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.

Discussion about whether Catalonia is a national football team

As requested, this conversation has been moved from Talk:Catalonia national football team#Editing about "national" team:–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fob.schools, Hunig3, and Fcbjuvenil:,

It looks like there is some edit-waring about whether this is a "national" team. Please also see the conversations above about this.

Rather than moving the article, especially when there has already been discussion about whether this is a "national" team, there should have been some discussion here first.

In addition, I see that infoboxes are getting updated to remove the Catalonia national team info, Hunig3.

What's up? Can you sort this out here rather than edit-warring?

In addition, an ANI was opened up against Hunig3. Again, this should have been talked about first.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I am new to editing in Wikipedia and should have spent more time reading and understanding how it works before editing.

With regards to the topic, I read the discussion but I do not find any valid reason to have the team referred as ”national team", let alone to include the appearances and goals with this regional representative team on the infobox. The team represents a region of Spain, it is not sanctioned by UEFA/FIFA and it is composed of players from many different nations. Including the appearances and goals record on the infoboxes ONLY responds to individuals pushing a political agenda. It is, by all means, false information misleading to readers.

I am not interested in a war of edits, I see that Catalan cyber warriors are working very hard on keeping this delusion going, so if there is no interest in accuracy by other editors, I guess the Catalan super national team made of people from all over the world and playing friendlies will keep counting as "national team" experience for legends such as Iniesta, born in the province of Albacete (Castile-La Mancha region).Hunig3 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please start a discussion thread about regional "official/representative" team in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Matthew hk tc 07:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather than starting what would be a third thread on this topic (there's also an WP:ANI opened on this here), I posted a message there requesting input here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see the evidence that the Catalonia team is "composed of players from many different nations". That may have been true in the past when players would make guest appearances for the team, but these days the Catalonia team only selects players that would be eligible for them under FIFA rules. Sergej Milinkovic-Savic, for example, plays for Serbia now, but he was born in Lleida, so would be eligible to play for Catalonia were they recognised by UEFA/FIFA. – PeeJay 10:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support the change of name to 'Representative Team' or similar for all teams which are not FIFA sanctioned so do not play official internationals. Regarding the caps from the Infobox, we should at least be putting (unofficial) beside the name due to inconsistencies that result from counting the non-FIFA team but not their opponents. For the example, Ferjani Sassi scored for Tunisia v Basque Country in 2016, but neither that appearance or goal is included in his totals because it wasn't a FIFA friendly, and that is the correct way, otherwise its too complicated to display. On the other hand, some other non-FIFA teams are included in Infoboxes such as the old English League XI and Scottish League XI teams. So I think they could stay as long as its made obvious that it's not full national caps. Crowsus (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I think there was a discussion thread about all regional teams of Spain, especially the "WP:article titles" convention. So, it should start another thread in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. For eligibility it is another story. The coach and/or the regional FA selected players whatever they want, as it is not regulated by UEFA and FIFA eligibility committee, that formerly called Players' Status Committee Matthew_hk tc 11:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

There are essentially two questions here: (one) is Catalonia a nation, which leads into (two) is the Catalonia team, usually, comprised of Catalan players? I feel that Catalonia meets the definition, laid out here, to be considered a nation – note that a nation is not the same as a sovereign state or country (arguably some teams, such as Yugoslavia's – using an historical example – shouldn't be described as a "national team", as Yugoslavia was a multinational state).

As to whether the team is usually comprised of Catalan players: all the players listed in the current squad list and in the recent call-ups list were born in Catalonia.

The article list nineteen 'guest players' that weren't born in Catalonia, but have played for the Catalan team – there are probably missing players from that list. Under the current FIFA eligibility rules:

• Three players would have been eligible for their debut:
  • Two would have been eligible to play for Catalonia in a FIFA sanctioned match via the parents and grandparents regulations;
  • One would have been eligible to play for Catalonia in a FIFA sanctioned match via the lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 regulation
• Three players would have been ineligible for their debut, but are borderline cases:
  • Three had lived in Catalonia for more than five years, but hadn't lived in Catalonia for five years following their eighteenth birthday;
• Four players would have been ineligible due to playing for another country, but may have been eligible otherwise when they made their debut:
  • One had played for Spain – born outside Catalonia – prior to making their first Catalonia appearance, had lived continuously for at least five years in Catalonia after reaching the age of 18 prior to their Catalonia debut;
  • Three had already played for another nation before living in Catalonia, but had lived continuously for at least five years in Catalonia after reaching the age of 18 (none of them have a date of their first Catalonia appearance, so I can't identify for certain if they would've been eligible to play for Catalonia, had they not played for another country first, or not);
• The remaining nine players were not close to being eligible on their debut – six would've met the requirements at a later date provided they hadn't played for another country.
  • The most recent player in this category made their Catalonia debut in 1976.

In general, therefore, I believe that the current Catalonia team is a national team complying within FIFA regulations – even without being bound by them – in terms of player eligibility. There are cases when Catalonia have fielded players that would be ineligible in FIFA-regulated matches in the past, some are more understandable inclusions in the squad than others, but these are largely, although not entirely, from over a twenty-five ago based on that list. I'd say that the article of the title is accurate. Clyde1998 (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The previous discussion was about the nature of the team, Catalonia is not a member of UEFA and FIFA and the country it not a sovereign nation, as the previous declaration deemed a failure. (it is fine to call it "national team" if it is a member of FIFA/UEFA/AFC/etc but not a sovereign nation, or it is a team from a sovereign nation but not a member of FIFA/UEFA/AFC/etc.) It is inconsistent that Catalonia national football team was followed that convention, but Andalusia autonomous football team is not (moved to current article title in 2007). Matthew_hk tc 12:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering, where does this leave us?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a 'national' team. GiantSnowman 15:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Is the correct article name Catalonia representative football team?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This could get archived off due to inactivity, which basically means that the article title continues to have the word "national" in it. Is that ok? A non-answer to this question essentially means, that yes this is ok - because it will archive off for non-activity. And, I'm fine with that if that's the way it ends up. Just wanting to be sure.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

