Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Football (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Caretaker manager made permanent manager[edit]

Due to a discussion on the Ross Embleton page and the Template:Leyton Orient F.C. managers I wish to draw attention to this problem: When a caretaker manager is made permanent manager, should the caretaker spell and permanent spell be listed individually or should the caretaker spell be removed and included in the permanent spell?

I would argue that normal Wikipedia practice is to include the caretaker spell leading up to the permanent spell in the permanent spell. This has been done at e.g. Pep Clotet, Scott Parker, Lee Bowyer, Paul Warne, Gareth Ainsworth and many more. Another user thinks that the caretaker spell and permanent spell should be listed individually as they are at present on the Ross Embleton page and in the Template:Leyton Orient F.C. managers.

I find that this practice will expand the infoboxes and manager templates unnecessarily much, and as far as I can count this is not what has been done in most of the cases, where a permanent manager has been made permanent. It is a minor detail that the manager stared his reign at a club as caretaker, and this could be noted in the text of the article. If we choose to list the spells individually, it will expand many of the current infoboxes and many manager templates. --Vistor (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, they don't change jobs. It's the same position. All in one for me Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, if they transition for caretaker manager to permanent manager then all that needs to happen is the word caretaker removed from the infobox and a source given in the text.--EchetusXe 13:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
These are two separate roles and should be listed separately, otherwise it appears that a manager was never caretaker. GiantSnowman 16:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Not if it is in the text of the article. You claim that your version is the standard, but I can only find one example, where this has been done (Brian Barry-Murphy). If we go by your model, we should edit a vast amount of football manager articles, since this seems never to have been the way we did it on Wikipedia. --Vistor (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The infobox is a summary of a person's career. Missing out caretaker manager jobs (or, at best, misleading people into believing a permanent position began earlier than it did) is not right. GiantSnowman 17:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Lee Bowyer’s infobox for some time did show two distinct periods until an editor merged them into one. Personally I’d go with GiantSnowman on this. The infobox should show caretaker and permanent periods separately.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It never seems to have been a problem before. It is the way it has always been on Wikipedia. I don't find that it is misleading to merge a caretaker manager with his folling permanent spell, since - as it is argued above - is the same position. --Vistor (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I've always seen them displayed as separate spells. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's a different job with a different contract. It should be displayed separately. GiantSnowman 17:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Where? You have not given any examples, and I can't find them. It should be easy for you, if you are right. By the way: What would be the point in doing this in football manager navigation boxes such as Template:Leyton Orient F.C. managers? I think it looks silly that the same person is listed twince in a row. Imagine how confused it be with all caretakers made permanent listed twice in a row --Vistor (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know any off the top of my head, but they are out there. And it's quote rare for caretaker to become permanent (hence the reason they were caretaker). GiantSnowman 18:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there is a few of them, but I can give you 10 more examples of caretakers made permanent, where it is not listed: Wayne Burnett, Joe Dunne, Neil Harris, Glyn Hodges, Gary Rowett, Graham Kavanagh, Steve Lovell, Darren Sarll, Dean Smith, Darren Way. And what about the navigation boxes? What is the point of listing them twice there? --Vistor (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
this all seems like excessive detail. The "caretaker" proviso is just to suggest that the manager hasn't been brought in full time. If they have, then it's not needed. We don't need two entries for the same job. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
We have separate entries when a player is on loan and then becomes permanent, or when they leave the club and then re-sign without playing for a club in between (see eg Carlton Cole). Why should managers be different? GiantSnowman 18:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
When on loan the player is owned by another club - a caretaker manager is not. That is the difference. The re-signing should be merged in my opinion. The box is a summary, and details about when the player signed a contract is in my opinion superfluous. --Vistor (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It appears that people have no more to say on this matter, and since it certainly looks like the standard on Wikipedia until now has been that caretakers are not listed seperately, if they are made permanent managers, I suggest that we standardize the two examples that we know of (Ross Embleton/Template:Leyton Orient F.C. managers and Brian Barry-Murphy/Template:Rochdale A.F.C. managers). If we some day decide that this should not be the standard, we can then change all the articles on managers who started as caretakers. --Vistor (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion has barely begun. GiantSnowman 19:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Then feel free to answer the two questions you have avoided so far: 1) Where are all the articles that you claim exist with caretaker and permanent manager spells listed individually? 2) Why list them seperately in the football manager navigation boxes? I don't think that people care whether they click on "Ross Embleton the caretaker" or "Ross Embleton the permanent manager, who followed Ross Embleton the caretaker". --Vistor (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Ole Gunnar Solskjær --Egghead06 (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Only in the infobox not in the football manager navigation box. The page history shows that it has been changed back and forth a couple of times, so people have disagreed there as well. That makes is 2½ examples against 15. -Vistor (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Pete Wild, Mohamed Magassouba - and, more importantly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 10:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also an argument against listing them seperately. This all feels pointless. Why does it matter if part of a tenure is as a caretaker, when they are later given the role full time? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Because, especially with the Embleton example (carteaker in 2019, permanent in 2020), merging the roles in the infobox states that he was permanent manager in 2019 which is factually inaccurate. I'll also flip it round - why does it matter if we list them separately? After all, doing so is more accurate. GiantSnowman 11:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Peter Wild is another half example since it is not listed like that in the navigation box. It matters, because it will expand the infoboxes and manager templates unnecessarily much (as I stated in my original entry). Lots of managers are caretakers for a couple of weeks and are then made permanent manager. It would be an enourmous task to change all articles on Wikipedia, if we should list all these seperately, since it has not been done before. I don't know if that is what you propose? And again: Why list them seperately in the football manager navigation boxes? --Vistor (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
