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.

Club season articles and match info.

Hi,

As I have seen a lot of different information I would like to see some form of consensus on what should be shown on the matches for the club season articles. Many articles use footballbox collapsible and some dont, but no matter what is used the same info should be on articles. I have seen (on the footballboxes) information such as:

1. goals
2. yellow cards
3. red cards
4. missed penalties (during regular time, of course we should have penalty shootout misses)
5. substitutions

and probalby more I cant remember now.

What should we show? Is there any reason to show more than goalscorers? That is what we show in major competitions such as Champions League, Europa League, main World Cup article and so on. Seems like the rest is a bit unneeded to me (cards can be seen in stats section). QED237 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Just goals for me. – PeeJay 22:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should have tables instead of the templates. With the table, we can have headings suitable for whatever match info we decide to put in. I personally put position in the league table, points, and goal difference. I can do this because the table allows for flexibility. Kingjeff (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Just the goals and not more. Kante4 (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Are red cards not worth adding too? Have a distinct impact on the outcomes of games and are generally noteworthy. Macosal (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion both goals and red cards should be added. Red cards impact the game, yellow cards do not. Missed penalties are not that noteworthy, we also do not included other missed shots. There is only a point to list substitutions when the line-up is listed to begin with, I do not think that club season articles should include line-ups for each game though. CRwikiCA talk 14:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Red cards do not always impact the game. I've seen matches where the team whose player was sent off actually played better after the sending-off. Since red cards only affect the match outcome indirectly, I don't think they should be included. – PeeJay 21:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have has some time to think about the red cards and despite being a bit torn a think they should not be included. As said above they dont necessarily affect the match outcome and we should really only list what is most important which is the score and who scored the goals. Some articles I have seen even only list the scorers of the article-team (but I think both teams scorers should be shown). So no red cards for me. QED237 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

But cards are still major events within the match. Kingjeff (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This topic was touched on some in this discussion from January. EddieV2003 (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@EddieV2003: Thanks, I had missed that discussion. QED237 (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If you look at it we dont add cards in Champions League and other big tournaments so why do it in club season articles? And as @PeeJay2K3: says in the other discussion it is called goals1 and goals2 so why add cards there? Template documentation is for goals. When we have the extended box for big matches then we can display cards. QED237 (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Just my few pennies on these articles... This season I see a big push to have the articles in the 4 major leagues in England. All clubs at this level have a season article prior to the start of this season. To find consensus on MOS is going to be hard because some of the editors have been do these updates for several seasons and simply continue their style when the new season begins. Hence anyone who has been doing one style of scores - footballbox collapsibles (eg Carlisle United) and starts to implement table style (eg Manchester United) is going to find themselves in a probable heated edit war. Now each style has its pros and its cons. Also in the area of Transfers - there are some differences. Some add more information so that there is a continuum of following up players in the future. And some just focus on just that team that the season article is about. My jilt with these articles is that contributions start falling off for some teams when we get into the season and the articles become massively outdated to the point I believe that they should be deleted. The task force should be looking for contributors who like editing and keeping an eye on a team whether they are fans or no for the whole season. This is really work - and the volunteerism of WP at the highest level. Also I would like to direct attention at a highly intense and IMO over done club season - 2013–14 Adelaide United FC season. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, the interest seems to drop every season. That is one reason for trying to find all this consensus. Last season I regurlarly went around on all PL club season articles (and others) for update after every matchweekend (as much as I had time to) and got frustrated over the differences. If articles were about the same it would be easier to update them, now I had to see "Ohh, this article has yellow cards" and on the next "only goals here" and so on. The same everywhere would be a lot easier. I am taking this step by step atm to get more consensus and this is one step. Last year I were heavily involved in the league table template to ease the updates. A consensus here would be great. About the different ways of showing results (footballbox or not) is a later project, I have tried but there are to much difference of opinion at the mment for any consensus on that subject. QED237 (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

As a sidenote last season "results by round" was also change on all articles to "results by matchday" on all articles since there was a source for that (some article used regular table and WP:OR) so now it is the league position at the end of the day the team played everywhere (on some it was after all teams played that weekend, but there was no source for that and in England there are no rounds and a lot of postponed matches due to wheater and both cups). Consensus really helps people like me who edits a lot of different article and not just one article so a consensus on what info to display for the matches would be great. QED237 (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

when it comes to results by round/matchday for a particular club there is a source (like this [1]) which can be used. I wouldn't use it as a source for league season article though. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spudgfsh: That was the source we changed to last seasomn on the english club article and also changed "round" to "matchday" as it is what stattoo says. It is a great source for this purpose. Before some article just had a link to the league table as source which is not good enough. The league article in england does not have any table for this since it can not be sourced. QED237 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Cards are really not needed, that's why it's called goals1/2 in the footballbox. They not everytime change the outcome of a game, like a goal does... Kante4 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I would retain the cards as they do give you some insight in to the game rather than just listing goals. The issuing of a card can often lead to a goal and this can be judged by the timing of the events in the articles. There is no reason to get rid of information or not to record it. Keith D (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yellow cards can change games; often or not it alters the manager's thinking and tactics. In the Champions League bookings carry on until a certain stage of the competition, whereas in the Premier League said player could be booked for the fifth time and be ruled out of a important match. But without explanation (prose) to go with the complete fixture list, you cannot draw conclusions. Season articles for the current year are a minefield; just looking at the Arsenal one there is too much going on. Why is there a reserve squad list when the article's about the first team? Transfer spend, since when is that notable when Arsenal do all their business undisclosed? Lemonade51 (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have revised my position, I think goals are sufficient. If cards have a notable impact, then that should be discussed (and sourced) in prose. I think it will also be good overall to revise Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons, so there is a proper guideline to refer people too. CRwikiCA talk 13:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I did put this (User:Spudgfsh/sandbox/FootySeasonMOS) together the other week. I think it's a start but could do more peoples input. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have read the entire discussion and counted votes (I know consensus is not voting but you get general opinion of people) and I see a majority of people saying goals only. The arguments with the fact that the rest of things dont necessarily affect the games and that the template parameter is called "goals1" and "goals2" for a reason also weighs in advantage of goals only, even if some editors say red cards affect the game as well. If no one opposes I will call this consensus for "goals only" and add it to consensus page after the thread is archieved and also implement it on the articles I am working on. There can always be further discussions later and consensus can change but I feel a consensus has been reached for goals only in this discussion. QED237 (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to reopen it, but User:Italia2006 was inserting them to the RM article (with dashes and spaces). I added that it was said NOT to have them and he reverted back with a reason "Uh, no.". Invited him to here. So if anyone can help there? Kante4 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I don't understand why inserting card information is such a big deal. Goalscorers and cards. Otherwise the information is rather incomplete. Just having the goals seems like laziness to me. Italia2006 (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, cut me some slack given the fact that this entire discussion just took place today. Italia2006 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are cards important to a game? What does a YC change to a game? Goals are what defines a game and not more. Getting 4 RC and a win 1-0, the result is what is important, not the way it happened. At least not for us here on Wikipedia... (Discussion going on for a week now) Kante4 (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Since when are we including only information important to a game? If we did that we'd make a note of who assisted each goal in the infobox. Is what time the match was played really that important to the game? No, but we include that as well. This discussion is faulted by misuse of the term "importance". When did importance decide what we include? That seems ridiculous to me. Italia2006 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Date/Time is improtant to know when the game is/was played. Assists aren't important aswell, ONLY the goals matter in football, not something else. For someone who wants to include cards, i have yet to see a valid reason (Other than "Uh, no."). Kante4 (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Cards are game information... that's the point of these football boxes. Also, who are you to decide what's important? Again, I think just inputting goals is called laziness. It's very simple. We don't have to have a glut of information in these boxes, I think goals and cards should be the standard as per usual. I don't consider "importance" a valid reason to not include this information. Italia2006 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

