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.

Players will not actually be released until their contracts end on 30 June 2021

Yes, we're at that point when Football League clubs are starting to announce retained/released lists. Just a polite reminder that in 99% of cases players remain contracted until 30 June 2021, so they will be released only then. Please do not remove them from 'current squad' lists or similar until that time. GiantSnowman 14:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

technically they're released on July 1st, since June 30th is the final day of their contracts.Muur (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. The point is they are not released now. GiantSnowman 10:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wembley Stadium

Can someone else deal with this, [1], Wembley Stadium is not a list article, we don't list every match, Flix11 refuses to add a paragraph and keeps restoring what i consider overkill content. This is already on the England national team page, on the tournament page, one or two other places. That's more than enough. Govvy (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Then delete all results from all stadiums. It is a pandora box. Flix11 (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

There are stadium articles, then there are list articles. Stadium articles are not list articles. Besides, you have all that on England national football team results (2020–present) and all the previous articles. :/ Govvy (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we do not need a list of all games/results at a stadium on the stadium's article. GiantSnowman 10:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Whilst not directly FOOTY related, the same article does have lists of games in other multi-national sporting events (Rugby League World Cup / 4 nations and Rugby Union World Cup). There is absolutely no need to list all internationals played there, but I can see an argument for showing just major championship matches. Spike 'em (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Also agree that it's overkill. I have reverted the addition of the table. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This is complete BS. Wembley Stadium (1923) has a full table of 1966 World Cup matches; Stadio Olimpico has the table of its Euro 2020 matches, as do Hampden Park, Estadio de La Cartuja, Krestovsky Stadium, Parken Stadium, Johan Cruyff Arena, Baku Olympic Stadium, Arena Națională, Puskás Aréna and Allianz Arena (i.e ALL 11 OTHERS); and as stated above, new Wembley has the significant rugby league and rugby union matches. Three examples of inconsistency and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The table should either be restored, or at least go to the effort to remove all tables from the other Euro stadia and the other sports from Wembley if you dislike it that much. The first option seems much more useful and less confrontational to me. Crowsus (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The alternative would be to create List of events at Wembley Stadium and put them there. Plenty of similar exist, and "There are stadium articles, then there are list articles". So let's make a list article for this stadium perhaps. Crowsus (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

For most sports stadia, we list the important matches that they host. Seems fine to me to list the Euros fixtures there. Every match would be an overkill, but the Euros seems fine. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

as the 2 editors above have stated, every other host stadium in the tournament lists the games, as does old Wembley for the '66 World Cup. Spike 'em (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to open an RfC on this issue? The edit summary accompanying Govvy's latest removal of the list says "already there was a conversation to remove it at WT:FOOTBALL", but I don't believe the above, fairly evenly-split, discussion can be considered a consensus in favour of removal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

What annoyed me more was the removal of perfectly good prose, first by Flix then not even noticed by Spike. Govvy (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

and your misrepresentation of this discussion annoyed me.Spike 'em (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

John McGreal

John McGreal on this page, an editor is claiming that his swindon contract didnt start until july 1st "using the precedence set by Gennaro Gattuso". they are literally not the same situation as McGreal left colechester on 14 July 2020. he was a free agent that was hired by swindon in may 2021. he was not under contract with colchester until june 30 2021, cuz there was kinda sorta another dude in charge of colechester. there was no contract they had to wait for him to run out and they did *not* state "he will join on july 1st" when they hired him, unlike what was stated with Gattuso. it is not correct to go "it works this way for this guy, so should work that way for this other guy too". he was swindon manager from May 26 until Jun 25.Muur (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Gattuso wasn't under contract with Napoli, as he'd been sacked. Fiorentina didn't say his contract started on 1 July. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

"Fiorentina didn't say his contract started on 1 July.". Yes they did. "Il nuovo allenatore della Fiorentina guiderà la squadra viola a partire dal 1 luglio 2021".Muur (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It appears none of those words are "contrarre". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

"SWINDON manager John McGreal has left the club after just one month in charge. The former Colchester boss was only appointed at the end of May [...] But the club announced on Friday that he and assistant Rene Gilmartin, who arrived at the start of June, had both left following the mutual termination of their contracts" - source. It is clear that McGreal's contract with Swindon had begun - whereas Gattuso clearly signed a pre-contract agreement which never began. GiantSnowman 08:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Also regarding Gattuso, I have re-added the source (Sky Sports) removed by ItsKesha which says 1 July was going to be his start date - and also added another (BBC) which says the same. GiantSnowman 08:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

So let me get this straight
1) Players only sign for a club on 1 July even if it's announced befor.e
2) Gattuso was announced to start work with the squad on 1 July, as that is when the new season begins (literally no mention whatsoever of when his contract started, and now you're picking and choosing which sources to believe about his departure). But OK, I'll go along with you and say his contract was due to begin on 1 July.
3) Greal's contract definitely started last month in spite of both of the above statements. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

1) No. Players' contracts (in England, anyway) end on 30 June, so they can't move under freedom of contract until 1 July, but players can be transferred at any time during the window. Rules about players don't apply to coaches or managers.
2) According to Fiorentina's announcement, Gattuso would start work as Fiorentina's coach on 1 July. It doesn't say why that date, and I'm not going to guess.
3) Neither 1) nor 2) have any bearing on the start date of McGreal's contract. It's clear from this message to supporters as well as from the announcement of his departure that he's been working as Swindon's manager during the last 4/5 weeks. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

there was no reason to remove fiorientina's statement, it still said 1 july. "The new Fiorentina coach will lead the Viola team starting July 1, 2021". but i suppose secondary sources are preffered over primary sources anyway i think?Muur (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

If it's clear from McGreal's statement that as he had been trying to sign players, therefore that means he has been Swindon's manager for the last 4/5 weeks, then it's also clear from Gattuso being let go for trying to sign players under Jorge Mendes' agency that he too had been working as Fiorentina's manager for 23 days. The statement about Gattuso's appointment mentions 1 July as that is when pre-season begins and when he'd then start working with the squad (la squadra Viola). Also, there's no mention of the word "contrarre" in the announcement. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Again - the Gattusso sources all make it clear his contract was not due to begin until 1 July, and the McGreal sources make it clear his contract had already begun. We follow the sources. GiantSnowman 13:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Again - the original Gattuso statement made no use of the word "contrarre", and sources post-sacking say different things. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:IDHT, thanks. GiantSnowman 20:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR, thanks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

All Italian coaches that have been appointed this summer have officially become head coach of their respective clubs on 1 July (Mourinho at Roma, and Giovanni Stroppa at Monza are examples on the top of my head). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Good point - hence why SkySports/BBC etc. say Gattusso's contract was to start on 1 July. Silly little things won't get in the way of ItsKesha disruptive editing though, no siree... GiantSnowman 08:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

“EFL” Championship, League One, League Two

Hello. I have noticed that the template {{English football updater}} has an issue. For the Premier League, it’s just fine, but for EFL clubs, there’s a problem: it says “plays as a defender for Championship club Fulham” for example. It SHOULD say “plays as a defender for EFL Championship club Fulham”. Can we make a change to the template? I decided to bring it forth here before making changes.