My view is that the current title is fine - various non-FIFA non-sovereign 'entities' used the 'national football team'-suffix, such as Northern Cyprus, Tibet, the Basque Country and Brittany, and Catalonia is a nation (albeit within the Spanish state). Clyde1998 (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus is a "partial" recognized country (despite only Turkey), while no UN member supported Catalonia's declaration of independence. Matthew_hk tc 14:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

My concern is not about whether Catalonia is a nation, but whether the title of the article on its representative team should be the same as FIFA 'national' teams, some of which are not actually sovereign nations. In my opinion, all those which are not currently approved to play in FIFA matches (other than those defunct entities which were approved) should use another title, e.g Catalonia representative football team or something, regardless of that place's claim to be an independent nation in a political sense. That would makes it clear which are FIFA nations and which are not, like the CONIFA group, a lot of which are not nations in any sense and would not claim to be, but have an article called e.g County of Nice national football team. However the Island Games group all seem to be called 'official football team' or similar. Crowsus (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not "national". It's similar to the Barbarian F.C. concept, but based around a national identity such as the New Zealand Barbarians. As it doesn't necessarily need to follow the rules of 'nationality' (even if it might enforce them currently) it should be seen as a 'representative' team of an autonomous region. As per Matthew HK. Koncorde (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

In fairness, as has been outlined in more detail above, although they aren't governed by FIFA rules, it's been a long time since Catalonia selected any players who wouldn't have been eligible for that territory under standard nationality rules (other than manhy of them have played for Spain of course!) Crowsus (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with Crowsus, I subscribe his point of view Hunig3 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

What do the sources call it? The opinions display and thought-out arguments are interesting, but the best way to find whether or not a title is appropriate depends on how the sources refer to it. A Google news and books search brings up a number of results for the terms "Catalonia national team" and "Catalonia national football team." Are there other alternatives that also bring up results?--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 20:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked up Catalonia so can't be sure, but locally the Basque Country team (which is exaclty the same status) is refered to as Euskal Selekzioa / Selección de Euskadi (Basque selection), avoiding any 'national' naming argumnts. Crowsus (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think a lot of the Island Games teams use 'entity' official football team as they don't necessarily use players that would meet standard eligibility rules - the Isle of Man team exclusively uses players from the Isle of Man league regardless of their background. I feel that using the phrase 'official' could imply a legitimacy that may not exist for certain teams, however.

Looking at how other languages deal with this issue:

• Catalan: Selecció de futbol de 'entity', lit. 'Selection of football from 'entity'' for all country, regional, etc. teams.
• Dutch: 'Entity' voetbalelftal, lit. ''Entity-ish' football team' for all country, regional, etc. teams.
• French: Équipe des 'entity' de football, lit. 'Team of 'entity' in football' for all country, regional, etc. teams.
• German: 'Entity' Fußballnationalmannschaft, lit. ''Entity' national football team'
  • German: Fußballauswahl der 'entity', lit. 'Football team of 'entity'' for non-FIFA teams.
• Italian: Nazionale di calcio del 'entity', lit. 'National football team of 'entity''
  • Italian: Selezione di calcio del 'entity', lit. 'Football selection of 'entity'' for non-FIFA teams.
• Portuguese: Seleção 'Entity' de Futebol, lit. ''Entity-ish' Football Selection' for all country, regional, etc. teams.
• Spanish: Selección de fútbol de 'entity', lit. 'Selection of 'entity' football' for all country, regional, etc. teams.

Most seem to use 'entity' football team or 'entity' football selection (word order varying), with the former seeming to be best in English. I've noticed that a few articles are already called 'entity' football team – Arameans Suryoye football team, Sápmi football team, Shetland football team, Yorkshire football team – which removes the ambiguity and matches the equivalent of a lot of other languages. Clyde1998 (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

"Kit history" pages

I came across following pages. Personally, I don't think they are notable pages.

• AFC Ajax kit history
• Al Ahly SC kit history
• Club América kit history
• Arsenal F.C. kit history
• FC Barcelona kit history
• FC Bayern Munich kit history
• Beijing Guoan F.C. kit history
• Bengaluru FC kit history
• LA Galaxy kit history
• Real Madrid C.F. kit history
• Olympique de Marseille kit history
• Melbourne Victory FC kit history
• FC Spartak Moscow kit history

