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.

RfC: Having league division in lead section[edit]

Should the division a player plays in be included in the lead section of the article? TeaLover1996 (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  • No. GiantSnowman 09:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Why not. If it's included, there is no point in deleting it. -Koppapa (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It gives such little information as to be near-useless. GiantSnowman 10:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Why not isn't technically a vote.--EchetusXe 14:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
It should not be mandatory to include it. As well as it should not be mandatory to delete it. -Koppapa (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a request for comment, not a vote. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Kante4 (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. It provides additional at-a-glance information, particularly for players playing for clubs in countries or leagues unfamiliar to casual readers. Madcynic (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Qed237 (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes--EchetusXe 14:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No-- TeaLover1996 (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No. What happens when 3 sides from every division get relegated (and sometimes 6 in case of relegation and promotion in lower leagues) at the end of the season? We run around doing unnecessary edits for tens of thousands of players. To put it in perspective, according to FIFA here there are 327,000+ clubs and 38 million+ registered players in the world. Obv not all are on Wikipedia, but still it leaves us with potentially alot of extra editing that is unneeded. Most people know where club are located, and if they don't then a simple hover over the clubs's name usually reveals it. --Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Same argument could be used for the club of a player, there are so many transfers each year. Or career stats... -Koppapa (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I came across some players from Freiburg a couple of weeks ago which still had them as "Bundesliga" team. Don't see why this is important to have it included. It just makes more work after a team is relegated/promoted. For each team about 20-25 pages have to be updated, this work can be saved. Kante4 (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The answer is more complex than a yes or no. I do think that mentioning the division is good for an article that presents a thorough research of a retired player (along the lines of: "Bob played most of his career in the third division, but had one season in the first division"). Doing this for an active player would clearly be a problem, except if that player is a notable one. So, to make it a requirement would be wrong, but to say it is inappropriate would also be wrong.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No – While a player is still active, the division they currently play in is too fluid to warrant such regular changes. As well as being relegated or promoted, a player can be transferred between clubs in different divisions. I don't see a problem with mentioning the division at the time of the player's transfer in the main body of the article, but not in the lead section. As MarshalN20 suggests, it could work as part of a summary of a player's career once he's retired, but during an active career there's too much potential for change to warrant the inclusion of information that's barely relevant to the player's career overall. – PeeJay 20:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak yes It's a case by case thing but in general, it's relevant information and it's certainly changes not any more, in fact usually very much less, than club for most players. It's really not that much of a burden. Also it's not a vote you need to give a reason for why you have that opinion consensus is based on reasoned arguments not voting. A simple yes or no doesn't cut it. Paul  Bradbury 21:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No JMHamo (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Koppapa, Marshall2N20 and Paul Bradbury. If it's there and not outdated then I don't see a problem with it and it does help inform the reader of the current level of the player. The reasons stated against by Peejay and Shreerajtheauthor are strong reasons for not making it mandatory, but I also don't think that they're reasons for prohibiting it, and if it's accurate, let it stay. If it's outdated, remove it. It's also important to remind editors that this is not a vote. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. SuperNintendo agreed! While I don't think we have to retrospectively change every player's template, I think we should all make an effort to start displaying the nationality of the club instead of the division in the intro. And in the body most players are broken out by season now, so saying Premier League side would be fine as it's taken in context to the club's standing in that given season/date range.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Koncorde (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No Cant it just be in the infobox? MQoS (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
    • So you'd favour changing the player infobox to include division as well as club? Wouldn't that cause a huge amount of work? What if a player was promoted and/or relegated multiple times with the same club? They'd end up with loads of different rows in the infobox for their time with that one club..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
      • It's one thing forthat kind of stuff to be required where it's a one league system (NFL, NHL etc) but problematic in multi league / competition systems. Having looked at an awful lot of articles that exist - very few even mention the division in the narrative unless there is a reason to do so (i.e. promotion, change of division when transferring, final league position etc). The use of "Premier" in Cristiano Ronaldo and Gareth Bale's profiles is quite telling. It is almost never in reference to the club - and always to some personal achievement, goal, or to differentiate between a league game and cup game. Koncorde (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, if I must choose one or the other. Why not is closer. It's relevant information, the answer to the sort of question readers ask when they start reading about a player. Most people don't know what division most clubs are in: we're not writing for the football expert, we're writing for the general reader. What harm does it do to include a small piece of helpful information somewhere where that reader can see it at a glance? After all, a player's up-to-the-minute stats are apparently important enough to include in the infobox, which is supposed to be an at-a-glance summary of the player's career. How much time do editors spend 40/50 times a season updating infobox and career stats? Yet once a year, or less, is too much time for our poor overworked editors to spend on updating a change of division. If it's outdated, fix it: that's what policy would advise. I'm not arguing that it should be mandatory to include it, but I am saying that if people want it in, I can't see any justification for removing it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No "Nationality club" is sufficient. SLBedit (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No It's overkill. We will have to update a lot of players only because of promotions/relegations. Only Country club is enough. MYS77 04:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, The league the player currently plays in is most definitely applicable. As long as they are kept up to date which they should generally be then there is no issue. However there is no need to systematically add them, just as there is no need to systematically delete them. This should remain principally an editorial decision. I however would be against us including every league a player has played in, just the one they currently play in. Most leads will have the club and that is enough when they no longer play there.Blethering Scot 17:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. Very relevant information which a reader looking up a player potentially, and often likely, doesn't know, which will inform in tern their opinion of the player. To those saying "it will require too much updating", I think the scale of such changes would make it a very small issue when compared to the thousands of players who play matches each week (or even season) which require more updating/research. Macosal (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes same reasons as Struway and Macosal. BigDom (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes same reasons as Struway and Macosal. "Too much editing" has nothing to do with it. The same way you need to update caps is being a lot of consistent editing we must keep up with, the league name is nothing compared to that. What does it take to change it if a player leaves. Nothing at all. Very relevant information, more so than just the club nationality. It is much more important for the major players of major teams. I understand that the lower league team players may not get updated as often, but they already do not as it is. Most if not all Serie D clubs' still have the 2012-13 positions in the infobox, for example. Where are editors then that need to run around and edit? Might as well get rid of that part of the infobox then right? Too much editing right? Come on guys. That cannot be an excuse. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Why? Why not? it seems to me that this should be a case by case issue. As long as the club is listed, the information is readily accessible. Still, why not? I don't see why it should be mandatory, but it can't hurt. K90sdrk (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