First it was the Starting 11, then it was assists, and now any information besides goals. Pretty soon these football articles are gonna be skin and bone. Italia2006 (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You are the only one (or one of the few) that wants to include cards. Why is it called goals1 and goals2 in the footballboxes then? Still no reason given why it should be included... Shirts and ball are also game information and it is not included. Goals decide the winner and loser, not cards. Kante4 (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I just gave you several reasons. I'm done talking to you, give me someone else. Italia2006 (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly the answer i exptected after you can't come up with valid reasons. Just read the discussion that it should NOT be included, thanks. Kante4 (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm done with you because you're insulting. I'm not concerned with what's valid to you or not since I've never seen your name before and I edit plenty of these articles. The footballboxes we use contain information related to the match played. Importance is a relative term, one which I don't think applies to whether or not cards are included. You have to be rude and tell me that the ball and shirts are also information, which is especially insulting. Your only reason for not including the cards is because they are unimportant. To who exactly? I think cards should be included and the fact that the template name is "goals" makes no difference to me. We've been doing this for years and the standard has always been simple: goals and cards. So to sum up for you since you don't have much comprehension, the reason to include cards is because they are information related to the match. This talk of importance is arbitrary, because if we're talking about importance I don't consider what time the game was played to be all that important. Importance is relative and thus should not be a deciding factor. Italia2006 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Could not care less if you never saw me edit before and find it insulting (laughable btw) but you say it is important, myself and others say it is not. So, we opened the discussion here and opted to just put in goals. That was the consensus... Kante4 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Kante4, If "the result is what is important, not the way it happened" then why include the date and kick–off time? Does it really matter when the game was within the season? Why add stadium and city? The location of the match has no bearing on the result. You mentioned how it's called goal1 and goal2 in the football collapsible template. But that shows the inflexibility of the template. When I put a table in I usually call that the "Goalscorers and disciplined players" and when other editors, who use the exact same table, uses only goalscorers, I only use the heading as "goalscorers." I can do that because tables are flexible. The football collapsible template violates MOS:COLLAPSE. Everything hidden in the box would have to be in the prose. Kingjeff (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

So, people know when/where it happened and we are not talking about a fictionale match. I know you like wikitables more, but i don't but that's ok. This is about cards right now in the footballbox template. Kante4 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You show that it isn't a fictionale match by adding a source. Kingjeff (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The way the football collapsible template should be used would not violate MOS:COLLAPSE. If the football box is the main source of the information about the match then would violate COLLAPSE but that is the problem, it should not be the only source of information for the match. This is an encyclopaedia and it should contain prose that supports any tables or templates used. Some of the information within the template would never be included in prose or on a table but provides useful background information for the reader. that use would not violate COLLAPSE. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article should contain prose. This is supported by WP:NSEASONS and MOS:COLLAPSE. But do we really want to put the kick–off time, stadium, and attendance for every single match in the prose? Kingjeff (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Kingjeff and while I disagree in that I prefer the footballbox collapsible, you're absolutely right. Who cares what time the match was played? Very few people do, but we include it. I think the argument that because it's goals1/2 we should only input goals is incorrect. I think that to include only goals is to include too little information. And again to reiterate, the argument of "importance" is invalid here. Italia2006 (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There are three ways around the issue. You can add the hidden information in the collapsable template into the prose, you can use a template that doesn't collapse, or use a table. Kingjeff (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Who cares what time the match was played?" I was asking a rhetorical question because this is the type of information that would be tedious and unnecessary added if

You say "importance" is not valid, yet you say cards is and time/stadium is not, seems odd to me to use that argument yourself. We need more input i think and live with the result. Kante4 (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hold on here, I am not saying time/stadium is not valid, that's ridiculous. I'm saying cards are just as valid as time/stadium. That's my argument. I agree that including penalty misses, substitutions etc. are extraneous and unnecessary, but at least include yellows/reds. I think we're heading to a point where we are being too ascetic with this information. Italia2006 (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, i'm against it, but like i said, let's wait for more input from other editors before doing something. Kante4 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, absolutely. If the decision to include only goals is made a second time, then so be it, of course. Italia2006 (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep and i agree with your other points about subs and penalty misses obviously btw. Kante4 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Including subs, missed penalties and yellow cards is going to far, but including red cards which are major events just like goals without doubt should be included. Why are discussions all about season articles spread across so many different sections, surely one issue should of been dealt with at a time.Blethering Scot 15:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Blethering Scot, I think it is inconsistent to include red cards, but not yellow cards. What happens if a player is booked for a second bookable offence? Would it not look like a straight red card? Kingjeff (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Goals are the ONLY major event that decides the match, so only goals should be included. Even a team with less players can still win a game. If users want to see if there were cards, the report link can be used. Kante4 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not just make Wikipedia a collection of links? If we're going to give match details, then we should not have barebone reports. Kingjeff (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Only including goals is hardly worth its salt and you will find it impossible to enforce given the anoint of ips who insist on including yellow cards. It's easy to include two yellows making it a red as template sent off allows it to show two yellows then red. I think saying the report link shows reds is a very naive position and if we do that we might as well not bother including anything. Can you tell me what harm including red cards does. Blethering Scot 00:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the red card template has that feature. You won't be able to use it because yellow cards would be ban from the article. This is why you have to go with both cards or neither. Kingjeff (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No it's not the same at all yellow cards mean 0 in a match unless you are sent off it then becomes a notable incident, the template simply shows how you were sent off whether two yellows or a red and the time of the sending off. That is not the same as indiscriminately including all incidents. There is a big difference as ref cards are game changers as much as goals. They wouldn't be banned from any article, the consensus against was very weak and wouldn't stand up against editorial discretion on a busy article. The reasons given here are simply flawed. You will need to gain much wider consensus especially as multiple sports include red cards. I'm not seeing anywhere near a wide ranging consensus. Blethering Scot 01:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

But yellow cards would still be showing. If banned, that feature of the template would not be allowed to be used. A yellow card is a yellow card whether it's the first booking or the second booking. You would only be allowed to show a straight red. Are you saying only game changing incidents are notable? If that's the case, than not all red cards are notable. If a team is down 5–0 in the 90th minute, then they get a consolation goal, the goal could never be notable is not notable. Both, yellow cards and red cards are notable. An accumulation of yellow cards leads to a suspension. That suspension could be a game changer. Kingjeff (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

But the yellow card is not a game changer in said game, point accumulations do happen but thats what the disciplinary stats section and prose is for season changer maybe if they are an important player but not game changer. The side i follow have one of the worst disciplinary records in the Scottish league system currently and get fined every year due to number of yellow cards, but it doesn't have any effect on an individual game. A yellow card on its own is not a notable event in a game, sorry it just isn't. I can back red cards being used to the full extent of the current sent off template but not yellow cards on their own. The yellow card template is a different beast.Blethering Scot 02:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If we're talking about prose, I'm in an absolute agreement with you. But as far as match reports, there should be yellow card and red cards. I expect a match report to give details of the match. Kingjeff (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