Thoughts? Coderzombie (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Coderzombie: Just post to PROD or AfD. Hhkohh (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Not notable per WP:NOTGALLERY and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Bradford City kits. Of course, if they meet WP:GNG they would be. GiantSnowman 16:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, these articles are not notable and violate WP:NOTGALLERY. Much of the information seems to have been copied from the main club articles (without proper attribution, unsurprisingly). There have also been articles created for national teams, such as France national football team kit history, Germany national football team kit history, Netherlands national football team kit history, etc. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not impressed really, but then Footwiks seems notorious in copying content from football articles and starting new pages when they aren't really needed, I mean, he copied all the stadium/venue content out of every World Cup article and dumped all the copied content straight into FIFA World Cup stadiums and everyone wants to keep that article, which I just don't get. Govvy (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree that they're not notable. Most of those teams would have a section on their team page that would discuss their kit history and certain kit images may be beneficial in these sections, such their first kit, kits used in major cup finals or general colours worn in different periods of time, but certainly not a gallery of every kit they've used. I added a list of kits Scotland have used in major championships to the Scotland national team page a week ago and even that's probably pushing it a bit far given that most of them follow the same basic design. Clyde1998 (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems a pointless collection. There is nothing fundamentally notable about changing football kits through history without the context of the club itself. Notable changes to badges, kit colours etc, names etc should be included within the main squad, and / or may be mentioned within specific season records (particularly if it is significant, such as the England / Man Utd grey kits, or the Chelsea 'salmon', or the Aston Villa green red and black... ). Koncorde (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Koncorde. As anyone who has kids notoriously knows, the changes to kits per season are trivial and piecemeal. Actual history and origins of colours and designs can go on the main club article, along with major deviations (such as Liverpool introducing red shorts to make the players look bigger and more dangerous, a well-documented part of Bill Shankly's revolution [1]) Harambe Walks (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I also agree - we don't need a whole separate article to show that Ajax have basically always worn white shirts with a broad red panel down the middle......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Is somebody going to PROD/AFD these? GiantSnowman 16:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that content in these articles has been moved out of club articles, e.g. FC Barcelona. If these articles disappear, the content would need to be reinstated first. I have contacted @Footwiks: separately about unattributed content moves. Nzd (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Firstly: Govvy's comment! Footwiks seems notorious in copying content from football articles and starting new pages when they aren't really needed This comment make me very unpleasant! I also respect Govvy's opinion (These articles aren't really need). But I thought that these articles really need in English Wikipedia. Please check out them: List of Olympic venues in football, Italy national football team kit history, Logos and uniforms of the New York Mets, es:Categoría:Uniforme de selecciones de fútbol,

Article of Olympic Football venues already have existed since 2011, Article of Italy national football team kit history already have existed since 2016, Article of Logos and uniforms of the New York Mets already have existed since 2011, Spanish Wikipedia had very detailed kit history articles. I can't find logical reason why English wikipedai should have Only olympic football venue article, Italy national team football kit history article, Baseball team kit history aricle and Only Spanish wikipedia Should have football club and national team kit history articles.

Therefore, I created the FIFA World Cup stadiums and other club and national team kit history articles here. I'm very dissapointed that WikiProject Football users don't assume good faith on my contribution.

Secondly: Football club and national team kit history articles that I made are not just result of Cut and Paste from each National team and Club article. I created new article frame as belows.

1 Kit sponsorship
1.1 Kit suppliers
1.2 Kit deals
2 Kit evolution
2.1 First kits
2.2 Second kits
2.3 Other combinations

Also, I arrangeed images. For example, I converted football kit template sources from spanish wikipedia and found some old kit template source from past article version. In conclusion, I didn't just copy and paste from uniform section of each national team and football club article.

Thirdly, I respect WikiProject Football users's opinions that kit history is not notable and not important. But In my opinion, Kit history is just as notable and important as records and statistics. Most national team and football club museums had Kit History rooms and There are many independent sites about Kit history on Internet. Like independent article about records and statistics, Independent kit history articles are worth existence in English Wikipedia.

Besides, In most national team and football club articles, Kit images on summary part are updated every season. I don't want to wast these images. In separate article, cut and past every year. We can have good kit history articles easily. I also know that we can edit kit history part at original national team and football club kit article. But Kit history part had many images and this cause long loading time when the open the page.

Please keep the independent article and Let's expand together.

If you want to delete, Let's discuss this issue with all users (not just WikiProject Football uses.) There are many people who is interested in football kit history.

Thanks Footwiks (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Football club and national team kit history articles that I made are not just result of Cut and Paste Compare the introduction to FC Bayern Munich kit history with FC Bayern Munich#Kits. The text was copied word-for-word, and no attribution was given anywhere per WP:COPYWITHIN. Separate articles are not necessary when the majority of the pages violate WP:NOTGALLERY. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

S.A. Julio! You don't understand what I mean. Compare the whole content to FC Bayern Munich kit history with FC Bayern Munich#Kits, FC Bayern Munich#Kits only had section of historic kits. But I added section of First kits, Second Kits, Third Kits. Like thi, Most kit history articles that I made are not just result of Cut and Paste from original kit section of article. Also I noticed the policy of [[WP:COPYWITHIN. I added the attribution notice on FC Bayern Munich kit history now. If the Kit history articles will be exist, I'll add the attribution notice about copied contents. Footwiks (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that violation of WP:NOTGALLERY.

As you know, All football national team and club articles had Kit section including images. (In manual style from WikiProject Football recommed Colours and badge section) But As time goes by, Kit section are expanded. Especially, Football kit images are increased. So Naturally, Kit section become separate article like seprate hitory, records and statistics articles about football team.

Again, Separate articles about football kit history already existed before I created some articles! Check out Italy national football team kit history and Peru national football team kit history. I checked out these articles, Then, I just systematized about football kit history. (Created categories, Created seprate kit history articles about some national teams and club teams)

I have a question. What do you want?'
(A) Delete seperate article and In Kit section of original article, Don't restore whole each kit images as belows.

1927

1930 (Uruguay 1930)

1935

1978 (Argentina 1978)

1982 (España 1982)

(B) Delete seperate article, But restore whole each images to the Kit section of original article.

If do plan B, Original article becoming more and more long article and cause long loading time. Let's assumme ten years later, Club team have 20 more images.

