Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Notability of seasons articles for Conference Premier teams[edit]

Conference Premier (formerly Conference National, soon to be renamed National League) is the fifth tier of English football, and is the lowest nationwide division, below the fully-professional League 2. It is a mixtures of fully and semi-professional clubs. The notability criteria for seasons articles at WP:NSEASONS is simply Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues. Despite the criteria for football players being a fully professional league, there is no requirement that season articles be for fully professional teams. The meaning of "top professional leagues" hasn't been well-defined, or even much discussed (AFAIK). In terms of English football most people have drawn the line either between League 2 and Conference Premier (the line between fully-professional and non fully-professional), or between Conference Premier and the (currently) two tier 6 leagues. The last discussion here that I can find on the subject is here. It was inconclusive, with three possibilities put forth. Those were:

  • Use same criteria as for players (Conference Premier seasons not notable)
  • Use dividing line between national and regional leagues (making Conference Premier seasons notable)
  • Use whether or not the team (rather than the league) is fully professional (making some Conference Premier notable).

Recently (in 2013, and couple this year) there have been some AFD discussions that tended to conclude notability was the same as for players. These AFDs include:

I'm concerned that the many of the articles deleted have significant work behind them. Many area very well referenced. And some articles even seem to meet WP:GNG significant detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We're not talking a handful of articles here. Looking at the seasons templates for English Football there are

  • 17 of 24 such articles for 2011-12
  • 14 of 24 such articles for 2012-13
  • 13 of 24 such articles for 2013-14
  • 12 of 24 such articles for 2014-15
  • 24 of 24 such articles for 2015-16 (oh my!)

And, many, many more in preceding seasons. Some of these may be redirects; most aren't. Ultimately, we could be looking at the mass deletion of hundreds of lengthy articles with a lot of work behind them.

I suspect some would easily pass WP:GNG and will never be deleted. Others won't. Some are borderline. I'd like to see a wide-ranging discussion to confirm clear consensus on what the policy here is; so that we neither have a series of contentious deletion discussions nor unnecessary and sparsely attended deletion discussions. My belief is that either the line should be based on fully-professional clubs, or national league (though the latter might be easier to monitor/codify). However, if consensus is that these articles just shouldn't be here ... we need to do better at deleting them; as there's a lot of effort still expended by many on this articles. I know some of you have personal grudges regarding my editing style ... let's leave that out of this discussion and remain civil and remember we are all trying to improve the project. Nfitz (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

As shown in those AfDs, the consensus has developed that WP:NSEASONS applies to fully professional leagues only. Allowing all clubs in national leagues to have season articles is a very bad idea as some small countries have national leagues all the way down to the lowest tier. Number 57 07:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the need for any discussion around this point, particularly because it is not possible to say that in every circumstance season articles below level x are inherently non-notable.. The consensus from a large number AfDs is pretty clear, that season articles are only notable for clubs in fully professional leagues except where GNG can be shown. In this instance, GNG is coverage of the season as an entity, not routine match reporting.
Looking at the AfDs above, I don't see anything contentious about them, there was almost universal opinion that they were not notable. This doesn't mean that lower league clubs could not have individual season, but they would need to show GNG.
Personally, I think the "FPL or GNG below that level" criterion works well as this can be applied across world football as using a "national league criteria" creates major issues if season articles were created for very minor teams playing in small countries at a very low level (e.g. the fourth level in Iceland would meet this criterion).
Additionally, the fact that there is a large number in existence when others have previously been deleted is just a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as volume of similar articles is not concern when considering the notability of a specific article and the fact that a lot of work went into such articles is also not a reason to keep per WP:MERCY.
There may well be a large number of articles that are non-notable and should be deleted, and this would involve the removal of a lot of work, but if something is deemed non-notable then an article is not warranted. Fenix down (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
As an additional point, I do think Nfitz has a point here in that there is a lot of work here, so it would be good to have at least some generally agreed direction prior to any future AfDs of significant numbers of these articles to avoid any drama. Fenix down (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
That is certainly my prime concern - the amount of work involved in these articles. Though there does seem like a genuine lack of interest by anyone else in them. Perhaps I've at least provided a road map to delete them all. Nfitz (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I think deletion is the best option. We always had to set the notability criteria somewhere, and unfortunately that cut off teams that play below the Football League. I very much doubt that any Conference-or-lower club season will be able to satisfy WP:GNG, except perhaps those of AFC Wimbledon and FC United of Manchester. – PeeJay 10:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Our criteria is very vague, not even requiring leagues be fully professional. We have some precedent that suggests these be deleted, but no criteria. BBC maintains a page for each and every team in this league, with articles weekly. Mosly match reports, but from time to time there is more detail, particularly in the regional press. Perhaps more so for the sole team in a city of 70,000 than one of many teams in London. Nfitz (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I would certainly not endorse an indiscriminate deletion spree, and believe every article, including these season articles, should be judged on its own merits e.g. its ability to fulfil the WP:GNG, and not on an arbitrary "line in the sand". Mattythewhite (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I would hope they'd be an AFD discussion at least for each team, however User:Number 57 has advised he plans to prod them, asked me not to take them to AFD; when I asked him to take them directly to AFD he threatened to make a request at WP:ADMIN that I be banned from removing prods. I'm reluctant to remove the prods. Nfitz (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in the background to this, see here and here. Number 57 15:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sporting positions – succession boxes[edit]

