, it was listed on the FIFA.com website many years ago before they changed their site (would someone be able to find an archive?). DZFoot, the main reference for Algerian football online, also listed him with 30 goals as recently as today (see here: http://www.dzfoot.com/2020/11/14/en-bounedjah-integre-le-top-10-des-meilleurs-buteurs-192108.php) and specifically mentioned that that match against Mauritania was an official FIFA match in a previous article (see here: http://www.dzfoot.com/2019/07/02/historique-slimani-deuxieme-meilleur-buteur-des-verts-156583.php). Any help on the issue would be appreciated. TonyStarks (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

And just to add, the Algerian Press Service (official Algerian government press agency) posted this today with Slimani listed with 30 goals http://www.aps.dz/sport/112762-foot-classement-historique-des-buteurs-bounedjah-integre-le-top-10 TonyStarks (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

And said user has now reverted me 3 times in 24 hours, breaking WP:3RR TonyStarks (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's of any use, RSSSF give Slimani 29 goals, stating: "the match against Mauritania (1-0, 25-5-13 in Blida, in which Slimani scored) was not a full A international and is therefore not included here". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

To give a slightly less one-sided perspective, the other user, Faycal.09 is using these sources to demonstrate it wasn't a full international. However, FIFA state (section 7 on page 8) that the 'A' team is the senior national team and the archived version of the FIFA site list it like other senior matches,[1] so it would appear it should count.

Also, having a team of only domestic-based players doesn't necessarily make it a non-senior match – aren't African Nations Championship counted as full internationals despite national teams only playing domestic-based players? Number 57 23:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

PS, three reverts in 24 hours is not a WP:3RR breach. A breach is more than three reverts. Number 57 23:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that FIFA link showing the results! And for the context on the 3RR rule. In any case, I came here when it was clear that we were not going to find a consensus. TonyStarks (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to add, here's a Twitter thread from the data admin of TransferMarkt (I know not always the best source) but he reached out to the coach of the Algeria team that played in the game vs Mauritania and confirmed that it was a full international friendly by FIFA standards: https://twitter.com/JoschaBerger/status/1171759271161319426 TonyStarks (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Another thing regarding the FIFA website: it was rife of errors, and that website shouldn't be used as a definitive list of full-FIFA matches. For what I remember, FIFA asked some amateur statisticians to search and assess the official status of the matches on their own. Some official matches were not included, other matches were non-FIFA, and others had incorrect dates and/or scores. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

In 2013, Algeria A' (local team) played against Mauritania to prepare the 2014 African Nations Championship qualification. Only 29 goals (with A team) are counted, we can see in other links here : (France Football), (Afrik Foot). Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that your references for Algerian football are France Football (which only mentions Slimani in the article in passing), and Afrik-Foot, and the fact you disregard The subject matter experts who focus entirely on Algerian football (DZfoot, Algerian Press Service) not to mention N-F-T.com says it all really. TonyStarks (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

France football is a credible site and it clearly mentions the number of goals that Slimani has scored, that's our subject, isn't it? I gives you too link of the more credible algerian site (Le Buteur "El Heddaf"). regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

For me, if RSSSF have the match listed with a description of it not being a full 'A' international, that is the source that I would trust therefore list Slimani at 29 goals. Felixsv7 (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

File:FC_Basel.png

It says this is in the public domain, but I've never seen any other modern football crests in the public domain and it's used in a lot of pages. Are we sure it's all okay, I have my suspicions. Govvy (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Its probably because it's only made up of simple geometric shapes. It's the same (to a lesser extent) to File:Juventus FC 2017 icon (black).svg. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I would be very doubtful as to whether the Basel crest fails WP:TOO, which is reserved for very simple shapes and typefaces. I suspect (unless there's a copyright issue I'm not aware of) that it should be a non-free image. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree, it has way to many colours and shapes to be considered "simple shapes and typefaces". If converted to non-free, it'll need a non-free rationale for every single season article if it's needed on all of them (which I doubt it is). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I certainly can't see why it would be tagged public domain, I also thought it should be non-free rationale, but then this isn't my field. I can only point out what I see as a potential problem. Govvy (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - no way is that crest simplistic enough to be covered by WP:TOO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

George Boyd (footballer)

I have noticed from an edit made by someone else that the Style of Play section is too long compared to other articles of more famous footballers. I have started a discussion on it's talk page to see what should stay and what should be removed or relocated. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus on how many appearances is enough to supersede GNG

Recently I have been going through the squads of Albirex Niigata Singapore FC and filling in any players who have played in the S.League during their time with the club. A few of these players only managed one or two appearances, and were all deleted at AfDs (1 2 3). This is fair enough - they pass WP:NFOOTY, but not WP:GNG. However, how far does this stretch? What is the minimum number of appearances a "non-notable" player has to make to not have their page removed?

