Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asterixtintin (talk | contribs) at 22:53, 6 November 2020 (→‎"In creation" template: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.
    WikiProject iconFootball Project‑class
    WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
    ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

    Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

    WikiProject on Football
    Main pages
    Football Assessment
    Format templates
    Other

    Live scores

    Just a polite reminder (especially for @SBFCEdit: making questionable edits like this) that we should NOT update scores/results/player stats etc. until a match has finished, or at least until a player's involvement in the match has ended. That avoids any confusion/well meaning editors inadvertently adding false stats etc. GiantSnowman 15:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GiantSnowman: A couple more here today here and here. Thanks, LTFC 95 (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I've reverted all of their edits from today. In retaliation he is now reverting my valid edits (Kiltie has been substituted so my update was correct and valid!), being WP:POINT and WP:DICK. GiantSnowman 15:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It turns out that @SBFCEdit: has been doing this for at least 2 years!. There are definite WP:CIR issues here. GiantSnowman 15:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: Perhaps a not-so-polite reminder seeing as you have now sent me two separate messages to passive aggressively call me a dick. Both of us know I am not an incompetent editor so to try and go down that route is clutching at straws.
    There were no edits in retaliation. I take issue with your application of this "that we should NOT update scores/results/player stats etc. until a match has finished " — you made edits to Greg Kiltie, Devante Cole and Liam Polworth whilst the matches were ongoing. They had not finished. You reverted all of mine (including players already substituted; I even stated they had been substituted in the edit summary and you still reverted them) yet you directly went against this in your own edits. To send out a reminder to everyone telling them to not edit until a match has finished and then immediately edit it whilst matches are ongoing here, here and here seems very power-hungry. You have been accused of this by many, many people over the years (in fact, there are twelve separate examples on this page alone!) so perhaps take a moment to look at how you are coming across to your fellow Wikipedians. SBFCEdit (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See above where I clearly say "or at least until a player's involvement in the match has ended". Clear evidence you have not bothered to read my posts, and that you don't actually know how to edit stats updates correctly. So are you saying you did not go through my edit history after I reverted you and saw my edit to Greg Kiltie and reverted it? That was pure retaliation. GiantSnowman 16:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very clear to see. You stated in the initial message to wait until the match had finished. You then messaged me separately to tell me to "just wait until the match has finished!". You reverted three edits I made to substituted Stevenage players despite me stating in the edit summary they had been substituted. You then immediately edited three substituted players' appearance and goal data whilst the matches were ongoing. You are not immune from being corrected. In this instance, you have been corrected from your own information sent out just five minutes earlier. You know you have been turned inside out here and that is why you have reacted in this manner. SBFCEdit (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the example given, the timestamp is not fine. Timestamps are meant to be the exact time the edit was made and should be updated using five tildes (~~~~~) for articles that use a DMY date format. Updating the timestamp to a future time would seem to me that the article has been updated too early. As you can see from the examples I gave, another editor is doing something similar. As established contributors, we should be setting an example to new users on how to update stats correctly, otherwise they will think this is an acceptable practice. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @LTFC 95: Neither of the two examples you gave were edits made by me so that is not for me to comment on. For me, as long as the appearance and goal data is 100% correct and the timestamp is there or thereabouts I genuinely see no downside in that. It has not caused one bit of confusion from me or fellow contributors in 11+ years of editing. SBFCEdit (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not! This edit, made some 94 minutes before the time on the timestamp, said that as of 5pm Mr Newton's stats were that. But they weren't. And what if he had scored?! Please just listen to what we are saying. Be patient and wait until the match is over, or the player has at least left the pitch. It's really that simple. GiantSnowman 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: If he had scored (and Mr. Newton should have scored on several occasions today!) I would have simply just added the goal. Have done that many, many times over the years. Never once has it been missed. That's no different to me asking you what if the matches involving players in these edits here, here and here who were substituted early ultimately went on to be postponed due to bad weather.
    I have no issue following a practice or a set way of editing should there be an obvious reason, that was never the issue here. Your initial information was incorrect and you let your emotions get the better of you in both your application in your edits and then in your messages to me. I will wait until matches finish and you should think about how you are acting / come across to people in future should the same issue arise with someone else. You are involved in so much confrontation on here and it’s largely down to your first interaction with people. SBFCEdit (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the date/timestamp is supposed to be a date or date/time at which the stats are unambiguously correct. The five tilde thing is just an easy way of doing it. But I don't think we should update until the match is over, as there's always a however unlikely possibility of abandonment, nor should we update until our cited source has updated for the appearance we're adding. If we wait until after the game, there's no need to falsify the timestamp. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with all of the above. It is falsifying the timestamp that I take issue with. What seems to be happening in these cases is the editors are checking the team sheet and proceeding to update the articles, sometimes before the matches have even kicked off. If the stats are updated for a player before kick off and that player becomes injured during the warm up, then they will never actually make that appearance. Moreover, updating stats before the cited source has updated is introducing unsourced content into articles. In the original example given, the cited source is Soccerbase, who do not update player pages until the match is over. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @LTFC 95: "“Updating stats before the cited source has updated is introducing unsourced content into articles”"