What conclusion have we come too then? TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Football Collapsible Boxes[edit]

Would it be possible to make football collapsible boxes such that when you click "Show [more details]", the header text (i.e. teams, score, date and stadium) does not move slightly towards the right? I think this is a key template issue, particularly as it's used by so many people.M00036 (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't someone agree with me on this? M00036 (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I do agree. It is dependant on screen size: very wide screens did not have the issue. I actually changed the template for a similar issue in the past, but it was reverted for unclear reasons. So I went ahead to fix it again, this time in a better way: I only slightly changed column widths, so that the "Show/Hide" column is actually big enough to fit its contents. Let's hope it is not reverted this time :) Sygmoral (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Ive got a wide screen so can't replicate it.
Unfortunately it seems like this is quite a sensitive issue. The template is meant to show its contents on 1 line (when collapsed), but apparently many people are used to it taking up 2 lines (due to poor template design), and because of that they keep reverting my change to make it use up 1 line - as it was intended to do. I gave up again for now; seems like for some reason we need clear consensus to fix that template to how it was meant to be. See its talk page. --Sygmoral (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Brazilian football specialist may be required[edit]

Clube de Regatas do Flamengo has seen an edit war over whether the club has one five or six Campeonato Brasileiro Série A titles. At question is whether 1987's Copa União qualifies as a title or not. I have requested temporary protection at the club article and the other page is already locked. I don't have the time or the desire to dig deeper. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Giso6150: Seems perfect for the new Brazil task force. Paul  Bradbury 15:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Pbradbury: Thanks for the heads up on this. I added a citation. I don’t know where the person who insists on 5 wins is getting their information. Hopefully the edit war settles down. giso6150 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The Copa União and 1987 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A articles aren't entirely consistent with each other. Hack (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Relegation play-offs or something else?[edit]

I'm hoping to find some consensus on what to label play-offs between tiers for promotion/relegation. I have seen it handled differently in articles, with two being the most common: 1)Relegation play-offs; 2)Premiership play-offs (or whatever the name of the higher tier division is). It seems to me that relegation play-offs may be inaccurate since it is a promotion play-offs for the lower tier team. The only other label I thought of as a possibility is Promotion/Relegation play-offs.

I don't have a strong opinion on this and would be fine with any of these three options, or something else. Consistency across articles is my main goal with the question. Equineducklings (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A name might probably depend on how the "postseason competition" is structured. If the match or matches in question are structured like "one higher-division team vs one lower-division team" (example), "relegation/promotion playoffs" could be the best option. If only lower-tier teams participate (example), "promotion playoffs" could be the way to go; a similar naming might be applied when only higher-tier teams take part. However, if there is a distinctive name aside from the general terms (for example, the Dutch relegation/promotion tournament between two Eredivisie and eight Eerste Divisie teams is called "Nacompetitie"), this should of course be preferred. --– Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't think to specify, but I was asking about play-offs between divisions in hopes of finding agreement. I first noticed it last year in the Scottish football articles where there are play-offs between each division. I think the preferred labels are more clear when the competition is only for promotion or relegation. It would be nice if more leagues had specific names for it like Nacompetitie. Equineducklings (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
In Scotland, the playoffs are named after the higher division [1]. That applies to all of the games in the competition, including the two ties (3rd v 4th and 2nd v winner of 3rd v 4th) that don't involve any Premiership teams. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, in Scotland the play-offs are named based on what the teams are playing for (a spot in the Premiership, Championship, etc.). That's why it seemed to me that calling the same type of play-off in another country "relegation play-off" is only focusing on one side of the competition. I'm not sure it's a big enough topic for people to care enough about to want to change anything, but I think there should be some uniformity for labeling these play-offs across all countries. Whether that's "Relegation play-off", "Higher division play-off", or "Promotion/Relegation play-off", any are fine with me. Equineducklings (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you can arbitrarily enforce consistency on something like that. We can only go with what the sources say. That may vary from country to country. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
And if the sources don't say, or vary? (for example, soccerway and scoresway use Play-offs 1/2, which are normally different from other sources and articles rarely use). Just go along with whatever is used by another editor who labels it first? Equineducklings (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems reasonable unless there is a compelling reason to change it. Paul  Bradbury 21:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I feel like official sources would usually have a designated title for matches like this, in the competition regulations if nothing else (and this should be used per WP:RS). Macosal (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
<reduce indent> Equally if there's no good reason to change a recongisable name, then we shouldn't change it, particularly if the Official Name is not regularly used. I'd go with what it's been called by the first editor, unless this is somehow unclear or not a commonly recognized name for it. Official names could be useful, but there's no need to use them. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a process flow around dual nationality players[edit]

There is still general consensus needed for dual nationality players. There are some people who see this as black and white issue when it is in fact not. If you achieve notability in two different countries while being a citizen of those countries how can you in fact just be listed as a citizen of just one of these countries. This is in fact illogical and misrepresents many football players for many different countries.