But how much detail do you give, if you include one thing where do you stop. These are not indiscriminate lists and we have to draw the line somewhere. Personally I feel it should just be game notable incidents and I feel goals and red cards are enough. Clearly more input is needed here as it's too narrow a group to say there is any real consensus eithier way. Equally though I'm not sure what imminent harm to the encyclopedia including yellow cards on an editorial judgement basis, article to article would really cause. We do have the template after all. That's just my view though. Blethering Scot 02:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Goals, yellow cards, red cards are all notable. I would also use line–ups under certain circumstances. Kingjeff (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There are a few circumstances where red cards are notable and these should be mentioned in the prose and not just left in the football box. I have yet to hear of a situation where yellow cards are notable and as with red cards their impact and reason for notability should be mentioned in the prose of the article. I think the fields that are present in the footballbox are all notable enough if there is prose describing the match but if anything else is to be considered to be included in footballbox it needs a discussion for the inclusion of it in the template rather than using the 'goals' parameter to shoehorn in other 'non-goal' related information. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not everybody uses a template and therefore there is nothing called "goal1" and "goal2." If the kick–off time, fourth officials, and goal line assistants are notable, then why wouldn't yellow or red cards be? Kingjeff (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the original question was about the football box collapsible so was aimed at that question. Secondly, if yellow and red cards are not notable enough to be included in a template aimed specifically at recording match details why would it be considered notable to be included when a table was used instead of that template? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually the original question wasn't solely about the football box collapsible. Qed237 stated at the top, "many articles use footballbox collapsible and some dont, but no matter what is used the same info should be on articles." So, he stated what ever is being used, whether Wikitable, or any template, should have the same info/standard. I personally put league table info in the wikitable I use. I'm assuming that this would not be affected since this is covered by the Results by round template and not a footballbox template. Kingjeff (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't change my point that the football box collapsible template contains the information that the consensus agrees should be included when recording details of matches. If we agree on extra information that needs to be included then the football box needs to be updated accordingly. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 14:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that the creator of the template meant only goals for goal1 or goal2? Kingjeff (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the name gives the biggest clue but there have been numerous discussions like this one in the past where from my recollection it was to only include goals. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 09:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Cards or no cards

Trying to restart/summary the discussion here so it doesn't die. I think we all have agreed on including goals and excluding subs (include in major matches when lineups are used but not on club season article) and exluding penaltymisses (unless it is a cupmatch decided on penalties, then those misses are to be shown).

Now it is a case of three alternatives, include cards, red cards only or no cards at all.

Are there any more to be said or how should we decide this? I know consensus is not by voting but at least we can get a view on how people are thinking and if there is a big majority in either way. Reading the discussion I get feeling that no cards is in majority but after this long discussion the opinion could have changed for some editors. QED237 (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No cards. Only goals are important and decisive for a match. Kante4 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Cards. The argument was made that we don't show cards anywhere else in articles such as the Champions League and international competition articles, which is completely false. Look at even recent articles such as 2014 UEFA Champions League Final, 2014 FIFA World Cup Final and the individual group stage and knockout stage articles. We include yellow and red cards. The issue of importance or notability is not a valid argument. What time the match was played is not at all notable yet it is included. Further more, the articles which include both goals and cards are in my opinion generally the well-done articles. It is one thing to say that we don't necessarily have to include cards, but quite another to ban their inclusion altogether. The argument that because the template says "Goals1" and "Goals2" is a farce, because in the non-collapsible football boxes which are used in the Champions League articles, the template option says specifically "Stadium" but we include both the stadium and the city. Another argument involving cards is that because they are not in the Champions League articles we should not include them in club season articles. But do you know what else is not included in Champions League articles? Appearance statistics, team statistics, prose, squad information, etc. Should we not include any of these because they're "not in the Champions League articles"? It was always my understanding that club season articles were meant to provide more detailed information than the league and Champions League season articles. Italia2006 (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I am for cards. There was a point made above that the footballbox collapsible held everything notable. If the Goalline assistants are notable, which is an option in the template, then cards would be notable. Tracking every single pass in a match isn't notable. Neither is tracking every single shot, etc. If we're not going to include cards, then lets save ourselves time and only include the final score. Kingjeff (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hold on, cards are only included in big tournaments/matches when lineups are added. And then only next to the lineups and NOT in the "normal" footballbox. And assistants aren't notable of course. Never saw that option or it's usage... Kante4 (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I was only quoting from the above discussion. Based on his standard, everything that the Football box collapsible template covers is notable. So, if attendances, assistant referees, fourth officials, and goalline assistants are notable, then why aren't yellow and red cards? Kingjeff (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Kante as far as I know you're really the only one against the use of cards. Why can't we have an MOS where the addition of cards is perfectly acceptable but not required outright? I think the exclusion of card inclusion is a spit in the face to many long serving and talented editors who have always done things that way. Italia2006 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Cards to be shown in the season articles as they can be important to the outcome of the match and impinge on future matches if a person is suspended. Keith D (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Keith D:, I absolutely agree. Michael Ballack was suspended for the 2002 World Cup Final for an accumulation of yellow cards. Things could have been different if he was in the line–up. Kingjeff (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, I will try and answer/respond to all arguments explained above.

1. @Italia2006: I am also against cards and Italia2006 you should read the start of argument above, when I was about to close it was around 7-2 (dont remember exactly) in favour of no cards. I took pen and paper and listed all contributors to this thread and many seemed to agree until Italia2006 and Kingjeff started flooding the discussion with a lot of text about same thing. And about long serving wikipedians getting spit in the face that is just bs, I used to liveupdate, then there was consensus now I dont live update I fight it. That is life just to move on, we cant have difference on every article.
2. @Kingjeff: All those things you talk about was removed more than a year ago. I guess no one never updated the documentation. Those things should never be included and I have never seen them be included either. Also just because someone has added them to template does not mean we should use them. We could open a new discussion about the parameters of that template if you want to.
3. @Italia2006: The first thing you said The argument was made that we don't show cards anywhere else in articles such as the Champions League and international competition articles, which is completely false NO it is completely true, you are talking about final matches and there we list everything as lineup, cards, substitutions and you name it because a final is a major event with their own article. We are talking about club season articles were there are 50 matches per season and we should absolutely not list every minor detail on such pages. Take a look at 2014–15 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round, 2014–15 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round, 2013–14 UEFA Champions League group stage, 2014 FIFA World Cup and so on I am sure you wont see a single card. Only on the subarticles with lineups (the finals and worldcup groups) have cards.
4. @Italia2006: I dont know what article you edit but I edit 2014–15 Arsenal F.C. season and many more and there I/we never and stadium and city, there is a location parameter for the city, if you are using the template incorrectly that is up to you. Also template documentation clearly uses location parameter for city and not stadium so that argument regarding to goals1 and goals2 are same as stadiuum (multiple use) is completely false.
5. @Italia2006: Notability is not an issue? Of cource it is, we should list what is most important. I think the time is important, when the match was played.
6. @Italia2006: Reagrding the last part of your first response, we are talking about what should be included in the footballbox at club season article not about statistics section.

I hope I responded to everything (I may have missed something). Happy reading. QED237 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I would also be against the use of cards. I find they clog up the box and it makes it more difficult to find the goalscorers in a game with several cards. Surely if a card was significant enough to change the game then it would be mentioned in the prose anyway. I don't see how just having the timing of it would indicate how it impacted the match. Username of a generic kind (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a reason not to use the template and use a Wikitable. Kingjeff (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Everytime someone disagrees you say that we should not use a template..but this is about adding cards on articles with footballboxes. So those responses are not needed and can be discussed elsewhere. I agree that caeds blow up the box aswell. Kante4 (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

How does the inclusion of cards make it difficult to find the goalscorers? You look for the goal symbol. And I can't help but feel that much of the hostility against the use of cards is simple laziness and perceived lack of time. I can understand cards not being required, but again I protest their banning outright. The major editors have used goals/cards for years and never had a problem. I don't understand why it is one now. Italia2006 (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