My reasoning behind this change is that there are several Championships and League Ones, and it’s unclear. It needs to be unambiguous and clearly state the EFL Championship. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Coverage on football topics should not be English-centric in my opinion even if the game originated from England. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. Any other views before I (try to) fix it? GiantSnowman 16:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The template is primarily designed for use in club infoboxes. Do we really need to add 'EFL' to these? If not, it may be better to remove the template from player bios. If we do want to do it, you update the league names at {{ENGLs}}. Number 57 16:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The template has a very valid use in the opening sentence of player bios, as it exponentially reduces the amount of players wrongly assigned to a league when, in fact, their team has been relegated to the lower division. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

" very valid use in the opening sentence of player bios" vs the template instruction "Please only update this at the end of each season". So no it's not valid in the opening sentence of player bios. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

How do the two sentences contradict each other? Yes, the template should be updated at the end of the season, obviously. I don't see how that negates the validity of its use in player bios. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Also in club infoboxes it should have EFL, just stating "Championship" as the league Fulham play in on their page, assumes the natural inclanation is English (even the infobox on Premier League states relegation is to the EFL Championship). Also, I can even see a reasonable argument to write "English Premier League" instead of "Premier League", but that has both directions as the name of the article is "Premier League". --SuperJew (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't actually think adding "EFL" is a necessary disambiguation in all cases. SportingFlyer T·C 18:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: From what I've seen, the EFL leagues are the only league in which the actual name of the league is cut in player articles. We never remove "Scottish" from "Scottish Premiership", why should "Championship" be interpreted only as EFL Championship when even the article name is EFL Championship and not "Championship"? Also, championship is a very generic word, it applies to many things. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That's true, but there's also sort of a "primary topic" argument - the fact England called theirs the Championship meant everyone else followed after that. There's also a hint of obviousness to it - Sampdoria are listed in playing in Serie A, even though there are multiple Serie As - the EFL occupies that space in my mind as well, even internationally. SportingFlyer T·C 11:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

EFL should be added because it’s ambiguous, Championship could mean Scottish Championship, NIFL Championship, or whatever. Same goes for the other two EFL leagues. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Premier League also refers to many things --SuperJew (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No, because Premier League is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That is not the case with Championship/League One/League Two. GiantSnowman 11:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Depends where. In England, sure. Other places? Not so much. --SuperJew (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it literally is the PRIMARYTOPIC, that is why the article is located where it is. GiantSnowman 13:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I can say anecdotally that in other places, the "Premier League" or "Premiership" refers to the league in England, which appears backed by reports in foreign newspapers (I looked at the Sydney Morning Herald). SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

My view on this is that it should say EFL Championship, L1, L2 at the first mention but all later mentions just be Championship, L1, L2 alone. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say for all of them the first mention (lede, maybe first mention in the club section as well), they should all contain the name prior to the league, including English Premier League. It's only one extra word (or three letters for EFL C/L1/L2) and makes it perfectly clear. Seems like an easy way to prevent any future issue. In the future, what if someone says I don't need to write "Scottish" because the club is in Scotland/the player is Scottish, so it's "obvious". Also, it helps for the "less obvious teams". Sure teams like ManUtd, Arsenal, Liverpool, everyone will know they're in the England, but a team like Brentford, which is far less known, many people might not be sure, so the extra one word could definitely help. Just because something is a primary topic, doesn't mean it's universal. An extra 'one word' is minor, but would completely clarify everything. RedPatch (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that with the Premier League, it is "THE Premier League" as the official name. Whereas in EFL Championship, EFL is part of the official name. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The "official name" isn't always the decider though. North Korea is not the name of the country - it's Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (no mention of "north"). Yet, the country is always referred to as North Korea outside of that country, its also where the article is located. The same for Taiwan, which is not the official name (it's Republic of China). So despite being the official name, there is nothing wrong with referring to it as the English Premier League for better consistency. RedPatch (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Can also have the country unlinked so could write XYZ plays for XYZ in the English Premier League. Could also do for Serie A and write Italian Serie A. Basically uses the country as an adjective. RedPatch (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

but the Premier League can have Welsh clubs in it / the MLS has both Canadian & American etc. - using both country and league is overkill. GiantSnowman 16:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would use the article names. So, Premier League, EFL Championship, EFL League One/Two, etc... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree weith RedPatch - using the country is a fine solution, adds information, and doesn't detract anything (we don't have a word limit ;) ). I started doing this with the Australian W-League (to differentiate from the (now-defunct) American W-League). Regarding GiantSnowman's comment (which we can add Wellington Phoenix the Kiwi club in the A-League) - these are outlier cases and anyway don't affect the nationality of the league. Also saying "Taylor joined New Zealand club Wellington Phoenix who play in the Australian A-League" is fine and not overkill. --SuperJew (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding "English" to "Premier League" is completely unnecessary. The article is located at Premier League for a reason, it's the primary topic. However, EFL Championship is located at EFL Championship, just like EFL League One and EFL League Two. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew and RedPatch: if the article is located at Premier League, it's very clear that when we write "Premier League" it refers to this league. If there is another Premier League, like the Malaysia Premier League, then we will write the actual name Malaysia Premier League, because it's part of the actual name, whereas it is not with the PL. Paul Vaurie (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Could you please try and fix the template? Thank you! Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(Sorry if that came off as rude, it was not intended.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I've had a look and his beyond my technical ability! GiantSnowman 12:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The change has been made by Paine Ellsworth. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

German club common names

Hello. Shouldn't we use the English/international common names for clubs in Germany? I think the problem I am identifying is that too often I see "1. FC Köln" in the infoboxes of player articles. I personally think it should be just "Köln", like all other clubs we do for France, Italy, Spain, England, Bulgaria, or whatever. For some reason there seems to be a double-standard with German clubs, where "SC"s and "FC"s are commonly included in the infobox. Borussia Dortmund and Bayern Munich seem to be some of the rare clubs who omit the capital letters in the infobox name. What do you all think about this? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Also another example, why are we writing "1899 Hoffenheim" in infoboxes and not "Hoffenheim" when the international common name is just Hoffenheim? Same goes for Schalke, Stuttgart, Augsburg, and Freiburg. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above apart from, perhaps, the first example, due to potential confusion with Fortuna Köln, albeit a much smaller club. But yeah generally I don't see why the letters and full formats need to be in the infobox unless there is a possible ambiguity. Crowsus (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Paul Vaurie: WP:KARLSRUHER sets out guidelines on this which I tend to follow. The issue with just using "Köln", for example, is that it is ambiguous with "Fortuna Köln" and "Viktoria Koln" and I'm unconvinced its the common name anyway (much in the same way that an article about Newcastle United may refer to them as "Newcastle" more often than "Newcastle United"). The same principle applies to the others as far as I'm concerned ("Stuttgart" is ambiguous with "Stuttgarter Kickers" and the capitals in the other four convey meaning and are part of the club name in the same way that the "United" does to "Newcastle"). Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I've recently seen that Sir Sputnik (tagging them as they can probably explain better than me) has changed the naming display format on a bunch of squads pages on my watchlist, from something like Köln to something like 1. FC Köln, saying per WP:KARLSRUHER. Since I don't understand more about it I will leave the link and hope Sir Sputnik sees this and can elaborate further. --SuperJew (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I will add a question here though, and since I see now Microwave Anarchist has also bought the German guidelines would appreciate their thoughts. So for example "Barcelona" will usually refer to FC Barcelona, but is ambiguious with CD Barcelona Tarrafal, Barcelona Dragons, Barcelona Esporte Clube, Barcelona S.C., and San Felipe Barcelona FC. "Liverpool" usually refers to Liverpool F.C., but is ambiguious with A.F.C. Liverpool and Liverpool F.C. (Montevideo). "Juventus" usually refers to Juventus F.C., but is ambiguious with Juventus FC (Belize), SV Juventus, Clube Atlético Juventus, Atlético Clube Juventus, Grêmio Esportivo Juventus, Clube Atlético Juventus (SC), Juventus Atlético Clube, Juventus Futebol Clube, C.S.D. Juventus, ASG Juventus de Sainte-Anne, FC Juventus des Cayes, Juventus Managua, Juventus Corazón, AS Juventus de Saint-Martin, Juventus IF, and SC Young Fellows Juventus. I hope my point is clear. There are many clubs which could be ambiguous (and not neccesarily German), but we don't write the full name and rely on it being the common name. Sure, Stuttgart could mean "Stuttgarter Kickers", but 10 to 1 if you see only "Stuttgart", it's referring to VfB Stuttgart. --SuperJew (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The shortening of club names to exclude letter/number extensions only works in cases where the extension is not an integral part of the club name. In the UK for example, almost every club is an FC or AFC, so it makes sense that these extensions are not treated as the name in most cases. In Germany on the other hand, for a variety of historical and linguistic reasons, there is much greater diversity in the extensions, and these are often considered part of the club name. There's a reason the nickname for 1. FC Köln is Der FC. As such, shortening 1. FC Köln to Köln is much more akin to shortening Manchester United to Manchester, reasonable in prose where context is clear, but not when the name is standing alone like in infoboxes. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Liverpool, Barcelona and Juventus are international superpowers as far as football is concerned, far more notable than any of their namsakes, and they are referred to almost exclusively by their one word names (with the exception of FC Barcelona where the FC is quite commonly used and there is possibly an argument to be made about calling them 'FC Barcelona' in the infobox). The same is not the case with 'VfB Stuttgart' and 'Stuttgarter Kickers', where both are pretty prominent clubs (or were until recently in the case of Kickers) and full club names are most prevalent, with 'VfB' probably being the more common short name in German. So, in short, the FCs with Liverpool, Barcelona and Juventus are superfluous whilst with Stuttgart, it is an integral part of the name, like "United" is to Newcastle or Leeds, and to suggest that 'Stuttgart' is the common name for VfB Stuttgart and obviously refers to VfB is simply wrong. As a side note, the table on BBC Sport's website ([2]) uses full names for German clubs and short names for Spanish clubs ([3]), backing up my point about COMMONNAME. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