Let's classify dual nationals as players that meet the notability requirements in Country A as a citizen of Country A. While later meeting notability requirements in Country B as a citizen of Country B. The goal of this consensus is the following:

  • Neutrally define dual national players.
  • Properly portray the subject's career and life experiences.
  • Avoid edit wars and conflicts by individuals who feel nationalistic pride or bias around the athlete's countries of origin.

There are many factors to account for when categorizing a dual national player. Birth country, what country the player first met notability requirements, and what country the player represents in international competition. Please see the below flow:

 Citizen of Country A and Country B > Notable in Country A = Yes > Notable in Country B = Yes > Country A and B can be listed

 Citizen of Country A and Country B > Notable in Country A = No > Notable in Country B = Yes > Only Country B can be listed
 Citizen of Country A and Country B > Notable in Country A = Yes > Notable in Country B = No > Only Country A can be listed

 Citizen of Country A and Country B > Notable in Country A = No > Notable in Country B = No > Notable in Country C = Yes > Country where the player plays internationally is listed > (if no senior national team) > birth country is listed

As you can see, the subject would have had to meet the notability standards in each country for dual nationalities to be listed. Synthfreq (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

So long as we don't use that God-awful "X-born Y" wording, which is a pet peeve of mine. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought FIFA nationality is all that we report on.
What exactly does "notable in country" mean here?
Also, MOS:BIO, §Opening Paragraph, item 3.2 "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, 'previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." This clearly argues against this proposal.
Finally, we should clarify that no linking of countries, links to "German People", "Americans" or similar demographic articles should not be made. (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I am basing notability on this:
So lets say a player is born in Turkey to American parents and is a citizen of both countries. Let's also say this hypothetical player is a Turkish youth player and plays for a Turkish pro club. When he plays for the Turkish pro club it would make him a notable Turkish Football Player by both WP:FOOTY and Wikipedia standards and he should be listed as a a Turkish footballer. However, let's say that same player decides to play for the United States internationally he would then meet the new notability requirements while also being American Citizen as well. To define this player as just American would be somewhat incorrect since he was first notable as Turkish. However, to just call him Turkish is also incorrect as he plays for the United States in international competition and is a United States Citizen. Therefore, I believe both countries must be equally recognized to logically represent the players career. I think that country the player represents in international competition should always be the main country the player's nationality is listed as and next would be the the country the player was born/first notable in. So in the case of the example above the player would be described as a "Turkish-born American soccer player" or something along those lines.

Synthfreq (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

We have to base our decisions on MOS:BIO first and foremost. We dare not go against that guideline.
Using your example, the current process, as I have read it, would list him only as an American player (because he plays for the United States) who plays for Turkish club Galatasaray (as an example).
But what if the reverse is the case. Born and raised in Florida, he joins and plays for a marginally notable US club, say one in the United Soccer League Professional Development league — not one that has any affiliation with MLS. He gets no press while on the team. He then is called-up and plays for the Turkey U-21 side. Again, no press. Which then is the "notable country"?
That is the crux: without defining "notable in country" this is a worthless proposal. No offence. (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
So in your example you said the player only played for U-21. This does not fit the notability requirements of playing at the senior level. Again, please read here:
So the player you described would be just American. However if he plays at the senior level for the Turkish National Team he would then be called an "American-born Turkish footballer" or something along those lines. Based on the current FIFA international eligibility a system like this works and would keep things unbiased. Synthfreq (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This seems reasonable to me but only if the player was notable before they represented either national team at a senior level. Otherwise, you may have edits noting the player's ethnicity or where the player was born when it's rather irrelevant. But in the case you described, I believe this makes sense when using "notability" as a standard. (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that if the person hasn't played international football and there is any doubt, then we should not mention nationality in the lead given that it's not relevant to their notability. Hack (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you. The header should remain neutral simply stating "a professional soccer player" or "professional footballer". This would only apply in the cases where the player competes internationally for a different country then the one they were initially notable in. Synthfreq (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
That goes against MOS:BIO. This suggestion should be floated past that project before any final decision is made. (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's very simple. If there's no doubt, then use the nationality in question. If there is doubt, then don't. If a player was born in X but represents Y then don't include nationality in the opening sentence, but explain the situation later on in the intro e.g. "John Smith is a professional footballer who plays for Wiki FC, as a midfielder. Born in X, he represents Y at international level." GiantSnowman 17:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What if the fact that a player was born in a certain country is essentially incidental—for example if he was born while his parents were living abroad, and returned home as a small kid? See Terry Butcher, Shaun Maloney and Cédric Soares for just three examples. Placing so much weight on the place of birth in the basic descriptions of these people is in my view over-simplifying things and against MOS (see WP:OPENPARA), as outlined by above. In the case of Butcher, for example, the fact that he was born in Singapore is more a pub quiz question than anything. It's actually much more pertinent where these people grew up, went to school, played youth football etc. To clarify: I agree with GiantSnowman where a player was born, raised and schooled in a certain country, and started their football career there, but then plays international football for another country; but I don't agree in cases where a player just happens to have been born in a different country. Seems to me like undue weight. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Although not footballers, I think it's useful to compare the cyclists Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome. Wiggins was born in Belgium to a British Mother and Australian Father. He moved to the UK at 2. His birthplace is mentioned in the infobox and early life section, but not elsewhere. It's essentially not relevant to him - Wiggins career and personality has been shaped by being British. Froome was born and raised in Keyna to British parents and then moved to South Africa. He road with African teams until 2008 and represented Kenya in his early career. He's described as 'Kenya-born British' (a phrasing I have no issue with!). His birthplace is much more relevant to him, shaping the progression of his life and career. Most sportspeople will fall somewhere between these relatively two extreme polls, but what they offer are useful case studies of the variety of the relevance of otherwise of birth place and sporting nationalities, and as such stand as good reasons for not having a policy beyond Wikipedia's current stance of not emphasizing nationality/birthplace if there is no good reason to. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, in my opinion Super Nintendo Chalmers has it about right. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I get the sense that this project does not want to discuss this with the biographies project. I'm not entirely certain why that is. (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent AfD discussions for National League season articles[edit]

