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.

Nav templates

Can I get some help please, Frietjes has been removing the Spurs navigation templates from the bottom of all the Tottenham season articles, I am finding it even worse to navigate between the articles I want now and have found the removal extremely inconvenient. It's made it really bad and I tried to restore the nav template only for Frietjes to removal them all again. I am shocked at this poor editing and wish for some help from someone to restored all the nav templates to the Tottenham season pages, cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Frietjes' removal of {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C.}} from season articles where the far more appropriate {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C. seasons}} is already present. GiantSnowman 14:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep agree with Giant here. Both shouldn't be on the same page and per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. -DJSasso (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

So for someone that wants to navigate to the statistics page, youth team page, honours, or one of the other pages? For comparatives you want to deny a reader this navigation? Very strange editors you people are... Govvy (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I also don't see an issue. Although I've never seen why we don't have these as one template with an expandable option for the seasons... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I most of read through WP:BIDIRECTIONAL five times now, I still don't get were it says removal a nav template. Govvy (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. which means that every navbox on a page should include that page as a link. The main spurs navbox does not include the individual seasons. Spike 'em (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C.}} and {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C. seasons}} templates provide links to different information. If WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is strictly adhered to a lot of navigation templates would be up for deletion. I note it says "should normally" so is not absolute. The {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C.}} is a directory for other related articles, which I find useful. Perhaps the {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C. seasons}} template should be embedded in it to provide bidirectionality.   Jts1882 | talk  16:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I would be supportive of football season navboxes being subsections (potentially collapsed) of the general navbox. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand, they are already collapsed, she is still removing all the templates, there is no direct policy to removal the template she is removing, and now she is removing saying consensus was to remove the template when no consensus has been had!! I still regard this as highly disruptive editing. Govvy (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with those removals. There is the extra "season" template which will still be there. Kante4 (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Extra template? Govvy (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think there is general consensus on WP to remove navboxes that fail BIDIRECTIONAL. Local WP:FOOTY consensus is not needed if this is the case. Spike 'em (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

And I'd just like to add that I have always found Frietjes very helpful. Spike 'em (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is the direct guideline for it. The whole point of it is to remove clutter of navboxes and only have the most specific navboxes on a given page so that links are not just spammed on the bottom of the page. The intended way of navigation for the things in the template that was removed is to use the category system since the links in the other template would not have been bidirectional, it removes the purpose of the navboxes which was to enhance categories by having bidirectional navigation. That is its intended purpose. Since that template wasn't bidirectional, it was redundant to the category system. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Three nav boxes is not clutter, they are collapsed to begin with, I really do not see how you call a perfectly good template spam, and the nav box in question is directly linked to the club. I still don't get it, it's like listening to everyone contradict themselves. Player articles have multiple templates, you going to delete all of them as well? This is all highly illogical. Govvy (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• No problem with removing these navboxes per WP rules, but a sensible solution would be to merge the seasons template in with the club template. SportingFlyer T·C 18:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No, we should keep them separate, due to size - see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Disadvantages numbers 4 & 8 (amongst others). GiantSnowman 18:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain why a football player like Lionel Messi is allowed all those navboxes? Why all the Man U seasons are allowed to use {{Manchester United F.C.}} why, Man City season articles, the same, Arsenal, all other clubs have the same setup as what Spurs had, yet you're just removing the template from the Tottenham season articles and none of the others, fucking strange situation if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Because Messi is linked in all of those infoboxes. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

And what about the cross-links? Pfft, I might as well retire from this stupid project and wikipedia if you are all going to be this dogmatic over stupid wikipedia polices, so many stupid pathetic policies that are not helpful to the wikipedia project. Fucking disruptive editing. Govvy (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to quote another stupid WP policy at you : WP:AGF. Your tone and language is disgraceful. Spike 'em (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The Manchester United articles don’t all have the {{Manchester United F.C.}} navbox on them though. The most recent ones might because the current season is linked from that template and no one remembered to remove it, but that’s an error on our part, not tacit approval for you to add {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C.}} to all their season articles. It’s not appropriate, and I endorse their removal. – PeeJay 07:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to apologies to Friejtes now that she has gone and removed the navboxes from all the other teams seasons you mentioned? Spike 'em (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not apologising, it has even affected the kids at the charity I work at who have learning disabilities, taking away their ease of navigation, o well, no foresight here what so ever. Just another 9042 articles she missed! :/ Govvy (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Vanuatu vs Fiji