When you are used to just see the goalscorer added, it's tough to look for them when cards are included (happens/happened to me at times and still now], so it just confuses the reader. Kante4 (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes to cards. When is less ever more? Cards have a card after them, goals a ball symbol. --Egghead06 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather go for an additional optional parameter cards1= then. Mixing is no good idea. -Koppapa (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Only goals are important and decisive for a match." - so a match where the home side has two players sent off in the first ten minutes, the opposition then scores seven goals before the home side scores a 90 minute consolation goal. Which is more decisive? The two red cards or the 90th minute goal? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with that statement Koppapa, if there is to be cards included, which I don't think is a good idea, then there should be another optional parameter for cards. If cards are to be included then it should only be red cards which I could be persuaded can have an impact on the outcome of a game. I have not heard an argument for why yellow cards have an impact on the outcome of the game. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bladeboy1889: The result, 7-1! That's what matters. Teams don't get more/less points when playing against more/less players... So, not everybody cares how that result happened. But i can live with red cards, YC have no impact. About suspensions, that can be added in the prose. Kante4 (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we end this already? I think it's become obvious by now that more users agree to the inclusion of cards than not. And for the life of me I can't understand why it is such a big deal. Kante, if you can't tell the difference between a ball symbol and a card symbol then that's your problem. Italia2006 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There are editors that put in a table that shows the total number of yellow and red cards a player has. However, some leagues don't have third–party sources to show this. Therefore, sourcing it in the match info would be required. Kingjeff (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We're only talking about whether or not to include yellow/red cards in collapsible football boxes, nothing more. Italia2006 (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. The point is that with club season articles for clubs in some countries, the table that shows total red and yellow cards can't be sourced unless you use routine calculations from the match info. Kingjeff (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

i just dont get why yc are important to a match. Rc i understand and can live with. An no such parameter is available on that template. Italia, read the first discussion above please when talking about obvious. And right here, its not. Kante4 (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kante4:, the parameter isn't in the template because of the inflexibility of the template. It's called "goalscorers and disciplined players" in the table I use. Therefore, it's definitely in the parameter of the tables I use. Kingjeff (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you so insistent on not having cards? Since when did it become the standard to only include information important to a match? If this is about your unwillingness to have to spend time putting in card information, I'll do it for you. I've read the entire discussion, believe me, about two or three times now. Do you realize how asinine it is to actually prohibit putting in card information? And please, enough with this notability argument. That's already been quashed because we've agreed that what time the match is played is not notable at all yet is included. Why can't we compromise and say that if you don't want to add card information, you don't have to, but if other users — users who are generally qualified and experienced editors — want to, let them. We need to end this already, because it's becoming a drawn out bureaucratic battle. Neither side it seems to me has a plurality in this situation anyway. Italia2006 (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Not too lazy, just thinking it's not needed. But like you said, it probably is the best to say it's "ok" but not required to add them. Never ending story otherwise... Kante4 (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kante4:, why don't we save ourselves time and make the final score the only notable item in match reports? We're not talking about putting every pass into the match info. Kingjeff (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't get silly now (again). I want to know the score, date/time and the scorers as a reader. Stadium is nice to see aswell, if i want to know more i check the report. But that's just my opinion... People in the first discussion put it good together for me. Kante4 (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not being silly. Eventually, this is what it will become. This time it's cards, next time it will be something else. Kingjeff (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, i don't think so. We just should use the parameters that are given. I guess there was a reason for adding them when it was created (and no one needs those optional ones like AR or so though...). Kante4 (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

But a person using a table starts with no parameters. So, there are no "goal1" or "goal2." I think it would have had to be goal1 and goal2 if it was meant for only goals or more than just goals. So, you, who uses that as an argument, needs to think of someone who uses a table. We're talking about someone who can add anything and we should think about what is notable without any bias from a parameter that a template gives. Kingjeff (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Now again the talk about using a table, everybody else talks about the template... My argument stands, no matter what is used. But i CAN understand when a RC is added as it can be important for the result. Kante4 (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't stand. You know not everyone uses a template. The parameters in a table are inserted. The table at 2014–15 Bayern Munich season says "goalscorers and disciplined players." So, I'm going to counter–argue and say it does include cards. Kingjeff (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course my argument/opinion stands. But it's getting tired as we have to agree to disagree. We need new input from other editors or we never come to a result. Kante4 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The template says "goal1" and "goal2." The I use says "goalscorers and disciplined players." Do you not see how both points nullifies each other? Kingjeff (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I was invited by Qed237 to take part in this discussion so here are my two cents; I feel that cards have an obvious effect on the match. A red card has an obvious effect on the outcomes of most games and players who accumulate yellow cards are also suspended. Because of the fact that most cards brandished do not have that great effect on the match the argument to expel cards from templates is not a baseless argument but my personal opinion is that including disciplinary statistics helps inform the reader more on the game and therefore should be kept.Inter&anthro (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: So what now? This is dragging unnecessarily. Italia2006 (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible to track assists under season articles? It technically is an official stat and there are many sources out there will the same assists numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.150.69 (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Mass BLP prods

Just an FYI, AlanS (talk · contribs) has just BLP prodded 58 articles (not a criticism - it's perfectly justified), many of which appear to be footballers. It's probably worth having a look through and rescuing them (I've just done Ronny Aloema). Cheers, Number 57 12:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Even though most definitely need work, not all of them are unreferenced. Hack (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Again for information, this is still ongoing: we're on to letter B, and most of them are notable... The annoying thing is that a good proportion of the footballers prodded were sourced to Transfermarkt up until links to that site were removed as unreliable, some as recently as earlier this week. While I don't have a problem with that either, it would be nice if in future editors would take an extra few seconds to replace those Transfermarkt profiles with the player's Soccerway or other appropriate profile, rather than removing and then tagging the page as unreferenced. Would have saved AlanS a lot of prodding and saved those of us trying to fix the prodded pages a lot of work. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. What is gained by leaving easily referenced articles unsourced like that? I know we should not link to transfermarkt, but it is so easy to add soccerway or a comparable reliable link in its place. Jogurney (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As the person removing the transfermarkt references, I feel the need to explain myself. My goal here is to remove every transfermarkt reference from the pedia if possible. Given the sheer number of them (there were over 20,000 when I started), I have tried to find the most efficient method possible. What I've discovered works best for me is to focus on one task at a time, i.e. to first remove all the references, and then once that's done (which should be in a week or two given my present rate of editing) to replace them where necessary, and to deal with the interim consequences as they come up. I have every intention to "take an extra few seconds replace those Transfermarkt profiles", just please bear in mind that when multiplied by the number of articles I'm dealing with, those few extra seconds add up to several days. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Better to take the extra time than to risk the articles getting deleted for lack of sources, especially when we know such sources exist. – PeeJay 17:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not save time by making ONE edit with removing transfermarkt and adding a new source? Instead you go through every article and delete the reference and then come back and visit EVERY article again. Sounds odd to me... Kante4 (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a report that shows articles about footballers that are tagged as unreferenced or under-referenced? Hack (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of these articles are starting to get deleted regardless of the validity of the PROD. Hack (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

if its unreferenced then the BLP Prod will be valid even if the player is notable. It would be far better if the source was added when removing, yes it would take longer to remove all incidents of transfermarkt but overall it wouldn't take any longer.Blethering Scot 01:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue was that this user was PRODing pre-2010 BLP creations with an invalid rationale. They have now stopped but the removal of references is continuing, meaning the number of unsourced BLPs is significantly increasing. Hack (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hack: I'll try and run a report tonight if I can... GiantSnowman 14:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

575 footballer articles are tagged with {{BLP unsourced}} according to CatScan. GiantSnowman 17:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be the number for all of the footballs and it's picking up articles tagged with {{BLP unsourced section}}. Hack (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

League table templates, new version

Last season there was consensus to develop new league table templates (earlier the displayed only full tables). The new tables were more complicated with switches and such, but displayed only 5 teams on club season articles since there is no need to display entire table, only the team on article (and closest opponents) are interesting. The result was for example {{2013–14 Premier League table}} and helper template {{2013–14 Premier League table/p}} (and redirect {{PL13}}) who both needed updating every time.

