Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FOOTY)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Football (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Season position updater for clubs[edit]

One of the questions I was asked during the FourFourTwo interview was what was the most boring thing about editing football articles, and my response was the end-of-season updates to club articles. That got me thinking about how it could be done more easily, so I have developed a new template ({{English football updater}}) that can be added to club articles. Once this is added, only the template needs updating, which means hundreds or thousands of articles can be updated by editing the one template. The template works like this:

Each club has a eight-letter identifier (or less if there are fewer in the club's name), e.g. FootownU for Footown United (you can see all the ones I've done by opening the template). This is then used for three separate things:

  • {{English football updater|FootownU}} gives the club's current league (e.g. Premier League)
  • {{English football updater|FootownU2}} produces a link to the club's previous league season article (e.g. 2015–16)
  • {{English football updater|FootownU3}} gives the club's finishing position last season (e.g. Premier League, 2nd)

I've added it to a couple of articles just to show it works: Arsenal and York Railway Institute.

In addition to making it easier to do the end of season updates, there are a few other benefits:

  • Consistent presentation of last season's position
  • Ensures clubs below level 10 aren't missed off the update rounds (York Railway Institute still had their 2013–14 position listed) as I've tried to include every extant club below that level and any missed leagues will stand out
  • Hopefully it will stop editors changing it to the current season position (I see this occasionally)
  • It can be used in other situations (e.g. in some intros that start something along the lines of "Billy Jones is a footballer who plays for Footown United in the {{English football updater|FootownU}}") to automatically update text.
  • It can be duplicated for other countries

Thoughts, comments? One thing to note is that it's still not entirely complete as I haven't done the step 3, 4, 5 and 6 leagues yet. Number 57 17:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggested something similar a few years ago but never had the where-with-all to start it myself, so really happy to see something like this. I can't see anything wrong with it, and I know there are a lot of other similar quick updates that could possibly be achieved in a similar fashion. Nice work. Koncorde (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I've now added the step 3 and 4 leagues, so just the 5 and 6 ones (plus their lower divisions) to do.... Number 57 22:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
That's brilliant, excellent work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, nice work. And if it stops idiots flaunting their own team's confirmed title (or their rivals' relegation position) before the season finishes, it's doubly welcome. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree with everyone here. This is a very neat template. Will probably try to do the same for Indian football when I can. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
When i have time i look to do the German (1,2,3) ones. Kante4 (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Kante4: You should definitely try and include lower divisions too – there are hundreds of articles on clubs below 3. Liga that could benefit too (I think this is arguably more of a benefit that the higher-level clubs) – e.g. TuS Celle etc. Number 57 12:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course, if time allowes. Kante4 (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Nice! :D --SuperJew (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Already done the Indian one (not exactly hard when you have only 1-2 leagues really :( Seriously, thanks Number 57. Template is easy and simple to use and can really help change football wikipedia articles. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all the positive feedback people. If everyone's happy with it, I guess the next task is to start rolling it out and adding it to articles. Would anyone be up for helping with that? Perhaps we can tick leagues off the following list when they're done?

Premier League, Football League, National League, Northern Premier League, Southern League, Isthmian League, Combined Counties League, Eastern Counties League, East Midlands Counties League, Essex Senior League, Hellenic League, Midland League, North West Counties League, Northern Counties East League, Northern League, South West Peninsula League, Southern Counties East League, Spartan South Midlands League, Southern Combination, United Counties League, Wessex League, Western League, West Midlands (Regional) League and Step 7 & below.
NWC done and ticked off. Hope to have time for others later. Drawoh46 (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
NL, NPL, NCEL, NFL, SFL and SCEL done Delsion23 (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hell, ML, SSMP, UCL, WxL and WMRL finished. Drawoh46 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure there are one or two gremlins hidden in there somewhere (most likely potential duplicate club names – the only ones I spotted and differentiated were Norwich City/Norwich CEYMS and Winchester City/Winchester Castle), so do let me know if you find anything! Cheers, Number 57 12:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. As soon as the season ends, most club articles still need updating due to imminent transfers, loans, manager changes and other stuff. Why not just update the position along the way? -BlameRuiner (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
That may be the case for clubs in the top four or five divisions, but most below that don't have squad lists and manager changes don't necessarily happen in the summer. Plus many clubs lower down the pyramid are not updated (I've seen several now that still had 2013–14 as their most recent season update). Number 57 15:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a good idea. Nice work. I think it could also be helpful to have the template include the club specific current season. This is an example of "specific club current season" I'm referring to if it's not clear: 2016–17 Juventus F.C. season. It would be great if those could update too with one template. It probably wouldn't be as necessary for the lower league clubs, as they usually don't have club season articles, but would still be beneficial. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I've done the rest of the Premier League teams so it's scored off the list. I'd do a Scottish version but I'm not 100% on how to do that so any help would be appreciated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland: Great, thanks for that! I've started one for Scotland – {{Scottish football updater}} (I've only done the Premiership and Championship for now, so please do expand it!); the league codes are all listed in {{SLs}} (I think I've included all the relevant leagues), and I've added it to Celtic F.C. as a start. Cheers, Number 57 20:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Number 57: You're very welcome. Thanks for starting that, I'll get on it. Just a wee note though, my edit to Manchester United was reverted by @PeeJay2K3: and I don't want to get into an edit war. I don't know if he's aware of this discussion so I've tagged him so he can see it if he hasn't and then we can possibly bring it back on Manchester United. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I think he did it by accident as he's reverted himself! Number 57 21:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment: I'd recommend doing the league codes lists in an XXXLs format (for example: {{ENGLs}} or {{SCOLs}}) as one letter isn't enough difference. I mean what are we going to do for Spain's league codes list now? --SuperJew (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds sensible – could use the trigrammes. Number 57 21:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Do we have a template category created for these yet? Like Category:Football updater templates by country or something? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@SuperJew: Moved to {{ENGLs}} and {{SCOLs}}; @ArsenalFan700: I've started Category:Association football infobox updater templates and also put them in each country's template category. Cheers, Number 57 22:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Got a question. I've put down that Civil Service Strollers F.C. and Hawick Royal Albert F.C. were promoted from 2015–16 East of Scotland Football League but I don't know if that's right as they finished 3rd and 5th respectively. I think it may have to do with SFA/SPFL criteria for gaining promotion but neither article (2015–16 East of Scotland Football League or 2016–17 Lowland Football League) really explains it, the latter just says they joined the league. There was only one relegation spot which makes me think one or both were elected/chosen to join like when the league was first created. This also makes it look that way. I know it's not the most important issue but I think we should get it right and I wanted to know what you thought about it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: My understanding is that clubs applied to join the league and had their applications assessed by the Lowland League's board for a final decision on who would be admitted (Edusport Academy were the other team to apply). However, whilst it's not an automatic promotion system, it's still a promotion of sorts as the Lowland League is a higher level than the EoSL and the SoSL. I can't really think of anything better to put than "(promoted)". I know Jmorrison230582 (talk · contribs) is active in editing Scottish football articles, so perhaps they could provide a view? Cheers, Number 57 12:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
"(elected to higher league)" or similar.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering about "elected", but I can't see anything to suggest that there was a vote of any kind. Number 57 12:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
What about "joined" instead of elected? The article say's that and even if it turns out they were elected, they still joined it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi all - coming to this quite late as I just noticed Number 57 (talk · contribs) adding the template to a bunch of club articles I watch. While on the whole I like automation, I have a couple of reservations about this, which might be easily answered by others.