Before telling me that any player who fails GNG should have their page removed, remember that there are hundreds of articles out there for players who do not meet GNG. For example, there are the "presumed notable" players - mostly English second/third tier players from the early 20th century, who seem to go unquestioned. As well as this, there are multiple international footballers from smaller nations, particularly those in the Caribbean and South Pacific, who could have racked up over 50 international appearances while barely getting any web hits.

I would like to get a consensus from the community on a number of appearances a player has to make before they no longer "scrape" WP:NFOOTY, and can stand on their own merit without having to pass GNG. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Every article must meet WP:GNG. There is no "magic number." That doesn't mean you should start PROD-ing articles which don't pass WP:GNG on their face, especially for historical players, since WP:NFOOTY gives a presumption that a player will be notable.. SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with SF, there's no magic number, each case is different - you can have players with 0 apps who meet GNG, and players with 5 who don't. But the more appearances made, the more likely there will be sources and GNG therefore met. GiantSnowman 11:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

So if I stumbled upon an article on a player who made 50 appearances in what we recognise as a fully pro league but who couldn't be proven to meet GNG (entirely possible I would say for, say, a player in the Third Division North in the 1930s) and sent it to AfD, people would support its deletion even though he made 50 appearances.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

No, of course not, because it is highly likely that a player that active in the 1930s would have majority/only offline sourcing and would also meet GNG. GiantSnowman 11:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you started your AfD with "He played for Coventry, and I've done a full archive search of the Coventry newspaper here and all national newspapers here and a few magazines from the time here and we can verify he played but there's really nothing on him that would allow us to write a WP:GNG-qualifying article," I would probably double-check and vote delete there. Let's assume the article isn't good but you just write "fails WP:GNG," I'm doing a before search everywhere I can to get him over the line. That's the presumption in effect. It is context-specific, especially in football, which is international - it's a lot easier in say baseball or Aussie rules if a player doesn't make the majors/top flight. SportingFlyer T·C 11:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's fair enough, but I strongly disagree with presumed notability. We surely cannot assume that, for example, an English Third Division player who played one game at the beginning of the 20th century would have been notable in his time.

I also disagree with more appearances making it more likely there will be sources. A player like Himid Mao would fail GNG, but he has made 30+ appearances in the professional Egyptian League, as well as amassing 50 caps. If I took his article to an AfD, what would stop it from being deleted? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, This would, and this, and certainly this, and perhaps this or this as well, or this. And then there's this and presumably this, and that or that might help, and I don't know if this is a reliable source. There have to be better examples of non-notable players meeting NFOOTY than this one surely? Fram (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Half of these aren't proven reputable sources, and the rest are either talking about his transfers, injuries or call ups. The last one is a Wordpress article. This, this and this would be good enough for GNG if they are proven, reliable sources. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

So essentially we are saying that a player who has only made a handful of appearances in the 2010s gets deleted because we can prove he doesn't meet GNG, but a player who made a handful of appearances in the 1910s essentially gets a free pass to stay here, potentially forever, because it is assumed that there are probably sources but they can't be accessed? Seems a bit like double standards........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Not double standards, it reflects the media at the time - in the same way we would give more leeway to a e.g. Nepalese player with 1 FPL appearance than to an English player with 1 FPL appearance. WP:BIAS applies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 11:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

My point is, though, that if we are going to be realistic a player who only ever made 5 appearances for Rochdale in 2009 almost certainly won't meet GNG, and if his article was brought to AfD there's a good chance it would be deleted, but if a player who only ever made 5 appearances for Rochdale in 1929 was brought to AfD people would probably say it should be kept on the grounds that "pre-internet sources probably exist". Why do we think sources would exist for the 1929 player when we can prove that sources don't exist for an equivalent player in 2009? Did the papers in the pre-internet era write more about bit-part players than online news sources do now (genuine question - maybe they did......)......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