This work really well on the articles and was used on entire English leaguesystem and dutch eredivisie. Although working well there are always improvments to be made and this summer @CRwikiCA: developed a new version (I tried to help with minor things afterwards). This new version was mainly made to avoid the most common mistake when updating the table, which was that the switches got moved around and the wrong rows was displayed on articles. For example there could be positions 8,9,13,14,15 in one club season articles. Also editors did not update the helper template with teams positions which made the same problems with wrong rows showing.

This new solution means one extra template but only one template needs to be updated (no swiches there) and this will most likely make updating much more easier. Now I had to take close watch all the time and felt like only I could update it. The major drawback currently is that the layout template must be edited at end of season when clubs enter Europa League after domestic cup victories, but I think it will work and perhaps we can work on a decent solution until then. Also H2H rows (e.g. LaLiga) are a bit more complicated but I have an idea for that, but it will only show for a full table.

This new version can be seen at main template {{2014–15 Eredivisie table}} and helpers {{2014–15 Eredivisie table/layout}} {{2014–15 Eredivisie table/teams}}, were only main needs updating (until more qualification rows is needed in layout)

What do you think? Should we try this new template-layout? It should be easier to update with only one template without switches and I am hoping the layout is not to hard to understand and should not be to hard to copy to new leagues. QED237 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The main though between this setup is the separation between the data and the lay-out, which would make it a lot easier to edit for most editors. As primary author of the new setup, I will not give my opinion here, it might be more interesting to hear from people that are less comfortable with the intricacies of coding. CRwikiCA talk 15:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I like it. It is a more elegant solution than the old one as it limits the part of the template that needs updating to just the bits that are updated. looking at it, the likely error that will be made during updates is editors forget to renumber the teams and/or stats but that is a much more obvious error than the current solution. good work chaps. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at these templates? In particular for Carlisle United its wrong - Template:2014–15 Football League Two table I'm inclined to remove these templates because of this continual instability.... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

---

@Brudder Andrusha: I will look at it right now. Most likely someone has not updated the helper template (on of the reasons for this new setup when only one template needs to be updated. I am ready to fix it if no one opposes. QED237 (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Brudder Andrusha: Now I have fixed league two. Is it the same for all english leagues? Anywhere else? QED237 (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

So much work. I'd go for using the whole table altogether, it's just much easier. After the season, change it to a wikitable if you like and then copy the 5-6 places you need to the season articles. -Koppapa (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Koppapa: Maybe, but there was interest for it as we dont need to list all 20 teams on all club article. When you look at article for a top team you dont care about 16th place (probably, it can be seen at main article). And there was consensus to do this and some editors wanted to do the work. This is not discussion if we should list entire table or not, it is wheter or not we try new setup. Do you have anything against the new setup other then "so much work"? QED237 (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay since no one really has opposed the new layout other then it is two much work and we should list entire table (not what consensus was before so in such case you may want to open discussion and find new consensus for that) I will go ahead to implement the new setup when I have the time, (If anyone else want to do it feel free to do it). Or does anyone else have something to say? QED237 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a set thing, not everyone will want to do the work to display only a partial table. Im with Koppapa just show the full table if thats what people want.Blethering Scot 14:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone want's to do all that work, that's fine. -Koppapa (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

---

• Update #1 - This has not been fixed after the second game. Currently Carlisle is 22nd... Template is not even showing the team... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is same IP every time not making complete updates. I am working on the new. Will fix it ASAP and fix this for now. QED237 (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

---

• Update #2 - It was wrong for a while and then all of a sudden it was right. Puzzling!!!! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Brudder Andrusha: That is because the table itself was updated at 15.36 UTC and then the helper template used to decide what rows should be shown was updated three minutes later at 15.39 UTC. In this case it can almost be seen as bad luck as the page you looked at got rebuilt in those minutes, that can change depending on queues. QED237 (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought it might be some time lag for this to get fully propagated. Brudder Andrusha (talk)

Damián Martínez

Hi, need input regarding Damián Martínez. He has always been known as Damian Martinez but this week Arsenal suddenly changed his name to Emiliano Martinez instead on list of first team players on their website. This has led to IP changing his infobox name and name in the lead. Is that what we should do? Or should the article be moved to Emiliano instead? We should use WP:COMMONNAME and he is still known as damian?

To me it seems a bit strange to have article at one name and an other name in infobox and lead.

Lot of guestions so feel free to add your thoughts. QED237 (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

His full name is Damián Emiliano Martinez[2] and that at least should be reflected as such in the LEDE and infobox without brackets. Whether the eventual consensus is to use his first or middle name, a redirect should be included. LRD NO (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If the article is located at 'Damián Martínez' then the infobox should display name as 'Damián Martínez' and fullname as 'Damián Emiliano Martínez'. Any change to 'Emiliano Martínez' should be supported per COMMONNAME via a WP:RM. GiantSnowman 11:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Surely the article should be changed to the name he is listed under on Arsenal's official site, irrespective of what he was listed under here with a redirect.--87.74.76.51 (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

As stated, use WP:RM. GiantSnowman 15:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Go on then Mr Snowman, can't make head nor tail of that RM page. Says don't edit page cos it'll be reverted by a bot so how you supposed to do it?--Doris Kami (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd not move for now. Every source but that website (even there only currently) calls him Damian. -Koppapa (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

But that one website is the one that is used to verify signings etc so if it's good enough for that, why not for his name? And what does "even there only currently" mean?--Doris Kami (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It means the majority of sources currently present within the article give his name as 'Damián' and not as 'Emiliano'. GiantSnowman 12:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Is no one going to put him in RM? No one has given a reason why Arsenal's lead should not be followed?--195.234.243.2 (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you must have missed the post directly above yours where I said that "the majority of sources currently present within the article give his name as 'Damián' and not as 'Emiliano'." GiantSnowman 17:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

So what? All the sources for Katharine Hepburn (prior to her own autobiography) - biographies, reference books, fan articles, magazines, newspapers - list her birthday as 8 November. In her book she reveals it as 12 May. By your logic that should be ignored and her DOB should continue to be listed as 8 November because that's what the majority of sources say.--195.234.243.2 (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

But Arsenal (his employers) list him as Emiliano...--143.252.80.100 (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Arsena's website lists him as Emiliano, the commentator on Arsenal Player called him Emiliano. It's daft to call him Damian on here.--143.252.80.100 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Template footballbox & footballbox collapsible

A query about the the Template:footballbox and Template:footballbox collapsible...
Are these templates supposed to behave identically except that collapsible is to collapse the information given by the parameters? There is a difference in the parameter !team1= and !team2= in Template:footballbox |team1= and |team2= in Template:footballbox collapsible. The difference causes the teams to always to be displayed in bold using Template:footballbox but they can be turned off in Template:footballbox collapsible. Is this an error? Is there a workaround so that the teams in Template:footballbox remove the bold demarcation? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It is probably a forking issue, like so many of the templates used by this wikiproject... CRwikiCA talk 19:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if its a forking issue but when I tried to view the source (and it can only be viewed in a sandbox since this template can only be edited with template editing privileges) definitely the template parameters used for Template:footballbox are !team1= and !team2= - which indicates headers. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Examples:

Template:footballbox

Wicked Wanderers	1–2	FC Tryers

---

Template:footballbox collapsible

Wicked Wanderers v FC Tryers

Wicked Wanderers

1–2

FC Tryers

Request for modification

A request for a modification to Template:footballbox has been made and is documented at Template talk:Football box.
A consensus needs to be reached before such a modification is to be made.