In conclusion, I think that separate articles about kit history are nessary. Footwiks (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Kits history of any sports team in general is important, some clubs or national teams changed kits completely around there history because flag changes for example. I agree with Footwiks and I think that separate articles about kit history are nessary. Greetings. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the first one on the list (Ajax), the main thing it tells me is that the team's kit has always been a white shirt with a broad red panel down the front. That can be covered by a single sentence in the club's article. We don't need a massive gallery of microscopic variations on the same basic kit. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There is, pretty much, absolutely no notability in kit changes. Where there is notability (such as a fundamentally large change like the adoption of a wholly new colour as a result of a change of national flag etc) then this is clearly significant enough to be part of the main article about the nation with the full context. For instance, the History of West Ham United F.C. article displays 3 total kit changes. I could go through and add marginally different kit designs at each era, but I am either reflecting merely the changing at the whim of a shirt manufacturer, or some arbitrary style or design decision taken by whatever is fashionable.

The Real Madrid C.F. kit history is one of the most egregious examples of utter fluff I have ever seen in my life, with minor variations of 40 predominately white kits, of which 35 or so are pretty much universally only white. Koncorde (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I was able to view the Real Madrid shirt history by going through each of their season pages and looking at the same shirt graphics at the bottom of each infobox. Surely that's enough of a visual Kit History as long as they stay in white shirts and white shorts? The Kits section on the Real Madrid page should be more than enough, no? --Philk84 (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There should be no seperate article. Merge "some" of the kits in the main/history article. Kante4 (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Guys, this kind of discussion needs to be at AFD. GiantSnowman 11:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Some cooler heads are needed here. Although certainly those "kit history" articles that only compile image galleries should be deleted, there are also plenty of kit articles that should be kept. A case example is Peru's kit. As can be seen in the history ([2]), the page Peru national football team kit history had been moved by myself to the title Peru national football team kit to reflect that the information would reflect more than just the history. The Peruvian kit is nowadays considered a national emblem of the country. The kit has also significantly changed over time, and there's a history to it that is more relevant for this specialized article than on the main Peru national football team page. I can't argue about other kits because I do not know much about them, but if you're going to make an AfD, I highly encourage to not include in it the Peruvian kit. I also will promptly file a name change request for the article to, as before, indicate that it is about more than just the kit's history. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no indication people aren't being cool, only pointing out the obvious. Someone has a pet project, the pet project is pointless, let's recompose any redeemable content back into the main articles and rid ourselves of duplicated cruft. The Peru one has maybe 3 or 4 paragraphs of value, and needs about 4 or 5 shirts on the main Peru national team article to demonstrate the evolution. Nothing about it indicates a specific significance beyond or above any other national team shirt also being a point of national identity. Koncorde (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a stub/start article. Unfortunately, I don't have time to write GA or FA class articles all the time. That's not a sufficient reason to propose its deletion. As I pointed out before, if you want to propose the deletion of those articles that only feature galleries, then by all means go ahead. All other articles should be deemed for their potential, not blanketed under the same criteria for deletion. The kit evolution is not included in the main article per WP:NOTGALLERY.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

NOTGALLERY is not a reason to not include the content in the main article. It's the reason not to have unaccompanied images in an article. Images and such are for demonstrative purposes, but should be accompanied by relevant text. Having 5 shirts in a row doesn't do anything. Having a "the first shirt was white with a vertical red stripe based upon black black black" with an accompanying image is very much appropriate. Better still, the actual photograph of the different kits being worn enables multiple 'examples' to be dealt with in one stroke with all the accompanying references, sources, and context. Creating a gallery because of NOTGALLERY doesn't seem particularly logical. Koncorde (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Peru have a nice kit, and this has been commented on many times. But the sourcing of that is already in the main (featured) article on the national team they you wrote, so I don't see the need for a separate article repeating that same information, it could be (and already is) just a strong section in the main article. Having said that, at least the Peru kit has some independent coverage, whereas the Italy kit and the club kit articles are all a paragraph or two of information which could easily fit into the main article, followed by vast collections of minor variations to the same outfits. Not needed in my opinion. Crowsus (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how the discussion was heading nowhere, I made a number of updates to the Peru national football team kit history article, which can be seen here ([3]). The point is to prove that a proper kit article can be developed. Unfortunately, right now I don't have much time available to continue expanding it, but plan to do so in a few weeks. Therefore, I again kindly request that, if an AfD will be presented, only articles that lack significant content should be proposed for deletion. I would be very disappointed to see the Peruvian kit's article deleted under the same criteria as an article like Beijing Guoan F.C. kit history, which is little more than an image gallery.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 02:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment There's been some arguments this information is "not encyclopedic," but there are a number of visual "encyclopedias" or at least data directories on this very topic online, for instance [4] or [5]. Furthermore, it's perfectly fine to have a visual image gallery of these kits, since that is the best way to represent or visualize the data, and have it pass WP:NOTGALLERY as long as there is valid context. An article with only kits would fail WP:NOTGALLERY (and probably WP:GNG.)

The issue at hand here is a single user has created a majority of these articles in the past month or two, often copying information from existing articles, and possibly performing original research. I have absolutely no problem with keeping the kit history data in a history of the club. I have absolutely no problem with keeping an article about kit history if it were a valid split from a larger article, or if multiple sources existed which gets the article as a whole past WP:GNG, and then showing a "gallery" of kits at the end. To me, this data is encyclopedic, or something I may have a niche encyclopedia of if I were interested in the subject. Remember, content doesn't need to be notable: just the articles themselves, but that exposes the problem. The problem at the moment is notability: should these be standalone pages, especially when the content is mostly copied? I think I fall on the side of a lot of users here when I say no, not unless the article is a valid split/passes WP:GNG. Keep it with the history. SportingFlyer talk 04:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Content doesn't itself need to be notable, but it should be on topic and at least significant. I am sure there is a historical context to football kits. But not whether Madrid are wearing sky blue trim or gold trim this year is not particularly relevant, nor whether Adidas is the principle kit manufacturer or Nike across a century or longer of history.