  1. I think I did the League updates for both of the Combined Counties League divisions at the end of the season. It was quite a lot of work, finding out which teams were moving between divisions and into and out of the league. Is all that updating work gonna fall on Number 57 (talk · contribs)'s shoulders now? For every league? Or can anyone update the template?
  2. What will happen with diffs and revisions? If you look at this diff where I 'moved' the club into the CCPL, then this revision (before the change) and this revision (after the change) show the change in League. If I did a similar test at the end of next season, will the revisions show the differences? Given that the league stuff in the article won't have changed, just the template contents have, I thought that meant that Wikipedia's revision engine will just transclude the current contents of the template into the revision.

To see an example of what I mean here is a change of school name in the Schools in Berkshire navbox. In the revisions of the relevant school article before and after the change you can see that the navbox at the bottom doesn't change. It just shows the current contents of the navbox in both revisions. For many (most?) clubs, especially in the lower divisions (step 4 and below), the club articles will often not even mention promotion/relegation in the text, except where a change of league is involved. I am concerned that the article history will not now reflect the true history of change in the article, as these major changes have been delegated to an external template. Am I correct that the old revisions will always show the current data from the template? Is that really desirable? TIA CalzGuy (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

To answer your questions:
  1. Anyone will be able to edit the templates (although I have protected the English one for template editors given that it will possibly become a high use/visibility template).
  2. You'll also be able to see diffs of changes to the template (e.g. here).
I don't think there should be any concerns – there are several templates on football club articles that can be changed without editing the page – the format of the infobox itself, the league template and so on. If there is a problem created by the updater template, it should be much easier to spot than isolated vandalism to low-ranked non-league club that is likely to go unnoticed. Number 57 13:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
With regard to point 2, I think what the other editor meant was that because a template is used, and the current version of the template is always called even when you are looking at an earlier version of an article, when you view an old version, it will display the current EFU values. So if you viewed a version of Man U's article from 2008, the most recent season would be shown as 2015-16...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
That's true, but it's the same for any other template transcluded on the page. The 2008 Manchester United article also has the current Premier League template for 2016–17 on it. Number 57 14:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a real difference between displaying a current navbox and displaying 'incorrect' inline text. For instance if Horley Town F.C. were promoted/relegated at the end of next season, without any other edits to the article this edit means that the article would read ... with the first team playing at step five of the National League System in the ... <whatever_the_new_league/division_is> which would be incorrect. Now I know the likelihood of Horley getting promoted is remote (especially considering their pre-season) but the problem still exists. As yet, I'm not convinced it is necessarily a change for the better. CalzGuy (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
That's my bad, I didn't realise that the "at step five" bit was included in the intro. Cases like this would be a problem, so I'll endeavour to ensure this isn't repeated. Number 57 15:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Also templates like current squad show the current squad and not whatever revision you're looking at. Also, is this really a relevant point? How many readers of Wikipedia go look at old editions of the pages? If it is important info it should be included in the history of the most recent edition anyway. --SuperJew (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Another point to consider: Should these updater templates also have for current season, at least for 1st tier teams? It's another annoying parameter updated every season. The problem I can see with it is that there are under 1st tier teams (especially outside England) which don't have season pages (notability-wise or just no people working on them), which as why I said maybe at least for 1st tier teams. --SuperJew (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Beyond the size of the template, there's no reason why they can't be included. However, given the recent issues we've had with season articles at Conference level, I am a little wary of them. Number 57 16:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just made {{Italian football updater}}. I've only added Serie A and Serie B so far, but if anyone would like to help out with Lega Pro and Serie D, that would be much appreciated. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

As I'm spending a lot of my spare time at the moment going round updating CFA and CFA2 clubs for (at least) season updates, this would be quite useful for France. Lack of time precludes me making it at least this side of November, and I would caution whether the effort would be well spent this season anyway, as the whole league structure below Ligue 2 is changing next year. Still, if someone has time to burn before I get round to it, feel free :) Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I see that you've added the NWC clubs to the master template. I tried updating the infobox of one of the clubs; all went well, except that the 2015–16 link was in red - reporting 2015–16 North West Counties League (page does not exist) I think the word Football may be missing. BTW I'm happy to make the appropriate changes to the NWC clubs' pages. Drawoh46 (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drawoh46: Should be fixed now. Thanks for letting me know. Number 57
@Number 57: All looks good now - once I'd remembered to do a WP:NULL on the club page! Thanks. Drawoh46 (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Another league seasonal page which is coming up red is West Midlands (Regional) for 2015–16. For some reason Premier Division has been included in part of the article's name. I hit this problem when amending Shawbury United F.C.. I guess this problem might also apply to references to the 2016–17 article. Drawoh46 (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: And another. As with NWC, I think that Football is missing from the East Midlands League link for 2015–16. (Found when amending St Andrews F.C.). Drawoh46 (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drawoh46 and Delusion23: Should all be fixed now (although not sure if you meant Canning Town? They're in the Essex Olympian). Up to you guys if you want to change the abbreviations ;) Number 57 11:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: The updater templates do not appear to be working correctly for WMRL. I think it may be as a result of the league article being called West Midlands (Regional) League, and the seasonal articles rather strangely being called 201x–1y West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division.
Possibly the first of these lines in the ENGLs template:

needs Premier Division removed. Drawoh46 (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Possibly the correct solution would be to bite the bullet and rename the WMRL seasonal articles by removing the words Premier Division from their titles. This should bring them into line with the rest of the Step5/6 seasonal articles. After all, we don't call the Midland League's season articles 201x–1y Midland League Premier Division and Division One. There would only be five such seasonal articles to change, as WMRL is relatively new. Drawoh46 (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@Drawoh46: Fixed for now. I'd be open to the league seasons being moved, so let me know if you do it, and I'll update the template (it will still work for now with redirects in place). Cheers, Number 57 07:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@Number 57: All working ok now for WMRL, thanks! Regarding changing the league's season articles, I'll probably put it up here for discussion, to get a consensus, before making any change. Drawoh46 (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@Number 57: Still on WMRL. There are a few discrepancies with the 2015–16 positions stated in the template, compared with those given on WMRL website. In particualar Dudley Sports 7th (6th in template), Wolverhampton C 6th (7th), Wellington 11th (13th), Smethwick 12th (11th), Dudley Town 13th (12th), Wellington Amateurs 19th (20th), Bilston 20th (19th). Drawoh46 (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Drawoh46: Should all be fixed now – not sure what happened there; I presume I was using a duff version of the table from somewhere else... Thanks for letting me know though! Number 57 12:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Red link when using season parameter for SSML clubs. Space seems to be missing after 2015–16. Drawoh46 (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drawoh46: Fixed! Number 57 07:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Number 57: Thanks for all those! One more, also in SSML, but link is to SL. Leighton Town. Drawoh46 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Drawoh46: Fixed again (sorry about all the errors). I've also updated the Leighton article. Cheers, Number 57 09:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Number 57: Apologies are quite unnecessary. There are remarkably few, when considering the total size of the task. Many thanks! Drawoh46 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see much benefit of this template either. Ok, some clubs further down aren't updated often, but the info on a past season didn't get wrong either (because it's not named last season). And my fear is this template won't get updated down to the bottom either. Anyway, huge effort. A technical question: If there is a 1000 byte club article that uses this template, will the browser actually load 150kb (1+149 currently) then when viewing the page? -Koppapa (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I had doubts too about the value of the template when I first read about it. However I soon changed my mind, and, having applied it to a few clubs, I've seen that a remarkable number of articles have, in their introductions, shown clubs to be still in leagues and/or divisions which they left a few seasons ago. Use of this template will considerably reduce errors of that kind. Drawoh46 (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Honours (for the 1,00000000th time)[edit]

Taking the recent 2016 UEFA Super Cup as the latest example, it seems the Real Madrid official profile for players has listed the honour in Ronaldo, Pepe, Kroos, Bale, Coentrão and Navas. None of these guys made the squad of 18, in most cases due to injury, why should they get the accolade.