Support – To bring the template in line with the Template:footballbox collapsible so that the display of the team is user controlled typeface rather than just bold. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support – It makes sense to keep the templates ({{footballbox}}, {{footballbox collapsible}}) as similar as possible functionality-wise as users of them will expect them to be. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 10:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Good idea. -Koppapa (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Workaround

After investigating a bit of the functionality of {{footballbox collapsible}} there is a parameter which renders a no collapse feature using the parameter |class=uncollapsed vevent. From there teams can be unbold or bolded etc. The font size of some of the parameters are not the same as in {{footballbox}} but at least there seems to be a workaround. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute at 2014–15 Arsenal F.C. season and input needed

Hi, I am having a minor content dispute with an other editor at 2014–15 Arsenal F.C. season and now the editor reinserted same content again hidden in an other edit. Maybe I am overreacting, prose is good but history on Arsenal articles are that it becomes a wall of text and last season I had to copyedit a lot and remove not notable things.

I dont want to effect you to much but I will give a short explanation for not agreeing with this editor (I can expand if needed). First of all it is WP:POV with wordings like comfortable, clumsy and perfect afternoon. Secondly it is way to detailed and long, we dont need to list names of opponents (it is Arsenal article). Thirdly regarding the wikilinks it is incorrect to say winning FA cup in previous season and link previous season to premier league, they did not win fa cup in previuos PL season they won it in last year Arsenal season (or 2013-14 in English football if that's better, just not PL).

Please voice your opinions. QED237 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The amount of text devoted to the Besiktas game is ridiculous. At most the score and the red card need to be mentioned. The fact that Ba hit the bar (how silly does that sound when you say it out loud?) has no place in the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes and dont get me started on the preseason section. Last year it was an editor (currently blocked for personal attacks) who added the content, now a new editor just joined wikipedia and I see same pattern (not saying they are the same though I believe it might be coincidence). But a lot of text added is unsourced and not notable, and being attacked in the past after some copyedits and removing some content I dont want to get in to new fights so I ask for help. QED237 (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly most of it is unreferenced. It is also full of opinion, puffery and peacock terms. It is also way too long for a match summary. Imagine the article after 50 plus games. Apart from that it is fine!!!--Egghead06 (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I've trimmed down that section, including removing the Besiktas section entirely. Partly because it is unreferenced, partly because we don't need a blow-by-blow of every match in a potentially 50 game season! On a related note, the squad stats table violates consensus we had here a few days ago where only basic stats should be included, no contract info etc. I don't have the time today to tackle it, does anyone else want to step in? GiantSnowman 15:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The editor did it on other articles (RM) aswell. I cutted it down a bit. Kante4 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And now he he reverted GS as well saying summaries of the games are explained pretty straightforward. QED237 (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@PsychopathicAssassin: is edit warring, can somebody please have a word? I am INVOLVED. GiantSnowman 06:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have loved to but I started by "warring" with him so I am also involved. QED237 (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Zijad Švrakić

Dear football experts: I have accepted this article after removing some promotional language. I have previously posted it here and the subject was declared notable. It may need a check to see if the sources are appropriate. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Soccerbase.com

It seems to me that Soccerbase.com is not a credible source, at least for foreign managers/head coaches. Here is an example of a problem. Ottmar Hitzfeld started coaching Bayern Munich in 1998, but Soccerbase.com has him starting in 2001. Manchester United fans would know he was there before 200 since he coached against them in the 1999 Champions League final. Another example is here. Ståle Solbakken coached the whole season up to 12 April 2012, when his was dismissed as head coach, for a total of 32 matches. Soccerbase has only 31 matches. If you look here, 1. FC Köln had indeed played 32 matches (30 league and 2 cup) up until 12 April 2012. Should we really be using this site since we know that there are inaccuracies? Kingjeff (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Soccerbase should only be used for English/Scottish-based players, and even then with a pinch of salt, though it has got better recently. I would never use it for foreign players. GiantSnowman 07:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm even having doubts about that. They were slow to add an uncounted match for David Moyes after he was sacked by Manchester United. It's says "only games with a date in the database counted here" which is probably where the problem is. Kingjeff (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I really wish there were a better alternative to Soccerbase for English/Scottish careers. They must get massive Wikipedia-driven traffic through being the stats source of choice, yet there are many errors, and they're extremely reluctant to make corrections. Players' summary totals often don't add up to the totals you get by going through their appearances for each season, a significant number of playoff matches are listed and totalled as ordinary league matches (and sometimes totalled as both league and other), and other omissions are often invisible unless double-checking against an alternative, more accurate source. Even with "games with a date in the database", they don't always have lineups, so that no appearances are counted for players in that game (apart from goalscorers, who will get their app/goal counted).

Because Soccerbase is published by an established media organisation, it's considered RS, but far more accurate non-commercial sites are dismissed as "fan"sites. The serious amateur club historian has far more genuine interest in getting their content correct. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

For the Scottish-based careers of footballers, I highy recommend http://www.fitbastats.com/ which covers lineups and player stats for over a dozen Scottish clubs + Scotland international at U21/U23 levels and senior levels.ShugSty (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what people think about Soccerway? It looks to be a decent alternative. Although it doesn't go back further than 2004, it does cover a much wider set of leagues. Number 57 11:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I rate Soccerway highly. GiantSnowman 12:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's RS, which always helps. I don't work enough with other country stats to compare, so just addressing their coverage of players in the English leagues: the quality is improving, a lot, and if you send a valid sourced correction to their published contact email, not only do they make the correction, they thank you for submitting it. For recent seasons they're probably as accurate than Soccerbase, though they share the problem of sometimes having no lineups for a game, or having starters but not subs, so an appearance can go missing.

There are things you need to be careful of, e.g. if you're looking at appearance totals, you need to know that they count playoffs as league matches, which we don't. And if you're wanting cup appearances as well, for a career stats table, they don't go back as far as league coverage does: the FA Cup goes back to 2008/09, the League Cup only to 09/10. I tend to use it as an additional source when Soccerbase is wrong, but I am tempted to start using it regularly instead of Soccerbase for recent players whose career falls entirely within their coverage. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the playoff issue, where is that documented? Hack (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football biography#Parameters, under |goals1=. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Australia would be an exception to that. Appearances in the A-League Finals Series are usually recorded as league matches. Hack (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Soccerbase name

What does "foreign" mean in the first two posts above? HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Foreign to anywhere that isn't England or Scotland, really. Soccerbase is a site owned / operated by a British sports betting newspaper (Racing Post). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But that's a surprise. The ".com" makes it look American, and hard core fans of the game here in Australia insist that nobody in the UK ever calls the game "soccer" because it's insulting and derogatory. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Soccer was originally an English term and was sort of commonly used in England until about 25 years ago. It was a term that divided on class terms to some extent. The upper classes would use soccer because it was disambiguated from what they called rugby union ("rugby football"). You would quite often get BBC news reports or Tory politicians using soccer rather than football. That basically stopped from about 1990 as football became the dominant sport in English media and it became more middle class / gentrified. [3][4]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Sun published a "Sun Soccer Annual" for a number of years in the 70s and 80s. Charles Buchan's Football Monthly, despite having "football" in the title, used "Soccer" often in articles (always with a capital letter for some reason.........) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It gets used a lot more in titles than prose or conversation, often due to the appeal of alliteration e.g. Soccer Saturday or a tabloid headline like Soccer Star in Sex Shame. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

To clarify further, spells with clubs not in the leagues of England or Scotland. It isn't the nationality of the manager that matters, as Soccerbase's manager dates are random in general. (not sure why this has been split off under a "Soccerbase name" heading?) Struway2 (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I split this because it is a different issue (i.e. HiLo is trying to establish why / if the term "soccer" is used commonly in the UK) from the main topic (is Soccerbase a RS?). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo nationality

Several players who have played for other nations, such as Ardian Gashi, have now switched to Kosovo. Is it correct to set Kosovo as their nationality for such things as the flagicon template, or should we wait until Kosovo is officially a FIFA member? I noted that an IP user changed his flag from Norway to Kosovo in the Odds BK article.Cashewnøtt (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If this comes up in a club season article or any other article requiring a year, I would think you keep it under the old nationality for season prior to the switch and the new flag for after the switch. As for any other article, you would keep the most recent country. Kingjeff (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Malky Mackay