Is anyone able to find out the teams and substitutes for the fixture from June 10th? Cheers - J man708 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

National Football Teams should post the fixture in the following days. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The most information I can find right now is this release by Fiji FA. Soccerway has only listed the venue and score. WorldFootball don't have a page for the match yet, but I reckon they'll get one in the next few days. --SuperJew (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Still no info. What do we do when nothing is available? - J man708 (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised National Football Teams hasn't posted anything yet. Usually they post both official and unofficial matches. Maybe another week? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Club season article MoS

To follow on from a couple of previous discussions, I just wanted to know if there was a consensus as to whether we keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons as it is regarding results lists or if we change it (For background, I reverted edits on 1874–75 Dumbarton F.C. season and 1874–75 Dumbarton F.C. season before starting a discussion here which moved here. Tagging participants: @Aitkegs and Crowsus:).

As far as I can see, there has been no consensus to change from a table of results to a list of collapsed footballbox templates but there are several pages which use this style so I want to establish which should be in the Manual of Style. The collapsed footballbox template contravenes WP:ACCESSIBILITY because it defaults to hiding information. It also means that there are sometimes 60+ footballbox templates per page depending on how successful a team has been in a given season compared to just three or four tables. I don't think a list of footballbox templates works with MOS:LIST but the table of results does work with MOS:LIST and MOS:TABLE. Both the football box templates and the table of results meet MOS:COLOUR.

There have also been discussions which argue that the table restricts the amount of information which can be included as it doesn't mention opposition scorers (which I would argue are irrelevant on a given team's season article - important goals against can be included in prose) or referees whereas the football box template allows you to include this. Should the consensus be to keep the table format, I'd propose we update it to include a referee column (as I believe has been done on some pages). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

the main problem with the footballbox template is the propensity to have references which are not in a reference format. this leads to linkrot. it does allow for the key information to be displayed but also to include other information which may be of interest but doesn't otherwise clutter the article. in short both approaches have their benefits but no-one has ever been able to get a consensus about what the MOS should contain. most of these articles actually violate WP:NOTSTATSBOOK because the authors are only interested in the stats.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

As the previous user has indicated the main issue at hand is that those authors involved in such pages are only interested in the stats - or data - provided. The footballbox style allows for a mass of information - not just opposing scorers and referees - which cannot be stored under the MOS version. MOS served its purpose when authors started off creating club season data - as did I - but it seems strange to fiddle about with the MOS to get it up to speed when there is already the footballbox style available - which most authors are already using Aitkegs (talk)

I'm a wee bit confused. The *only* thing the table doesn't include that footballbox does is the referee and opposition scorers. Also, I don't know if I'm picking you up right but you seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia should be a stats book. The reason we have policies, guidelines and style guides is to ensure articles contain the relevant information, that they remain consistent and avoid confusion, that's why I want to update the club season style to represent what the consensus is, ie- keep it as is but with an extra column or change it to the footballbox.

Also, can you please sign your posts on talk pages? (See WP:SIGN). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The MoS has not been overhauled in a long time and desperately needs it (good luck if you want to try). on top of that there is an issue with having large tables and the readability issues it presents with reading articles on mobile devices. the footballbox does tend to overcome this. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

In what way does the footballbox overcome accessibility issues? If anything, a table is better because the data is all contained in appropriately labelled columns, not to mention the fact that the footballbox contains unnecessary info for a club season article (e.g. the opposition scorers) and people tend to misuse it by adding cards etc. – PeeJay 17:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

So, I take it then that there is no consensus to change from the table (but perhaps to add a referee column) to the footballbox and therefore club season articles should follow the style laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons for the reasons laid out above. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

When is a league notable?