Where should we place succession boxes, before or after squad/awards templates? SLBedit (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Before — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Either way it should be consistent. And someone should work out which positions/awards get a box and which don't. And if ithas a template aalready does it need a box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a good question. For mine, if it is in a succession box, it shouldn't be in a template box and vice versa. As far as I've seen, the only things which are used in succession boxes are club captaincies (I may be wrong, haven't seen a consensus on this. It's hard to say what awards should be listed in a template box, and I'm not 100% sure what the threshold should be. Macosal (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Succession boxes shouldn't be used - if they are for a notable position, then we should have a navbox. If it's not notable enough for a navbox then it shouldn't be present. GiantSnowman 07:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Honours (again)[edit]

Should Kelechi Iheanacho (man city footballer be considered as winning the Premier League and League Cup with Man City in 2013-14, given that they didn't play any matches? The issue is that [1] says he won them, even though he didn't play. My opinion is no, because the Premier League requires some (8?) appearances to get a medal. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If he didn't play, no. SLBedit (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Apart from the dreadful article title, which needs moving to Kelechi Iheanacho, the article needs a bit of tidying up. It seems rather over-referenced. Do we need five references to demonstrate that he is on Manchester City's books? (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there a source for the minimum number of matches in the Premier League? --Jaellee (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
This guy has made absolutely zero first-team appearances, so the question is rather academic here. (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
If there is no minimum requirement, why does this disqualify him? --Jaellee (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
In this particular case there's the fact that he didn't even sign for the club until October 2014 and didn't have a work permit until February 2015. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
...and this is precisely why I state that nothing is acceptable for honours others than a reliable source which explicitly verifies the information - no speculation or assumption ever. GiantSnowman 17:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
That won't help. Each time a player who has won an honor according to a reliable source, someone will say the the source can't be reliable because this player obviously couldn't have won the honor because he was not in the final squad/did not play enough matches/whatever. I've already experienced that. --Jaellee (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Worst. Article title. Ever. Also, as far as I can see, the kid doesn't meet the requirements for an article anyway....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not the worst article ever, and as for the name change, I'm working on it (needs a technical move, as Kelechi Iheanacho redirects to another footballer. Also, I know he has 0 first team appearances, but he does have coverage about him, which I think might pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
TBF I said worst article title ever (I have subsequently moved it) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
That's valid then. Also, glad it got moved, I asked admins yesterday to delete the implausible redirect at Kelechi Iheanacho to a different page. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Confusion between referees sections[edit]

Referees tables make confusions. See below:

To uniformity and accuracy in the data. --IM-yb (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Are both assistant referees Jamaican? SLBedit (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
To add this editor has been edit warring with an other editor how the officials section should look on many articles. Qed237 (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes are both Jamaican. El Salvador referee and Jamaica assistant referees. UEFA Euro 2000#Match officials has officials from UEFA and CAF confederations. But with the current format, makes confusions. Needed to have list with confederations like the World Cup articles. --IM-yb (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the IP ( ) who makes only reverts. The only edits are for one day and are reverts. That is for administrators. Wrongly discussing here. --IM-yb (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