In the context of the recent AfD discussions for English National League team season articles, and out of interest – is there an actual reason for the current consensus to keep English fifth-tier seasons despite them clearly not meeting WP:NSEASONS, at least in its current wording? Just wondering because of the rationale for this contested PROD turned AfD. In other words, would this season article be !voted "Keep" if the club were to play in the National League (and it would be similarly sourced as the National League team seasons currently up for AfD)? If so, why? – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be some kind of abberation. Almost all previous AfDs have resulted in the articles being deleted. Number 57 15:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
True, but I doubt that will happen here or here. Also, taking a look at the last couple of navboxes "xxxx–xy in English football" seems to suggest otherwise. So, what made us keep all these Football Conference/Conference National/National League season articles? *confused* – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 08:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Inertia - i.e. no-one had ever bothered taking them to AfD. Number 57 11:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems that there is a growing preference to make National League season articles notable, as pointed out by Soccer-holic.. I don't know what to make of this personally. JMHamo (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
My concern with these AfDs is that keep arguments seem to revolve around the fact that there are sufficient sources to satisfy GNG, when almost all the sources (regardless of your opinions on WP:MILL) are from primary sources, i.e. the club in question or one of its competitors. Fenix down (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
<reduce indent> Unfortunately a sufficient number of editors are electing to keep such articles and as such we are lumbered with them. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic but similar: Soccer-holic bringing this up reminded me of a similar thing I have noticed recently. Many articles, especially once you get away from the top tier, seem to just be a collection of stats. It seems like these articles should be improved significantly, or deleted. Although, there are probably too many for it to be realistic to ever get to them all. Equineducklings (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Current squad and WP:Recentism[edit]

I originally raised this point on the National teams talk page, but am moving it here since we'll probably end up retiring those talk pages anyway.

This is also a continuation of a short discussion on the Belgium NFT talk page: I suggested making the 'current squad' less recentism-susceptible, to be consistent with the decision that the list of "most recent matches" should not appear on a NFT's main article.

A summarization of the issue: player squads for national football teams are mere snapshots. They may often include first-timers, sometimes even without a single cap, while excluding core players that happened to be injured at the time of the most recent match.

The source of the issue is that national football teams are more volatile than club teams: they are separate selections for almost each individual match. Showing the 'most recent snapshot' is nevertheless the current recommendation for NFT pages, and this is what I propose we change.

(only read this paragraph if you're not yet convinced this really is an issue)
An illustration of the issue with the current recommendation is that notable active players may not be mentioned under Current squad because they missed out on the most recent selection due to injury or suspension, while a first-timer may be displayed for months because they were selected for the most recent match. An concrete examply is what you can see right now on the Belgian page: Youri Tielemans and Leander Dendoncker are listed in the "current squad", even though they have 0 and 1 caps respectively and their selection is from 2.5 months ago. At the same time, veterans such as Vincent Kompany and Marouane Fellaine, who are much more likely to be included in any future squad, are not mentioned under "current squad" because they happened to be respectively suspended and injured 2.5 months ago. This is an issue because it means the "Current squad" relates much more to "the most recent match" (or the very next match) than it relates to the actual main article. Finally note that this is not just an issue on the Belgian page, but this is in fact the current recommendation.

So now that we have established that this really is a problem, let's move on to my suggestion to solve it!

A solution
The most important conclusion is that a any snapshot of a concrete selection is too temporary to appear on the main article of a NFT. So I propose that the mention of "These players were selected for the match on [this date]" be removed from the recommendation (it violates WP:Recentism). The next question then is who we do want to see mentioned here. I believe we need to see what you could call the 'core team' of a NFT. This is not obvious to define: there must be a balance between what is too volatile (update per match) and what is too slow (update per sports season). There is no way around it that this will make any objective recommendation more complex, but I still believe it is the only way to make it adhere better to Wikipedia's general standards (short of completely removing the section).