You might want to check the BBC German link, because it currently shows Stuttgart, Köln, Mainz, Augsburg, Wolfsburg etc for me - although for the promoted teams it has SpVgg Greuther Fürth and VfL Bochum 1848. I don't disagree with what the KARLSRUHER essay states, but there's clear inconsistency with the likes of France, where Lyon and Rennes seem to be what goes in the infobox (and is what BBC displays, FWIW) when their full club names Olympique Lyonnais and Stade Rennais also involve adjectives which alter the name. There are no more potential confusions with those cities/teams than there are with Karsruhe, Wolfsburg, Kaiserslautern or Nürnberg. The full names are more commonly used in German, but this isn't the German site. Crowsus (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

There's clear inconsistency with the likes of France Of course there are. Why would French clubs follow German naming conventions? There are going to be differences across national and linguistic boundaries, and we shouldn't pretend like there aren't. Consistency is not paramount here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but the inconsistency is with English, which tends not to use prefixes or suffixes unnecessarily for displaying football team names, except we have to use German native conventions but disregard others. Crowsus (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The preference to remove extensions is a British one, since almost all football clubs in the UK are FC's or AFC's. It is not consistent throughout the English speaking world. The conventions described in WP:KARLSRUHER more or less hold in Canada and the US. MLS clubs named FC City or City FC are not typically shortened either. We should not be applying a British convention for clubs outside the UK. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: I don't think this is just a British thing... in France we usually call clubs by their cities. Rennes, Lille, Strasbourg, Montpellier, Dijon, Troyes, Toulouse, etc. And this is a consistency throughout this whole WikiProject, we always use the English common names and we shorten club names in infoboxes & such. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, giving the UK or Canada as an example is not a great idea; personally, I cannot think of any clubs that have "FC" or "SC" in the names we use as common names other than New York City FC and Los Angeles FC, but those are to disambiguate with New York Red Bulls and Los Angeles Galaxy. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If that's what you think, then clearly you've not checked sufficiently. From my own experience, Toronto FC is far more likely to be shortened to TFC than Toronto. More concretely, a cursory check of articles on players for FC Cincinnati, Nashville SC, Toronto FC, Austin FC, and FC Dallas reveals the norm of keeping the extensions for those clubs. The same exercise for Sydney FC and Macarthur FC in Australia reveals something similar. The notion that removing extensions is a uniform English convention only holds when limiting one's view of English to Britain and Ireland. Consider the English speaking world as a whole, and it becomes clear that it varies from country to country. As such, the conventions is Britain and France should have no bearing on those in Germany or vice versa. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As Sir Sputnik said, North American teams all include the SC/FC as part of their common names. They are never referred to by just the city name, they always include the abbreviation. Their COMMONNAMES all include the abbreviation. So the standard for one country cannot just be applied to others. So cannot compare German with French teams, can't compare English with North American teams, etc RedPatch (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

In the end, all this chatting doesn't matter, it boils down to what the English common name for the club is. As for my knowledge, the English common name for 1. FC Köln is either Köln or FC Köln, VfB Stuttgart should be Stuttgart, 1899 Hoffenheim should be Hoffenheim, 1. FC Kaiserslautern should be Kaiserslautern, Schalke 04 should be Schalke, FC Augsburg should be Augsburg, and such. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This is probably true for German, but in the English language, the common names for clubs such as Stuttgart is without the VfB, etc. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree, I don't think we need the sporting abbreviation for German clubs specifically. This seems to be a minor stylistical preference though, so I'm not fussed to much as long as there's consistency.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with those that favour not indiscriminately implementing the "British" standards on any and all clubs and countries. Sweden is another country that more or less should use WP:KARLSRUHER, as the prefix/suffix forms a more integral part of the club name, differentiating it from other clubs using the the city name (or using the same non-geographical name). For example, five different clubs with "Göteborg" in their name have claimed Swedish championship medals: IFK Göteborg, Göteborgs AIS (though commonly known as GAIS), Göteborgs FF, Göteborgs IF (men), and Kopparbergs/Göteborg FC (women, "Kopparbergs" being a sponsor name). Another is the first Swedish club known by name (Göteborgs BK), and at least a half dozen more exist if you take a look down the pyramid. The same goes for other cities, where multiple clubs have visited the highest division using the same basic name (e.g. Malmö FF vs. IFK Malmö, IFK Sundsvall vs. GIF Sundsvall, Sandvikens AIK vs. Sandvikens IF, AFC Eskilstuna vs. IFK Eskilstuna, Västerås IK vs. Västerås SK), for some examples during the same season or in the same era.

There is of course merit to WP:COMMONNAME, but for most clubs outside the absolute European elite, is there really any actual English common name? Say for most of the Swedish clubs, how often are they appearing in English sources for us to be able to determine a common name (trivial mentions by news journalists just copy-pasting a club name from somewhere else doesn't really contribute to forming a standard)? Even for a club like IFK Göteborg (with two UEFA Cup titles to its name) a site like BBC seem to variously use "IFK Göteborg", "IFK Goteborg", "IFK Gothenburg", "Göteborg", and "Gothenburg". The same goes for 1. FC Köln which variously show up as "1. FC Köln", "FC Köln", "FC Koln", "Köln", "FC Cologne", and "Cologne" on a BBC search. I would much prefer that we do not remove prefixes and suffixes unless it is obvious that English media actually has established a common name (or if the club itself has done so), and until that is obvious treat the -fix'es just as we treat "United" and "City" for the Manchester clubs: as disambiguators when needed (i.e. in infoboxes, tables, results etc., but not necessarily in prose when the context is clear). – Elisson • T • C • 18:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I agree with that, let's keep the prefixes/suffixes for clubs when there is not an established English common name. However, I am sure there is an established English common name for all clubs in the Bundesliga, for example. Putting 1899 Hoffenheim in infoboxes is a bit ridiculous as I see it. Paul Vaurie (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