Should we follow the club's M.O. or could we go in a different direction? This makes absolutely no sense (to give honour to said players, that is). Inputs please. Attentively --Be Quiet AL (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This tweet (Hurrygane posted it first) just for some more info. I was surprised about that too. Kante4 (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I personally agree that it makes little sense to give them the honour if they didn't compete, but if a reliable source (such as their Real Madrid profile) includes it, then we should as well. If, however, a more neutral source (such as something directly from the UEFA Super Cup) indicated that these players did not receive the honour, then I would go with that instead. -Gopherbashi (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
If the club paid for a medal for them, despite them not playing (Schwarzer's Premier League medal with Chelsea for example) then they obviously think the player did contribute, even if not directly by playing and we should include it too. --SuperJew (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Now, I can't explain why this is, but it seems that Bale may have got a medal because he was included in the official squad for the game (despite not travelling), as were Kroos and Navas. Ronaldo, Pepe and Coentrao, however, were omitted from that list. – PeeJay 16:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Barça's website similarly credits Neymar with the 2015 Super Cup, even though he was sitting at home with the mumps. FWIW, I agree with BQAL. Wikipedia is not any club's mouthpiece; we are certainly not obligated to include something just because they do, or any source for that matter. I can accept that a squad player is capable of contributing to his team's win, even if he hasn't played a single minute, but a player who hasn't even made it to the bench for whatever reason has not won that trophy. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
We should follow reliable, independent sources, and club websites are not the latter and arguably often not the former! I would be happy citing the medal to a news report with the teamsheets, but in this case I think we should at least restrict the honour to players in the squad on the day. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed - official club profiles always need to be taken with a pinch of salt, especially of the club is trying to pander to a big player's ego. GiantSnowman 19:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
So, we should remove them? Kante4 (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I think a club's title should always be considered the whole squad's honour. What is the reliable, independent source that says that Pepe, Navas etc. didn't win this title as members of Real Madrid C.F.? Tkotw12 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
You'll be lucky to find a source that proves a negative. The burden of proof is to say they definitely did "win" this competition. After all, while Navas was included in the squad for the Super Cup (see here), Pepe wasn't. Bale was too, but what about Ronaldo? – PeeJay 17:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
And what excatly did Bale contribute that Ronaldo or Pepe didn't? Tkotw12 (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
And where is the reliable and independent source saying that only those players nominated for the match are considered winners of the title? Tkotw12 (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Why not contact UEFA officials, since they are shipping the medals to players who didn't travel. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestions from other editors? Kante4 (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It's going to be difficult this way. I mean, Messi's 2006 CL victory should also be deleted if that reasoning applies. Messi did not play a single second from the second leg of the round of 16 until and up to the final. Literally zero seconds. He wasn't even in the stadium. Don't come with "Messi played in the group stages and 'helped' them to qualify for the round of 16" because Ronaldo helped Real Madrid CF to qualify for the UEFA Supercup by converting the decisive penalty kick in the 2016 CL final. In the end, the question is, should Wiki decide who did or did not win something? No, not at all. UEFA provides 40 medals to the club and the club redistributes those medals in any way they like (https://twitter.com/TheCRonaldoFan/status/756938406895185921, scroll down a bit). The player's club profiles show who got and did not get a medal. So keep it simple. Add it. But I'll leave it at this lol. Wiki does not have authority over who does or does not get a medal. Clubs decide.Eren0127 (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, have a look at new evidence in support of Ronaldo having a medal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cristiano_Ronaldo, scroll to the bottom of that huge discussion). It basically proves that C.Ronaldo has a medal (article 9 of UEFA [1]). Furthermore, Ronaldo was active in that match according to UEFA as proved by this link [2]. So PeeJay and Kante4, I guess we should include it. Also, the list provided by PeeJay includes Jese who is a PSG player, LOL. Eren0127 (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Can someone impartial please comment on this? Personally, I still haven't seen any evidence from any independent sources to say that Ronaldo (or Fabio Coentrao or any of the others) is considered a winner of the 2016 Super Cup. The only source we have is Real Madrid's website, and that's hardly neutral on the subject. Any references to UEFA regulations saying the winning team gets 40 medals to distribute as they wish is spurious, since we have no idea exactly how Real Madrid distributed the medals. And furthermore, dismissing UEFA's official squad list just because Jese is still included is foolhardy at best. – PeeJay 21:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
To reiterate the above, we need some impartial involvement on this issue. There are edit wars on the verge of starting at Neymar, Cristiano Ronaldo, Pepe (footballer, born 1983), Keylor Navas and Fábio Coentrão, and we need people to help form a consensus on the issue. How does a player qualify for an honour? Can Neymar be considered a winner of the 2016 Spanish Super Cup when he was playing at the Olympics at the time over Barcelona's victory? How about Bale and Ronaldo as winners of the UEFA Super Cup? This is not a simple issue and I doubt the fanboys on those pages will listen without some kind of outside comments. – PeeJay 15:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Any help/comments are welcome. Kante4 (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

MoS of club season[edit]

As club need to submit squad list to UEFA and their domestic FA respectively, with different cap/quota, It is reasonable to have two squad list in the season article (such as 2010–11 Juventus F.C. season) Is that the practice was removed from MoS, as a face no reason removal / vandal on my edit of adding two set of squad to the season article of 2016–17 U.S. Sassuolo Calcio season. Matthew_hk tc 23:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC) player can eligible to domestic but not UEFA (or vice versa). Matthew_hk tc 23:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I see it as unnecessary. User:Italia2006 is the user he's talking about..not a vandal. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Extra note. English Premier League also have a similar quota system with UEFA on homegrown player (for UEFA, 8 min. including 4 trained by club), foreigner (in UEFA, 17 max because 25 minus 8) and reserve (U21 players). Then is that excessive information state on footnote of one single squad list for the inclusion and exclusion? Players can under contract but unable to play neither domestic nor continental due to quota was reached. Matthew_hk tc 00:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
observed on 2016–17 Chelsea F.C. season. Matthew_hk tc 00:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
source on English homegrown player rule and "Regulations of the UEFA Europa League 2015-18 Cycle 2016/17 Season" (PDF). UEFA. 1 May 2016. Retrieved 28 July 2016. . Matthew_hk tc 00:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
also 2016–17 Real Madrid C.F. season observed extras footnote to explain La Liga non-EU quota on themselves. Matthew_hk tc 00:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
No, just no. Italia2006 (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it is a MoS discussion, as i observed the section existed in 2013–14 Chelsea F.C. season, just absent in 2014–15 season article. Matthew_hk tc 00:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
may be a bit original research to identify which one is home grown players (such as in Inter Milan case, it is obvious to spot but it sometimes announced by the club officially). It is a nice piece of information for home grown players as Serie A also had that rule (but not capping the max. number of players in squad, need to dig out the original script) source Matthew_hk tc 00:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to point out which quota each player meets, but I do wonder if it's worth adding notes to say "this player is in the club's Premier League squad" or "this player is in the club's Champions League squad". How they qualify isn't particularly encyclopaedic or verifiable, but whether they're included in one of those squads is an important fact. – PeeJay 18:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
i just pissed off someone think the players were included or excluded in European squad was not important. Matthew_hk tc 04:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be better to have one squad list which has a column or something to indicate which players are also in the cup squad.--EchetusXe 08:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I also think about it. For Real Madrid the non-EU column was less verifiable , but a column for yes/no in European squad sound more reasonable and easy to verify by citation. Matthew_hk tc 15:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't even have to be a dedicated column. You could just add a superscript (e.g. CL for the Champions League squad) to indicate which players are in what squad. – PeeJay 16:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Done. [3] Matthew_hk tc 03:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Medal icons in footballbox[edit]