I propose that some criteria are defined to include players in the "Current squad" section on the main article of a NFT. My first suggestion is the following:

  • Players have at least 3 caps (reached notability)
  • Players have been selected in at least 1 of the most recent 4 matches (are still relevant)

There could still be an (optional) secondary section (like the "recent call-ups" we have now) to mention those players that 'did not make it' into the main list. (Although I'm not entirely sure how relevant that is to the main article of a NFT)

Some of the effects:

  • Established players with a temporary issue (injury, suspension) will stay on the list during a 'grace period' of 4 matches. This makes sense because they can be expected to be selected again when their 'issue' is over.
  • Long-time players that are not selected for 4 or more times will drop off. This makes sense because they can no longer be considered part of the core team: for whatever reason, they are not being selected anymore. (They might still appear elsewhere in the article as a historically notable player, of course.) And if they are ever selected again, perhaps after they've had a year of low activity, they will quickly be listed as a core player again.
  • Players with no or only a few caps will never appear on the NFT article (regardless of their number of selections). This makes sense because they can't be considered a core-team player (yet).
  • New stars will still appear relatively quickly, after just 3 caps. This makes sense because players can certainly achieve popularity (and notability) in such little time.
  • The heading of the 'Current squad' will no longer mention any specific matches (except that little note about 'caps and goals correct as of ...'), but might plainly say something like "The following notable players have been selected in at least one of the four recent matches:".

Well, it's a start. The numbers are arbitrary of course, and it may be a bit weird to have something like that in a recommendation. Perhaps they should only be mentioned as suggestions, with a note that they can be changed based on the activity of a given national team. What do you think? Sygmoral (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with this at all. WP:RECENT is only supposed to guard against undue weight being given to recent events. The current squad of a national team, I would argue, is one of the most important pieces of information you can include, plus it changes every time the squad is updated. Furthermore, the number of caps each player has so far accrued is indicated, so any reader can tell who the established names are and who the newbies are. On top of that, many pages include a list of players who have been called up in the past year, which guards against the omission of any players who may have simply been left out of the most recent squad. Even if that most recent squad is a couple of months old, it's still relevant as the most recent squad selected by the head coach. Your suggestion that we limit the list to players with at least three caps (or any other number) is a non-starter, in my opinion, due to the arbitrary nature of the figure. In my opinion, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. – PeeJay 15:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but the "solution" that User:Sygmoral suggests is much worse than the alleged "problem". WP:NOR being the most obvious flaw with your suggestion. Why should some players who are in every squad for the last year (say a backup goalkeeper who is picked every time but never plays because there is an established first choice) be omitted? If a really notable player happens not to be picked for a while, then they will be mentioned elsewhere in the article - a "players" section should include a description of the most capped players, who has scored the most goals, who has been honoured in some way (e.g. hall of fame if such a thing exists). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I see that my proposed solution has influenced your responses - I did not want to claim it is the only possible solution :) Perhaps I should not have mentioned it, and first tried to establish that there is in fact a problem. So I will refrain from commenting on any potential solution, but rather on the problem.
My main issue is the disparity between the recommendation to show only the most recently selected squad (note that "recent call-ups" is not in the article recommendation), while it is discouraged to make any mention of the most recently played matches (most pages do show that, but it is discouraged during GA/FA reviews). That really does not make sense to me. Only historically significant matches or aggregated overviews are allowed on the article page, but at the same time we do show an inherently temporary list of those players that were selected in the very last selection? How can you justify the difference in these two recommendations? The players are of course very important information, but I can not agree that the results are less important. When you talk about a national team, or want to look something up about them, aren't their recent results at least as noteworthy as their most recent set of players?
To conclude: any chance we can agree that the current recommendation is not consistent in that regard? I believe the "amount of recentism" should be the same in both sections (players and results). If we can agree on that, a next step can be to see in which way that might be improved (regardless of whether we are succesfull). Sygmoral (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the comparison you are making. I think you're getting too hung up about what is in the "article recommendation" - that is a very basic outline. In respect of "recent results", there is no reason why the last year's results is more important than the year before, or the year before that. If something important has happened in the last year's results (e.g. winning a tournament), that should be written in the history section. Major national teams should have a distinct "list of results" page, indeed some of them are featured lists (e.g. Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results). The most recent squad selection is important as people will want to know that information (say if their team is soon to play against that opponent). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Isn't this a bit of a non-issue? When does something stop being "recent"? Articles such as List of England international footballers negate the whole recentism argument. Surely a link to such a list at the top of any squad would solve any problem an individual editor might feel exists rather than creating an additional set of essentially arbitrary rules to get around a problem I do not believe really exists in the first place. Fenix down (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
We already have a solution to this problem in place - it's the Recent call-ups section! This includes all players who've been called up in the last 12 months. This tells the reader who is a member of the current squad - a key bit of information - but also shows who forms part of the wider 'selection pool'. Note that both sections are subheadings of Players - they are equal components of this part of the page. Frankly, if a player has been injured for longer than that, then even if they were a major part of the squad, there has to be a significant question as to whether they will ever return - we cannot presume that they will return. Put direclty, then - no, this is not inconsistent. Your assertion that "veterans such as Vincent Kompany and Marouane Fellaine, who are much more likely to be included in any future squad" is inherently flawed and presumptive - we cannot presume that players will return to the squad, and the 12 month recent call ups acts in the same way as the 4 match grace period that you mention. I agree as well with the note that recentism (which is a guideline, rather than a rule) is about undue weight towards the recent. Look at the three bullet points at WP:RECENTISM - I don't think the current situation creates these.
The perceived problem/solutions are flawed in other ways. Goalkeepers may be members of squads for years and receive only a handful of caps. Teams play with different levels of frequency at different times - some smaller nations will play 2 to 3 World Cup/Continental qualifying matches every 2 years, while in the period around a World Cup other teams will play 9-10 matches in 2 months. So any proposal needs to be time rather than match based.
If it were up to me, the only change I'd make would be to remove the subjective, presumptive and uncited 'INJ' symbols from the recent call ups section, but that's just me. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well then, it seems I am alone with my ideas, so I'll drop my Player tables concerns :) (although I'd agree with changing something about those INJ symbols, which is also something that bugged me)