If we are agreed there are cases of an English language common name that is unambiguous, we ought to agree what those are and perhaps add that to the WP:KARLSRUHER essay. Off the top of my head, we already use English language common names for Bayern Munich and 1860 Munich. Of the current Bundesliga sides, any shortenings of VfB Stuttgart and 1. FC Köln are unacceptable IMO due to the ambiguity created, Hoffenheim is enough of a COMMONNAME IMO (and besides TSG Hoffenheim makes more sense than 1899 Hoffenheim) and possibly Freiburg, Wolfsburg, Mainz and Augsburg though I remain unconvinced (see my point about Newcastle above) whilst VfL Bochum seems to the a COMMONNAME to me. I still agree with Sir Sputnik though that we should not impose these British naming conventions on the rest of the world where they don't make sense. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

In the case of 1899 Hoffenheim, it's the club itself pushing that name, presumambly in an effort to combat its image as new money club. For the others mentioned, just off the top my head TSG Augsburg and Freiburger FC exist, so are also ambiguous. Because of the diversity of extentions in common use, shortening causing ambuity is the norm rather than the exception. In uniformly applying KARLSRUHER it's something we just don't even have to consider. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, first of all @Microwave Anarchist: yes, perhaps we should make a list of what the English common names are for Bundesliga/2.Bundesliga clubs at KARLSRUHER. Let’s discuss that on that talk page another day. However, on your mentioning of “British conventions”, I’m not entirely sure “VfB Stuttgart” is a common name for the club in any English-speaking country, for example. Let’s discuss that on the other talk page for KARLSRUHER.
@Sir Sputnik: Hoffenheim pushing forward the 1899 in their name doesn’t justify anything, the English common name is still Hoffenheim, and there is absolutely no issue of ambiguity here. By the way, please stop giving ambiguity as an excuse for not shortening FC Augsburg to Augsburg (for example); when someone says “Augsburg”, it’s 99% chance the club in question is FC Augsburg and not the other internationally-unknown TSG Augsburg. I’m not sure I understood your last two sentences, however. Could you rephrase them? Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

When you claim that the common English name is "Hoffenheim" rather than "1899 Hoffenheim", what do you base that on? The BBC team page is at "1899 Hoffenheim"[4], the The Guardian team page is at "1899 Hoffenheim"[5] UEFA has the team page at "TSG 1899 Hoffenheim"[6] (while the Man Utd page is at "Manchester United"), a Google Books search results in a wide variety of English uses of "1899 Hoffenheim", "TSG Hoffenheim", or "TSG 1899 Hoffenheim", Transfermarkt lists them as "TSG 1899 Hoffenheim"[7] (and follows KARLSRUHER in general), and on it goes. I am not claiming that sites never use only "Hoffenheim", but I am surprised by your firm belief that the English common name is just "Hoffenheim". – Elisson • T • C • 17:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Because first of all, "1899" is never spoken in the name as of my knowledge. People speak about "Hoffenheim" in the English world. The article itself says Hoffenheim is a common name of the club, and the prose refers to the club as Hoffenheim WITHOUT the 1899. A quick Google search will show you most articles talk about "Hoffenheim" and not "1899 Hoffenheim". I think that's enough to suggest Hoffenheim is more of a common name than 1899 Hoffenheim. Maybe in German it's 1899 Hoffenheim, but this isn't the German Wikipedia. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, just as people rarely ever would say "Brighton & Hove Albion", yet that's what we use as the name in player infoboxes etc. And just as people usually only would say "Real" when referring to Real Madrid, yet that's not what we use. And just as my club is rarely ever referred to in daily speech with the full name, but rather just "IFK" or any of the common nicknames. What people say is largely irrelevant anyway as we go by reliable sources rather than what may be undocumented common usage. What's most common in prose does not equate what we should use as by that metric I would imagine that "United" is more common in texts in total than "Manchester United", because as soon as context has been established (and the club has been disambiguated from any namesakes) a shortened name can be used. Just like our articles use the full name of the club in the title, but then you're good to use variants in the prose. But player infoboxes and tables are stand-alone and do not provide that context and disambiguation. In general I am a little bit stumped by the strong urge to make information less clear and user-friendly, even though the alternative bascially has no downsides at all. – Elisson • T • C • 16:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The question is what is more user-friendly. Tell the average person about Ronaldo de Assis Moreira, Edson Arantes do Nascimento, or Arthur Antunes Coimbra, they probably won't know who you're referencing. --SuperJew (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct. And when two names do not bear any resemblance with each other, it is a valid point. But don't try and tell me that "1899 Hoffenheim" would confuse people. – Elisson • T • C • 20:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Prob not, but "Turn- und Sportgemeinschaft 1899 Hoffenheim e.V." might. BTW, I'm not claiming either side on 1899 Hoffenheim vs Hoffenheim vs TSG 1899 Hoffenheim, just saying it's a balance and maybe not neccesarily a one rule fits all situation. --SuperJew (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Nationality

So if a player is called up for a different international team to where they were born, but then never actually plays for them do we go with their birth place for squad lists or the one they were called up for many years before? so they're english and get called up for Nigeria, but don't play. then 2 years later they have never called up again. they also never played for any countries youth team.Muur (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

From what you're telling me, I would go with birthplace. But can you show us the article in question with this scenario? Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I would also go by birthplace (assuming they are a citizen of that country and are eligible to represent them internationally). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

We have a few precedence's: Michail Antonio is currently going through this. See also Ashley Barnes and Dan Potts. Generally the player is considered the nation of the country they were born in (and are eligible to represent) until they choose to represent another country. Even if they do not subsequently play for that country, so long as they are eligible then this should be absolutely fine to consider them of that nation. i.e. Ashley Barnes and Dan Potts both erroneously believed they could play for other nations, and when it was confirmed this wasn't the case they were re-classed as English. Antonio in comparison is eligible, and even if he never makes an appearance we have no reason to undo the change (unless he subsequently indicates so via reliable sources, or receives an alternative call-up). Koncorde (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

the player in question, Reiss Greenidge, was called up for guyana in 2019 but didnt play (was on the bench) and has never been called up again.Muur (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess there's a good argument to be made that, if they were at least called-up for Guyana, then Guyana is the guy's sporting nationality. Indeed, Global Sports Archive list him as being born in England and having Guyanese nationality. Same for Soccerway. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

yeah but lets say that in 15 years hes managing someone, and winds up never actually playing for guyana. would wikipedia be listing him as an english or guyanan manager? FIFA 21 lists him as English, though that matters less those other sources I imagine.Muur (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess Guyanan, just because he has more of a claim of having Guyana as his sporting nationality than England. I don't have a strong opinion regarding this case though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

If he was on the bench in a competitive game that in and of itself would be indicative of him being Guyanan for the purposes of footballing nationality. But reliable sources are our primary info we should be relying on. Koncorde (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

If a player born and raised in one country is called-up by another country (usually due to parentage) but never actually play, then use the birth place. GiantSnowman 21:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that. Let’s wait until he actually plays for Guyana to change the sporting nationality. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You know that is functionally nonsense GS. We literally have hundreds if not thousands of players born in Britain eligible to play for any number of teams from the British Isles and beyond. Eyeballing their birth place is not what we do, and shouldn't be a factor in their sporting nationality - verifiable reliable sources are - and if there is any confusion we do what we have always done: "born in England, but received a call up to the Guyana national team in 2019" or equivalent narrative description (as per Callum Harriott for example). Right now Greenidge is even in the 2021 Gold Cup squad.[8][9][10] Koncorde (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't even realise he'd been called up to the 2021 gold cup. I guess he's about to make his debut. so this is no longer relevant (unless he doesnt play i guess? but being in a tournement team seems like itd be fair to keep him with the Guyana flag anyway even if he ends up retiring with 0 caps)Muur (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Rowspanning in player international goals table

I see that some people tend to not rowspan venues and/or competitions across different matches, while others do.