There is a discussion at Olympics project regarding match templates and medal icons, i.e. if they should be shown (diff) or not shown (diff).

This affects football as well so please join at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Medal icons on team sport templates

Squad templates turned into redirects[edit]

User:Secret Agent Julio is turning squad templates into redirects (for example: [4]) and removing them in articles. --Yoda1893 (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Lots of these lower division squad templates are outdated/not updated regularly and have few links, as most players are not notable, nor will they become unless the club is promoted. I am not sure what the "criteria" is, but most of these templates do not seem necessary. Although maybe the VfB Stuttgart II template is alright, it seemed better than most. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Secret Agent Julio: redirecting is not the correct way of dealing with them - that is WP:TFD. GiantSnowman 18:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I now realise that a TFD is a better option, initially I redirected thinking that maybe eventually there would be enough links, but for the time being some can probably be deleted. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Do we actually have a guideline about which teams should have squad templates or not? Is it based on how many blue-links? Team's professional level (pro, semi-pro, amateur)? Tier team plays in? --SuperJew (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's generally a bad idea below fully-pro level as otherwise it tempts people to create redlinks and articles on non-notable players. Number 57 20:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree, I would say that it should be aligned with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues as this also drives the notability of players. Many of the squad templates have been created when the club played in a fully professional league but subsequently relegated into a lower league. Kq-hit (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Consensus, unless I am mistaken, is to decide the notability of squad templates on a case-by-case basis. A template that has a substantial number of blue links, despite the team not competing in a fully pro league, clearly has practical value, and should therefore be retained. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with Matty, it's all to do with blue links (it's a navigation template, so you need to actually be able to navigate between articles!) - but that will obviously be rarer as you drop down the leagues. GiantSnowman 20:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I decided to compile a list of the lower division squad templates, opinions on what templates might still be uesful? All clubs are in the Regionalliga (4th tier), except for Tennis Borussia Berlin, who are in the Oberliga (5th tier). Numbers are from late July so they may be a bit off. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Club Blue links Total players Percent
Alemannia Aachen 5 22 0.23
SV Babelsberg 03 3 20 0.15
Berliner AK 07 7 27 0.26
FC Viktoria 1889 Berlin 7 22 0.32
SV Wacker Burghausen 6 22 0.27
FC Energie Cottbus 5 21 0.24
Borussia Dortmund II 9 26 0.35
SV Elversberg 13 25 0.52
Rot-Weiss Essen 8 25 0.32
FC 08 Homburg 15 26 0.58
FC Carl Zeiss Jena 9 21 0.43
KSV Hessen Kassel 3 22 0.14
TuS Koblenz 8 19 0.42
FC Viktoria Köln 12 25 0.48
SV Waldhof Mannheim 10 27 0.37
FC Bayern Munich II 5 27 0.19
Rot-Weiß Oberhausen 5 25 0.2
Kickers Offenbach 5 23 0.22
1. FC Saarbrücken 11 24 0.46
Stuttgarter Kickers 9 24 0.38
VfB Stuttgart II 12 26 0.46
SV Eintracht Trier 05 6 27 0.22
SpVgg Unterhaching 11 34 0.32
Wormatia Worms 6 24 0.25
Wuppertaler SV 6 29 0.21
Tennis Borussia BerlinOberliga 2 24 0.08
Thank you, User:Secret Agent Julio for compiling these statistics! I have done some spot checks against the current squads in their main articles and found the figures to be accurate. Even clubs such as Stuttgarter Kickers, FC Energie Cottbus and VfB Stuttgart II that still played in the fully professional 3. Liga last season dropped quickly in their percentage of notable players due to the player fluctuation that comes along with the relegation. Are there any existing guidelines regarding what would be a required blue link ratio? One other problem I see with keeping lower league clubs can be seen with Template:Le Mans FC squad. It has 22/23 blue links but has not been updated since 8 July 2013. Could outdated current squads be automatically flagged for deletion? Kq-hit (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Galway United: two clubs or one?[edit]