Given the allegations published about him and Iain Moody today, please have a look at this article. I reverted one constructive edit on the basis that it was sourced to the Daily Mail, then expanded the section regarding Cardiff City to include reliably sourced info as to how he dropped out of the reckoning to be Crystal Palace manager. I think this is a better way to approach the story, but I would welcome further input. There has since been some vandalism by one IP. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Duplication at Premier League Top scorers' list and Premier League Golden Boot

There appears to be some duplication at Premier League Top scorers' list and Premier League Golden Boot. It would make sense to redirect the former to the main article at the latter, considering that the Premier League began from the 1992–93 season too. Cheers. LRD NO (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a merge seems sensible, but maybe a rename is also in order so that the pre-Premier League era can be covered; perhaps List of top scorers in English football (and also include the other divisions of the Football League?). The prose about the Golden Boot can be included somewhere in the article/list. Number 57 13:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That would indeed be the other option if such an article doesn't already exist. LRD NO (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There is English football first tier top scorers, but it's only all-time scoring records, rather than by season. We could simply add the by season list into it? Number 57 13:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

And to complicate matters, we also have List of top Premier League goal scorers by season. Should this one be merged back into the individual season articles, or does anyone think it serves a purpose? Number 57 13:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Premier League golden boot by far is the best article. I'd redirect Premier League Top scorers' list to it (straneg title) and PROD List of top Premier League goal scorers by season, there is no need for that info in a own article. -Koppapa (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Top goalscorers by English top division season are already included at list of English football champions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll merge Premier League Top scorers' list (including a redirect) to List of English football champions if there are no objections. LRD NO (talk)

Cardiff City F.C. personnel

Should this be deleted? Cardiff City F.C. personnel, doesn't seem to warrant its own article. Thoughts? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say redirect to a section at Cardiff City F.C.#Staff. GiantSnowman 15:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Order of Qualification Column

I noticed this while editing 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup, but instead of asking there, I thought I would ask here in case this is used in other places and I haven't noticed. In the Qualified Teams section there is a column in the table for the order in which the teams qualified for the tournament. My question is: Is this notable or important information? Or, another way to ask, does it matter what order the teams qualified? Equineducklings (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not particularly significant. The order would depend on the timing of the qualification tournaments/matches. Hack (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo/Archive 8

Not sure what to do with this, CSD under wht criteria?. Seems like a edit used it as talkpage. QED237 (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

CSD G8... I have requested that it's deleted. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

List of UEFA club competition winners

If this page is about UEFA competitions, why in the last edition is also included Club World Cup and minor trophies as Fairs Cup and Latin Cup?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Fall Experimental Football League (FXFL) Review help, please

Will this be a valid article, assuming the draft meets the relevant criteria, or will it be out of scope? Fiddle Faddle 11:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you may be looking for WP:NFL. Hack (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

So I may! Thanks. Fiddle Faddle 19:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Player article and stats updates

Hi, Every time there is a match IP editors and new editors come in and update infobox and career stats section and often make three mistakes,

1. Updating while match is still in progress, which is against current consensus
2. Updating infobox when it is not a league match (infoboxes are for domestic league only)
3. Not updating the timestamp when update was made (seen to many time same match/goal has been added two or three times

After creating an editnotice for livescoring (used at world cup and now champions league), I wanted to see if there is any interest for me to make a short but informative editnotice to minimize these three issues. The editnotice is not seen nduring regular reading, only when the edit window is up.

Any interest in such edit notice? QED237 (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the last two are the more serious offences with the middle one probably worthy of creating an editnotice. Kingjeff (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

A good idea, in principle, but you'd have to add the edit note to every active player, and it's also impossible to police. Seems like it's just wasted energy. GiantSnowman 09:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There should more emphasis on what is post completion of result. Live scoring updateds lasts for probably 90 minutes and is usually accurate. In correct information with regarding to league match performances and dates last for a much, much longer and involves a great deal of time to research and correct. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I dont think every article is appropriate and needed, but definately the most major players as I have seen yesterday. The scorers in particular and seeing the info on some articles may help the other articles as well if editor are informed. And yes the timestamps are very important. I have no problems in creating such notice (and put it here for comments before being used). QED237 (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Loans on infoboxes

Where should the team of players who are on loan from go in the infobox, on the bottom of the player's current team or next to it? For example Javier Aquino has "(on loan from Villareal)" next to his current team but Nani has "(On loan from Manchester United)" below his current team. Which is the correct way? I tried to put "on loan from Villareal" below Javeir Aquino's current team on his article but a user reverted it and added it back next to his current team but gave no reason why.

Which is correct?

Javier Aquino

Personal information
Full name	Javier Ignacio Aquino Carmona
Date of birth	(1990-02-11) 11 February 1990
Place of birth	Oaxaca de Juárez, Mexico
Height	1.67 m (5 ft 5+1⁄2 in)
Position(s)	Winger
Team information
Current team	Rayo Vallecano (on loan from Villarreal)
Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2013–	Villarreal	38	(1)
2014–	→ Rayo Vallecano (loan)	0	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

Nani

Personal information
Full name	Luís Carlos Almeida da Cunha
Date of birth	(1986-11-17) 17 November 1986
Place of birth	Praia, Cape Verde
Position(s)	Winger
Team information
Current team	Sporting CP (on loan from Manchester United)
Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2007–	Manchester United	147	(25)
2014–	→ Sporting CP (loan)	1	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

GoPurple'nGold₂₄ 05:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Either way is fine. Some editors prefer the latter as having it in a single row could unnecessarily lengthen the infobox. Having a break or otherwise doesn't affect content in any way. LRD NO (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't really see that it makes any difference -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I was asking because sometimes when you add the team next to it, it stretches out the infobox. GoPurple'nGold₂₄ 08:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Both are fine. GiantSnowman 09:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If the infoboxes are to be summaries to players careers, why have "(on loan from...)" added? The opening paragraph states as much and the infoboxes shows the player is on loan by having open-ended dates (yearly season). The additional info clutters the box. Raul17 (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

...and why...?

Is it necessary to have Javier Aquino listed as being on "until June 30, 2015" on the team page? Unless the loan period is more than a year (or season), since loan transfers normally end at season's end. Finally, when did listing players as 3rd captain, 4th captain and even 5th captain became encyclopedic? I have only seen Barcelona use the terms 2nd-, 3rd- or 4th-captain when the team elected replacements in their captaincy. Thank you. Raul17 (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

North Shields F.C. stats

Does the bottom 2/3 of the North Shields F.C. article run contrary to WP:NOTSTATS? Seems to be a tonne of stats. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed. GiantSnowman 17:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Albert Ebossé Bodjongo

This footballer, Albert Ebossé Bodjongo died after being hit by a projectile as he was leaving the pitch. I have added the Category - Association football players who died while playing. This carries a description which includes those who die as a result of something on the pitch. Another editor reverts this as he "died in hospital". Isn't this Category for any footballer who dies shortly after or on the pitch or just on the pitch?--Egghead06 (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

He should be included in the category, and also added to List of footballers who died while playing. His death is as a result of playing so he is eligible. GiantSnowman 17:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted 3 times and tried to engage the editor on his talkpage so if someone would care to re-add this category as I don't need a ban!--Egghead06 (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted and left a message. GiantSnowman 17:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ángel Di María

Somebody could take a look at the edit request. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

East Anglian derby Stats

Can someone give me a bit of advice on East Anglian derby#Statistics. I went to look at the accuracy of the head to heads but can't find a source that covers everything that is there.