By the way: Do I understand your last answer correctly, if that means you only think it matters, when they were made caretakers in one year, but not made permanent until the following year? --Vistor (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about the infobox than the manager navbox. I doubt it would be an "enormous" task to improve Wikipedia by correctly recording when a manager was made permanent after being caretaker. And no, I care even when it is the same year, but the fact it has been broken up by a year is also important. GiantSnowman 14:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
So you would be ok with a merger in the navigation boxes? --Vistor (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The infobox usually doesn't make a distinction between the various job titles of the manager or head coach. It seems unnecessary detail to record the interim positions separately, which should be covered in the text. The infobox is there as a summary, not to exhaustively list everything. The important thing is the teams where he was in charge, not the job title.   Jts1882 | talk  14:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
What you're proposing is to remove all caretaker positions from the infobox? I'll respectfully remind you that an infobox is "intended to provide a quick overview of an association football player's or manager's details to enable a reader to extract the most oft-needed information without trawling through the article proper." I believe that includes when they have been caretaker manager, whether or not they have then been made permanent. GiantSnowman 14:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that it is part of "the most oft-needed information" that a manager was caretaker for a couple of games before being made permanent manager. People want to know, when a manager became manager of a club. If they are interested in the details, such as him being caretaker for a couple of games, they can read in the article. --Vistor (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to list caretaker spells that directly precede permanent appointments in the infobox; it is meant to be a summary of the key information of the rest of the article, not a repetition of the every fact. Spike 'em (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Why isn't that considered key information? Mohamed Magassouba was caretaker manager from 2017 to 2019 before becoming permanent, are you saying that a) that is not important and b) the infobox should falsely imply he was permanent manager from 2017? Going back to the Embleton example, are you going to ignore the reliable sources that mention his three interim spells? GiantSnowman 17:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
No, I would consider that it correctly show that he was the manager of the team from 2017, with no qualification needed. I don't have a problem with listing multiple separate appointments to a role, and also think a compromise would be to list caretaker-to-permanent positions as (initially as caretaker) in the infobox. Spike 'em (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Or, an even better suggestion - just keep the caretaker role separate. If you feel the need to qualify it then it is obviously important enough for its own entry. GiantSnowman 17:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary: I'm trying to find a solution that may be a compromise, something you seem to be lacking. Spike 'em (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am norally always happy to compromise in disputes, but now where it introduces incorrect/misleading/incomplete information, cheers. GiantSnowman 20:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Well going through the discussion above, 5 editors favour merging "caretaker to permanent" situations and 2 oppose it, so maybe it should be on the dissenters to come up with some compromise suggestions? Spike 'em (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Spik'em. My suggestion was to merge the couple of articles that aren't merged (five articles). What do you suggest? --Vistor (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Unmerge the others, obviously. Reminder that WP:NOTAVOTE btw. GiantSnowman 20:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't particularly see that any of the arguments against the merge is particularly policy based... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
In the absence of any policy based arguments, this is a content dispute, so how else do we come to a consensus if not by a vote? Spike 'em (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Strength of argument. The only reason that has been put forward by Vistor is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 20:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
And that seems to be the basis of yours too. Some have it one way, others are different. Spike 'em (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
In the absence of a local consensus here, we may need to go down the WP:RFC route. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Without going round in circles, my argument is simple - to say that a manager became manager before they did is incorrect/misleading and to not display the caretaker role in the infobox is incomplete. GiantSnowman 21:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that we should list them before they became managers. We say that it is an unnecessary detail that they served the first couple of weeks (as it normally is) as caretaker. By the way: According to Template:Infobox football biography the infobox should not contain other roles than "team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career." I would not say that it is a "significant part of the person's career" that they served the first couple of weeks as caretaker manager. --Vistor (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Your comment only applies if the caretaker ends up taking the role permanently. What about caretakers who never ascend to the role on a permanent basis (at least, not immediately after their spell as caretaker), e.g. Freddie Ljungberg? – PeeJay 17:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. Being a caretaker manager is a similar but different role to permanent manager, and they need to be both listed separately. GiantSnowman 20:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