What about the referees sections? Anyone can edit from any IP and revert as he wants. Is that acceptable? The IP says that (Old format stays until talk resolution). That is a joke. Where is the IP to talk about his view? --IM-yb (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"RER" in Latvia?[edit]

There's a Latvian club listed only as "RER" in the Latvian SSR Higher League season pages 1954–60, 1963–66, and 1974–76. I looked at a few categories of Latvian clubs and didn't see one that would be referred to as such. Does anyone know what club this is? If we have an article, great. If not, maybe we can at least come up with what the name would be so those pages don't just link to RER. On the Latvian Wikipedia, that redirects to Rīgas elektromašīnbūves rūpnīca, a manufacturing company established in 1946. Maybe that was the club sponsor, or the club was originally composed of workers there? --BDD (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll change the links accordingly, including for the hockey club. Even if this is wrong, it's probably no more wrong than the status quo. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


Is "Portuguese giants" and "national powerhouse" considered WP:PEACOCK? SLBedit (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. – PeeJay 22:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I must say that those expressions are predominantly used by, and if it's peocock, what would be more appropriate?.--Threeohsix (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
We can use "Portuguese club" or "Portuguese champions". SLBedit (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed from tons of articles. SLBedit (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Should [[Category:CLUB players]] be added to a player's article when the player did not play any match in the first team? SLBedit (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. – PeeJay 22:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes I used it in several articles, but I: 1 - have seen much much worse in terms of POV/PEACOCK, and I don't consider this to even be POV (Benfica, Real Madrid, Bayern are not high-caliber teams? I think they are. However, I must respect the general consensus and try to abide by the rules, will be more careful from now on); 2 - was not the original inserter of said expressions, OK Mr. TOS? -- (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There is also "national giants" to be removed. SLBedit (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of "local giants" too. SLBedit (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I think several other articles are in much more need of attention due to the miserable quality of their contents, but that's OK. -- (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Bi Séhi Elysée Irié Bi RM[edit]

Hello. Would be great if a couple of this project's members could chime in at Talk:Bi Séhi Elysée Irié Bi#Requested move 30 May 2015. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Premature templates[edit]

Hi, I just put Template:2018 FIFA World Cup knockout stage bracket up for TfD here as WP:TOOSOON and saw same user, User:Hichem algerino has created several other templates like

and "what links here" only links to his userpage were he lists many creations.

Could anyone take a look at creations if much more needs deleting? Could the templates be put in same TfD? Help appreciated. Qed237 (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can bundle in templates if you want to, although it is better to do so as soon as the TFD discussion begins (i.e. before others have commented). GiantSnowman 17:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay great. Also I just saw that almost all articles the editor has created is completely unsourced. Qed237 (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Now tables also at TfD, have no time now to look at all other articles from tahat user but it might need an overlook. Qed237 (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Costa Rican League[edit]