Hi, what qualifies a league as notable? Thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As with everything else, WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 15:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing that both Lebanese Fourth Division and Lebanese Fifth Division aren't considered notable then, right? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably not, and probably worth a redirect/merge to Lebanese football league system. GiantSnowman 15:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's long past time that we looked at some of the more lowly English leagues. I find it hard to believe that the Great Yarmouth and District Football League, for example, is any more notable than the leagues discussed above..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Notable footballers?

Hi, just over from CRIC! I'm currently working my way through notable people to have played minor counties cricket for Northumberland. I'm wondering if someone could tell me if these two guys had notable football careers: Larry Liddell (Leeds) and Billy Milne (Newcastle). I don't write football articles so don't pay for access to the English National Football Archive, so can't check out if they appeared in any cup/league fixtures for them. Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: Can't find anything for Liddell: he doesn't appear here, which should be comprehensive. If Milne is this chap, then six Second Division matches would make him notable as a footballer. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Greetings! Liddell never played for Leeds per this; Milne made 6 apps for Newcastle between 1894 and 1897 per this. GiantSnowman 18:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! I'll make a start on Milne. Cheers! StickyWicket (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by IP user

Hi, this IP user (185.103.20.250) keeps making disruptive edits on Nejmeh SC, removing certain players and changing other's names. This has been going on for more than a month. Can someone help me out? Thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Revert, warn (an important step!), and then report to WP:AIV. GiantSnowman 21:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know IP users had talk pages. Thanks for taking care of it for me, I'll keep it in mind for next time. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It can be frustrating since anonymous users can hop between IP addresses and may never see your message, but yes, they do have talk pages. – PeeJay 05:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute

I am currently in a dispute with another editor on the article Bristol City F.C., the other user adds in record transfers on the article with the Transfermarkt source but I have removed that information, on the knowledge of the source not being reliable. I believe that I've done the right thing to remove that information on WP:RS but I should open up this discussion so that I won't go into a 3RR violation. Iggy (Swan) 14:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it's usergenerated. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links lists as unreliable. If the information has another source, it's fine though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Based on that, I've removed the content which was backed up by the source to be avoided. I have not yet found a reliable source which earths the same facts. Iggy (Swan) 14:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. GiantSnowman 15:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I see the user who violates WP:RS has been warned in a 3-revert-rule message from CFred, hopefully this would stop. Iggy (Swan) 16:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Famous fans

I'm sure this has been discussed in the past, but surely sections in club articles like this detailing famous fans aren't notable? I would say that that they are trivial, unencyclopedic, and plays up to the celebrity culture that society is becoming ever indulged in. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Last month, no less... They weren't notable then, either. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The majority of club articles that I've viewed does not have a famous fans section so whether the club article stated in the permalink is sourced, that has no relation to the actual article itself. I've also spotted an article on a list of famous fans of a football club as well which is close to it's 11 year anniverary. Iggy (Swan) 17:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, no need. GiantSnowman 18:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Get rid. Unless a famous person has actively contributed to a club's history (eg Elton John) it is of no significance to the club that a famous person supports them (allegedly - celebrities are notorious for claiming to support multiple clubs). It's also interesting to note, of course, that no article with such a section ever seems to list famous fans from before 2000 - did no celebrities watch football back then? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Second-place finishes in club football

Is it preferable to list second-place finishes in "Honours" sections? As per Google Dictionary, honour is "a thing conferred as a distinction, especially an official award for ... achievement", and Merriam-Webster defines honour as "an evidence or symbol of distinction: such as: an award in a contest or field of competition", while Cambridge Dictionary says it's "a reward, prize, or title that expresses admiration or respect". Now, take Maurizio Sarri's article for example. It lists "Serie B runner-up" and "EFL Cup runner-up" among his honours. The problem with this is that runners-up do not receive medals in Serie B. Moreover, according to the title of The Telegraph match report, "Manchester City took the 2018–19 EFL Cup honours". (Sarri managed Chelsea at the time.) If contributors were to list second-place finishes in lower divisions due to promotions, I believe they'd need to list sixth-place finishes from top leagues as well, as teams that finish in the top six (usually) qualify for group stages of different European competitions.