If they don't go on to be permanent manager, then their caretaker spell remains in the infobox, as has AFAIK always been the case. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you, just pointing out to User:Vistor that not all caretaker managers go on to take the job permanently. – PeeJay 06:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, if you look at the title of this discussion, we are discussing "caretaker manager made permanent manager". Nobody has argued that caretakers that are not mad permanent managers should be removed from the infobox. --Vistor (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Fine, then let me make my position perfectly clear: a caretaker manager transitioning to become the permanent manager has some kind of change in their employment status. Obviously we're not privy to all the details, but it probably involves the signing of a new contract or the activation of a clause in the contract they signed to become caretaker. In the case of Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, he was still technically employed by Molde FK during his time as caretaker of Manchester United. Therefore it doesn't make sense to merge the two spells into one, even if they are contiguous. The person is employed first as a caretaker, then as the permanent manager; both should be reflected in the infobox. The same may not necessarily apply for statistics tables, but it may be of benefit to readers to be able to see how a club's record changes (or doesn't) before and after the job becomes permanent. – PeeJay 07:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Solskjær is in that regard a special case. Caretakers are normally not employed by other clubs. Let's try to have a look at some of the other articles. What about Brian Barry-Murphy? He was the caretaker from 4 March 2019 to 3 April 2019 before becoming permanent manager. In that month he oversaw four games as caretaker. Is it a "significant part of the person's career" that the first four games (of a total of 49 this far) was as caretaker? I don't think so. And what about the navigation box? Why list him twice there? Do you think that people care if they click on "Brian Barry-Murphy the caretaker" or "Brian Barry-Murphy the permanent manager"? And what about Pete Wild? He managed Oldham in zero games as caretaker befor being made permanent manager. Is that a "significant part of the person's career"? No of course not. --Vistor (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey, so I just found this entire thread and read it all. I am on the side of User:GiantSnowman and others who say that they should be separate. Look, first of all, saying that this would "expand the infoboxes and manager templates unnecessarily much" isn't a strong reason. Who cares how long it makes the infobox? At the end of the day, wikipedia an encyclopedia, we're here to give details as accurately as possible about players and managers, doesn't matter how long the infobox gets or how messy. I personally hate how some infoboxes look because of how long they are or because of loans and stuff but that doesn't matter, if I have to list them, I have to list them. Secondly, I think we need to think about the differences between a caretaker manager and a permanent manager and what that means. Take Freddie Ljungberg for example. He was able to become an interim manager for Arsenal but was not able to become a permanent manager because he lacked a UEFA Pro License. The regulations for an interim/caretaker manager were different than for a permanent manager. Also, they obviously get new contracts when they transition from an interim manager to a permanent manager. That is why you will see, when a caretaker is made permanent a head line that includes "X becomes permanent manager of X, signs until 2021" or whatever. Also, in some countries, the distinction between interim/caretaker manager and permanent manager is important. For example, in the Indian Super League has rules for Indian coaches who want to become head coaches and who can become a head coach overall. So that distinction is important. Obviously, if someone is made caretaker but doesn't manage a team in at least 1 match, then fine, just have the one entry, but if someone is caretaker for a game then that should be listed as separate since it is a separate job from a permanent manager. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why people keep bringing up Freddie Ljungberg, since he was not made permanent manager of Arsenal. If a caretaker is not made permanent manager, he should of course be listed. In the cases where a caretaker manager continues as permanent manager, he does not change job. It is the exact same thing that he is doing. We have a policy (and have had for years) that infoboxes should not list other roles than "team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career." (Template:Infobox football biography). Is it "a significant part of the person's career", if they serve a couple of weeks as caretaker before becoming permanent manager? No it is not. People arguing that we should list the roles seperately have fould five articles in which it is listed as two different roles. In three of the cases the caretaker period was short and by no means "a significant part of the person's career". In only two of those cases (Ole Gunnar Solskjær and Mohamed Magassouba) you could maybe make the case that it is. I argue that we stick with the policy of only listing positions that are "a significant part of the person's career." And I argue that we do not list these positions twice in the navigation boxes, since this makes no sense. I have not seen anyone argue against that, but maybe that is because you agree on that part? --Vistor (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If they are separate in the infobox (as they should be) then they should also be separate in the manager navbox. GiantSnowman 10:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Why? The navigation box is made to help people navigate. I ask again: Do you think that people care if they click on "Brian Barry-Murphy the caretaker" or "Brian Barry-Murphy the permanent manager"? --Vistor (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Because it reflects the truth. GiantSnowman 10:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
So you don't think that Brian Barry-Murphy became manager of Rochdale in 2019? --Vistor (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
And what about managers who were caretaker in a different year before becoming permanent? GiantSnowman 10:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
They should be merged, since the job is exactly the same. It is not a "significant part of the person's career" that they were caretakers for a couple of games, and that does not change just because they become caretakers in December and permanent in January. Now that I answered your question, I think that you should answer the questions that you have avoided for the last couple of days: 1) Regarding the navigation box: Do you think that people care if they click on "Brian Barry-Murphy the caretaker" or "Brian Barry-Murphy the permanent manager"? 2) Regarding the infobox: Barry-Murphy was the caretaker from 4 March 2019 to 3 April 2019 before becoming permanent manager. In that month he oversaw four games as caretaker. Is it a "significant part of the person's career" that the first four games (of a total of 50 this far) was as caretaker? 3) Pete Wild managed Oldham in zero games as caretaker before being made permanent manager. Is that a "significant part of the person's career"? 4) How do your argument fit with the policy that the infobox should not contain other roles than "team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career." (Template:Infobox football biography)? --Vistor (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
As you have been told above it is not exactly the same job, it is still significant being a caretaker (whether or not you become permanent), and you have not covered managers who were caretaker in a different year before becoming permanent - like the Malian manager who was caretaker for two years! GiantSnowman 10:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
What does a caretaker do that is different from a permanent manager? Nothing. They do the exact same thing. I have said above that in the case of Mohamed Magassouba you could argue that it is a significant part of his career, so I have actually covered that fact. Now, why do you not want to answer my rather simple questions? Is that because your argument makes no sense? Or what? --Vistor (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
What does a loan player do that is different from a permanent? What does a player-manager do different? Not a lot but we still display those separately becuase they are different roles/contracts. No need to get aggressive just because nobody is supporting you and you are losing the argument. GiantSnowman 13:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