    For me, this is being far too finickity. Occasionally Soccerbase does not update its match data (for instance certain League Two Saturday matches) until the following day. A year or so ago when they migrated all their data it was sometimes up to two days before their information was displayed on their website. If you followed the above practice then most articles would be left with out of date information for days, waiting for Soccerbase (or Soccerway) to update, which would cause its own problems. Either that, or you’d have to source somewhere like BBC Sport for individual match reports until one of the mainstream data providers updated. That is too much to expect in my opinion. SBFCEdit (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No issues updating the stats prior to Soccerbase/Soccerway being updated - as long as it's backed by a match report (I use BBC when I update) and it's after the match has finished or the player has at least left the pitch. It's that element in bold that is crucial. GiantSnowman 19:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: Unfortunately, that key bit in bold was not what you had initially written. SBFCEdit (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was an edit summary, it was never going to be war & peace. Get over it - and please stop pinging me. GiantSnowman 20:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: It was not just the several edit summaries that were wrong, your first post in this thread also went against your own practice. SBFCEdit (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it didn't, I clearly said not to update "until a match has finished, or at least until a player's involvement in the match has ended" - and for the second time, please stop pinging me. GiantSnowman 21:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    - So, I think updating even immediately after a match finishes is WP:OR. Can we all agree to calm down, and simply update after matches have finished? Can I ask where we are sourcing the caps, goals etc in the infoboxes? We should really be citing directly to a single source and not source in theory to a database, failing WP:V. In the snooker project, we have WP:LIVESCORES, but maybe this should be strung out to be a bit wider to include further sports? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    LIVESCORES definitely has wider applicability. GiantSnowman 19:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when are we updating stats when a player has been subtituted? I thought it was always, when the match is finished and only at that time. Kante4 (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, isn't it technically the end of a match for a player when he has been subbed off?? Govvy (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I see no issues with a player's stats being updated when he leaves the pitch. GiantSnowman 20:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you use an accurate timestamp for when you update before the end of the match, neither the reader nor other editors can tell whether the stats are up-to-date as of the end of the match, i.e. including the whole of the match, or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The key is not using an accurate timestamp. I'd confuse myself, let alone readers/other editors. SBFCEdit (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang on, are we really promoting updating statistics when there is no source to back this up? Using a match report and a database together seems like a massive case of WP:SYNTH! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Vilenski, that makes no sense, how can you say that correct statistics are SYNTH, it's not conclusion, its straight forward stats. Govvy (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are we getting these statistics from? The above is suggesting that we can use a database that is potentially correct up until the date of the match, with a transcript from the game being played, and combine the two to give ourselves a number. That is almost the definition of SYNTH. It's a little irrelvent how correct the statistics are, we shouldn't be jumping the gun to add statistics we can't cite, or it's original research. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel you are looking far to deep, and from my view you're miss-reading what SYNTH is about. I can understand the OR argument, however we provide a stats table which is sourced which covers that point. So in my view your argument becomes void. Govvy (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel you are missing the point of the conversation here - there are users suggesting we should update these BEFORE the citation does. Then the stats table would not be sourced. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "that we should NOT update scores/results/player stats etc. until a match has finished" - Okay. "that we should NOT update scores/results/player stats etc. until a Soccerbase has updated their page" - Not okay.--EchetusXe 16:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Echetus. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is arguing over very little, as any good statistics website worth its salt will update close to automatically, and it's not worth splitting hairs over. SportingFlyer T·C 16:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely a bigger concern is an editor who violates LIVESCORE by editing an article after the player is subbed, but before they game is over, questioning an editor who edited after they entered the game, but before they left the game, of competency to edit! In either case, some event before the whistle blows could cause the match to not count. But really - does anyone really care? Surely reverting any of these edits is WP:POINT! In the unlikely event that the game doesn't count ... I'm sure the damage will be quickly fixed. If it's taken 2 years for anyone to notice ... move on. The whole point of LIVESCORE is so that people aren't updating the scores every few minutes. A cap is secondary and trivial. Perhaps if anyone is really concerned, then can take a wikibreak for an hour or two, and see if there is still a problem with the edit then. Nfitz (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Very nicely summed up! SBFCEdit (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a bit of a storm in a teacup.--EchetusXe 10:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I don't ever edit stat boxes other than to repair vandalism. Too. Much. Drama. Koncorde (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh look, over eager editors updating stats during the game that turn out to be incorrect when the match finishes (JWP scored a further goal!) GiantSnowman 14:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Released and re-signed