Does anyone know if the Costa Rican Primera División is a fully-professional league? The article about it uses the word "professional", but without a source. Basically, I'm trying to review Draft:Alejandro Gómez Bermúdez, and it hinges on if this league is fully professional. I guess the answer is no. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's the top flight league of a country, it passes notability guidelines regardless of being professional or not. - J man708 (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@J man708: No it doesn't, lots of top leagues aren't fully professional leagues, so their players aren't notable. For example Bosnian top-flight players keep turning up on Wiki and getting deleted for this reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Absent sources confirming full professionalism, we cannot assume that it is. For the moment a claim to notability per WP:NSPORT is unverified and therefore not valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Where did I say anything about the word players? I was talking about the validity of the league itself, which fully professional or not, warrants an article. That seemed to be where you were going with the first dozen words of your query. As for the validity of the player you mentioned, it's generally a case by case thing. I would say in this case, the page doesn't show any real notability and few secondary sources. - J man708 (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Because I actually wanted to know "Is this player notable enough?" However, this basically boils down to "Is Costa Rican League fully professional (as defined by WP:FPL) or not"? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Then be more direct? The player doesn't seem notable. The issue I have here though, is that the article creator has found him to be notable enough to create an article over. Normally I'd poke and prod about and ask the creator as to why they believe that the player in question passes notability and should have an article. A check of the creator's history shows that not only are all of his edits on just this article, they all took place over the space of two hours a month back. I don't think this article will be missed if it were deleted. Should the player surface in the future, we can easily utilise the current draft as a template and overhaul it from there. So, long story short? Quite a few players in the league will warrant articles, but this player doesn't appear to be one of them at the current time. - J man708 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A very good question. Looking at how Costa Rica has performed over the last few years in Champions, there's little between the results of Costa Rica and the two MLS countries (USA and Canada); Mexico is further ahead, and everyone else is further behind. And also look at the current national team squad; this team is ranked 14th in the world and (just) over half their players are in the Costa Rican Primera División; even 9 of 23 in their World Cup squad played domestically. One would then suspect that the league IS fully professional. However the evidence remains elusive - though I suspect a diligent editor could find it. Really, this is a subject for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. The last discussion was inconclusive and can be found archived here where I suggested that [2] was a possible reference. In the end of the discussion, there were clearly no objections to adding that source to WP:FPL, however it never happened. Nfitz (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I figured I'd get more responses here, and didn't check for previous discussions about it, my bad. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So Alejandro Gómez Bermúdez has just been accepted at AfC by @Sulfurboy:, which now means we need to decide whether or not he passes WP:NFOOTY ASAP. I say no, because I've not seen a definitive source that says the Costa Rican football league is a WP:FPL. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I did a little work on the article and believe it satisfies the GNG. Gómez is one of the top-rated goalkeepers in the league and features regularly for one of the top clubs (and one of the few club that are likely fully-pro). He hasn't played a full international but has participated in major tournaments at youth level. It's fairly easy to find coverage in the Costa Rican press (e.g., La Nacion, Al Dia and Diario Extra) so I think this article can be fleshed out when someone has the time. Jogurney (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Vulturii Textila Lugoj[edit]

Could someone please take a look at Vulturii Textila Lugoj? Lots of new editors (see the history). Unpatrolled. And now a pretty strange talk post that looks unrelated. There's a Romania article for this former club too. I know nothing about football, so I'll leave this one to you folks. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

FC Petrolul Ploiești home kit[edit]

Hey! Can someone help with the home kit for my favorite team? The t-shirt is based on the same template as Bradford City A.F.C.'s.
Kit body bradford1516h.png
My team's kit
Thanks in advance! 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoever help (I dont know myself how to edit these), keep in mind that no logos are allowed on kits on English wikipedia due to copyright laws. Qed237 (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Transfers in League season articles[edit]

Do we all agree that transfers should not be included in a season's article, like it was done by an editor on 2015–16 Ligue 1 ? I want to undo it, but wanted to have your opinion in case I missed a discussion on this matter allowing it. Thanks! Tuttiseme (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No, from what I know we should not have transferlist on these pages. It would just make a very long list. Qed237 (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
All the top leagues have a separate article for transfers anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently most of the leagues have their own transfers page. For example: List of English football transfers summer 2015, List of Spanish football transfers summer 2015 and List of German football transfers summer 2015. And like you said some of the leagues such as the French league have their transfers in their season's article.Sammanhumagaint@lk 17:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Brazilian football taskforce[edit]

I am not a member of WikiProject Football, but I am working through a huge backlog of unassessed articles in WikiProject Brazil and have been using the template for WikiProject Football. So far, I have only been updating the template where it already exists. There is currently not a taskforce specifically for Brazilian football on either of the two WikiProjects, but I have added the tag `Brazil=yes' to the WikiProject Football template when I come across it and I will continue to do so. This undefined tag will not cause any harm and is just ignored by the system. The tag is also consistent with currently used tags, like `Argentina=yes'. If and when the fine folks at WikiProject Football want to start a taskforce for Brazilian football, you will already have a lot articles tagged and ready to work on. Please get in contact if you are interested in helping me tag the Brazilian backlog of articles. Otherwise, let me know if anyone sees a reason why I should not continue to add this `Brazil=yes' tag to the WikiProject Football template. —giso6150 (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

(Please use {{Ping|Giso6150}} if responding to this message). Thanks, —giso6150 (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Peru national football team :[edit]

I was looking at Peru national football team and I noticed there is another article just for Most capped and top goalscorers which usually in other articles included at the original article not separated like this. So should we move it to the Peru national football team's article ?also another article for the result since 2005 only.. any suggestions about this one also? thanks Adnan (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Ángelo Henríquez[edit]