There was the recent example of Ryan Lowe who was twice the caretaker at Bury in the 2017–18 season, either side of Chris Lucketti's short-lived appointment. Lowe was then made permanent ahead of the 2018–19 season so I would say he merits three management entries at List of Bury F.C. managers and in his own infobox. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly - there are different roles/spells and we should reflect that. GiantSnowman 16:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I answered the loan player question on 9 January, but I'll gladly copy-paste that answer: "When on loan the player is owned by another club - a caretaker manager is not." Do you have any examples of player-managers where their spell as player-manager is listes diffently than their permanent spell? I am neither getting aggressive nor am I losing the argument, since you are the one refusing to answer questions, which would suggest that you know that you have a very bad case. And by the way: When I count the number of users in the thread, at least four other users favour my solution. But if you are so sure that you are winning the argument, then why don't you answer my questions? I can list them again if you like: 1) Regarding the navigation box: Do you think that people care if they click on "Brian Barry-Murphy the caretaker" or "Brian Barry-Murphy the permanent manager"? 2) Regarding the infobox: Barry-Murphy was the caretaker from 4 March 2019 to 3 April 2019 before becoming permanent manager. In that month he oversaw four games as caretaker. Is it a "significant part of the person's career" that the first four games (of a total of 50 this far) was as caretaker? 3) Pete Wild managed Oldham in zero games as caretaker before being made permanent manager. Is that a "significant part of the person's career"? 4) How do your argument fit with the policy that the infobox should not contain other roles than "team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career." (Template:Infobox football biography)? --Vistor (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Drop the (Brian Barry-Murphy) stick, take a step back, and accept the views expressed in this thread. There is no consensus to support your view. GiantSnowman 16:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, I could ask you to accept the views expressed in the thread as well, but I can see that you probably won't. And you apparently have no interest in discussing this, since you are not answering the questions. I guess we will have to hear what some of the other users have to say: Lee Vilenski, EchetusXe, Jts1882, Spike 'em. But I will listen, if you would try to propose some kind of compromise, which you have not been willing to this far. --Vistor (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Because we are going round in circles and it's like talking to a brick wall. Why have you only pinged some contributors but not all? Poor form. GiantSnowman 17:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
At least I answer your questions. You just ignore questions, so who is the brick wall? I pinged the named contributors, because you said that no one supported my view, but feel free to ping other users. --Vistor (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
If you bothered to actually read the arguments expressed here you will see that I (and others) have answered your questions already, thanks. GiantSnowman 17:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
PS the fact that all of your edits since 9 January have been to this discussion only (and no mainspace or other edits) shows just how obsessed you are. WP:DROPTHESTICK and go do something else for a bit, please. GiantSnowman 17:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, I have a job outside Wikipedia that I have to take care of once in a while. I can't find your answers to the questions, but I will let others weigh in. You and I are not able to sort this out on our own. --Vistor (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
At this point, I favour a full scale RfC. This has been going on for almost three weeks, with no end in sight. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