    Ryan Fyffe was released by Inverness Caledonian Thistle before re-signing for them a few months later. Should this count as one spell at the club, or two? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say two spells. "A few months" isn't an insignificant period. – PeeJay 10:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Nehme1499 (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Two spells, like on Michel Vorm, however you might need to watch that, as some people like to combine into one spell, as I just had to restore on Vorm's article. Govvy (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I do agree, in Fyffe's case. He was released when his contract expired at the end of 2019/20, and re-signed on 11 September, nearly a month before Caley's 2020/21 season started on 6 October. Vorm didn't re-join Spurs until three months into the next season, which is clearly two separate spells. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tend to agree with the two periods although I also accept Struways argument. I think in posterity it will end up a single stay with reference to their being released temporarily due to Covid before re-signing. Koncorde (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Two spells IMHO. GiantSnowman 19:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Microwave Anarchist, Govvy, Struway2, Nehme1499 - I just added a stats table to Fyffe's article. Do you all agree with how I organized? Also, if anyone could figure out how many league appearances he made for Fort William last season that would be incredible. Thanks! Rupert1904 (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking I'm ok with the way the stats table is laid out. One note: use em dashes (—) in place of unknown stats, not zeros. Nehme1499 (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, don't use emdashes in place of unknown stats, leave unknowns blank. Dashes are for inapplicable cells: e.g. League Cup at levels or in countries without one, competitions in which the club didn't compete while the player was there, or for which the player was ineligible. The cited source says 2 Scottish Cup apps for Fort William, the table says 3: one of them must be wrong. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I must have been tired when I wrote that. I agree with what you said, blanks for unknown stats, em dashes for inapplicable stats. Nehme1499 (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Struway2: - he definitely played in both games against Albion Rovers, as Soccerway says. For him to have made three cup appearances, he would have to have played in the first round against Vale of Leithin, but I am struggling to find line-ups for that game..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: He did: https://twitter.com/FortWilliamFC/status/1175407394416922629 cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Diallo or Traoré‎‎?