1. Is it all notable?
2. Is there a better source that I'm unaware of?

=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This archived copy of the Pride of Anglia page sources the results up to 2006/07. Personally, for pure match results (if you don't need scorers or lineups) I prefer Statto to Soccerbase, it covers more competitions and IMO is more trustworthy. In context of that article, I'd say the contents of that section were notable enough; it's when people insist on having match result details for every meeting that it gets silly. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

cheers for that => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

JS Kabylie

JS Kabylie is in the news at the moment, and there seems to be just one poor link for such a big article. Could do with some gutting, if anybody has the inclination. Thanks, C679 20:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a translation of the well-referenced French Wikipedia article. Unfortunately the translator didn't bring the references across with the prose. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Football League 2 (Greece) - Greek Third Division

Is Football League 2 (Greece) (Greek Third Division) fully professional?

This league is on the fully pro list→[5]← but in the page this is the intro:

On August 3, 2010, it was announced that the division had been renamed Football League 2.[1] From season 2013-14, the football League 2 is merged by fourth division championship (Delta Ethniki).[2][3] The new third division will be held in six groups, with the clubs divided basis of geographical criteria, while it will return in an amateur form.→[6]←

So what is the status of this league??--Lglukgl (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Professional or semi-pro amatorial?

I have long had my doubts that this is a fully professional league, even when it was split into two divisions. Now there are six, that would mean there are 139 fully professional clubs in Greece. I can't see this being possible, and I would be very surprised if even the second tier (which now has 28 clubs) meets the criteria. Number 57 21:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well i'm sure about the second division(professional) but about the third division there are something wrong. And also Turkish Second Division is fully pro.--Lglukgl (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Danny Welbeck

Danny Welbeck is a played usually classified predominantly as a striker but who has been quoted as saying he has played a significant part of the last three seasons as a left midfielder for both Manchester United and England. So, by the very definition of the term "utility player" being that of a player who is used in varying roles in the team, I added him to the category . For some reason, this was opposed but I haven't been given any semblance of a reason. I was advised to bring this here. So... (here are two sources to verify the quotes that I used in the Welbz article -The Guardian and FourFourTwo).

As I've tried to explain, describing Welbeck as a left midfielder implies he was played on the left of a four-man midfield, when in fact he has only ever been used on the left wing in a more forward role. Utility players are players like Phil Neville or John O'Shea, who could play right-back, left-back, centre-mid, etc. Next you'll tell me that Wayne Rooney is a utility player because he sometimes plays slightly deeper than the main striker, or that Patrice Evra is because he sometimes plays as a left wing-back instead of a standard left-back. – PeeJay 08:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a direct quote from Danny Welbeck which you would have read had you bothered to open the article up I've given you, where he describes himself as just that. Seeing as you've proven that you're too lazy to do so, here's the most pertinent of the several quotes within the article, directly from the mouth of this left-midfielder: "For United I'm more likely to be left-wing in a four-man midfield". Hmm, what's that, Danny, you play on the "left-wing in a four-man midfield". Thanks Welbz, you're great to back up my point that I was explaining all along that you are a UTILITY PLAYER. It's even better because he also explains how he plays in a different wide role for his country, and couple that with the fact he is a striker, this makes him capable of playing a minimum three separate positions, which is indicative of a... UTILITY PLAYER. Massive LOL at all this. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wimbledon/MK Dons

Reading the BBC Sport report on the MK Dons game last night, I was rather annoyed to see MK Dons as having been "founded" 10 years ago. I don't think this perception is helped by the fact that we have two articles for one club.

I know that there was a lot of (perfectly justified) anger at the time, and having two articles was the only way to keep a lid on it. Now it has been ten years since the rename, I think it's time for rationality to override emotion and for us to merge the two articles into one (much of the Wimbledon stuff can go into a separate "History of" article). I dislike the Franchise as much as the next fan, but I'm also keen on us being a factual encyclopedia - we don't have separate articles for Woolwich Arsenal and Arsenal or Meadowbank Thistle and Livingston (and having Wimbledon infobox stating the club was dissolved in 2004 is just wrong)

Obviously this needs to be done via a merge discussion on the two pages, but I thought I would test the water here first. Cheers, Number 57 11:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think (original) Wimbledon and MK Dons are the same club. MK Dons themselves accepted this by giving the trophies won by Wimbledon to Merton Council [7]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

They are the same club - it was moved and renamed, but remained the same legal entity. Number 57 12:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Then why doesn't MK Dons have a page on their website talking about how the "same entity" won the FA Cup in 1988? By comparison, Livingston do list the honours of Meadowbank (and Ferranti) [8]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Because they made a gesture of pretending they are a new club to try and soothe ruffled feathers. The trophies were given to Merton Council as part of a deal to admit MK Dons Supporters' Association to the Football Supporters Federation, which also involved MK Dons having to state that the honours were won by Wimbledon FC.[9] However, we deal in reality, not gesture politics. Number 57 12:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect reality; it should not impose its own view. To give another example, Airdrieonians F.C. (formerly Airdrie United) is legally the same entity as the last senior club called Clydebank F.C. (the present Airdrie owner bought Clydebank out of administration and moved the club to Airdrie). If you look at Companies House, Airdrieonians FC (reg SC042250) was incorporated in February 1965 (when that Clydebank was formed); the new Airdrie was not formed until 2002. By your logic, we should include the records and honours of the 1965-2002 Clydebank within the records and honours of the present Airdrieonians club. If everyone concerned considers MK Dons to be a new (2000s to date) entity, why should Wikipedia ride roughshod over their wishes? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My whole argument is based on the premise that Wikipedia should reflect reality. Not everyone regards MK Dons as a new club, and those that do are mistaken or living in la la land. And we should also be doing this for the Airdrie/Clydebank situation. Number 57 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal form does not always equate with reality. Most major clubs in the UK are "older" (by their own claim and/or consensus of others) than their legal entity (e.g. Rangers F.C.). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The question about clubs that fold and are immediately re-established is a different issue. What we are talking about here is a club that moved, and a year later, changed its name. There was no refounding, as the club never ceased existing. Number 57 14:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if, there is a definitive cut in the history. So i guess two articles are fine. You said "(much of the Wimbledon stuff can go into a separate "History of" article)", you'd have two articles again then, just at other names. -Koppapa (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem at the moment is that they are presented as two different clubs with foundation/dissolution dates that are imaginary. The Wimbledon article could be merged with the Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes and become solely a history article, not a football clubs one. Number 57 15:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Football League recognise MK Dons as being founded in 2004, although someone else will have to look for a source on that one, I'v not got time tonight. Either way, Wikipedia should be using the founding date that the Football League and Football Association use. Cheers, VanguardScot 19:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced sections "Managers"

User Fenix down (talk · contribs) on 22 August removed dozens sections of "Manager" from articles about Ukrainian football clubs, saying that "Transfermarkt is not a reliable source". Some links: Olimpik [10], Dnipro [11] (only part of list was removed). Although it was correct information anyway. WP:UNSOURCED say: In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Wikipedia:Citation needed: To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, anyone may question an un-cited claim by inserting a {{Citation needed}} tag. I propose to revert all similar edits from 22 Aug, restoring correct info added by ip-user and insert {{citation needed}} tag where its need. NickSt (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

As discussed on your talk page, Transfermarkt is considered an unreliable source. Per WP:BOLD I don't feel there is anything wrong in removing information that claims to come from an unreliable source. My apologies if I caused you irritation by not adding a CN tag to these edits (but as they were parts of lists there would be a need for many in each article), but the fact is that per WP:PROVEIT the dubious information has been removed and an editor restoring it has the burden on them to provide a reliable source. I don't think slapping a CN tag on bits previously claimed to come from an unreliable source helps things, adding a reliable source though would. Fenix down (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding a Cn tag and removing if not sourced within a valid time frame is a reasonable request, unless of course you believe the information to be false. If you believe it is likely to be correct but unsourced or previously was sourced i would add the CN tag.Blethering Scot 19:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)