Not rowspanned

No.	Date	Venue	Opponent	Score	Result	Competition	Ref.
1	23 March 2014	Template Temple, Template City, Templatonia	Lebanon	1–0	4–0	2014 FIFA World Cup qualification
2	17 April 2014	Template Temple, Template City, Templatonia	Italy	2–3	2–3	Friendly
3	14 June 2014	Stadio Sample, Città del Campione, Modellandia	Italy	1–0	2–2	2014 FIFA World Cup
4				2–1
5	17 August 2014	Example Stadium, Example Town, Examplia	Canada	2–1	2–3	2014 FIFA World Cup

Rowspanned

No.	Date	Venue	Opponent	Score	Result	Competition	Ref.
1	23 March 2014	Template Temple, Template City, Templatonia	Lebanon	1–0	4–0	2014 FIFA World Cup qualification
2	17 April 2014		Italy	2–3	2–3	Friendly
3	14 June 2014	Stadio Sample, Città del Campione, Modellandia		1–0	2–2	2014 FIFA World Cup
4				2–1
5	17 August 2014	Example Stadium, Example Town, Examplia	Canada	2–1	2–3

I personally much prefer the not rowspanned version, as each match is individually described, and isn't "linked" in any way to non-related adjacent matches. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Nehme1499, don't rowspan for this. However, if the player scores twice in the same game, you can rowspan. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Only goals scored in the same match should be rowspanned. That's best for readability. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the first one. The second one is super confusing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't rowspan unless goals scored in the same game - very confusion otherwise. GiantSnowman 19:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't be rowspanned. Almost annoys me as much as when division cells are merged. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy to see I agree with everyone above. I'd seen increasing prevalence of the second way and was worried it was a new consensus... The first reads far more logically and easily. Macosal (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Maxen Kapo

Hello. I am preparing this draft (Draft:Maxen Kapo) for an eventual first-team appearance of the subject in the 2021-22 season with Lausanne-Sport, who are in an FPL. Basically, my issue is when to end the youth career for Kapo. The scenario is relatively simple: he was a player of PSG from 2013 to 2021. Since he turned 19 in January 2020, the last season he was able to play for a youth team was the 2019-20 season, when he was a U19 player. However, in the 2020-21 season, he didn't play for the youth team because he's too old, nor did he play for the B team (because there is none). He made four bench appearances for PSG during the first half of the Ligue 1 season. What should we do? Include the 2020-21 season in the youth or senior career? Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

If Kapo was never called-up to the U19 squad in 20/21, and was on the bench for the PSG senior squad that season, his youth career should end in 2020 and his senior career for PSG should span from 2020 to 2021 (with 0 apps). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Any more opinions? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Appearing on a bench a few times is not indicative of being a first teamer. Keep it as youth career. GiantSnowman 19:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm reading he signed a pro contract in 2019, so wouldn't it make sense to start his pro career then? O caps from 2019-21 IMO and end youth career in 2019.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No, Ortizesp, pro contract means nothing in defining youth vs pro career, we have already established that. What counts is the first appearance, normally. But in the case of Maxen Kapo, he was no longer a youth player in 2020–21, so I'm unsure what to do. He was however a youth player until 2020. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean it sounds like he should be considered a senior player from those bench appearances alongside not being eligible for the youth team any more.Muur (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

If he was an active youth player until 2020, then stopped due to being overage, he can't physically be considered a PSG youth player post-2020. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good, Nehme1499. I changed the draft. Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

UEFA European Championship qualifying

Does anyone know if there's a particular reason why articles relating to qualification for the UEFA European Championship use 'qualifying' in their titles rather than 'qualification'? See Category:UEFA European Championship qualifying. Per Category:Qualification for association football competitions, the vast majority of our articles on qualification for competitions use 'qualification'. I would propose that the articles be moved to use 'qualification' for consistency, unless there's a good reason that 'qualifying' be preferred. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Start an RM. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

UEFA's website and regulations seem to all use "qualifying", far more frequently than "qualification" (examples: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]). S.A. Julio (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Indian Super League Organiser

Hi! I've been in a discussion with Sinan 2004 in the the talk page for the Indian Super League. The topic being "who organizes the league?". I'm on the side that the organizer is just Football Sports Development Limited and not the All India Football Federation, while Sinan 2004 is stating that they are both the organizers. His main argument, to me, seems to come only from the league website at the bottom where it says "League Organisers". There, it says the All India Football Federation, Reliance Industries, and Star India. My argument is that the league is either wrong, or is very loosely calling the AIFF and Star "organizers". For one, organization has been taken over by Reliance's subsidiary Football Sports Development Limited. This is not updated in that part of the website. Also, in the about ISL page, it says that the league is "co-promoted" by the AIFF, Reliance, and Star. I have also presented reliable sources which make it clear that the organizer is FSDL and not both them and the AIFF: sources such as Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, India Today, Scroll.in, Outlook India, Livemint, ESPN, Goal.com, Telegraph India, onmanorama, Business-Standard, and hell... even the league itself.

Could someone jump in and provide some opinions here or the ISL talk page? It's obviously at a point of deadlock. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Can we get page protection on Ayo Akinola

Ayo Akinola has filed his one-time switch to join Canada from the USA today (an hour ago). The page has been updated to note this, I've put a note in the <-- --> to not add it to the infobox with Canada 0(0) until his first cap, but several IPs have done it in the past hour. Can we get temporary page protection for 24-48 hours. RedPatch (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done for 1 week, to be on the safe side. GiantSnowman 21:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GS RedPatch (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Al-Jaish

While editing, I came across the fact that there are two clubs named Al-Jaish SC, one based in Damascus, Syria and the other in Baghdad, Iraq. Now I see that Al-Jaish SC (Syria) is disambiguated by country while Al-Jaish SC (Baghdad) is disambiguated by city. Is there a reason for this difference or should they both be disambiguated by the same level? And if so which one should be moved? --SuperJew (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the correct disambiguator should be by nation. So, Al-Jaish SC (Baghdad) should be moved to Al-Jaish SC (Iraq). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 08:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 09:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Moved :) --SuperJew (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Categories

Are you not allowed a category for a club players when there is only one player in it? Govvy (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Why not? Anyway, I usually go on the club article and click on "What links here", to find other players to add to the category. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Then I don't understand this edit at all. [17] Govvy (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Because the category is (was?) redlinked. You should create the category once you add it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Then it's even more bizarre an editor can't work that out and edit the cat too point that out... Govvy (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing bizarre about somebody seeing and reverting the addition of what appears to be a non-existent category. GiantSnowman 20:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the edit summary and page linked to explained it fully. How are other editors meant to distinguish between a new category that needs to be created and a mistake? Spike 'em (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: perhaps you can create the category and re-add it. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

(it’s the other way around). Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I've already created it. It's not hard to add a line to a category, Footballer categories are pretty self-explanatory! That's why I find it bizarre. Govvy (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The category doesn't just need a line. It needs categories itself (such as Category:Footballers in England by club). Luckily, someone created a useful template ({{Clubplayerscat}}) which automatically formats the category correctly (which I have added now to Category:Hermitage F.C. players). A player category should, though, only exist if the equivalent article (Hermitage F.C.) exists. This is why the category currently displays an error message. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to say I personally can't see the benefit in a category for players of a club so obscure that it doesn't have an article and is never likely to based on what was found during the earlier related discussion (except just maybe if lots of notable players played for it, which doesn't seem to be the case here.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Not referring to Hermitage F.C., which doesn't at first glance seem notable, but in general: since when and on whose say-so should a player category exist only if the corresponding club article exists? Always used to be that categories were acceptable for notable clubs regardless of whether someone had actually written the club article yet. Plenty such exist. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The error message is triggered by the above-mentioned {{Clubplayerscat}}, which was apparently rolled out early last year. Don't know what discussion took place ahead of the inclusion of that error trigger..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've asked a question at the template creator's talk page. They've got a busy in real life notice up and haven't edited for some days, so may not get a reply anytime soon. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Push and run

I’m having a bit of trouble understanding the difference between push and run and give-and-go. Should they be merged? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like they should be merged on my side, curious that I can't find a connection to the two terms online though. Unless someone has some insight that we're missing?--Ortizesp (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Very loosely, give-and-go is a move, while push and run is a style of play with historical importance in English football, that exploits what is now called the "give-and-go" move as part of a quick-passing possession style that required much less rigid positional play than had been common. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that they can be merged, push and run can definetely fit into the give-and-go article under association football. Some irrelevant information can be removed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not convinced give-and-go needs any more than an entry in Glossary of association football terms. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 09:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

U23 or U22?