    Amad Traoré‎‎ has more results on Google as "Traoré‎‎" (415k v 178k), but both Atalanta and Manchester United seem to call him "Diallo". Where should his page be located? Nehme1499 (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be at Amad Diallo, that's what he wants to be called and what he will be called from now on. Per here, here, and here. He updated his Instagram to remove the Traore. Based on this tweet he got Traore from a man who turned out to not be his father, which is why he's dropping it. He's legally changing his name to remove Traore. That's why there's more sources with Traore than Diallo because it's what he used to go by, but not anymore. RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, I remember hearing about the father scandal. I've moved the page to Amad Diallo. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok apparently his legal name is now "Amad Diallo", effective as of September 2020. Should the fact he was called Traoré‎‎ be noted in some way in the lede? Maybe by writing "(né Amad Diallo Traoré; born 11 July 2002)"? Nehme1499 (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, similar to Metta Sandiford-Artest would work. It would be same style with a former name. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When did he actually start to be called "Traoré"? The article currently states that is his birth name, but is this actually the case? I don't have any sources other than a google translate of the Italian articles linked on his page and from those it is not apparent at what stage Mr Traore started to pose as his father. It may have been at birth, but unless we have a source that says so, I think the best we can do is say formerly known as Amad Diallo Traoré rather than born / né Amad Diallo Traoré. Spike 'em (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Flags in managerial statistics tables

    BosnianBeast60 (talk · contribs) repeatedly adds flags to managerial statistics tables like in this edit. Up to now, I've reverted these edits with a reference to MOS:FLAGICON and tried to talk to the editor but they don't seem to communicate. If consensus is that managerial statistics tables should not contain statistics tables, then how should I further proceed? --Jaellee (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I find the info about where the clubs are based to be useful, but we shouldn't do it with just a flag. Although knowledge of flags is second nature to some of us, guidelines say they should be accompanied by at least a tricode, but in this case I don't see the harm in including the entire name of the country. – PeeJay 11:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also don't see a problem as long as the country name/code is also included, but I would also suggest that a better header for the column would be "Country" rather than "Nat" (presumably short for nationality) as clubs don't really have "nationalities"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose "Nat" could be short for "nation" too. – PeeJay 11:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    True, I guess. But "nation" seems to me to be an unnecessarily highfalutin word in this context....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems the flag icon is representing the club, however I feel it shouldn't be a flagicon, I feel that element should be a written name. Govvy (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also if you are using the flagicon, that really should be in front of the club name, not after it. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a problem with the flags in this context as long as the country name is specifically added next to it. It is currently problematic. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone wants to add the country of a club as a written name, I have no problem with that. But I have the impression that these flags are just added for decoration which is against MOS:FLAGICON. It also says that flags have to be accompanied with country names (which was not done in these edits). --Jaellee (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Jaellee. I reverted a few myself the last weeks. It brings nothing to the table for me. Kante4 (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It really annoys me that we have this regulation about flags not being used for decoration, since I think people often get the wrong end of the stick with it. The way I read it, flags shouldn't be used *just* for decoration. We used to have a trend of people adding a flag and the team name at the top of every squad list in match articles when the flag was already included as part of the footballbox above, which was clearly a case of adding flags just for a splash of colour. But while flags do indeed add a bit of colour to an otherwise fairly dreary wall of black and white, in many cases they can convey information at a glance. I have sympathy for people who are partially sighted or colour blind and therefore don't have the luxury of being able to identify flags instantaneously the way most people can (assuming they recognise the flag), but a flag for each player in a squad list is a great way of telling the nationality make-up of a squad (e.g. are they all from the same nation as the club, is it a cosmopolitan selection, etc.) without needing to add extra text that would distract from the most important info, i.e. the players' names – some country names, especially if we insist on writing them out in full (e.g. Democratric Republic of the Congo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina), are longer than the names of the players they're attached to! Therefore, I believe that it shouldn't always be necessary to add text next to a flag – the flag should be a sufficient identifier for itself, that's what they're for – but unfortunately these are the regulations we have. – PeeJay 13:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User is adding them (back), do we have a consensus for them to be included or excluded? Kante4 (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    2019–20 Scottish Cup in Career statistics

    This weekend sees the semi-finals of the 2019–20 Scottish Cup. Since it's last season's competition but it's taking place during this season how should appearances in these matches be recorded in Career statistics tables? It's easy enough for players who were with their current clubs last season, but what about players who transferred to one of these clubs for this season?