"2020–present" or "2020–29"?[edit]

Regarding the national team results pages, should we be using X national football team results (2020–present) or X national football team results (2020–29)? Palestine, Saudi Arabia and Syria, for example, use the former, while Albania, Italy and Spain use the latter. Thoughts? Nehme1499 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If all the results are sorted by decades then it makes sense to go for the latter.--EchetusXe 15:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The only problem is that the Italy page you've linked to is from 2010 to 2029, Scotland is from 2020 to 2039 and Papua New Guinea is from 1990 to 2019 so there is no real consistency. At least with 2020–39 you don't have to move the page like you will with 2020–present. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
My issue isn't really with the time bracket itself (which rightly changes from country to country based on the frequency of their games). The problem is regarding the use of "–present" or "–29/–39/etc". Should we be putting time limits such as –29, even though we still haven't reached that year, or is it preferable to use "–present"? Belgium, for example, goes for a completely different format with Belgium national football team results – 2020s. There are, therefore, three (edit: four) options:
  1. X national football team results (2020–present)
  2. X national football team results (2020–29)
  3. X national football team results – 2020s
  4. X national football team 2020–29 results
What are your opinions? I don't have any specific preference, as long as we uniform all the pages to the same standard. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Purely because it's a featured list, I'd go with the same style as Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the first option. Because it don't set a time frame for the end of the results list when we're still at the beginning of the decade. Also there is nothing wrong with making a move later.--Sakiv (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd pick the first option, but it does seem weird to use "2020-present" when all games are 2020. I think "2020-" would be better.   Jts1882 | talk  20:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? Nehme1499 (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by IP user[edit]

Hi, can someone take a look at (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (presumably the same person)? He keeps making disruptive edits at Dejan Kulusevski. He also seems to have a long history of doing this... Nehme1499 (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Those are the same IP address. Did you want us to take a look at another one in addition to – PeeJay 17:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake. I meant also to tag (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Nehme1499 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

National team adjective or noun[edit]