Even what Marshall has just added to the Peru kit just goes in to reinforce what should be part of the main article. Writing lots of words about something that could be summed up in a few paragraphs is just writing for writings sake to try and justify somethings existince through volume of text alone. Koncorde (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment These seems like a reasonable alternative given that certain users seem adamant to remove this kind of content from the club's main articles or at the least present it as a watered down footnote. This has been going on for a long time now on wiki with different users essentially pushing back and forth. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a source of information. These are highly pertinent pieces of a club's history and identity. Every kit, every season, forms a huge part of this, and to keep deleting such information degrades this site as an encyclopedia. In conclusion, either users should move forward with implementing these separate pages *en-masse* (as Footwiks has began), *OR* they should reinstate *all* of this information on *each* club within their *main article*, en-masse. "But that's just my two-cents"... 77.97.97.103 (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Simply put, there is absolutely no reason why the level of detail shown on, for example, Real Madrid C.F. kit history needs to be anywhere on Wikipedia. There is no encyclopedic value in showing dozens of endless microscopic variations on an all-white kit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. When looking at WP:TMI, one can easily connect a balanced, properly detailed, and appropriate level of detail to the subject at hand. Its the same thing as having the Leonardo DiCaprio article and then the List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio article. LivinRealGüd (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with whats been said so far in support of keeping separate articles for kit histories. The main thing I'm seeing is there is simply no space to incorporate them into the main article. In that sense, separate articles about kit history are necessary indeed. To those saying that they are not notable by themselves, I disagree. If they're notable on as section, they should be notable for their own small article. To those touting WP:NOTGALLERY: most of these kit histories have comments that designate their intent, meaning that the are in line with the policy as noted by SportingFlyer. Best, LivinRealGüd (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is they are not notable on their own in most cases. What is notable is the club, and by proxy their team colours. The fixation on minor changes to kit layouts based upon the choices of branding or kit designers or sponsors really isn't significant. The overly detailed kit pages contribute nothing and the fact that they are long indicates how little content is worthwhile in keeping. Trim the extraneous fluff and they are comfortably within the main articles. Koncorde (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I see what you're saying and I partially agree. However, as most structures go for the kit articles, they could not comfortable fit in the main article. It makes a lot more sense to break off into a small, approachable article than have a larger section in the primary article. One can't possibly trim down kit sponsorship, kit suppliers, kit deals, kit evolution, first kits, second kits, etc. into one section on an article. I like how they do it at France national football team#Team image. Everything is bundled under a "team image" section with a "kit and crest" section. When the article links to France national football team kit history, readers get a full coverage on all of the aforementioned content. For example lets say that History of West Ham United F.C. is not notable on its own. Lets say that one can easily condense its content to fit comfortable in the main article, West Ham United F.C.. If we do indeed split it up, a lot more coverage and proper detailing can be undertaken at the former article. To simply trim down the latter article would be a disservice to the information at hand. If we are cognizant of what Wikipedia is not and work around that, operate article shouldn't be a problem. Following the general guidelines of WP:SIZE would also be prudent. I'm sure thats what Footwiks was trying to accomplish. LivinRealGüd (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Equating for an argument the history of a team with whether the piping on sleeves is gold or blue this year is...naff? Koncorde (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Also from what I can see, most of the France article is, firstly, uncited and full of original research, but also full of waffle. Koncorde (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't know what your first sentence means. But to your second sentence: yes, the France article is pretty bad, but the formatting is good. LivinRealGüd (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It means you are comparing 100+ year factual history of a team with fractional changes of a shirt design based upon changes in fashion, manufacturer and whim of the league or club to make more money. There isn't a lot that can be said that is actually relevant to either the article, or particularly well sourced without resorting to OR and SYNTH. Koncorde (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

My point is that it not just about the jerseys they wear. Its about the history, the crests, the team image, the logos, the symbols, the motivations, the sponsorships; its about a lot of components. All well worthy for their own article. If you can fit in all of the relevant information into one section, go for it. Go to every single national team page and incorporate it back into the main article. I'm willing to bet that there was a reason dozens upon dozens of editors independently decided to split the articles off. LivinRealGüd (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And all of that is presented in hundreds of articles such as this or this or this or this and so on and so forth and so on. I think you will find your 'dozens and dozens' is probably a few dedicated individuals like Footwiks. Koncorde (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

*Switches into Matthew Mcconaughey voice* Alright, alright, alright. I like what I am seeing, especially at Juventus F.C.#Colours, badge, nicknames and symbols. Will update my bolded comment, good sir. LivinRealGüd (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of national association logo on national team articles

User:Fma12 recently removed all but two of the Fair Use rationales from File:Football Association of Wales logo.svg and deleted the image from the articles about the Wales youth and women's teams. I've restored them for now, but I'm wondering if he has any actual policy to support this. That is the logo used by all of the Wales national teams, not just the men's team or the Football Association of Wales itself; the logo isn't used more than once per page; and it's not used on any unnecessary pages (i.e. not decoratively on the Champions League pages to represent TNS etc). I understand that WP:NFCC needs to be fairly strict, but it seems like overkill to delete the logo almost entirely. – PeeJay 14:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

As User:PeeJay2K3 stated, I removed the Wales Assoc badge from minor teams (u21, u17) in accordance with previous discussions about the use of non-free logos on national teams (such this about Argentine Association logo). This criteria has been used not only football but rugby, basketball or even volleyball teams.