    Using Craig Gordon as an example who has gone from Celtic to Hearts do we: 1. Create a row in the table for the 2019–20 Hearts season and record the appearance there? or 2. Record it in the 2020–21 Hearts season row, with a note explaining the appearance was in the 2019–20 competition? A Well Fan (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd put it in season 2020–21 with a note. We do that for 'other' appearances and appearances in both Champions League/Europa League in the season so it would just be the same as that really. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Since it's part of the 2019-20 season of the Scottish Cup, I think it should be listed in a row for the 2019-20 season with a note explaining the discrepancy. Not sure what the reference to the Champions League/Europa League has to do with anything. – PeeJay 06:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with PeeJay. We log the stats by season, not date. GiantSnowman 08:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree, it should be in 2019–20. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree too, seems a no-brainer to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, agree. Kante4 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    An issue though - this. Players who signed for the club at the start of the 2020-21 season, technically playing in the 2019-20 competition... thoughts? GiantSnowman 08:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is good the way it is. Kante4 (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's displaying the 2019–20 stats in the 2020–21 season (against the consensus here) with a footnote explaining the discrepancy. And for those players, what happens when the 2020–21 season starts? GiantSnowman 13:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This was why I asked the question at the beginning, because using Alex Gogic as an example, he didn't play for Hibernian during 2019–20, it's just that one match yesterday. I also think that note on his page needs to be better written if that's what's going to be used. A Well Fan (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should be in the 2019–20 section if the player has remained at the same club. But for new players like Gogic or Diego Laxalt, it should go in 2020–21 season line with a note. Rupert1904 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That discrepancy will cause confusion, and sources are adding them to 2020-21 stats, so that is what I will do. GiantSnowman 21:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Should Real Madrid Task force be deleted?

    So, last week this random page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Real Madrid task force/layout/assessment) of the task force was discovered when it was vandalized and led to its deletion since it was never set up. See the deletion vote page here. Several users analyzed the task force and realized it is inactive, nor was it ever really active. It has a few pages linked to it, but it doesn't appear to have done anything ever. Several users in the deletion vote for the page deletion were in favour of just scrapping the entire task force since it wasn't active. See the above link to deletion discussion for more info . RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said on the deletion discussion, I support deleting the Task force. No one will even notice it's gone. --SuperJew (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of task forces are pointless in my opinion, a task force should only be setup and used for areas which have heavy duty workloads, why would you want all these sub task forces where WP:FOOTBALL covers it all anyway. Govvy (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support a deletion. It's not needed and is not even active! GiantSnowman 10:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    How do you set up a deletion nomination for a Task Force? Is it different than for an article? RedPatchBoy (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:MfD. Govvy (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Likewise, what's this all about? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I nominated Real Madrid for deletion. I think I did it correctly. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Real Madrid task force RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So the Task Force was officially deleted today. However, some leftover pages and categories still exist. So I created another deletion log for them at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category:Real Madrid C.F. task force articles. Seems like deleting a task force completely is way more difficult than I thought since deleting the task force page still leaves all the subpages. I think I found them all, but there might still be a few more that will be there somewhere. RedPatchBoy (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tottenham seasons articles

    Afternoon all. Probably of most interest to @Govvy:, but I know there's a few Totts fans out there. Anyway it looks like all the embedded match reports on at least 2008–09 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season, 2009–10 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season, 2010–11 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season (for example) are dead as they were linked to Tottenhams own website and they have decided to bin them off in some fashion or another. It may be that some articles used have been moved to their "Archived News" section, but it's not easy to just search that. Post 2011 appears like we are using BBC articles which look fine. Anyway, just a reminder to all that club websites are notorious for this sort of stuff so be careful when depending on it as references, but particularly as direct links. Any article using the site for a specific historic article might need checking for the new archive URL if one exists. Koncorde (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I do know about some of this and forget, at times. Often loads of people and they know who they are adding premierleague.com ; those often end up dead the following season, I told those editors, yet they still add the premierleague reports. :/ Govvy (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    How to display 3–0 default wins in league table?