This Croatian website lists Henriquez as the second top scorer in the league season with 20 behind Kramaric, and UEFA call him top scorer with 21 and no mention of Kramaric. Which should be used in the article? '''tAD''' (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Henriquez came second with 20. 1, 2. Kramaric definetely won the award. -Koppapa (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Premier League Golden Glove[edit]

Anyone fancy having a quick look at Premier League Golden Glove at FLC? It's currently floundering there in dire need of reviews. Any review would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. NapHit (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Davide Santon :[edit]

I was working on Davide Santon stats section , the player has been transferred from inter milan but they purchased him back after few years.. is there any consensus about how should be information listed at the statistics tables ? If not I am thinking about moving the inter milan years to the bottom since I am trying to make the last year at the bottom any other suggestion ? thank you Adnan (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. SLBedit (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@SLBedit: still I can't find an answer for what I have asked there...Adnan (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
To me the table is fine. SLBedit (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@SLBedit: Ok thank you :) Adnan (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


Copy paste move at College Europa FC. Don't know if the name without college is correct either, just because uefa doesn't use it currently.-Koppapa (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. GiantSnowman 07:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, they apparently renamed themselves. I'm still unsure if it's the same Europa FC, that won six championships (last in 1952). -Koppapa (talk)

Strømsgodset Toppfotball as a separate article?[edit]


"Strømsgodset IF is a Norwegian multi-sports club from Gulskogen in Drammen. It has sections for association football, team handball and bandy, but is best known for the top-level football section known as Strømsgodset Toppfotball, which currently plays in Tippeligaen, the Norwegian top flight."

Should I create a separate page for Strømsgodset Toppfotball? In Norwegian football, investors are not allowed to own a sport club, but they can own a separate joint-stock company that can compete on behalf of the sports club. Thus, Strømsgodset Toppfotball competes on behalf of Strømsgodset IF, Stabæk Fotball competes on behalf of Stabæk IF, Vålerenga Fotball on behalf of Vålerengens IF and so on. It seems like most other clubs have two separate articles.

The Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia has separate articles for Strømsgodset Toppfotball and Strømsgodset IF, and the Norwegian Nynorsk Wikipedia only has an article for Strømsgodset Toppfotball

I was reminded of this oddity yesterday, when UEFA drew the 1st qualifying round for the Europa League. While their website now refers to Strømsgodset IF, their TV coverage refered to Strømsgodset Toppfotball.

If I go ahead, do I move the current article to Strømsgodset Toppfotball, clean it up (it's mostly about the football) and create a new page for the multi-sports club?

Cashewnøtt (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that's acceptable. We have multiple articles on clubs that run separate departments (see for example {{FC Barcelona sections}}). Number 57 12:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Strømsgodset IF is mainly about football. Create articles for less notable sections. SLBedit (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Notability question[edit]

Guess I think I know the answer to this but just to check:- West Ham's season kicks off next Thursday in the Europa League playing Andorran's finest, FC Lusitanos who are not a pro-club. West Ham manager Bilic has said he will (he may not!) play some youth/Development players. Many of these have never played for the first team and thus no Wiki article. Very little on these guys (mostly 16/17 year olds) to pass GNG, so is playing against an Andorran team in the quals of the Europa League enough to pass WP:NFOOTBALL? I ask mostly because If I don't create articles for these guys, there is a good chance someone else will. --Egghead06 (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Any youth players making their debut in the first qualifying round against a semi-pro team are not notable in my opinion unless they do something amazing that will qualify them for GNG. If articles are created send them to AfD. JMHamo (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
There actually is some disagreement on this issue. The two most widely supported positions are that either only matches in the competition proper (i.e. not in the qualifying rounds) confer notability, or only matches between two FPL-clubs confer notability. In either case, this match won't confer notability to the players who play in it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Egghead06 and Sir Sputnik: A perfect example of this would be this Tom Donegan AfD I just opened. JMHamo (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It's really simple, IMO. The round, qualifying or proper, doesn't matter. If Lusitanos were a fully-pro club, the young WHU players would be notable. Since it's not the case, they won't. -BlameRuiner (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Full name stuff[edit]

Does anybody know if Ikechukwu Uche and his brother Kalu Uche's full names are for real? According to (reliable source) they are, but I had a user in the former removing it with the summary "false name" and no proof backing up their removal.