I remain conflicted however about how relevant recent matches are for national teams. I can not agree with the statement that "there is no reason why the last year's results is more important than the year before, or the year before that", especially if those include qualification matches since those directly influence the team's standing in the group, which seems relevant to that and several other teams. But anyway, let's assume that a list of the recent individual matches is too much. Next question then: if the reason to keep the very last selection of players is valid due to competing teams wanting to know who they are up against (even if you have to do some work yourself to figure out who is likely to appear from the Current / Recent tables :p), what would your opinions be on including the most current qualification group template (you know, like these)? I've seen several national team pages including these but not individual matches; are they doing it right, or would you consider those to carry too much undue weight as well? Sygmoral (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I do think adding recent results is undue weight. Unlike the current players, without whom there wouldn't be an actual team, the recent results are too transitive to be worth including. I'd say we should indicate the group the team is in for whatever tournament they're attempting to qualify for, and then mention any notable games in the History section, but listing the results is excessive when we can simply link to the appropriate group article. Although this does raise arguments in favour of creating season articles for national teams. – PeeJay 13:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi all. Would this site constitute as a reliable source, only as I can't seem to find booking minutes for the Battle of the Buffet anywhere on the Internet (or archives for that matter). The site is somewhat incomplete, but the minutes do check out with the match video. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You could just use the match video as the source, you know. Madcynic (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it's touch and go, there doesn't seem to be a page stating how they sourced the information. It's your call, I'd perhaps be inclined to risk it. NapHit (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Decided to cite the match video for minutes. I guess it would've been more problematic if there was no footage readily available to begin with. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Copa del Rey[edit]

Copa del Rey Topscorers and Copa del Rey Topscorers by Season. How to improve this articles to can be accepted by the editors. Any sugestions Any help ?? Thank you. I need some editors interested in Spanish football to can improve and post this 2 good articles. Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alexiulian25: Wikipedia is not an excessive listings of statistics, which is why these articles were deleted three weeks ago. Continuing to recreate them is disruptive and may get you blocked from editing if you persist. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
What about this ? : List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers or List of top Premier League goal scorers by season or List of footballers with 100 or more caps or List of top international association football goal scorers by country.
Wikipedia is full of tables and lists. Thats why I started to like it and write here, because you can find easy what information you need, and if is an encyclopedia is supposed to have all kind of information, as long as has references and is correct information.
Do you want me to make the list shorter, instead of 75 players, to post just the first 30 ?
And look ... Anexo:Máximos goleadores de la Copa del Rey : Spanish wikipedia have already the list, this is another reason I want to create it in English also (more people can access and understand)
Thank you for your time. Alexiulian25 (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I know too little to be sure, but isn't La Liga (Primera División) the equivalent of the Premier League? Perhaps a national cup tournament is too 'local' to be so extensively covered (despite the fact that it's such a big thing inside Spain). But don't take this as a yes/no, just a comment. Sygmoral (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Nené[edit]

I'm strongly considering taking the following articles to AfD:

The Gareth Bale AfD resulted in it being merged back into the main article and I feel that an AfD of these is likely to gain a similar result. The only possible argument for inclusion is that they are in their country's top 10 scorers. The main problem with that is that players can fall out of the top 10 list over time so that would result in some dodgy ground (i.e. articles being notable one day and not notable the next).

Note: I know that there is a similar discussion at the top of this page but I thought I'd create it again before that one got archived. Spiderone 21:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You could take to AfD but I'd be tempted to be bold and just merge and redirect to the player article without the hassle and admin time of an AfD! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking of doing that but I was hoping to establish some sort of consensus (e.g. they are allowed a separate page if they have scored at least 30 goals and/or they are the nation's top scorer). Spiderone 08:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Then you should do that via an RfC, thats not what AfD's are for. Paul  Bradbury 11:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Just merge and redirect the lot of them. --Jimbo[online] 12:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Stockport Town F.C.[edit]

Can someone have a look at this one for me? Someone, seemingly from the club in question, has added reems of information and pictures, but some of it came from a pretty biographical standpoint - 'About us', 'Contact us' etc...

I've reverted it to a more Wikipedia feel - i.e. from a neutral point of view.

The user now keeps deleting all the information he originally put on in what seems a kind of protest - even though some of it is salvageable. Thoughts?