This conversation is leading into the realms of notability between the non-digital age media and digital-age media. It's important to remember how sources were used before the internet. Govvy (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay let’s take it back to the original point. Shun Inaba has 27 S.League appearances, as well as 9 cup appearances against other S.League sides. There are next to no hits when you search his name. He fails GNG but easily passes WP:NFOOTY. Are we keeping the article or deleting it? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

If you search Inaba's Japanese name (稲葉 旬) you get quite a few hits, but hard to tell how many are good news sources as I don't speak Japanese. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look through the Google results for his Japanese name, but to be honest a lot of those are passing mentions or profiles. I'd still say he fails GNG. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, having looked at the Tanzania national team after raising the case of Himid Mao, not only would captain John Bocco (67 caps), but also Erasto Nyoni with NINETY full international caps, would fail GNG. Are we going to delete these articles too? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Nyoni? Notable, [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]... Fram (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

For Singapore and this player you can have sources from Japanese, Mandarin, Tamil and Malay and google would not be able to read all of those. Govvy (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

So the players from Singapore would not be eligible for articles unless those sources are provided? Because the three players listed above that have been deleted could have thousands of pages of results on a Malay search engine. And with regards to the Tanzanian players? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

David, repspectfully, you are clearly not doing proper searches for all these players if you are coming back with a determination that GNG is not met that quickly. Generally I politely suggest you spend more time fewer writing well-written/sourced articles, rather than churning out questionable one-line stubs. GiantSnowman 12:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through all 9 pages of articles about Erasto Nyoni, as well as a few under the news tab. I found a handful of goal.com articles, including this one about him buying a kid a bike, a BBC article titled "Tanzania club suspends 'corrupt' players", of which he is one of the players, and an article mentioning that he is injured. Anything else was either not reputable, or just mentioning him in passing. I still don't think this is really enough to meet GNG.

And sure, I will stop churning out questionable stubs. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Those articles on politicians are clearly notable. Your stubs are not, hence why so many have been deleted recently. GiantSnowman 13:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so create substantial articles about them then, rather than the minimal, one-source stubs that you have created. You're having a go at me for something that you also do. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

No I'm not. GiantSnowman 13:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You told me to spend more time writing "well-written/sourced articles", implying that I don't, though you create more basic stubs than I do. Then you felt the need to tell me that so many of my articles "have been deleted recently". If we have a look at the stats, 47 of my articles have been deleted, most of which have been restored. 234 of your articles have been deleted. This represents 0.016% of my articles, and 0.032% of yours. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Most of the ones deleted are actually my sandboxes that I moved into mainspace and deleted myself, or articles that have since been re-created. Anyway this is distracting and we've both made our points, let's move on. GiantSnowman 15:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You're still not looking closely enough, then. Erasto Nyoni is clearly notable through my own WP:BEFORE search, which doesn't use Google, as are the other Tanzanian players you've mentioned. Do not rely on Google results to determine notability alone. SportingFlyer T·C 13:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what has been said above. NFOOTBALL creates a presumption of notability for footballers who played at least once in a fully-pro league, but if after editors have had sufficient time to search for sources indicating the GNG has not been met, that presumption isn't valid. It has been shown over and over that players who make a handful of appearances (particularly in a league that is not the top league in a particular country) over an entire career rarely ever have SIGCOV to pass the GNG. I think we have tended to give a pass to footballers with ongoing careers in fully-pro leagues (as opposed to ones that have dropped down to semi-pro or amateur leagues). It's also important to consider the availability on online sources (e.g., in places where internet coverage is sparse or for players from the pre-internet era), but I believe that footballers who only have a handful of appearances in lower-level leagues are unlikely to satisfy GNG through offline sources (nobody has found evidence that demonstrates such players had SIGCOV in offline print sources). Jogurney (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Troll(s) back?