In a related note, I have seen BDFUTBOL add a second surname to several Yugoslav footballers (see for example Nenad Gračan, where he is named Nenad Gracan Stanisic), but that's not common is it? Maybe User:FkpCascais can shed some light in this second paragraph.

Attentively -- (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

They probably are genuine, I know lots of African people have 4-5 names (it's something like they use fathers' and grandfathers' names). reliable sources supporting it would be appreciated though. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


Is {{2014–15 La Liga Team of the Year}} notable? SLBedit (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, if {{2014–15 Premier League PFA Team of the Year}} is notable, I'd say that one is too. – PeeJay 09:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Aleksandar Kuzmanovski's page[edit]

Hi all. I'm here because this footballer, Aleksandar Kuzmanovski, it's a fake and it must be eliminated as soon as possible.,, Vardar 2011-2012. Sorry for my english, i'm an italian user. --Dimitrij Kasev (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I found this Soccerway profile, most likely not related. The only source is probably WP:SELFPUBLISH. SLBedit (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
There is also this Aleksandar Kuzmanowski playing lower league football in Germany. Not sure I would call it out as a hoax, there could be some major confusion as there are footballers by that name out there. Also the user also created this page with similar sources which seem genuine, so it seems more likely that the page given as a reference for the player simply no longer exists. Nonetheless, the player clearly fails WP:NFOOTY and also WP:GNG, so I have prodded. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for having proposed the article to be deleted (I'm the one who noticed this odd page on Italian Wikipedia yesterday and signalled to everybody). Actually, the contents from the user involved in this case may be not genuine at all, as the unique reference reported in the football articles he had created is a personal blog that seems managed by himself, so it isn't a reliable source. --Mess (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Sweden national under-23 football team[edit]

Hi, should Sweden national under-23 football team be split to have it own olympic article like for example Portugal Olympic football team? Currently we link to olympic articles for some teams (using Template:Fbo) and for some teams we use template:fbu to link to youth articles. For sweden they had an old U23 team that got defunct in the 70s but when the olympics started for youth teams we continued on u23 article. I dont mind doing the work if it is okay to create olympics article. Qed237 (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what should be done, Qed237. One option is to merge the Sweden U21 article and the Sweden U23 article and create a Sweden Olympic football team article as you said. But then I think that only the Olympics from 1992 should be included, because the earlier are included in the Sweden national football team article. // Mattias321 (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project[edit]

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by your topic of interest, e.g., control-f "WikiProject Football."--Lucas559 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


Recently there has been a flurry of activity around deleting season articles for clubs who don't play in a fully pro league. Thus far this has (as far as I'm aware) only involved articles relating to teams who have never played in a fully pro league, but how should we handle season articles for teams who now play in a fully pro league and have done for the vast majority of their existence but at one time did not? An extreme example would be 1883–84 Newton Heath LYR F.C. season - on the one hand it's Man United, but on the other they did not play in a fully pro league at the time (or indeed in any league at all)........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think each one has to be taken on its merits. I feel that in this case (and in many more), the content is both verifiable and encyclopedic in itself: you would expect to see it in an encyclopedia of football, so you would expect to see it here, but do you merge its content into another article or make it stand alone. For example: Does it have potential to be GA/FA/FL (featured list)? Is there room in a parent article, such as History of Manchester United F.C. (1878–1945) to merge all the seasons? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. An extreme example in the other direction would be to create, say, 1964-65 Irthlingborough Diamonds F.C. season on the grounds that they later merged with Rushden Town to become Rushden & Diamonds, and who played professional football from 2001-2005. I think we can use common sense to differentiate between these cases without requiring a single rule. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Jamie McAllister[edit]