Kivo (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This happens quite frequently with non-League clubs - usually a committee member trying to get their Wikipedia entry to read like their club website and then throwing their toys out of the pram when told that's not how we work (check the edit history of Hullbridge Sports F.C. as an example, including this attempt to blank the history section). Regarding what's left, I'd strongly advise against a current squad section for clubs at this level - players change so frequently (and articles get updated so infrequently) that it's really not worth it. The backroom staff section isn't quite as bad, but I'm agnostic about them to say the best. The stadium section should definitely stay though. Number 57 12:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree re the squad list. Personally, I'd say the staff directory is over the top, but if (some of) it does stay, the flags have to go. Flags are for sportspeople to illustrate their sporting nationality; football club employees aren't sportspeople and don't have a sporting nationality. A sourced sentence naming the chairman and manager, and any individually notable member of staff, would be enough. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this just OR?[edit]

UEFA_coefficient#Top_club_by_period. "Kassies projection"? --Dweller (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

For the stats prior to 1979, yes. This appears to be just one fan's study of what coefficients would have been if they had existed. For post-1979 stats, it's fine, though it could do with some official sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm more concerned that it's just pointless. Number 57 20:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Have wondered about that in the past. I think anything before the first official ranking (that actually had a meaning) should not be included. It might be interesting, but the informations is linked anyway for people interested. The FIFA_World_Rankings#Rank_leaders aren't calculated back to the 1890s either. -Koppapa (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Koppapa has hacked out a chunk of what I think was OR. I think that was the right move. --Dweller (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Block colours vs lines[edit]

Would it be possible to replace the block colours in this template and its friends with appropriately coloured lines until qualifications have been decided? We used to do that, but I don't know why we stopped. It's just that a block colour implies that qualification is already assured, whereas the line simply indicates the position(s) where the team(s) must finish to qualify for the next stage. – PeeJay 10:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That has been discussed in length. The current format has consistency between league articles and tournament articles. One gets used to it. -Koppapa (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Surely the same could be applied to league articles as well? Then as soon as qualification is assured, you can change it to a solid block colour... – PeeJay 11:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course it can be changed but consensus, after very long discussions, says we should do it this way just like the league tables always has been. Also this way with text on the right and not only a line, better works with MOS:COLOR as some readers may be colorblind. When teams have qualified, statusletters are added. Qed237 (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Viv Richards playing in World Cup qualifiers?[edit]

See this edit. The edit obviously needs to be reverted, but is there a way to find team list for these matches in a reliable source? --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

RSSSF has listings, which indeed do not feature Richards -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
FIFA also has a comprehensive list. GiantSnowman 12:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Wales at 1958 FIFA World Cup[edit]

Have you got links or books or photos of the participation of Wales during the World cup? Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Should these two articles have their title changed to be season specific?[edit]

The two articles are well referenced and no doubt satisfy the appetite of stats fans. My concern is that the articles don't specify which season they are taking into account. Is it the most recent season or is it their record average attendance? For example, what does it mean for Boca Juniors to have average attendance of 40,600? Is it their average attendances of all time or just their average attendance last season?

I would welcome any input as I've not been active on Wikipedia for a few years now and a lot has changed. Many thanks. Spiderone 10:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also add
The season should be stated in the articles. It should be the average over one year. There is no need yearly articles. Koppapa (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
My only concern is that some leagues run their seasons as 2014-15 while others use the calendar year. So if I changed each of the articles to '2014-15 season' then this would not be true of some leagues. Spiderone 11:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
These should be taken to AFD really, pure WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 11:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Isn't attendance one of the most important aspects of football? Spiderone 11:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't really have to be the same season for all clubs. As long as the difference doesn't span 5 years i doubt it matters. -Koppapa (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Spiderone: Not really. It's a trivial stat that we just happen to record for each game. The attendance doesn't have any effect on the result. – PeeJay 12:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I have created an AfD here which you are all welcome to participate in. Spiderone 12:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Parma article merger[edit]

Unless anyone has any opposing views to those already aired, how do we get an admin to complete the merger discussed on Talk:Parma Calcio 1913? mgSH 17:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review of Harry Kane[edit]

Hi, is anyone interested about the Peer review of Harry Kane to make it a FA? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it's too soon to even think about promoting that article to FA status. Kane's career is still in its infancy and many things can change in the next few months/years. All it would take is for someone to stop updating the article for its FA status to be taken away again. Unless they're extremely prominent players, no current player should have an FA-class article, IMO. – PeeJay 09:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Great Britain matches[edit]

I try to develop a french article about Football at the 1948 Summer Olympics but I haven't got informations about Great Britain. For Sweden, India, Italy, I have but not for GB, whereas GB finished 4th. Have you got informations about 4 matches of GB? Thank you. --FCNantes72 (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@FCNantes72: Have you seen this reference? Eldumpo (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Héctor Herrera requested move[edit]

I have made a request for Héctor Herrera (footballer) to be moved to Héctor Herrera. The discussion is here if anyone is interested. GoPurple'nGold24 22:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

A map for UEFA member countries?[edit]

Is there any thought of making a map for UEFA member countries? Right now the European map used by UEFA articles does not cover cities such as Astana (problem for the 2015–16 UEFA Champions League) and Baku (problem for UEFA Euro 2020, the location of Baku in that article is definitely not correct). There are actually maps for AFC, CONCACAF, and OFC, so I think it may be worth asking. As far as I can see, we can make three improvements from the current European map:

  1. Include more territories. Obviously we need to make tradeoffs between how likely a team qualifies for these group stages and how big the map becomes. To the East Baku should definitely be included, and perhaps Astana, but certainly no need to stretch it all the way to Eastern Russia. And to the West, what about Canaries, Madeira and Azores? Teams from those islands did qualify for the group stage (Marítimo for 2012–13 UEFA Europa League). How many teams from these islands are (or have been) in the top divisions of European football?
  2. Grey out the territories that are not part of UEFA. So white colour for Turkey, Israel, Kazakhstan, etc. Grey for Syria, etc.
  3. Add borders between England/Scotland and England/Wales since they are under different UEFA associations.