Has our "pest" returned (e.g. here)? I have some talk pages on my watchlist which is how I noticed and unfortunately remembered the types of editing made. As before, thankfully people from your project spots and reverts them before I do. I never thought we would never see of these edits again after months out (quite close to a Venus year in fact). Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely the same person - check out the gleeful edit summary -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Major clue from the edit summary I linked there. I'm not sure if any of us would catch the LTA out of Wikipedia as the troll could be anywhere in the world. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

His IP address is from South Wales. So if anybody happens to be around there.... REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The IP is fascinating. I must have reverted him a good half dozen to a dozen times last yea. Koncorde (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Trolling round 2: I fear this nonsense will never stop after this latest incarnation. @REDMAN 2019: - I see from geolocate from one of the pesky IP addresses appears to be located at Birmingham in response to your South Wales answer. Lockdown definitely has not worked in the trolling aspect or the location of the IP addresses appears to be inaccurate. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

He must have moved, I used geolocate and it came up with a place just north of Cardiff. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, Wales is in lockdown so he doesn't have much else to do other than smoke weed and troll. Govvy (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If someone thinks this is just one person who trolls and moves around the south-west part of the UK in lightning fast efforts, the geolocate feature could be inaccurate. From this IP range, these two IP addresses (Special:Contribs/87.74.55.38 and Special:Contribs/87.74.55.185} look similar but the geolocate feature points at two different locations of England. They'd both edited Wikipedia on 27 February within two hours of each other so catching the fugitive is not as straightforward as one may thought. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

All the addresses are from West England/South Wales. We could have a group of people (4 maybe?) in the same general area coordinating their trolls. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox formatting

Giantsnowman's latest concern is that player infobox text should maintain the nice formatting of having all the equals signs lined up neatly (yes, as they are on the template documentation page); however, I've seen countless edits removing the whitespaces to reduce article sizes considerably. Plus, I checked Cristiano Ronaldo, Harry Kane and Scott McTominay's articles, and they all have non-formatted infoboxes. (If that's the preferred way, I can send him a list to correct them all.) There's also the issue that he reverts edits such as these when they contain salient updates, such as Ballard's Northern Ireland cap last night and his most recent EFL appearance. - Seasider53 (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not a fan of white-space, and against shift-space which actually adds to article data-length which must be avoided per WP:AS. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't like the whitespace either and see no reason for it to be used (and certainly not to be reverted when someone takes it out, although I wouldn't bother doing an edit purely for that reason), it makes no difference to the reader and creates needless bytes without actually making the display better for editors - in some cases it sends it to a 2nd line which makes it more difficult to scan over. Crowsus (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Adding whitespace is also pointless because it gets automatically removed by users using the visual editor. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree, don't need to go adding whitespace, as adds nothing for the readers. Although I think the Visual Editor sometimes messes with the whitespace (either adding or removing whitespace, can't remember which one), but no need to spend time doing it otherwise. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Seasider53: it would have been nice if you had talked to me before running here, and it would have been polite if you had notified me about the discussion. All I was doing was restoring the infobox formatting shown at {{Infobox football biography}}, nothing more, nothing less. I am fully aware that many articles do not comply with that, so what? I have better things to do that go around altering infoboxes all the time, I also suggest you do the same. PS the Ballard update was undated, unexplained, and violated WP:LIVESCORES. GiantSnowman 12:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Polite? Right. - Seasider53 (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Also, Olajide Usman Olanrewaju was asking why you reverted his Ballard "test edit" but you didn't respond. - Seasider53 (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't usually monitor talk pages, so I didn't see this. I've now responded. Please AGF. GiantSnowman 12:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Those weren't the reasons you gave for the revert. - Seasider53 (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I see the whitespace as making it easier to edit. It's a shame the visual editors removes it.--EchetusXe 14:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Infobox formatting might not make a difference to the reader, but they do to the editor... GiantSnowman 15:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the editors above that as an editor, for me personally the whitespace helps on the eyes and keeps things tidier. But it's not an issue either way too much. --SuperJew (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm relatively indifferent to this. I probably used to prefer the whitespace, but now I don't. This is all personal preference though. What I think shouldn't be done is format the infobox by putting years, clubs, caps, and goals in one line (such as here). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

One small issue regarding whitespace in the infobox is that it slightly messes things up when editing through mobile. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Definitely agree that the 'one line' display is awful. GiantSnowman 16:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