Suggested layout for footballer biographies doesn't include second-place finishes in its "Honours" section. Nor do articles Arsène Wenger (GA), Lionel Messi (GA), Arjen Robben (GA), Francesco Totti (GA), Bobby Robson (FA), Sigi Schmid (FA) et cetera. Counterarguments include Steve Bruce (FA), Gilberto Silva (FA), John Wark (FA), Alf Ramsey (FA) and others. Electronic data processor (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Most countries have four or five teams in UEFA competitions so sixth place rarely qualifies, let alone reaching the group stages. It's only the top few leagues which are the exception (because they want to keep all the money for themselves, but that's a different issue).

Being a runner-up in a notable competition (ie- WP:GNG) should be included in any article, whether it's in a list of honours is a tricky one. Certainly in a cup competition when you get a medal it should be included. For a league runner-up or play-off where you don't get a medal, probably don't include it in the honours section and just keep it as prose. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

One problem, I think, is that there simply isn't a hard and fast definition of what constitutes an "honour" in football. Some books will list EFL (pre-1992)/Premier League runners-up spots as "honours" for a club, others won't..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Best to get rid of all honours sections then, according to the slippery slope argument put forward 1st place finishes being listed as honours lead to 2nd place finishes being listed as honours which lead to sixth place finishes being listed as honours. We cannot include promotions as honours, without including qualification to competitions as honours. Apparently.--EchetusXe 10:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally I would be more than happy to go with a simple rule of "winning a league/cup is an honour, everything else isn't", but I suspect others may disagree..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I would support that. Kante4 (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Differentiation required for Olympics, but otherwise this is how it should be anyway. Runners up in a cup competition or promotion may be the most significant "honour" for some teams which is where I might bend the rules a touch, but when counting or listing them they would need to be clearly differentiated and or not included in other master lists (which brings us back to the slipper slope). Koncorde (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a hard and fast rule is suitable here. One purpose of the honours section is to give a reflection of the players career. If the player is Messi, including all the runners-up achivements bloats the list and obscures the greater achievements. A short list with just trophy wins gives a better reflection of his career. However, for a player who has achieved relatively little, then a runners-up place becomes more important and helps put his career into perspective.   Jts1882 | talk  14:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

But why should a second-place finish be acknowledged simply because the club or player hasn't won the competition yet? It's mildly patronising, in my book. It's like going up to them, patting them on the head and saying, "Hey, you may not have won this cup, but you came second back in 1976, and that's just as good! Remember, it's not the winning that matters, it's taking part!" I know we're not going to fall down the slippery slope and add every team/player's best ever finish in each competition, but like ChrisTheDude and Kante4, I simply don't recognise anything other than winning the competition as something that should be mentioned in an "Honours" section. – PeeJay 14:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it patronising when a competition hands out runner-up medals to players? Which is what happens in the vast majority of competitions? We should seek to reflect reality with what we include, not to exclude notable content because of our own POV. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Matty that if a runner-up medal is awarded by the competition organisers, then we should include that as an honour in the relevant club/player article(s). GiantSnowman 14:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

And play-off wins too, I assume? Which would mean leaving out teams that finish in second place in the Championship, for example... – PeeJay 14:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I know the second and third place finishes for Croatia in the World Cup are treated as very significant honours, so I disagree with going with an winners-as-honours rule. That being said, I'm not sure a runners-up rule is needed for the majority of competitions. I like the "if they handed out medals, then it's an honour" rule when in doubt. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Fernando Torres retirement