(Continuation of this discussion with RedPatch) In Asia, youth national teams are divided into three teams: U17, U20, U23. The issue is that it's very common to see, for example, U18 or U22 Asian NTs playing each other (in official or unofficial friendlies, or even in official competitions). This is all a matter of nomenclature: the Lebanon U19 and U20 teams are the exact same, with the same technical staff. The AFC U-20 Asian Cup was called AFC U-19 Championship until last year, but they are the same competition.

Two points: if someone had played 3 games in the U19 Asian Cup, then 2 games in the U20 World Cup, should they have 3 U19 caps and 2 U20 caps in the infobox, or 5 U20 caps? I would argue for the latter, as the team is the exact same (unlike UEFA youth NTs, for example). Also, what should be done in prose? Should we say "represented the U19 national team in the U19 Asian Cup, and the U20 NT in the U20 World Cup" (so, using the correct "labels") or "...the U20 NT in the U19 Asian Cup and U20 World Cup" (to emphasize that the team is the same)?

The fact that there are only three teams is further noted in Arabic, where there are three names for the youth NTs: "olympic", "junior", "youth". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 06:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Go by what sources say. Personally, I'd keep each age group separate whether it's U19, U20 or whatever. I know what you're getting at when you say it's the exact same team but it isn't really, it's just players in one age group moving up to a different age category. The eligibility doesn't change because it's players born after x so they will be 19 in year one and 20 in year two (or younger). That does happen in UEFA as the U19s qualify for the U20 World Cup in the same way. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

and this year there's even U24 teams to muddle shit up even further.Muur (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Any other opinions? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I would go with the 'new field for each name' as Stevie fae Scotland has said. Its easier to keep track of the caps etc if you're looking for a specific name of the team on stats sites, more straightforward than adding some together and then having to add a note or something saying "this was actually the U19 team playing in an U20 tournament" or whatever for every player, nation, level and tournament, even though that might be the more logical description for what actually happened when you're focusing on one specific progression. Crowsus (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll be bold and start separating U19 and U20, U22 from U23, etc. from now on. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

We need to find something that tracks U24, cuz thats what the current olympics is using for one off.23:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I've seen some pages where it's listed as "Country Olympic", so that's one option instead of U23 (I think I've seen that more for the three "overage players", for example Ryan Giggs and Neymar both use "Country Olympic" RedPatch (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say the current Olympics is basically the U23, just with an exception to age limits due to the circumstances. --SuperJew (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

some countries are calling it an U24 team. here they refer to japan and Jamaica as U24. im curious as to if these players caps have been counted or not. Takefusa Kubo scored in this game, and yet his youth stats are listed as ending with the U22??? so not even U23, never mind U24.Muur (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I added the missing stats for the players who are listed as having played in U24 matches, though I listed them as U23. but this was only for japan. lots of teams will be missing these statsMuur (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Larry Sullivan

Does Larry Sullivan (soccer) meet notability guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.179.154 (talk • contribs)

Not notable under WP:NSOCCER but might meet WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps starting an AfD would be a good idea. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

History merge

Just found out two articles on the same player, Nélson Gama and Toni (footballer, born 1972). I think we should keep the infobox/display of the former (it has stats, a ref with a news article covering his entire career and beyond that), with the name of the latter per WP:COMMONNAME.

Attentively --193.137.135.2 (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed, delete the latter, then move Nélson Gama to Toni (footballer, born 1972).--Ortizesp (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Histories merged at Toni (footballer, born 1972). GiantSnowman 08:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellent historical articles about Spanish football

A journalist called Alfredo Relano has written thousands of historical articles for El Pais and AS. El Pais has a free article limit of 10 per month but I'm sure people know how to get around that! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Guendouzi Le Classique

Hello. Mattéo Guendouzi was a youth player for Paris Saint-Germain. He never played for pro with them. He is on the verge of signing for Olympique de Marseille, according to Fabrizio Romano. Should we add Guendouzi to the “players who played for both clubs” section in Le Classique if/when he joins OM? Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that he played with both teams, yes. GiantSnowman 16:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I was just expecting a “no” since he wasn’t a pro for PSG. But good to know the answer is yes. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Domenico Berardi ‎

The fact that Domenico Berardi is a forward as well as a winger is well sourced in the 'Style of play' section - but an IP keeps on deleting the mention of forward in the infobox and is using Transfermarkt as a source (!) which flags warning bells. More eyes on the page please as I am at 3RR. GiantSnowman 16:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we not just say he plays as a forward? He’s not a wide midfielder, anyway, more of a wide forward. – PeeJay 21:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

"He has been utilised as a striker and as a supporting forward, although his preferred position is on the right wing" - so 'winger & forward' is correct IMHO. GiantSnowman 21:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, a winger is a type of forward, so we could just say "Forward". He's not a wide midfielder, he's a wide forward. – PeeJay 18:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that we list Cristiano Ronaldo, Neymar and Kylian Mbappé, for example, as "Forward"s, and not "Forward, winger", I would just go with Forward. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with describing him only as a "forward" in the infobox/lede, and leaving the 'Style of play' section to go into details - but we definitely should not be removing 'forward' and leaving only 'winger' as the IP has been doing... GiantSnowman 19:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be my ideal solution. – PeeJay 19:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Jordan Henderson

The page needs protection and all the recent edits reverting. I tried, but just keep getting errors. Govvy (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, good goal he scored and very enjoyable England game. Govvy (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You know it must be coming home when even Henderson gets a goal. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: Don't count your chickens just yet. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I still see that tackle by Moore, and when Linekar sscored, Bobby belting the ball and Nobby Dancing.

Probably worth keeping an eye on related pages and extra dillegence for the next week or two. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Competitive results section

I had updated the competitive results section in a couple of national team articles to reflect MOS:FLAGS but was reverted at Bolivia national football team citing the section as it appears at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams (tagging @SpinnDoctor: who reverted me so they are aware). As a result, I'd propose to update the section in the Manual of Style to reflect MOS:FLAGS (essentially just removing the flag icons). I've just copied what I've done from the Scotland national football team article because it is a featured article. I realise there are some other minor differences than just the flag icons between the two examples below but I'm not fussed about whether or not those are considered right now, it's easy enough to add or remove a column or two. The main thing I want to do is ensure it is compliant with Wikipedia's established policies and this minor change would achieve that. The rationale is that not everyone knows what every flag looks like so not everyone will know where every tournament was held just by looking at the flags so they would need to click through to the article anyway. You've also got the issue in places like Oceania and the Caribbean where multiple national teams have at different times used the same or similar flags.