IMO the one-line approach is easily the cleanest and best for me as an editor. Everything for one spell is there together on a single line, nice and easy. BigDom (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Prefer one line approach. Slightly prefer spacing over not spacing, but ambivalent. Am completely against the idea of "blocking" the years/clubs/caps/goals together, as can currently be seen at Ryan Williams (soccer, born 1993). However, I'll usually follow whatever format is usually there, because it's not worth arguing over imo. Gricehead (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything Griceland just said. I prefer the one-line, especially for players with many many clubs (it's actually the same format standings tables use). However, like he said I don't care that much and just follow whatever style is already there. I also don't like the blocking years1,years2,years3,club1,club2,club3,apps1,apps2,apps3,goals1,goals2,goals3 - that is terrible RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

My only preference is to avoid blocking the years, clubs, caps, goals together as mentioned above. I wouldn't spend the time changing it, but it is the most difficult to work with. Jogurney (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I think one line is easiest to navigate, and blocking the least. Whitespace is also easier on the eyes. To be honest, everyone seems to have a different preference so not sure if an exercise in standardizing makes sense.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally I quite like whitespace. But everyone has their own ways of doing things, and as far as I know there is nothing wrong with doing what you do here as long as it doesn't mess up the page. Quite apart from that, if we did decide to make whitespace standard then going through all the articles that don't use that format nad fixing it would take an eternity. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I personally prefer without the spaces, and it doesn't make that much of a difference to the editor, to be honest. To be fair, I've seen GS revert me a couple of times because of this, and I'm glad that this discussion appeared here. I see two ways of resolving this: either we reach some consensus on whether we will always use the spacings (or not), or we stop reverting people because of this. MYS77 ^✉ 18:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted you only when you changed from one established style to your own preferred style... GiantSnowman 20:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

See, I prefer it with spacing, and I think all the parameters for a certain club should be on the same line (i.e. years1, clubs1, caps1, goals1 should all be on the same line, same for years2, and so on). What I have a problem with is people saying it needs to be exactly the same as the documentation on the template page, which is absolute nonsense. If anything, the documentation needs to be changed to reflect the way the template is actually used. – PeeJay 19:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Except, of course, there is no one way that "the template is actually used", as this discussion makes perfectly clear. If there's an established style on a page simply do not change it to your own preferred style, and then everyone is happy... GiantSnowman 20:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Well it certainly isn't used in the way the documentation shows! Also, how is anyone supposed to know what the "established" style is? You're certainly guilty of changing away from the "established" style on some of the articles I've got on my watchlist. – PeeJay 20:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Phil Younghusband

Can someone help me find sources for Phil Younghusband's goals against Timor-Leste and Brunei in November 2006? Please continue the discussion at Talk:List of international goals scored by Phil Younghusband#Goals in November 2006.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Need help with brigading

Bengaluru FC page, especially "Supporters" section is brigaded by fans of rival club (Kerala Blasters). These editors are adding "controversy" section just to make others look bad. Controversy section is given WP:UNDUE weight, just so it can be made to look bad. 43.239.79.222 (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

First of all Im not a Kerala Blasters FC fan. My support is with Indian football. You can verify it by checking my edit history. And the incidents in the controversy section describes an event that happened first time in india. So it has enough weightage to be added in the article. This user is trying to remove that just because he don't like it. WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Need help to explain why Kosovo amateur national team can´t count as Kosovo national team

Some new national teams, such as Kosovo national football team, are rediscouvering their past. However, in this process, people are often driven by their desires and feelings. In this particular case, an editor is wanting to include a tournament from 1975 organised by the Yugoslav Football Association and named "Tournament of Brotherhood and Unity" in which all Yugoslav republics and provinces had their subassociations forming each an amateur team to represent them. The tournament was won by Kosovo who were also the hosts. The problem is that all teams were amateur (the tournament itself was meant to promote amateur football) and the teams resembled nothing as how real national teams of each of the republics or province would had looked like. None of the Yugoslav stars from that time could play for its corresponding team cause they were all professionals by either playing outside or in the Yugoslav First League, which became fully-professional in 1967. Even Yugoslav Second League was semi-professional, so these amateur teams representing the Yugoslav republics and provences were formed mostly by uncknown third league amateur players. In my view that obviously can´t be related to nowadays national teams most of those former Yugoslav republics and provinces formed nowadays.

Here is the discussion: Talk:Kosovo_national_football_team#About_Kosovo_national_team's_Yugoslav_era. You can also see article history. FkpCascais (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)