Hi All, I've had a message from a user purporting to be Jamie McAllister, asking for the new photo I added to be page to be removed. I'm looking for guidance on how to proceed; I would say the new image gives a clearer view of the subject's face, and I'm uncomfortable with the project being dictated to by the subject of an article. Any ideas? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The photo does not violate any guideline about living persons. Proceed normally by keeping the recent photo per WP:UNCENSORED: "Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal (or inclusion) of content." Furthermore, if Maccajaz (talk · contribs) is Jamie McAllister he should not be editing his own article per WP:COI. SLBedit (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Even if it was 100% confirmed that the user is the subject, no way should we remove a photo just because the subject says he "isn't happy with it". It's not in any way objectionable or offensive. Is he not happy with it because he looks grumpy? If so, he needs to get over himself ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you're going to have to tell Jamie he's stuck with that picture unless he can provide an alterntive on a free licence. Plenty of people have released "official Wikipedia profile pictures" for use here, so if he wants to do the same, I reckon that would be kosher. – PeeJay 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Common courtesy says you should replace it Målfarlig! (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
With what? He's not offering us a new picture to use, he's just saying "take that one down, I don't like it", with no justification of what's actually wrong with it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The one that was there before? Y'know the one which didn't needlessly antagonize its subject. Målfarlig! (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

2017–18 UEFA Champions League and Europa League[edit]

Hi, I have been working a lot with Champions League and Europa League related articles and I wanted to check when FOOTY thinks it is time to create the articles for 2017/18 seasons?

It may sound too soon but UEFA has already released the regulations (same for three seasons in a row for 2015-18 cycle) and the accesslist as to what nation will join what rounds (for example nation ranked 50 will have three teams in first qualifying round). The coefficients for that nation rank will be taken from this season and in ten days the first nations could be eliminated and we would know their coefficient in the nation ranking.

Also some leagues qualifies for 2017/18 CL and EL with upcoming seasons that will be created during this autumn, for example "2016 Allsvenskan" will probably be created in the next few months when teams start to qualify for it. Then it might be good to have the 2017/18 season articles to avoid redlinks in the league articles and avoid unexperienced editors create one-line articles.

But it is still not being played for two years (but we have 2018 FIFA World Cup for example) so is it too soon? Qed237 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I get the idea, but it may be a touch too soon. The 2017 AFC Champions League page currently red links, even though pages like the upcoming 2015–16 A-League season link to it. Maybe a page like this should be created first/at the same time. In saying that Qed, I can't see too many people placing the 2017-18 articles up for deletion, as logic would dictate that they will become useful in a very short amount of time. It's a lot easier to justify larger, multinational sporting competitions having future pages created a lot earlier than national leagues. This is why the Olympics and World Cups always have pages written about potential hosts and rule changes. In my eyes, it seems to be a 49%/51% decision on making it, but I'd have no real beef seeing the page created. - J man708 (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
even it is a little bit soon for it.. but I think I understand why @Qed237: wants this .and if it is well sourced I don't think there is a problem with this, especially I was one of the people who followed his hard work in 2015-16 season so I am sure it will be easier for him to do it now rather than waiting for someone to do new researches or even himself doing it again in one year after all we even have an article for worlducp 2022, and in Wikipedia as I understand there is no time limit for articles it just needs to be notable and sourced . Adnan (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I always go with the thinking that if there is enough information out there about it (round dates, final venue) then you can create. Goes for any event. I've created the 2017 Island Games page now Cls14 (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that, broadly, an article for a future sports event is acceptable from the point at which the first relevant info emerges. This will vary from event to evet: it could be the access/entry/eligibility list, the location and dates of the final (or tournament), or the start of the first qualifying competition. Whether an article is really needed at this point might be a different question, but certainly once you have one of these then deleting would seem to be a waste of time. To 'Wikilwayer' for a minute, the key WP:notability question would be - are independent, reliable sources writing about it with some level of significance yet? The answer for 17-18 would seem to be 'yes' ([3], [4], [5]). --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I would say wait until next year. Right now, we don't have the finals venues confirmed, we don't have the number of teams each association could provide confirmed (Italy could overtake England) and we don't even have the round dates confirmed. I think it would be best to wait until next year. Valenciano (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks for all the replies, currently I have the articles in two of my sandboxes, ready for action. Final venues and if Italy overtakes England might take a year and that is too long (2016/17 was created in december), but I can understand everyones thoughts. Qed237 (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

RM notification[edit]

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at CCCF, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savvyjack23 (talkcontribs)

Badges of reserve teams[edit]