WP:NFCC#UUI n°17 says that logos for parent entities should not be used in child entity articles. The Wales Association logo appears in eight articles (which I consider excessive) while other NFCC images such as Brazilian CBF logo were only allowed to be displayed on the CBF article (the same with Argentine FA or other similar badges that appear on one or two articles at most). Moreover, association badges were removed from most of all youth national teams articles (p.e. Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Spain, etc) due to NFCC criteria. I never had in mind to remove logos from all the articles but to keep them only on senior national teams (and, of course, their respective associations). – Fma12 (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The rule is unambiguous. The image should only be used on the association page unless the rule is changed. This discussion points out that it was added in 2014 but without any clear consensus for adding it. The use on national team pages seems likely to comply with fair use under US copyright law so the current rule is probably stricter than necessary. It is clear, though.   Jts1882 | talk  08:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Previus discussions about similar cases, supported what I stated above (more precisely, Croatian FA and FC Barcelona logos). And there another ones in current discussions. – Fma12 (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Could somebody please watch Ola Kamara and Gyasi Zardes?

There are IPs that continue to change the information in the infoboxes despite the established precedent of how the years at the team are spent for MLS players or any winter transfer for that matter (i.e. a player that transfers during January 2018 will be shown as last playing for a team in 2017). I've already pushed the 3RR limit and don't want to put any more effort than necessary. Jay eyem (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

They're still at it… :-/ Robby.is.on (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest IP. See WP:3RRNO. GiantSnowman 11:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Article help: Last-minute goal

I've taken a major axe to the Last-minute goal article. The article is essentially a list of lots of last minute goals scored in various matches, which didn't have any criteria. I've added some to each section for now and cut the list down heavily, but it still contains too many examples in my view. Ultimately, I think the page should contain some examples, but there's a limit to how many there should be. WP:LISTCRITERIA and WP:NPOV are important to consider here, also worth noting that a lot of the examples listed fall under WP:CITENEED. What would people suggest for this page? Clyde1998 (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest putting the whole article in the bin, quite frankly. I don't see there's any useful non-arbitrary inclusion criteria you could come up with, and an article of this type will inevitably continue to attract people adding any old matches simply because they involve their favourite team or have happened recently. I think the whole concept is very weak as the basis for an encyclopedia article. Jellyman (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It's still horrendous, though I'm glad you retained the miracle at Bolton ;-) How about merging the opening sentence of last-minute goal to the relevant entry at Glossary of association football terms, adding a couple of refs to match reports that use the term, and redirecting to Glossary of association football terms#L. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd endorse that. I can't see that the existing article adds anything encyclopedic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough, I'd also suggest a short bullet list of links to articles involving last minute goals, obviously these would be major finals or otherwise noteworthy games. Crowsus (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

A-league

Is this edit [6] necessary? Summary may violate WP:OWNHhkohh (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary per prior consensus and violates WP:ICONDECORATION. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Can we delete those colour files? GiantSnowman 08:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

GiantSnowman No! Files uses in many wikis (not only enwiki) Hhkohh (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if we don't delete them, they definitely shouldn't be used here. MOS:ICON is quite clear about not using icons simply for decoration. User:Aaxelpediaa claims that the colours make the teams more recognisable, but if a reader can't identify the team simply by its name, there are probably bigger issues at play. Those icons are not necessary. – PeeJay 09:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Templates like this should be consistent. If we don't use this in other leagues, we shouldn't here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup, should be removed from the table. Kante4 (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it okay for them to remain in the map of the competing teams? The map is intrinsically decorative, but IMO the icons are the very definition of original research. – PeeJay 16:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Should be removed aswell. Kante4 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW, i removed the fixture list on the season article. Kante4 (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

For transparency's sake, I received an email from SuperJew regarding this issue (Not that I'd promote someone else's viewpoint, especially in spite of a ban - Wasn't sure what to do about the email tbh; so I brought it here), who commented this was a chat talk on the Asian task force a while back. These things also appear on articles such as 2005–06 A-League, for the fixture lists (But not the league table - I checked them all). These should probably be removed as well. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Why can't this be brought up on the A-League talk pages? It's pretty annoying to constantly have to check this page to see if other users (which never edit the pages in question) are making their own rules and then dictating that is the consensus whenever someone who doesn't frequent this page 24/7 brings it up? Christ, this shits me. - J man708 (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

How exactly are editors here "making their own rules"? It seems to be the exact opposite, the MoS is a style guideline for all Wikipedia articles. Using icons to decorate pages is not a valid reason to ignore these guidelines. A change in consensus would have to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Portsmouth F.C. second kit

Is anyone any good at kit changes, maybe they can sort out the second kit to match the new released away kit, cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks you, Govvy (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: O well, I liked your edit Chris, made sense to me, but that IP just reverted it a number of times and his version doesn't make sense to me. Govvy (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

IP users adding categories

Could somebody please undo the edits of two IP editors @2800:810:55E:862F:ECFC:85DF:5A82:32D1: and @2800:810:55E:862F:7C74:92BE:428A:BE05: who have added a load of "of descent" categories to numerous footballer articles, without leaving a reliable source in the respective articles. R96Skinner (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverted as unsourced. There are a series of IPs which go around doing this, some have been blocked in the past. GiantSnowman 14:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. If only they'd add a source! R96Skinner (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Help english improvements

Hi everyone, I've just created the Serie A most expensive transfer progression article. My English need to improve, so anyone can fix some errors? Thanks. --QuQuqquu99 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

listing some expensive signing by a Serie A club is ok, but listing the succession without citation is an original research, who knows did you missed one or two entries in the succession or not? You may dig out some article in http://archiviostorico.gazzetta.it/sitesearch/ArchivioStoricoPay.html as citation. For the last decade transfer, as the transfer fee were well reported it seem fine to have the succession of the record holder without citation. Matthew_hk tc 14:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Various

Hi all, I've just initiated a talk page discussion about Santi Cazorla's Villareal "signing" and it would be good to get project input.