Sources specifically stating it will be in the (near) future, not yet (press conference in 2 days to confirm). Please see discussion on talk page given some editors don't understand that. GiantSnowman 14:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

BBC Sports women

Hello, I was categorizing football pictures in Commons, and I drew a blank about these women [1], [2]. Perhaps they are former football players ? --Rashinseita (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The first is Alex Scott. --Rashinseita (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Is the other, Karthi Gnanasegaram? BTW her article looks like her biggest fan wrote it!--Egghead06 (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That's her, thanks ! --Rashinseita (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Background templates

Hey, is this Category:Fb bg templates really needed? Used here for example... Kante4 (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering about it too. Seems random colouring and prob doesn't fit MOS:ACCESS. --SuperJew (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

International players for North Macedonia

I noticed that despite North Macedonia national football team having played four fixtures as North Macedonia, many of their players (example: Goran Pandev) have the international side listed as 'Macedonia' in their infobox. Before making edits to a number of pages, I am seeking clarification as to what the standard practice is. Looking at the pages of former West German players Lothar Matthäus and Jürgen Klinsmann, two different stances have been taken. The page for Matthäus notes his entire international career as being for 'Germany', while Klinsmann's is divided between 'West Germany' (until 1990) and 'Germany' (following reunification). I fully understand that the name change from FYROM to North Macedonia isn't as seismic as German reuinification, but for the effects on the football team I think they are fairly similar (the West German team didn't cease to exist, they didn't cease to be a member of FIFA / UEFA – Germany is a continuation of West Germany).

Which should be followed when editing articles of players for the North Macedonia national team? I don't think it's controversial to say that players that have yet to play (or have never played) for 'North Macedonia' shouldn't have their pages changed, nor should youth international team names be changed if they appeared for those sides pre-name change. Domeditrix (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Players who have never played for the 'North Macedonia' team should have 'Macedonia' in their infobox; any players that have played for 'North Macedonia' should have 'North Macedonia' in their infobox. GiantSnowman 15:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Gotta love how GS just states what should be done with no support of why. Anyway, IMO we should have it with the whole career under one name, which will be the later one, since "North Macedonia" is a continuation of "Macedonia". I would suggest for players who've played matches under both names to add a note, as was done for many Melbourne City (formerly Melbourne Heart) players who played under both names (see Andrew Redmayne for example). --SuperJew (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SuperJew (talk · contribs) on this as the national team is still the same national team before the name change. Its not like Wimbledon changing to Milton Keynes Dons. Onshore (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I think GS has been understood, as he has said what SuperJew and Onshore have: Players who played for the country only when it was called Macedonia would have that listed in their infobox; players who have played since the rename would have North Macedonia (and no Macedonia). The Klinsmann article should be amended. Number 57 18:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep @SuperJew: unsure what the problem is - I expressed an opinion on how to settle this issue, which you agreed with. Why so arsey? GiantSnowman 18:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Only players playing as Northern Macedonia should be listed as such. Those who played only when it was Macedonia or a ridiculous acronym should be listed as such. The only question is when they played for both. I agree with GS that the latest name should be used but aggregating the statistics from games played under the predecessor names, i.e the Lothar Matthäus solution, rather than Jürgen Klinsmann solution. I don't have a strong objection to the split in the latter, but almost all sources dealing with football statistics would aggregate them (most appearances, most goals, etc).   Jts1882 | talk  19:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not the same as West Germany/Germany, where there was a change in political entity. With Macedonia/North Macedonia the country has simply changed its name. GiantSnowman 19:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

There wasn't a change in political entity in the case of Germany - Klinsmann only ever played for the Federal Republic of Germany (which was always the formal name of the country). East Germany was the separate entity that was dissolved and merged into the Federal Republic. Number 57 21:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Did we do anything specifically for Eswatini players? I personally support changing Macedonia to North Macedonia in all instances. SportingFlyer T·C 22:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