    Yesterday, Safa SC beat Tadamon Sour SC 2–0. However, as Tadamon Sour had fielded six substitutes (one more than the limit of five), the match was turned into a 3–0 win to Safa. How should this be indicated in the 2020–21 Lebanese Premier League table? Nehme1499 (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As a 3-0 win for Safa. – PeeJay 07:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the table itself it should obviously be recorded as a 3-0 win, because that was the official result. The unusual circumstances can be indicated in a footnote -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Completely unrelated to anything picture topic...

    So this Kyle Bartley profile pic may just be the finest one I have ever seen on wikipedia. I am not sure if it's the fact he's playing the human bagpipe, or the way his nose is being ever so gently tweaked, or the fact it has been up there for almost 11 years and is one of the default suggested images on google. Well played Celtic fans, well played. Koncorde (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is amazing. RedPatchBoy (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL ::@Koncorde:! How about this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paolo_Castellini&diff=prev&oldid=462993352)? --Quite A Character (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear me. We do need to have some discernment applied. Koncorde (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I like how some of these terrible photos are still used on other language wikis.... Joseph2302 (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph2302: I like that Bartley's photo is used also on List of Scottish football transfers summer 2011. --SuperJew (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure all the players with terrible photos must have seen them being used on their articles - you would think they would want to find a way to get a better photo on there...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that they probably assume that only some elite editors have the "power" to change the players' pictures. It would be nice if they knew that all they had to do is upload a picture taken by them. 14:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

    Category:FA Cup Final players

    Thoughts on Category:FA Cup Final players? I think it's OVERCAT personally. GiantSnowman 10:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging @No Great Shaker:, the creator of the category -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Chris, thank you for the ping.
    GiantSnowman, my thinking was that there are categories for players in World/European Cup finals so this is in the same vein as those. Also, we have a category for FA Cup final referees so why not one for the players too? The FA Cup final doesn't have the same "aura" these days that it had in the past when it was arguably the #1 sporting event of the year in England. Even so, it has always been a real honour for any player to take part in the match. Looking at it another way, the category would be useful to readers who are interested in the match as it provides an easy way for them to check if a particular player ever took part – lots of famous players did not: George Best, for example.
    I will of course accept consensus if most people think it is an over-categorisation but I would ask that you first consider the readers because categories like this provide value to them. One of the main purposes of a category is to help to round out the information in an article and, for a footballer, the fact that the guy has played in an FA Cup final is definitely a valid and necessary piece of information. In an ideal world, of course, all articles would mention in the narrative that he played in a cup final, but they don't. Happy to answer any questions. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My initial impression is that this is OVERCAT but I can also see why someone would see it as useful. The World Cup and European Cup are international rather than national competitions and they are held every four years, and not every year. If an article doesn't mention it in the text, it shouldn't be in the category. It needs to be sourced (and relevant) that they were in the final at the very least. I don't think this would be that useful to a reader as it is such a wide year range for the category. Woody (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agree probably over cat, I do like seeing a Baronet and Lord in that list know! Govvy (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also a Brigadier-General and a Major-General....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, I've reached Blackburn now, ha! No Great Shaker (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool picture of the Major-General, he is buried in the same place as some of my family. Govvy (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's OVERCAT and really not needed. Kante4 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is interesting though. I mean really, who here can picture This guy playing in a FA Cup final? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this meet WP:CATDEF? I'm not so sure. Would an equivalent of Category:UEFA Champions League winning players be better? Mattythewhite (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ESA Linas-Montlhery picture

    Hello. Could someone possibly add the club logo to this Wikipedia article? I do not know how to do it and make it under fair use. Thank you to the person that takes action on this. Have a great day. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Paul Vaurie  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (I don't know how to ping your weird username): Thank you so much! Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul Vaurie: Ahahahah no need. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "In creation" template

    Hi folks. Does it occur commonly that someone

    • creates a "half-arsed" page (diff),
    • places an "in creation" template on it (diff),
    • overwrites other editors changes (Edit history at the page),
    • and refers to the template ([1]) which seems to imply they would others to hold off from editing the page even though it's been live for more than 30 minutes?