Also, as I'm here, I have a few other talk posts that I haven't had responses to. If anyone has anything to add to any of those, that'd be great:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force#Use of 'Ladies' or 'Women' in club names
• Talk:Mohamed El Shamy (footballer, born 1996)#Birthdate
• Talk:Robert Cornthwaite (footballer)#Position
• Talk:List of Northampton Town F.C. managers#Syd Puddefoot statistics and Talk:List of Galatasaray S.K. managers#Syd Puddefoot statistics

I've also just responded to a query about Didier Deschamps' height if anyone wants to get involved in that one..

Thanks, Nzd (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Club names in Major League Soccer

A dispute arose regarding the page for the MLS club Atlanta United FC, specifically over the club's full name. This dispute eventually blew up into a full edit war between myself and one other editor. Specifically the dispute is over whether a club's legally chartered name should be seen as the club's full name in, for example, the introductory paragraph or in the infobox.

The specific club in question has a legally chartered name in all of its legal paperwork as "Atlanta United Football Club, LLC" and it conducts business under that name. However, in its public branding, the "LLC" is dropped and "Football Club" is abbreviated to "FC". There are other clubs whose chartered name is in line with their club's public branding such as "Chicago Fire Soccer, LLC" and "New York City Football Club, LLC" and they conduct business under that club name. In other cases, the club's name is one thing and it does business as that name, but then it brands its team slightly differently, such as "Red Bull New York, Inc." who then does business under that name but brands its first team as "the New York Red Bulls". And then there are clubs whose legally chartered name is completely different from their club's branding name and is not the name they use to conduct business, thus on all legal documents they add a DBA (does business as) disclaimer, such as "KSE Soccer, LLC, dba Colorado Rapids" or "OnGoal, LLC, dba Sporting Kansas City".

So the question I'd like to posit is what be should MLS clubs' full name on their article? There are three options:

1. Use the club's legally chartered name 2. Use the club's business name 3. Use the club's public branding

My personal position is to use option 2, but the editor with whom I am disputing prefers option 3. He suggested posting this here to get more opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. Gerstle (talk • contribs) 16:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Premier league football clubs spell out "football club" in the opening of the lede and the infobox, even though the article titles use "F.C.". So unless there is a different MLS convention, the article should start "Atlanta United Football Club are ... " and the infobox should have "Atlanta United Football Club".   Jts1882 | talk  16:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not clear if there is a set MLS convention. Each club kind of does its own thing in terms of naming. For example, Seattle makes it clear on their facebook page that the full name of the club is "Seattle Sounders Football Club", and the history section of Vancouver shows the full name as "Vancouver Whitecaps Football Club". But for Atlanta, as an example, there's no use of the full "Atlanta United Football Club" other than in legal documents. C. Gerstle (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This has come up before. I seem to recall I contributed to the same argument a few years ago when I pointed out that the actual legal name of one of the teams was actually something like "Prior Investment Corp trading as Football Club United" which didn't reference Football Club anywhere else in any of their literature and instead referred to another copyright they owned that they licensed from MLS. It was bizarre. In the end, the Football Club full name should be referenced even if they only use FC everywhere else. The FC element is just a styling element, bearing in mind everyone in the US calls it "Soccer" anyways. Koncorde (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The legally chartered name wouldn't necessarily be the club's name, as is suggested in the OP. Their website suggests that the club's name is Atlanta United FC as opposed to Atlanta United Football Club, however a paragraph on their website is ambiguous:

We are called a Football Club because we are more than just a team. We are the fans, we are the community, we are Atlanta. Taken from the voices of the citizens. This is your city, this is your club. We are Atlanta United FC.

— About the Club, Atlanta United FC

Beyond the marketing nonsense, I can't tell if they're called Atlanta United Football Club because they say "We are called a Football Club" or they're called Atlanta United FC because they say "We are Atlanta United FC". Clyde1998 (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

A bit of pedantry: No MLS article should ever start out with anything like "Atlanta United Football Club are .... " The collective plural is not standard in American English, which would be the appropriate style used in an article about any US-related topic. :) - PhilipR (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Template:Sent off

Can you tell the difference between   and   just by eyeballing the icons? It took me a while to realise the second one had two thin yellow-cards and not one thick one. I was then able to work out that the second one must mean two yellow cards, with the second one resulting in a red. Finally, by a process of elimination, I deduced that the first icon must mean a yellow followed by a straight red. I would certainly not have arrived at any such conclusion had I not seen the two icons beside each other. I suggested at Template talk:Sent off#0, 1, 2 ? that the meaning of both icons would be more obvious if we used one of the of commons:Category:Yellow-red card icons for the second-yellow case; e.g. for second-yellow vs (or even ) for yellow+straight-red. The tooltips should also be changed. jnestorius^(talk) 21:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought that   (one yellow shown) was two yellow cards, leading to a red card, while a yellow card followed by a straight red card would be shown as (separate cards). I know the template is used by a number of sports, but I can't think of a reason why they'd be a need for   (two yellows shown), except if Graham Poll is refereeing, if this system was used. It appears by looking at a few articles, that the two yellow cards show system is used for two yellows leading to a red - having the dual-colour card would certainly be preferable and save a lot of time changing every article to conform with a different system. Clyde1998 (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Scott Brown (footballer, born June 1985)