After a very brief discussion here with only three participants, but no discussion on the talk pages of the respective pages, the articles about Galway United F.C. (1937–2011) and Galway United F.C. (originally Galway United F.C. (2013) were merged. These are two separate clubs. The first was liquidated in 2011 and ceased to exist for two years, before a new club, originally known as Galway F.C. was formed in 2013, later changing its name to Galway United. This is rather a similar situation to Airdrieonians F.C. (1878) and Airdrieonians F.C., when one club ceases to exist, and a new one is formed, which later changes its name to that of the older club - yet they should still be treated as different clubs. I propose to separate the articles again. Mooretwin (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I support keeping it as one article. It's completely different to the Airdirieonians situation as the current Airdrieonians are actually the old Clydebank rather than a new club. A better parallel would be Newport County A.F.C., which is a single article. Number 57 09:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment Article should be kept as it is. As I said in original discussion, if we start a new article every time a club temporarily drops out of a league or changes ownership it would get ridiculous. There is a big difference if a completely new club is formed decades or years later. Galway United's own website has a combined history and does not seem to recognize two separate clubs. The club just left the League of Ireland and after some restructuring returned a few seasons later. The club did not go out of existence and continued to field a team in the League of Ireland U–19 division. Both Derry City F.C. and Cork City F.C. underwent similar restructuring and they do not have separate articles. DjlnDjln (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  • From extratime.ie: "Galway United FC were formed in the Autumn of 2013 as a merger between the various League of Ireland football interests in the city. Representatives of Salthill Devon, Mervue United the Galway United Supporters Trust (GUST) and the Galway FA combined to form the board of the new club with both Salthill and Mervue conceding their places in the LoI First Division".
  • From The42.ie: "The newly-formed club, which is made up of the Galway United Supporters Group (GUST), Mervue United, Salthill Devon and the Galway & District League, has applied for an Airtricity League licence for 2014 and is preparing to compete in the First Division."
  • From Galway Advertiser: "newly formed club"
Derry City and Cork City were formally recognised by the LOI as continuations of the same club. Galway hasn't been. Mooretwin (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
it is still essentially the same club restructured. According to the clubs own website, the club does not regard itself as being founded in 2013. Its own history page lists dozens of trophies won before 2013, explain that. Its totally irrelevant what the above links say as the club website clearly does not agree. GUST played a major part before and after 2013 and is the common thread between both eras. Club uses same name, same colours, same ground and has same supporter's trust. How exactly does it qualify as a separate club. Djln Djln (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course the club itself will wish to claim continuity, but that is a primary source. The secondary sources say it's a new club, formed two years after the old one's demise. So, in actual fact, it's the other way round: the club's own web site is irrelevant as we go with the secondary sources on WP. Mooretwin (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you can just say "Here's a football team article, Galway United should be the same the same as this" because there are so many different ways on wiki that similar situations have been dealt with. It's different if you have a justification, that's more than just "It agrees with me", as to why you've chosen that article. For me when you look at an article like Rangers F.C., it hasn't been separated into the old and the new because the reliable sources used to verify the article say, or support the view, that it was founded in 1872. Mooretwin has shown above that there are reliable sources that say it is a new club and, from an encyclopedic point of view, if they different they should have different articles. Its the same with Airdrieonians F.C. (1878) and Airdrieonians F.C., although a more black and white scenario, it's still what the reliable sources say. Personally, I think the two separate articles is correct as, like the Airdrieonians F.C. case, they founded a new club which doesn't use the same license to compete in the league. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment So what your saying is, we ignore the official club website because they are clearly lying and are at the centre of some kind of conspiracy to misled us about their history. Instead we take the word of some dubious and/or outdated secondary sources that are just expressing a POV that happens to coincide with Mooretwins agenda. Also in 2010 Bray Wanderers changed their abbreviation from A.F.C. to F.C. . Are we going to start a new article for them ? Djln Djln (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Djln: Jumping to extremes and phrasing it like that doesn't help your argument. Neither does the, quite frankly petty, Bray Wanderers argument. I agree with you that the club website is a legitimate source but in cases like this where, from what I have seen (and I'm not going to pretend to have seen everything), the majority of sources point to it being a different club, we should follow the majority, just like when we reach consensus on a discussion like this. I'll again point to the Rangers F.C. example because it's the majority of sources that say it's the same club. You will find some that disagree but most say it's a continuation and that's why I think it should be two separate articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
How exactly did I jump to extremes ? Bray Wanderers point is more valid then nonsense about Rangers as they are in same league. So called majority of sources cited here are dubious and/or outdated secondary sources. As you admit you have not read everything on topic, I suggest you read some more on it and you will see it is not as complicated as Mooretwin is making out. The club underwent some restructuring, it never disbanded. Club uses same name, same colours, same ground and is managed by same supporter's trust. How exactly are they a separate club ? Djln Djln (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Saying things like "clearly lying", "some kind of conspiracy" and "Mooretwins agenda" are jumping to extremes. Teams change their names all the time (see Livingston F.C., Airdrieonians F.C. and Edinburgh City F.C.) so moving the article and creating a redirect is the only sensible option. It is silly to suggest that we create an entire new page for it so the "nonsense" about Rangers F.C. is a more valid point in this instance. From your point of view, you should be using Rangers as an example because they are considered the same club. They haven't played in the same league for four years because they had to be re-elected to the league. Just because it's run by the same people and plays in the same place doesn't make it the same club, as I've said above, it plays in the league under a different license which suggests that it is different entity. Another valid source, I'm sure you'll agree, is UEFA. On their website there are two separate pages for Galway clubs, the old club and the new club. As for the dubiety of the other sources Mooretwin has pointed out, they look reliable enough.
I'm sorry if I haven't come across the way I wanted to, it's difficult to convey tone through text. I was hoping we could have sensible discussion where you could put forward your point and I mine and, with the help of other editors, that we could reach some sort of consensus, whether it agrees with your view or mine. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Accusing me of "jumping to extremes" is a bit ridiculous and possibly a bit extreme itself. You need to read the Wikipedia:SARCASM guideline. You have a point about Rangers F.C. thou. There are similarities. In both cases the club dropped out of a league/division, started competing in a different league/division before eventually returning to the original league/division. Neither club was disbanded. They continued playing at the same ground, used the same name, played in the same colours and were supported by the same fan base and in Galway United's case, managed by the same supporters trust. Yet you are saying Galway United is two separate clubs, while Rangers F.C. is one. You are contradicting yourself. The two UEFA links are two pages about the same club, nothing more. Plus I didn't realise "look reliable enough" was now the Wiki standard for sources. Djln Djln (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The reason it sounds like I'm contradicting myself is because I'm using what the sources say. That's why Rangers F.C. are classed as one club. I would happily have you argue that they are two clubs, given that the old company still hasn't been formally liquidated, but the sources are of a different consensus, so it is one club. If you look at the UEFA sources, they are clearly two different club pages. One has a European history, one doesn't, one (albeit miss named) has domestic fixtures and results, one doesn't and they both have different badges, all indicators that they are different clubs. Every situation like this is different and should be treated as such. Another reason that I think there should be two articles in this case is that the new club, in a similar scenario to Airdrieonians F.C., were re-named to take on the name of the old club as it was originally called Galway FC.
I don't see how you could argue that the sources posted here so far aren't reliable and they are saying that this incarnation of Galway United F.C. is a different one to it's predecessor. As a result I would support a move to reinstate the two separate pages. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Club was known as Galway F.C. for a single season. Cork City F.C. changed their badge at least twice. Numerous other clubs have redesigned their badge, doesn't make them new clubs. Cork City also changed their kit four times, does that mean there should be four different Cork Citys. This UEFA link [5] refers to Galway United as Galway, doesn't mean anything but it could be a third Galway team. Galway United were originally known as Galway Rovers so maybe there should be four articles for four clubs. Mooretwin would just love that. Djln Djln (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Can we be a bit more sensible about this please? The new article per name, badge, colour change argument is a non starter, it's just a silly suggestion. I pointed it out because they had to apply for a license and the old club held the Galway United license so the new club couldn't use it.
You have a point with the UEFA source you've pointed out but it's a common tactic of UEFA to use a shorter team name, I'll give you it's more effective on teams like Sporting Clube de Portugal and Club Atlético de Madrid but they've done it on that occasion as well. Click on the Galway link on the page and it takes you to the clubs profile page, the old Galway United page.
The only source you've pointed out so far to show that they aren't two different clubs is the clubs website. As much as I agree that it is a valid source, it's the only one that I've seen that contradict's UEFA, newspaper articles and sports website articles that I'm sure you'll agree are equally valid sources. I admit, it shows how complicated the situation is when there are contradictory sources but seems to be an obvious majority in favour of there being two different Galway clubs. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I am the one being sensible mate. You are proposing that we completely ignore the clubs own website and take the word of unreliable, dubious and outdated sites which are just reflecting the opinion of that particular blogger/writer. None of sites you have mentioned have any credibility. You cannot contradict the clubs own website just because it is the minority. I am positive the author of the clubs website knows more about their history then some office flunky in UEFA who has probably never even heard of Galway United Djln Djln (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Arguments like that are just unreasonable. You've been shown sources which contradict your view point and have done nothing but call into question their reliability. There is nothing unreliable or dubious about any of those sources. They are as legitimate as the clubs website. If you can present a better argument than that then I'll be happy to listen otherwise there will still be a reason to discuss this. At the moment, there is no consensus either way amongst editors on wikipedia. There was also no formal merger discussion on the talk:Galway United F.C. (1937–2011) and talk:Galway United F.C. (2013) pages which contravenes WP:MERGE as this is clearly a controversial issue. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree yes your arguments are unreasonable. Clubs website takes precedent over blogs as far as I am concerned. We will have to agree to disagree on the validity of sources. Yes it was discussed. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 101#Galway United Merger. Clearly not at same length as here, but there were no objections. It is controversial only the minds of yourself and Mooretwin, nobody else. Several editors (@Koppapa: @Abcmaxx: @Gufcfan: ) have also edited the article since I merged it and nobody complained or questioned it. Djln Djln (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Djln, on Wikipedia secondary sources take precedence over primary sources like the club web site. The new Galway is recognised as a different club by the FAI (new licence), UEFA, and the local press per the sources available. We shouldn't rewrite history just because the club wants to present itself as a continuation. Mooretwin (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, guys, it looks like this is going nowhere. I've requested [[6]]. Never done this before, so not sure what happens next. Mooretwin (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The request will almost certainly be rejected – dispute resolution is for major disputes (usually ones that have turned nasty). An RFC would be a better route. Number 57 10:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try that, though they rarely succeed in eliciting much participation in my experience. Mooretwin (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I've moved posted an RfC at Galway United F.C. and posted this discussion. Hopefully we'll get a few more contributors. Mooretwin (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Help desk question[edit]