I have discussed with @Qed237: but neither of us know how to make a map, so we are raising the issue here. Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. Bmf 051 (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Bmf 051: Thanks. Let us know if you have a preliminary version (no need to be perfect). Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Chanheigeorge: I don't think I'll be able to do this one. Location maps have two parts: the image (usually an LAEA projection using a tool like GeoTools) and the equations for calculating (x,y)-coordinates using the (lat, long)-coordinates (look at Template:Location map America to see what I mean). I know how to do the math part, but I don't know how to generate the image. For CONCACAF, I just used the image from Template:Location map America, zoomed in, and adjusted the equations. Bmf 051 (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Bmf 051: Thanks for your try. I'll look around to see if anybody else can help. @Qed237: Do you know anybody who knows how to make a map? Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. – PeeJay 11:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:European Cup Winner's medal[edit]

Is there such a cat/similar cat for players ( not clubs)? MyTuppence (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Good news, everyone![edit]

It seems like our faithful friend,, is back online! I can't guarantee it's got all the same functionality as before, but it does seem to have a new interface. – PeeJay 10:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Faithful friend :-)) I'd be happier if they told us what happened, rather than popping back up as if they'd just been offline for a few hours. If we're expected to think of it as a professional, let alone reliable, source again, I'm not sure "apologies for the down time" quite covers a six-week absence with no info apart from suggesting we follow a Twitter account that never tweeted... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Does this mean I can go around and add it as a source again for "results by matchday" section again (Man Utd example). This was used previous season and it is a very good to source that section (if we see it as reliable again). User:PeeJay2K3, what would you say about going back to using it at 2015–16 Manchester United F.C. season again, instead of BBC reports to source every position iundividually? The only difference is that statto lists united as 3rd (instead of 4th), because they has same goal diff and goals scored as team above (they were "tied for 3rd"). Qed237 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather use the BBC, tbh. Struway makes a good point about Statto's unreliability, given their lack of a proper explanation for their recent downtime. Who knows if they'll have any sort of longevity in the future? At least with the BBC they're almost guaranteed to keep their articles in place in perpetuity. – PeeJay 21:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Proven FA Cup medal winner despite not playing in final[edit]

Here proves players who didn't play in the FA Cup Final get a medal anyway, so all you lot who keep removing honours from players pages as they didn't play in the final can stop doing that now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately as a tabloid newspaper, the Mail is not considered a reliable source.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Look on the page. It clearly shows Szczesny with a winners medal despite not playing in the final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

All you're showing is the importance of using reliable sources to verify honours, and not just making assumptions about who has and has not won a medal! GiantSnowman 13:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

How am I assuming? It shows a photo of him with a winners medal in his hand! How is that assuming? Click on the page and see for yourself! He won the FA Cup despite not playing, it's a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You may not be assuming now, but people were assuming he was an FA Cup winner despite having no evidence to back that up. Obviously a photo of him with a medal or a source listing the FA Cup among his honours is acceptable, but you definitely can't just assume someone won a medal just because they were part of the squad earlier in the tournament. – PeeJay 13:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


this user exchanged 1 player per squad a lot. Some are false, Arenal, umea,paris, no idea about the iranian ones, best way to revert the edits? maybe block him? -Koppapa (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. GiantSnowman 13:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Premier League and flags[edit]

On article 2015–16 Premier League there is an editor, User:Pbradbury, that insists on adding flags despite edit notice on that page saying not to add flags per MOS:FLAG and I know this has been discussed before. Now he accuses me of edit warring and suddenly gave me a level 3 for disruptive editing?. I feel like WP:BOOMERANG or something as he is just as involved in the editing as I am and he has now started with threats just to make me stop. What is "right" and "wrong" here? Flags or no flags?

The page notice was added by User:Black Kite so I also inform you about this. Qed237 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237:There is a discussio about this on the article talk page which you have refused to participate in, also please provide a diff where I have added any flags to this article, other than the one revert I did to your edit warring. Paul  Bradbury 16:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I personally don't think the page is violating any Wikipedia policies, and according to MOS:FLAG: Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. In these tables, the flags are relevant enough. In other hand, I'm considering that this discussion between both of you is unnecessary, as Bradbury's warning. MYS77 16:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll accept that, I am tired and possibly overstepped with the warning, I have tried discussing several times with this user what I consider his disruptive editing. I think I'll just step away from editing football. Better for my sanity and maybe the project. Paul  Bradbury 16:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with MYS77 - the flags seem like useful information here. Number 57 22:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Retire sub talk pages[edit]

This discussion was archived, although no action was taken despite what seemed like an agreement. Should I execute it myself? I was waiting because I expected someone with more authority to take action :)
(if someone believes more discussion is needed, I suppose we need to take it out of the archive) —Sygmoral (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the redirect, and I think your proposal for them to be read-only is the best action. However, this action would need an explanation, or at least a direct link to this page. MYS77 00:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)