Current

Taken from Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams#Competitive record

FIFA World Cup record										FIFA World Cup qualification record
Year	Round	Position	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	Squad	Position	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA
1930	Did not enter									Was not invited
1934	Quarter-finals	6th	2	1	0	1	5	4	Squad	1st	2	2	0	0	8	2

Proposed

Taken from Scotland national football team#Competitive record

Year	Final Tournament								Qualification
	Round	Pld	W	D	L	F	A		Pos.	Pld	W	D	L	F	A
1950	Qualified but withdrew								2nd	3	2	0	1	10	3
1954	Group Stage	2	0	0	2	0	8		2nd	3	1	1	1	8	8

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that the flags should stay. They are an easy way to show where the tournament was played. Weather that is relevant information or not is another matter... REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

How does the proposed suggestion show where the tournament was played? If it doesn't, then it is removing information. --SuperJew (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: It's easy enough to add an extra column or change the piping to say Switzerland 1954 if we're desperate to include it. As I've said above, we're not really removing information as not everyone knows what every flag means so they would have to click through to the article anyway. Personally, I'd agree with Lee Vilenski and argue it wasn't really relevant and that the event itself is the important part but, as I say, it's not difficult to add it in in a manner that is compliant with MOS:FLAGS. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Sounds to me that the process of complinace with MOS:FLAGS and MOS:ACCESS which have been brought up a lot recently to remove flags, decorations, colours, etc. eventually leads to us having a Wikipedia which is walls of text only (with the only difference being blue links). While for some that might be the best, but personally I find such reading a lot more tedious than if it is punctured with flags etc. Of course we don't that overdone either, as has been done too, but I think this process of getting rid of it all entirely is not good either. --SuperJew (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Yeah, I know what you mean. A good article has images and things to break up the text and that does make it easier to read and understand. I'm not averse to colours being used provided they are of a hue that means everyone can still read what's there, unfortunately, that isn't always the case at present. Personally, I love a good flag and if it was up to me there would be more but I know what they all mean, not everyone does. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Well, not everyone knows what all the words mean, but we don't limit ourselves to a certain vocabulary. I'm sorry, but the "not everyone understands every flag" argument is very weak in my opinion. --SuperJew (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Completely fails MOS:FLAG. We should never use a flad to show explicit information... And arguably, the location of the event isn't relevant anyway. If it is, simple enough to add a column for such a thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Transfer pages format

Hi, I remember this being discussed, but can't recall the final consensus. What do we think of pages which list the transfers per club (such as List of German football transfers summer 2021)? In my opinion this creates a redundant duplicity for every transfer which is between two clubs in the relevant league (in this example any two clubs in the Bundesliga and 2. Bundesliga). --SuperJew (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

O, I hate that format, it's horrible. We really need to stick to one format. What also I want to see is at the top a way to switch back and forth between all the transfer windows. Govvy (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. A sortable table makes so much more sense. And something like what we have at Scotland national football team results (2000–2019) to navigate between the transfer windows would be very helpful. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

To me the chronological order of List of Italian football transfers summer 2021 makes the most sense. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. Chronological order is not all that useful here and removes a fair bit of context that you get in the grouping by club. To take a random selection from the Italian list, the fact that the Alex Cordaz and Andrea Danzi transfers happened on the same day is not all that important in the grand scheme of things. However, a reader might reasonably wonder if Crotone have signed anyone to replace their starting goalkeeper (assuming they even realize that Cordaz is a goalkeeper, since that context is also missing). Grouping transfers by club would make it clear that they haven't yet. This format places transfers that are related close together, and provides clear information on the year-on-year change in each club's squad. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The table in the Italian summer transfers 2021 is also sortable, meaning that if you wanted to know Crotone's purchases you could just sort the "Moving from" column. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

There are two problems with that argument. First, we should make the reader go looking for context. For context to be useful, it needs to be presented by default. Second, sorting only gets you the incoming or outgoing transfer for a particular club. You cannot get the year-on-year squad change for a particular club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, as said the table is sortable so the information can be presented as wanted by the reader. Secondly, if a reader is interested in a certain club, they should got to that club's season page. The duplicity is very redundant in the case of listing per club and in general the format doesn't look very good. --SuperJew (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Exactly right. The use of {{fs start}} and its family of templates for lists of transfers is a case of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Why on earth are players' squad numbers relevant? Why are you sacrificing the date and transfer fee for unnecessary duplication of info? It boggles the mind. – PeeJay 19:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Although that's a far better article than the German one, still, you shouldn't have loans and transfers in the same table. They should be separate tables. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: Why shouldn't loans and transfers be in the same table? --SuperJew (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Because a loan is not a transfer! Govvy (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Technically. But the average reader wants to know which player left clubs and joined clubs and aren't interested in the technical status of it as much. As you can see with every season preview in the media which has for clubs an "in" and "out" section. --SuperJew (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I highly doubt that. The average reader would want clear and precise information, not a mixture of information strung together without much thought for what the data is! Govvy (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you're basing off, but here are some actual examples: Skysports - Ceballos' loan from Real to Arsenal is right there between Cedric joining permanently and Runarsson transferring from Dijon, Transfermarkt, BeSoccer. --SuperJew (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Not my fault that other websites do it that way. It's one way of doing it, but I don't think it's the right way. Govvy (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: Well Wikipedia is written based on verifiable reliable sources, not on what an editor thinks. --SuperJew (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to consider off-wiki examples, I need only point out that both Transfermarkt, perhaps the largest transfer focused site out there, and Sky Sports format their lists the same way the German one does. It's pretty clear that major publishers in this subject area (Sky, Springer) don't see duplication as a problem, and do see grouping by club as worthwhile. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Or we could look at the BBC's lists of transfers (June 2021) and see that they're listed chronologically with no duplication of info, as well as the inclusion of the transfer fee. I'd also like to point out that they don't include the ends of loans in their lists of transfers; I've always been perplexed as to why other countries seem to think a player returning from a loan spell counts as a transfer. Finally, I have no particular preference when it comes to merging the tables of loans and transfers, but having them separate does have one benefit: you can remove the "Fee" column (usually redundant for loans) and add a column indicating the end date of the loan, which would totally negate the need to mention "loan returns" in these lists. – PeeJay 19:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: Perhaps we shouldn't be calling it "transfers", but rather "player movements". But point of the matter is that at the end of a loan, player X moves from team B to team A, and is therefore relevant if we want to know player movements. Personally as a fan, and from interactions on the web with other fans I'm sure a lot more fans share my view, —when I look at such a listing I want to know which players left my club and which players joined, whether they transferred, went on loan, returned from loan, reached the end of their contract and didn't extend, or mutually terminated their contract. --SuperJew (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I think calling it anything other than "Transfers" would be unnecessarily opaque. If someone is looking for their own club's roster changes, they should be looking at that club's season article, not a general list of transfers. In this case, we're really just listing players who have joined a new club, hence no retirements or releases. As for loan returns, a player returning from a loan is par for the course, so no need to mention it as a "transfer" per se. – PeeJay 19:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

when I look at such a listing I want to know which players left my club and which players joined. This is precisely my point. This is why other sources group their transfer lists by club, and why I'm arguing we should do the same. The ones that don't, like the BBC, tend to be news sources. With a much greater focus of reporting transfers as they occur, chronological ordering makes sense for news source, but less so for an encyclopedia. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

So you press a button and it sorts it by club. What's the issue? --SuperJew (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec) If you want to know your club's specific ins and outs, look at your club's season article (or use the sortability function). You're arguing to sacrifice the dates and fees in favour of repeating info unnecessarily. The benefits of the format you're arguing for are far outweighed by the one we should be using. – PeeJay 22:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