There is a football related question at the Help Desk here. The articles don't seem notable, if someone could help that would be appreciated. Joseph2302 17:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Symbol wait vote.svg Wait - I requested that help and am' willing to wait for the merger am' gonna perform! VarunFEB2003 I am Offline 17:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Bakary Soumaré[edit]

Born in Mali, played for Mali - but spent time in the States (and France) as a kid and has acquired American nationality due to residency. Should he be removed from Category:Expatriate soccer players in the United States and/or added to Category:American expatriate soccer people in Germany. I say no, @DrunkenGerman: says yes. I fear this sets a dangerous precedent for players who acquire 2nd nationalities due to residency to be removed from valid categories. GiantSnowman 17:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but in other categories such as "Premier League players" we include players that has played in PL even after they left (not just current players). This footballer has been an "Expatriate soccer players in the United States" and I think he should remain in that category. Qed237 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Any reason he can't be in both ? DjlnDjln (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
By definition an expatriate is someone who leaves his home country (in the sense of the country where he is living usually/his "home base") for a certain amount of time to live/work abroad.
Soumaré was raised and socialized in the US and can therefore by definition be no expatriate in the United States.
Off topic: To call such a player then Malian in the article's introductory sentence is in my point of view a bit misleading. He is living the life of a US citizen and just played a dozen matches for the Malian national team within a two year period. I would rather call him a US-Malian footballer or Malian international footballer.
Maybe you would like to take a look how the guys in French wikipedia handle this nationality mess. The French version of Bakary Soumaré is actually not useful, because there the US nationality is missing, but e.g. the article of fr:Karim Guédé, a German-Slovakian-Togolese player, is interesting. I would even love to see the French version of the infobox in the English wikipedia. DrunkenGerman (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion players should be identified with their FIFA nationality, so if he played officially for Mali than he should be listed in the lead as a Malian footballer. I agree with GiantSnowman on his choice of categories, there are many MLS players who have US green cards. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
First of all, as stated above he is in no way an expatriate in the US. The term expatriate is used fundamentally wrong here in footballer categories.
Then you have to ask yourself: What kind of implicit information does mentioning a nationality in the introduction give the reader of the article?
Usually a reader would expect that a person originates from the respective country. That means that the person is of the respective culture, does speak the respective language and is (in cases of primarily heterogenous ethnic societies) of a certain ethnicity.
FIFA/sport nationalities instead have often little to do with the original nationality of a person. Players can just choose between different nationality options, usually according to all nationalities their parents/grandparents may have had hold or for instance after the fall of the USSR, players could choose between a dozen successor state, no matter if they had any relation to them.
As a result, choosing a FIFA nationality has more become an option to make the best of a player's career and has in fact nothing to do with the culture in which they were socialized, the language they speak or the nationality they held originally.
Using only the sport's nationality of a player in the lead paragraph therefore gives an inaccurate and incomplete picture of a person and distracts the reader. DrunkenGerman (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Statistics for Premier League 2[edit]

My understanding is that in the U.S., teams like LA Galaxy would also have a reserve side, LA Galaxy II and we would would record their stats from the reserve side as well. With the new installment of reserve sides being allow to play in an offical knock-out competition such as the EFL Trophy. Should we be recording the reserve sides stats as well? Along one of our sources for citation, Soccerway, also began recording these stats as well. Chelseafc1129 (talk) (17:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC))

As far as I know, reserve team statistics should only be recorded if the reserve team plays in a first team competition.--EchetusXe 18:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
In theory I'd have no objection to players' stats for the "reserve" teams (which are actually being listed as under-23 teams, I believe) in the EFL Trophy being included in career stats tables, given that they'll be playing against other clubs' first teams, as long as they were clearly identified as such. As they aren't league games, they wouldn't be in the infobox of course -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course, we would add the cup games into the stat table of the reserve players. But the confusing thing would be since the club name (for example: Chelsea U23) would be on table. How should we handle all the others stats as well. Should we just ignore the Premier League 2 and other stats completely? Wshjackson (talk) (21:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC))
There's a slight difference, the American 'reserve' sides are their own clubs with a bought franchise license. They are separate 'clubs'. Players can't represent the MLS teams unless it's a loan move or their contract rights are bought by MLS. TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

In the specific case of the EFL Trophy, in a few weeks my team, Gillingham will play West Bromwich Albion U23. It would be odd to have a situation where the players for one team had appearances and goals added to their career stats tables, and the players for the other team didn't. I think we should include the stats, the only question would be how to show them......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend something like this:
Club Season League FA Cup League Cup Other Total
Division Apps Goals Apps Goals Apps Goals Apps Goals Apps Goals
West Bromwich Albion U23 2016–17 1[nb 1] 0 0 0
  1. ^ Appearances in the EFL Trophy
Not sure what I'd put in the "Division" column though. – PeeJay 07:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
N/A.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
By the way, this inconvenience for Wikipedians is just one more reason to hate the whole idea of these teams being allowed into the Trophy in the first place ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd remove the blank space for the division and extend the colspan. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

On a related tack, do big-club U23 players become notable by playing in the EFL Trophy? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thought I'd just 'bump' this question as we have the matches tonight. I can't off the top of my head recall if a League Cup/FA Cup appearance for a team from professional league makes a player notable - I think it does but WP:NFOOTY is not clear on the matter. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Playing for or against an U23 team would not meet NFOOTBALL. Cup notability is established by playing for a team from a FPL, against a team from a FPL, in a competitive cup match. The U23 league is not a FPL. GiantSnowman 20:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

David McMillan[edit]

I propose that the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David McMillan (footballer) be closed and the template at David McMillan (footballer) be removed. There is clear majority in favour of keeping article. Djln Djln (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The AfD is due to be closed tomorrow, there's no need to propose a closure here. Number 57 13:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Sound DjlnDjln (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Advice regarding splitting tournament across seasons[edit]

Bengaluru FC is participating in 2016 AFC Cup, which started in February 2016 and they'll be playing in quarter finals in September 2016. However their season (2015–16 Bengaluru FC season) ended in May 2016. So I am wondering how should this be covered? Should QF and further rounds be covered in 2016–17 Bengaluru FC season or 2015–16 Bengaluru FC season?