This article subject is something I don't understand when it comes to a specific type of vandalism. Many of the edits within the recent past includes some sort of 'lego' in it such as 1, 2, 3, 4 and most recently 5. I don't see how many people are doing this to just this article, however I have found something which may be where it's from. Iggy (Swan) 21:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be a single person, who's now banned. The Lego eating references are meant to imply that Brown is a "person of limited intellect"; it's commonly used by "people of limited intellect" to refer to him. Clyde1998 (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Haha yeah that's a good summation of the situation, although there are many people in that category who follow Scottish football, dislike Brown and have a device with Internet access, so I'd be surprised if it is only the work of one person. Haven't compared their IPs tho. Conversely, see "Lee Wallace is a grass", yawn. Crowsus (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

References

team kits in infoboxes

There seems to be an obsession to remove team kits from infoboxes. Users like User:Flix11 have gone through articles and removed team kits. The problem is the fact that clubs will still use these kits in friendlies and summer tournaments, or the season right up until the next one is released. So in essence they are removing information for any neutral reader to help that reader identify the team when they watch them. This is very disruptive and I am finding it annoying now that I have reverted a few times. I really wanted to point out this problem for others to understand and not to remove kits from infoboxes, thanks. Govvy (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This is only my opinion, but the old kit should stay up until someone creates a graphic for the new one. Or if it is unbearable to look at an outdated kit graphic (the horror), it should be replaced with the generic team colours in the interim, so at least there's something there. Crowsus (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I have always thought that the infobox would be better served with generic kit colours. The obsession with presenting an exact version of this season's kit has always been something of a "jfgi" situation where dozens of photos would be presented. Historical changes could then be dealt with in a kit section using actual images rather than amateurly rendered approximations.

Until such time, unless the kit is actively wrong it should remain as the last reliably sourced content. Koncorde (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that, I prefer the generic style. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Not doing that again. – Flix11 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, leave it there until the new ones are released. GiantSnowman 10:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The kits depicted in the infobox should be fairly generic anyway, and shouldn't need updating unless there is a significant change to the design (that's how we always used to do it anyway.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Youth Tournament

Nike Premier Cup is a youth tournament held in India for U15 category. I would have put speedy on it, but not sure if passes the burden of speedy. Will appreciate editors' input here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Nike Premier Cup Coderzombie (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Goalkeeper jerseys

What is the policy on goalkeeper jerseys? In my opinion they are more notable than the 3rd choice kit. The main goalkeeper jersey is usually worn by a club more often than the 3rd choice kit. Mobile mundo (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Not notable or worth mentioning at all IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 10:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by you guys saying goalkeeper jerseys aren't notable, as Kit (association football) covers the topic of a goalkeeper jersey anyway, so it kind of makes it a noted subject. @Mobile mundo: You never specified where or how you wanted to note the goalkeeper jersey. Govvy (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Why should the goalkeeper kit be displayed anywhere? GiantSnowman 11:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The kit article only mentions goalie shirts in passing (clarifying that they need to be different to the other players) and that doesn't make individual goalie shirts notable. I don't think there is any encyclopedic value in a club article detailing the club goalie shirt (which I presume is what is being suggested). Nobody ever identifies a club by the colours worn by the goalie.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking in the infobox of a clubs article. I saw it in a club season article a while ago (I forget which one but it was an English Premier League club). (Mobile mundo (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

Definitely not in the infobox. The infobox should sum up the basic key info about the club and the design of the goalie shirt is definitely not part of that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Really don't need it in the infobox, already got three kits to identify the squad, I am bemused by the response that say a goalie shirt is not notable when clearly it's been noted several times in prose on the Kit article!! Kit (association football) could do with a good photo showing the difference on the pitch between the goalkeeper and out-field player. Govvy (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The concept of the goalie wearing a different shirt to the rest of the team is significant, but that doesn't mean that the design dreamed up for a specific club is a notable aspect of that club (says someone old enough to remember when all goalies just wore a plain green shirt :-) ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

UCL

Is this edit necessary [7]? I do not find this competition so I think it should remove Hhkohh (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I've reverted per MOS:NOTSEEALSO. Redlinks should not be added to the 'See also' section. Nzd (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Footballers in Japan by club

Excuse me, there are categories of clubs not playing in the national league in Category:Footballers in Japan by club. For example, Category:FC TIAMO Hirakata players, FC TIAMO Hirakata played only Kansai Soccer League (Kansai region league). Category:J.FC Miyazaki players, J.FC Miyazaki played only Kyushu Soccer League (Kyushu region league). These clubs have never played in the national league. I don't think that we need these clubs categories. We need these categories? --Gonta-Kun (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's no problem with these categories. Number 57 15:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. --Gonta-Kun (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Errant table code

Noticed a bit of an oddity at 2015–16 West Ham United F.C. season#Coaching staff where it looks like some table close code is showing up in the article. I've failed to fix it myself, any ideas? Thanks, Nzd (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Kante4 (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You da man! Cheers, Nzd (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

fb si footer

Hi,

I've noticed that {{fb si footer}} has a bit of code where it says that "The squad could change until the summer transfer end on 31 August 2018." It doesn't seem like this date is changeable. I think this should be removed because, to give two examples, both 2018–19 Manchester City F.C. season and 2018–19 S.L. Benfica season have the line displayed, even though the English transfer window closes on 9 August and the Portuguese window on September 21. Having the fixed date of 31 August seems a bit inflexible. I think it should be removed. What does everyone else think? OZOO (t) (c) 10:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems a bit irrelevant to me. Strictly speaking, can't the squads still be changed after the summer transfer window is shut? What about mutual termination, or say a firing from a "gross misconduct" charge, etc. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe something like "The squad is likely to change until the end of the summer transfer window on DATE" and make date an optional parameter. Likely dosn't preclude no later changes.   Jts1882 | talk  10:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Squad numbers can't be changed once they have been registered with the FA for the season, you can only add unassigned numbers during the season. Govvy (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that still considered a change? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)