As I've already said, the issue is two fold. If year-on-year squad changes is what readers are coming to the list for, we should not make them go looking for it, and sorting only gets you either the incoming or the outgoing transfers, but not both. In a sortable table you cannot easily see who replaced who. The exact chronological order not really matter in the grand scheme of things and actively obscures context that readers are likely to want. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pelotas: You might find this discussion useful in relation to your work on the Belgian transfers. Perhaps consider migrating your userspace work to the mainspace if we can come to a conclusion here. – PeeJay 18:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC) (Thanks for the ping... Following this now. Not much new, but understand both views. It's not black or white, but just hard to meet in the middle. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 10:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC))

Player movements? @SuperJew: I am with PeeJay on this, with loans you have some different information like a return date. A different table makes use of the different headings you can have. I feel it's cleaner and clearer to separate the two. Govvy (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Page Protection for Chris Armas

Can we get page protection on Chris Armas. Coach was recently fired after a terrible stretch of matches. IPs are continually editing the page with vandalism. RedPatch (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Reserve stats

Do we include statistics for reserves in the infobox? Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 seems to think we do and is wanting to keep them in for Josef Bican, but I'm positive we don't unless the team is an active part of the pyramid i.e. FC Barcelona B and Real Madrid Castilla in Spain. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If the reserve team plays in the same football pyramid as the senior team (like in France, Germany, Spain etc.) then we include them - but we do not include standard youth/reserve stats. GiantSnowman 19:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Reserve team of Rapid Vienna is an active part of the club, as those years all big clubs had reserve teams. It's the same with Barcelona B of our times. It can be mentioned as a different club, if this your problem, but this is clear in the statistics table. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Did the Rapid Vienna reserve team play in the Austrian league football pyramid at that time? GiantSnowman 19:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

RSSSF, the main source of Bican stats nowadays (here), says they played in the "Liga Reserve". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Austrian reserve teams have played in the Austrian league system, see 2009–10 Austrian Football First League (after which it stopped for a few years) - but was that the case in 1931–32? The only articles we have about that season (that I can see) are 1931–32 Austrian football championship and 1931–32 SK Rapid Wien season, the latter of which claims they played against Rapid II in the Cup... GiantSnowman 21:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Aye there's no record of any other games, either Reserves or Amateur, on this Austrian football website. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"Liga Reserve" surely just by name proves it wasnt an actual proper league, but reserves only. This screams of someone wanting to deny ronaldo first place.Muur (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of any evidence showing that Rapid II/the 'Liga Reserve' was part of the Austrian pyramid, we should exclude the stats as we do for other players. GiantSnowman 17:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Please now kindly revert your edits unless you have reliable sources informing us of the contrary, Γεώργιος Τερζής 2. And "DON TELL ME WHAT TO DO. THE I DON'T GIVE YOU THE RIGHT" doesn't count as a source, I'm afraid. Thank you. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I've done it for them. GiantSnowman 19:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Show me your sources that say that reserve team and leagues of the 30s, 40s were not playing domestic league games. RSSSF is a world wide famous statistics source and include them there. Find something similar. Don't forget that FIFA recognised 805 goals at the time (25 of September) the RSSSF number for Bican was 805+ goals, which means that recognised the whole "package". In an other case they will not do that. UEFA recognised 518 top division goals when RSSSF claimed for 537. SO YOU HAVE TO FIND A SOURCE, NOT ME. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

No, the WP:BURDEN is on you to make the change, not us. See WP:CONSENSUS as well. GiantSnowman 19:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) @Γεώργιος Τερζής 2: The onus is on you to provide a source showing that Rapid Vienna's reserve team played senior football, in the Austrian football pyramid. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

BYE BYE..... Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

AND THE RECOGNITION OF FIFA IS THE SOURCE. CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? OF COURSE NOT.... Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop shouting. If you learned to speak civilly... GiantSnowman 20:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Luis Enrique: Manager profile

Hi all: I added a rather substantial Manager profile section on Luis Enrique (former Barcelona, current Spain national team). Though, I've sourced it just about well-enough, Barcelona fans may want to give it a pass to see if anything important is to be added, and if any contentious statements are to be removed. Thanks. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Enis Bardhi

I'm on three reverts so would someone mind reverting the recent IP changes to Enis Bardhi, which were not in line with WP:MOSMAC. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. GiantSnowman 17:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, would you mind reverting this? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverted, and named account now blocked for 3RR - thanks also to @PeeJay: and @Spike 'em: for their reverts, and to @Ponyo: for protecting the page. GiantSnowman 10:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thanks, though it looks like the fun hasn't stopped yet. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sock reverted and blocked per WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 18:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Albania–Serbia football rivalry

How on Earth can this be a rivalry when there has only ever been two meetings?? Govvy (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I would imagine it's because Albania and Serbia have a historical rivalry outside of football, and this article goes into how their rivalry extends into the football sphere? – PeeJay 19:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not against the concept of the article, though it definitely needs more context and information, rather than it being just a summary of Serbia v Albania (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If they've played twice ever, it doesn't warrant a separate article. One of those matches already has an article, and the other one doesn't seem significant. The politics between the 2 countries is explained at Serbia v Albania (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying), and seems to be the only reason why this called a "rivalry". But on the pitch, there isn't enough data to create a separate article on this. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Cheshire County League season by season

Are the seasons of Cheshire County League inherently notable enough to warrant individual articles? For example, 1967–68 Cheshire County Football League and 1966–67 Cheshire County Football League are existing articles. Is anyone able to locate significant coverage outside of RSSSF? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Not that this directly answers the question, but prior to 1968, the CCL was at the highest level of non-League football in its area, right below the Football League..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah right, fair enough. That explains why quite a lot of big clubs have passed through the league. There probably would have been some decent newspaper/book coverage then I'd have thought. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Admin request for Zafuan Azeman (footballer)

Please could an admin move Zafuan Azeman (footballer) to Zafuan Azeman? The article was salted but it looks like the footballer now at least passes WP:NFOOTBALL so the article should be moved to its correct title. Thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and history restored. Article needs improving/categories etc. GiantSnowman 10:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Number of team rosters in association football at 2020 Summer Olympics

Hi. Please see and join the following discussion related to association football at the 2020 Summer Olympics:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Number of team rosters in several sports at 2020 Summer Olympics

Thanks. --Phikia (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability of players who have played in the amateur era of professional leagues

Are they notable? Dr Salvus 09:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have examples? If you are talking about an amateur player who played during a time when we consider the league 'fully-pro' (and outliers like that do pop up every now and again) then I have always considered them to meet NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, this is an example: Domenico Donna played for Juventus in the 1900s. He made 30 appearances in the Italian league who wasn't professional at that moment. Is he notable? Dr Salvus 10:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If the league isn't professional, then they'd have to meet WP:GNG. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Who wasn't professional - him and/or the club and/or the league? GiantSnowman 10:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, the league wasn't professional. Maybe, he meets GNG beacuse he had significant coverage Dr Salvus 10:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If the league was not fully-pro, then like Lee says, GNG has to be met. GiantSnowman 10:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

30 games in 10 years sure doesnt sound notable...Muur (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

10 year career at a historic club sounds notable to me. This might not count cup competitions as well.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

well they werent notable at the time. should a player from when man city were non league get a page cuz now theyre a big team?Muur (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreton Rangers

Can somebody move Moreton Rangers to Moreton Rangers F.C.? I've tried, but it's not letting me (presumably because it's a redirect). I could always copy and paste the contents to the article to the F.C. page, but would lose the edit history. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 15:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@NouveauSarfas: You should generally request these kinds of moves at WP:RMT. Manually copying and pasting should never be done. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, just requested a move. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 15:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Article request: England–Italy football rivalry

It would be a good idea to have an article on England–Italy football rivalry with the upcoming UEFA Euro 2020 Final.