    This looks very odd to me. Every article I have created so far was pretty much the finished article when I created it. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Some editors create basic stubs and then expand them quickly, others create full blown articles from the off. Everyone is different. However, they should not be overwriting constructive changes from other editors, that is clear OWNership issues. GiantSnowman 22:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems common courtesy to me that if the user put an "in creation" template on the page, then you don't edit it, at least for the first few days. --SuperJew (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, different users have different creation processes. --SuperJew (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SuperJew: The player made his debut today and there will be a bunch of people looking him up on Wikipedia. Blocking others from editing after publishing the page in such a sorry state is a disservice to our readers. Waiting for "days" is unworkable. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to remind you WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. --SuperJew (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SuperJew: Publishing a sloppy one-liner looks very much like rushing to create an article to me. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's a different creation process. And honestly I can also understand where it's coming from - I've had a few cases where I made major changes/expansion to an article and then when I went to post, I got an "edit conflict" message. In the better cases, I managed to salvage my edit and then only had to work with revisions to merge my edit with the edits which conflicted, while in the worse cases the internet browser page didn't go back properly and I lost all the work that I had done. --SuperJew (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In use should be taken off if not edited in a few hours, rather than a few days. And if users want to create articles in multiple edits, they should use draftspace and then move it to article space once ready. Creating a one line article and putting an in use on it to stop others from trying to contribute is not helpful for this collaborative project. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if it's only just creation, it's under construction- which is a different template which allows for collaborative editing. Edit conflicts aren't the worst thing in the world, and this is a collaborative encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Would have to agree with Joseph: if you are looking to create the bulk of an article, then draftspace usage is more productive than an "in creation" notice. That way, if someone does have something productive to add there is less risk of edit conflicts and if someone beats you to creation of the article, then just slip in the relevant information. Asterixtintin (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Article split? Is it needed?

    Ok , i saw someone created Template:Club Stats of Kaká, but did it even needed? After fork out the content , the Kaka article size is 133,108 bytes for reference . Matthew hk (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No because they're just calling that template in the article rather than having the stats in the article. Which doesn't change the article size anyway, so no idea why it's been done. A template for use once is pointless. Maybe ShadowBallX2 can explain, as they created the template? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tbh at the time, I thought it would be a good idea. I have pretty much given up editing here, and have been editing on the Simple English Wikipedia for the past month. If you want to remove the template and just add it back in normally, im fine with it. Sorry for any confusion or issues, and have a great day. ShadowBallX2 (My Talk Page) 22:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My point being that it's not an article split, as the text is still in the article. Would only be a split if the text was removed from Kaká and used on a different page. So if splitting was the reason, this template hasn't solved that. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we should not have such templates - partly because it's pointless as would only ever appear in one article, and partly because such templates don't tend to be watched to the same extent as articles and so are magnets for vandals. WP:TFD. GiantSnowman 22:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    TfD started here- please feel free to leave your opinions there. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Defending champions?

    Can anyone provide a compelling reason why the infobox for a football competition season needs an entry for the competition's defending champions? The team that won the tournament the year before is not relevant enough to this season's competition to be worth putting in the infobox, surely? – PeeJay 15:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's pretty relevant information if you ask me. It adds context to the season, and I don't see any reason not to include it. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it's relevant information. GiantSnowman 16:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I get well over 100,000 Gnews results for "defending champions" "Premier League", which suggests it's something the the media talk about a lot -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relevant enough for the infobox of an article? It may be just about relevant while the season is ongoing, but once the season is over, what difference does it make who won the one before? If people want to find out who the winner of the previous season's competition was, they should look at the previous season's article, no? – PeeJay 18:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Knowing how the defending champions have done this season seems reasonably interesting. And again, I don't see the harm in keeping it. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like the sort of thing that should go in the lead, sure, but not the infobox. – PeeJay 20:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicolas Nath

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

    This indicates that he appeared as a substitute for SC Goa in the I-League in March 2007. That's all I can find. This might also help for GNG but I don't have a subscription. GiantSnowman 19:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Times of India match report is for the predecessor National Football League, which wasn't fully pro: the first I-League season was 2007–08, which ran from November 2007. If, as Mr Nath's article says, he left at the end of that season, he didn't play in the I-League. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football&oldid=987420854"