Should copyrighted logos, when no different to the main team, be used on articles on reserve teams? Articles for Spanish and German teams use them, while they are omitted on Portuguese teams. The exceptions should be that Sevilla's reserves have a COMPLETELY different badge, and that Borussia Dortmund's badge is not copyrighted as it is just a circle and plain text. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on this so there is a distinct possibility that I'm missing something. That being said, my rule of thumb is to look at the fair use rationale for logo's use on the first team article. Most of the time there's not going to be anything in that rationale that isn't also applicable affiliated teams (reserves, youth, women's, etc.) that use the same logo. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If they are non-free, they fail WP:NFC#UUI #17 except in main club's article. I reported a few images at Wikipedia:Non-free content review. SLBedit (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:MOSNUM[edit]

I have opened a discussion at WT:MOSNUM that participants here might be interested in contributing to. It relates to the WP:MOSNUM clause about primary units for personal weight and height of British people, including football players. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


Whenever I go on the article about ANY footballer, I just see the Wikipedia logo, and an entirely black screen. This is whether I am on Chrome or Internet Explorer. If I log out, it reads fine.

What the hell is happening? Has somebody given me a virus to stop me doing my work??

I know this might not be what this talk page is for, but still!!! '''tAD''' (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's not all, I've found. Roberto Firmino and Memphis Depay seem to be problems '''tAD''' (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This happened to me at Roger Wosahlo, but just as I was reporting it on ANI, I refreshed the page and it has gone back to normal. The problem did not happen on the mobile version of the site, only the desktop. I wonder whether someone messed with a template common to football biographies. Number 57 10:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Me too! JMHamo (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Everything is clear now! Glad this all sorted out! I can remember once when somebody fiddled with the image sizing on a template, making all of them HUGE. I tried manually making every single one smaller until it got back to normal '''tAD''' (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

England at the FIFA World Cup[edit]

Football writing people, here is one uncompleted article, that you could work on. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 18:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Major/minor honours[edit]

There's a bit of a kerfuffle at Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry about the distinction between major and minor honours in the comparison of the two clubs' successes. Apparently, the Community Shield, the UEFA Super Cup, the Intercontinental Cup and the Club World Cup aren't considered major enough to receive the same recognition as competitions like the Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup, Champions League, Europa League and Cup Winners' Cup (and all predecessors). A side effect of this is that it happens to put Liverpool ahead of Manchester United on "major" honours. In fairness, these categorisations are sourced to an extent, but I feel that the sources have been cherry-picked to suit a particular definition, rather than the other way around. Objectively, the Community Shield, the Super Cup, the Intercontinental Cup and the Club World Cup are just as important as the others, especially since you actually have to win something (i.e. one of the so-called "major" trophies) to even play in them in the first place, so the whole idea of major/minor honours is spurious, IMO. Opinions would be welcomed either here or on the article talk page. – PeeJay 21:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I am definitely against editors have the right to classify any honor as major or minor after all we aren't sport pundits analyst to give such a recognition if it is a major or minor . any trophy is recognized by FIFA, UEFA is a major trophy , any trophy is recognized by the domestic whatever country football association for their trophies (cups/Leagues) is a major trophy and thats it . once we start to give us the right to classify I think this is not just an encyclopedia anymore then . Adnan (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Ordinarily I would agree, but another user has provided sources that claim to classify honours into "major" and "minor" categories; even the clubs apparently organise their honours as "major" and "other". Or are you saying we should ignore these? For the record, I'm with you that all honours should be given the same treatment, and not just because I'm a Manchester United fan. – PeeJay 23:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I really don't care about either teams but I care about articles being neutral not to make it as cherry picking thing. I don't know which source he has provided but let's say Liverpool classify their trophies as minor and major It would be neutral to list this at Liverpool or man united article but in other articles who said they are the standard ?
why Community shield is more important than uefa supercup? and who said so? and we should be consistent not using a special policies for Liverpool and Man united. if it is a trophy for other countries it is also just a trophy in England . if we start doing this then Italians can say we consider coppa italia a minor trophy since many team don't take it seriously. lets keep it encyclopedia not a fan contest to show which teams is better . Adnan (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Nile Ranger "on the payroll"...[edit]

Could I get your opinion on this edit.. When have we ever used the term "on the payroll".. ridiculous IMO. JMHamo (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)