They'll mostly likely be playing in 2017 AFC Cup as well. If I choose to include in 2016–17 Bengaluru FC season, so should there be two entries for AFC cup in the same season? Coderzombie (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have said you should list that competition entirely in the article for the season in which it started. That way you don't run the risk of having two different instances of the same competition in the same article. – PeeJay 20:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with PeeJay2K3 and that's the consensus on Australian clubs' season pages (as seen with the WS Wanderers' winning campaign). --SuperJew (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks SuperJew and PeeJay2K3 for your inputs, it makes sense. I'll restrict it to one season. Coderzombie (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Patrick McEleney and Ronan Finn[edit]

Articles on both players were recently deleted due to claims that neither of them passed the criteria for WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. While I accept that both these full-time professional players are not playing in a fully professional league (League of Ireland, I believe they both fulfil the WP:GNG requirements and have received significant coverage from both national and international media (I have listed some of the articles about McEleney in my comment here). Unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to participate in either article's deletion debate before they were deleted, but I feel many articles relating to each player were overlooked and I have significantly edited both articles in draft format (see Draft:Patrick McEleney and Draft:Ronan Finn) to include more of these references and demonstrate General Notability. I wanted to run it by the WikiProject Football first to make sure there's consensus that people are now happy with the articles. Many thanks, --IrishTennis (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@IrishTennis: In support of the above comments I believe Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues needs to be reviewed. It is my understanding that FIFA does not distinguish between "semi-professional" and "fully professional". A player is either a professional or an amateur. see page 10 So therefore the leagues listed cannot be described as "fully professional" because amateur players are not barred from playing in any of them. My suggestion is that the title should be changed to "top level and professional leagues" and/or that the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League and their equivalents in other confederations should be included. Currently articles on players who have played in the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League are been deemed not notable based on the fact that they have not played in a so called "fully professional league". How can a player such as Gareth Seddon, who spent the majority of his career in the lower levels of English football be deemed notable, while a player like David McMillan and the above two who have played in the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League be regarded as non-notable. Djln (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If a footballer has played in Champions League or Europa League are notable, however they must have played in the competition (group stage and onwards). Just playing in qualifying rounds against teams from small leagues like gibraltar does not make them notable. Qed237 (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe not if that was his only game, but the above three have all played against teams from Poland and Belarus. DjlnDjln (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
You have to play in the competition, not qualification, no matter who you meet. Qed237 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Qualifying rounds are still part of competition Djln Djln (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the WP:NFOOTY guidelines can be perhaps overly stringent on players who are playing for professional clubs at the top level in their country if not all the other clubs in that league are also professional. I would argue that in many cases these players receive more national coverage in the media and have more notability than a player who has spent his entire career in, for example, the 4th tier on English football. I feel it may be too far to include all qualifying rounds of European competition given the sheer multitude of teams competing in the earlier qualifying rounds on the Europa League, some of whom receive little to no significant coverage even in their own country, but appearing in the group stage of either the Champions League or Europa League certainly confers notability in my opinion. Perhaps a balance can be struck? In this instance, Ronan Finn played in all but one of Shamrock Rovers' Europa League group games in 2011 (report from their game v Rubin Kazan here), and McEleney will appear for Dundalk at the same stage in the coming weeks having played in all of their Champions League qualifying games to this point.--IrishTennis (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Djln: So a player from Fiji playing a match against American Samoa in 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification has been a part of 2018 FIFA WOrld Cup? There is a difference between "qualification" and "competition proper". You have not played in Champions League unless you participated in group stage and qualified for main tournament. Qed237 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Going off on a tangent and talking about another competition is no help at all. Totally pointless and irrelevant to topic. Playing in Champions League qualification phase is considerably more notable than playing in World Cup qualification. Anybody with basic grasp of football history would know that. DjlnDjln (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Well thats your opinion. The fact is that FIFA qualification is a internatiopnal tier 1 match and enough for notability. Champions League qualification is simply a minor qualification to a club tournament and not enough for notability. Qed237 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The UEFA Champions League is the undisputed premier club football competition in the world. At least on this planet. Not sure what planet your living on. And you are dismissing it's opening games as a "minor qualification to a club tournament", really ! My advice to you is, whatever you are smoking you should pack it in ASAP. Djln Djln (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Djln please be careful with your comments, you're straying into personal attacks. --SuperJew (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Not a personnel attack by any stretch, just some good life advice. Qed has been harassing/stalking me for several weeks after I disagreed with some edits he made. Maybe you should have a word with him. If he can't handle a bit of banter then tough. Djln Djln (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you feel Qed237 is harassing/stalking you because he seems to be everywhere, but I'm sure it's not personal as he is just very committed to the project. There is a current consensus at the project and that's what he's going by. Not saying that it shouldn't be changed, but that should come through civil discussion, not edit warring and/or personal attacks. --SuperJew (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
No problem with editors been passionate but I will have to disagree with you about it not been personal. Everyone I go he follows. You need to be having conversation about civil discussion, not edit warring and/or personal attacks with him and not me. DjlnDjln (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
You're deflecting mate. In the current conversation you went into personal attack. If I'd see Qed237 doing personal attack, I'd remark about it to him too. From my previous experience with him though he engages in civil discussion, even when not in agreement, and is very helpful. --SuperJew (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but that is not my experience with my Qed237. Complete opposite to be honest. You should check your facts before defending him. DjlnDjln (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion seems to have gone slightly off-topic. In relation to notability, @Qed237: made an important point earlier that "if a footballer has played in Champions League [group stages] or Europa League [group stages] [they] are notable." Can someone clarify that this is the case? --IrishTennis (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
To be notable per WP:NFOOTBALL you have to play for a team from a WP:FPL against another team from a WP:FPL in a competitive match. GiantSnowman 14:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The point I am trying to make is that there is no such thing as a fully professional league. Name me a league that amateur players are banned from. Djln Djln (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
You don't have to be banned from something for it to not be a thing. Yes amateur players can play in leagues we class as WP:FPL - but they don't. There is significant media coverage of (and associated money in) these leagues which you simply don't get in Ireland. GiantSnowman 14:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: There is more media coverage and associated money in the Albanian second tier division than in the League of Ireland Premier Division? As an aside, I think any player who appears in the group stages of the Champions League or Europa League should be deemed notable. Such a tiny fraction of footballers in Europe are good enough to play in the premier club competitions in European football that it makes it an extremely significant achievement.--IrishTennis (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
LoI gets plenty of media coverage within Ireland, significantly more then Albania's second division. But I agree any player that plays in groups stages of UCL/UEL is notable as far as I concerned. Totally irrelevant what league he plays in. Djln Djln (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Group stages of the Champions League? You might have a case there. Europa League? No. GiantSnowman 16:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Why the distinction ? Europa League is second only to Champions League in club football competitions in the world. DjlnDjln (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
That's definitely disagreeable.. The competition is not what it used to be. I do think a Champions League group stage appearance makes a player notable, but as far as this season is concerned all of the clubs in the group stage are from a WP:FPL. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Yep, one of the silliest things I've ever read on here! You don't work for UEFA's propaganda department do you Djln? GiantSnowman 17:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok then, after the Champions League which international club competition attracts the most money, draws the largest TV audience, attracts the most sponsorship ? The Europa League. You cannot seriously be claiming the Europa League is not notable, especially now that the winner qualifies for Champions League. Hope that wasn't a personal attack regarding working for UEFA ! Djln Djln (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
If anything, hasn't the Europa League been getting bigger every year? [7] In the "case" you referred to earlier @GiantSnowman:, of a player playing in a partially professional league and also the Champions League, would it be under WP:GNG that you deem them notable?--IrishTennis (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Is Dendy Sulistyawan notable?[edit]