A good example of what should be done here is for Besart Berisha. On the various seasons of the A-League, he is listed as Albanian up and until the time that he represented Kosovo in an international, and from that time onwards was listed under the Kosovo flag-icon. The article List of A-League hat-tricks lists him under both nationalities in the same table. I believe that this should be the same methodology applied here. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The Kosovo situation isn't the same as the name change from Macedonia to North Macedonia. While Albania still exists, Macedonia has simply been renamed into North Macedonia without the creation of other political entities. It is more similar to West Germany --> Germany as pointed out above. I agree with the numerous people who suggest keeping Macedonia for whoever ONLY played for the national team when that name was in use, and North Macedonia if he appeared at least once for the national team under the new name. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

(e/c) No we didn't. Players who played for a country under a certain name are listed as playing under that name. See e.g. Tubilandu Ndimbi (Zaire), Bobby Chalmers (Rhodesia), Mfana Futhi Bhembe (Swaziland), etc. Number 57 22:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense, thank you. Based on how we've done things in the past then, if you've appeared for Macedonia and North Macedonia, you should be listed under North Macedonia, otherwise you should be listed as the name of the country you represented at the time (obviously the "royal" you here.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Football in Asia

Is this draft article useful at all? At first glance, it reads like a grabbag of facts about specific countries, probably better covered in country articles. Should the article be accepted or declined? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• I personally would decline as it's WP:SYNTH/WP:ESSAY, but also welcome other opinions. The article really needs to be about a history of football in Asia or an overview and not include the country-specific sections. It's ultiamtely going to be notable, we have Football in Africa, Football in South America, et cetera. Just not very good copy. SportingFlyer T·C 09:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Welsh Football League

Any suggestions on how to handle this situation. The old Welsh Football League Division One (step 2) was abolished at the end of the 18–19 season and was replaced by the FAW Championship South & Mid (also step 2).

The Welsh Football League Division Two (step 3) has been rebranded as Division One (also step 3).[3] This will be for the 19–20 season only as the FAW has confirmed from 20–21 season there will be 4 new regional FAW League One sections.[4]

The Welsh Football League Division Three (step 4) has been rebranded as Division Two. From 20–21 season leagues at step 4 will remain the responsibility of local league associations across Wales.

So - rename the articles for Division Two as Division One and Division Two as Division One would seem obvious - BUT then there is an existing Division One already which is now a defunct league etc...

Any suggestions how to proceed?

Zanoni (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Rename the old Division One, maybe Welsh Football League Division One (1904–2019), and then move the current Division One to the old Division One page, I would assume. SportingFlyer T·C 08:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Football League First Division covers the whole of the period from 1888 to 2004, including when it was both the first and second levels of English football, so I would have thought we could just do the same for Wales..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thinking about it - its Div 3 that has been abolished so just change Div 1 to Tier 3 on the article and Div 2 to Tier 4. Zanoni (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

All updated, thanks for the comments Zanoni (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Full list of international FIFA matches

Hi, I think I have already asked this question but has anyone found a solution to FIFA removing their official national team fixture list (such as here) in favour of an ad for their app? I used to use the page as the primary source for Lebanon national football team results. I know elo rankings has a similar list but I know for a fact ELO considers certain matches FIFA doesn't and vice-versa. Any solution? Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sadly FIFA are like most other big organisations these days; they spend stupid amounts of money on web designers who are more interested in giving you something flashy with lots of moving shiny things rather than a simple functional easy to navigate website. Try RSSF ClubOranje^T 00:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

No idea why they went with this decision. The app is horrible and doesn't show even 10% of what the website used to show. I tried RSSSF but unfortunately I encountered discrepancies even there regarding official/unofficial FIFA matches. Thanks anyway. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

JP26235

Can somebody please review the edits of JP26235 (talk · contribs) who is adding unreferenced 'medals' to literally hundreds and hundreds of footballer infoboxes... GiantSnowman 11:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there any problem in adding useful information? All the players im adding are present in the squads lists here in wipedia. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_UEFA_European_Under-21_Championship_squads

JP26235 (talk)