Is Dendy Sulistyawan notable, on the Bahasa Indonesia language page it exists and it mentions that he has made top flight appearances, and these are sourced with statistics from the Indonesian language Goal.com page. However there are no sources at all in English that he appeared in a professional league, and his soccerway page turns up blank. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I might add that this is a common problem for Indonesian-related football articles since the Indonesia Super League folded in 2014.Inter&anthro (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Plymouth United F.C.[edit]

The article on Plymouth United F.C. is currently dominated by a Sunday League team of the same name, but which appears to have no relationship with the original Plymouth United. My attempts to remove the Sunday league team from the article were reverted without explanation, so I'd be interested in anyone else's opinion on whether the article should remain as it is, or needs to be pared down. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. — GasHeadSteve [TALK] 21:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember the inclusion for modern teams, but to start with they should be at a certain non-league level and be an FA registered club for inclusion on wiki, so no Sunday league team should have any article. As for the actual article, it should only be about the team formed in 1944 and not the 2011 version. Govvy (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I decided to Prod it. Govvy (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Reto Ziegler[edit]

I wasn't sure but I thought there was a rule against use of flag icons in such a way as in the honours section on Ziegler's page. Govvy (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at MOS:FLAGS --SuperJew (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
There is. I've reformatted the section. Thanks for pointing it out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Theo Hernández[edit]

Can some administrator move User:MYS77/Theo Hernández into Theo Hernández, please? The guy made his professional debut today. Thanks, MYS77 16:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Can you do that, mate? MYS77 18:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@MYS77: Yes check.svg Done GiantSnowman 19:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Thank you very much! MYS77 19:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Champions League[edit]

Is this enough to create 2018-19 UEFA Champions League article? It has got some attention around the world, but I was wondering if it is too soon anyway. However, we do have 2018–19 UEFA Nations League. I was planning on creating the CL article. Qed237 (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, the 2017–18 women's article was deleted because it was too soon. That even has qualified teams now, the men's coefficients aren't even known yet. -Koppapa (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian bankrupt clubs magically brought back to life on Wikipedia[edit]

I personally think that Wikipedia should not create a new reality. But with Ukrainian football clubs that in real life have disappeared this happens all the time.

  • In 2013 I created a new article about the then new club FC Obolon-Brovar Kyiv.... but now this article is merged with the Wikipedia article about the defunct (since 2013) club FC Obolon Kyiv. Obolon-Brovar is a new club created by the former owner of FC Obolon; that this new club took over the history of another club with a similar name is nonsense.
  • The Wikipedia article FC Arsenal Kyiv combines information about 2 different clubs who from a legal point of view have no connection (you can not re-establish something that went bankrupt, there was a new club established with a similar name).
  • The Wikipedia article FC Metalurh Zaporizhya makes the samemistake as the Wikipedia article FC Arsenal Kyiv.
  • The Wikipedia article FC Metalist Kharkiv has been renamed FC Metalist 1925 Kharkiv while "Metalist 1925" is a new club while officially FC Metalist Kharkiv does still exists as an organisation (it doesn't do anything; but formally and legally it is still alive).

Since Ukrainianfootball clubs go bankrupt all the time... there might be more examples (then I have given above).

Please create new Wikipedia articles about new things/organisations/clubs and do not create illusions that new organisations magically took over the grandiose past of organisations that don't exist anymore. Let these old organisations/clubs have their own (stand alone) Wikipedia article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I just moved FC Metalist 1925 Kharkiv back to FC Metalist Kharkiv because the article is still about the successful Metalist founded in 1925 and not about a club created this month (August 2016). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Compare with Wembley Stadium and Wembley Stadium (1923). 95.133.211.190 (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally I don't think a split is necessary. If a new club is a continuation of a former club and claims that former club's history, then why not keep it as one article? As long as it's made clear (for instance by having separate sections) that this is the case in the article, I don't see a problem. We do this in numerous other cases (e.g. Fiorentina, Newport County) as many clubs have folded and reformed at some point in their history (sometimes on multiple occasions, e.g. Parma – would it really be helpful to the reader to have six separate articles on different versions of the club?). Number 57 20:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please forgive my being blunt but I think that there is no such thing as "different versions of a football club". I think that is a thing football fans use as an illusion that they are connected to a glorious past of a club that went away. I am not a fan (although I have preferences for some clubs) of any football team; as you might have noticed..... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem with being blunt, but you have to understand that people (including reliable sources) see this in different ways. Ultimately the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform the reader, and personally I don't think it's helpful to have what is effectively the same topic split into multiple articles when for all intents and purposes it's a continuation in some form or other of the same entity – perhaps not necessarily legally speaking, but if we went down the technical legal route and insisted on separate articles for every separate legal entity, the outcome would be absurd in many cases, and certainly detrimental to the reader (especially when sources external to Wikipedia treat them as continuations of the same club). As I said, as long as it's made clear in the article that the club folded and was re-formed, I don't see the problem. Number 57 22:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Grant Ward[edit]

It was suggested on the talk page to rename him due to a possible conflict with the character Grant Ward from agents on shield. Maybe an admin can fix it. Also on transfermarkt.co.uk it says his transfer was for £604K I wanted to know how accurate that is as I was going to put it down on the Spurs season page. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

From what I know, transfermarkt isn't considered a reliable and verifiable source on Wikipedia. Personally I use it to get an outline of facts and then use that outline to find other references. I have noticed mistakes on it. Regarding Grant Ward the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. character (funnily enough that was my first assumption and I wondered why you'd talk about him on a football page ;)) I'd say leave as it is since the TV character doesn't have it's own page, and the footballer does have a "for the TV character" link at the top. --SuperJew (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason to disambiguate an article from other articles that don't exist. As mentioned, there is a hatnote at the top of the article, which is sufficient -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, even this article is taking a guess http://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnation.com/2016/8/1/12340630/tottenham-hotspur-transfer-news-rumors-grant-ward-ipswich-town maybe that's what transfermarkt is using information like that to make an estimate. Govvy (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

EFL Trophy footnotes for Career statistics tables in Player articles[edit]

I wanted to seek consensus as to how we should proceed with including EFL Trophy footnotes in Career statistics tables. Should we continue using the "Football League Trophy" footnote, rename the footnote to "EFL Trophy", or start an entirely new EFL Trophy footnote. Thanks, LTFC 95 (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)