DESK JOVI (talk · contribs) has been changing the piping of national team names, for instance [[Germany national football team|German national team]] at Mario Gómez and [[England national football team|English national team]] at Harry Kane. Anyone care to explain why it is this way? My advice is being ignored (and I can't imagine why, since I'm such a genial fellow). Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering most GA and FA footballers have their national team listed as a noun (e.g. England, not English), I would keep it that way. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
That's obvious, but why are we using the noun and not the adjective? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure that there's has been consensus regarding the use of the noun in the article page's name itself (so England national football team, not English national football team. The piping should reflect the name of the article itself (minus the word "football", which is redundant). Nehme1499 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
How is the name of the sport redundant? There are other sports, you know, and England plays many of them. I personally see the use of the noun rather than the adjective as an unacceptable form of neologism, but I'm old, and from a country where soccer isn't the major football code, so what would I know? HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not talking about changing the article name (say, from England national football team to England national team). I'm talking about piping the link to the article (e.g. [[England national football team|England national team]]) in the footballer's article. There's no need to put the word "football" since the first phrase of a footballer's page is "Adam Smith is a professional footballer": it's clear that we are talking about a footballer. If one reads "England national team" there isn't going to be ambiguity regarding which sport the footballer's national team operates in. Nehme1499 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. I misunderstood. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, to be fair I wasn't very clear hahaha. Nehme1499 (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Mikael Ndjoli date of birth dilemma[edit]

Motherwell have now put up a profile on their website of new signing Mikael Ndjoli, and it lists his birth date as 8 October 1997, different in every variable from the date we list of 16 December 1998. The latter date is the one listed on Soccerbase and his profile on the official Premier League website, and ties in with the fact that when he signed on loan for Gillingham last year he was described (by the club and the BBC report) as being 20, and the club posted on social media wishing him a happy 21st on 16 December last year. So I contacted Motherwell and got a reply from the club's Head of Digital and Communications, which read "Mikael's correct date of birth is 8 October 1997, as verified by the player. We noticed the 1998 date of birth on Wikipedia previously, but 1997 is correct". How to proceed - assume he is definitely right, change to the 1997 date and put a hidden note in explaining that other sources are wrong..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

His profile when he was at Kilmarnock also had 8 October 1997.
According to the article and confirmed on the FA registration lists, he took up a scholarship with Millwall in 2014. A December 1998 birth would still have been 15, which is below school-leaving age so too young to start a football scholarship. And AFC Bournemouth signed "18-year-old Ndjoli" in July 2016 – consistent with an October 1997 birth.
I know we can't use primary sources for dates of birth and the like, but I've never seen the harm in using them to tell which of two reliable secondary sources can't be correct. Birth records show a Bongil Ndjoli-Michael, which may or may not be the same person as Mikael Bongili Ndjoli but almost certainly is, registered in Camden in October 1997, and no-one of similar name born in 1998 or registered in 1998 or 1999.
Maybe copy this thread to the article talk page and put a hidden note pointing to it? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Camp Nou[edit]

What do you guys think of MiniEstadi1982 (talk · contribs)'s recent edits? He went ahead and boldly piped all mentions of Camp Nou pre-2001 to Estadio del Club de Fútbol Barcelona. He also added it as a past name in the stadium's infobox, without any sources. --BlameRuiner (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If you go to this article, you can see that the official name "Camp Nou" wasn't official until 2001. MiniEstadi1982 (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC) MiniEstadi1982 (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It may not have been official until 2001, but De Kuip has never been the official name for Stadion Feijenoord, yet it has always been the common name for the stadium. By all means make mention of the fact that "Camp Nou" only became the official name in 2001, but there's no need to pipe to "Estadio del Club de Fútbol Barcelona" anywhere. – PeeJay 16:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
And if it is to be piped/changed, it definitely shouldn't be done via search-and-replace within article text, which seems to be have been used in the case of this edit and as a result changed the content of a direct quotation from a source, which should never be done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Inter Milan[edit]

This editor keeps removing the citation, I really can't revert anymore, I don't understand the removal, [1] I think it's disruptive to remove as it clarifies the name. Some help on this please. Govvy (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Cheers, btw, my gut feeling is that that they guy plays a little WP:OWN and maybe using more than one account. Govvy (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
If you suspect sockpuppetry, there are ways to get that investigated. – PeeJay 16:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I did ask Bbb23 but he didn't think there was enough in it to investigate at the moment. Govvy (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Liga FPD[edit]

A question has arisen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manfred Ugalde about the status of this league which isn't included in the WP:FPL lists. The article says its a professional league but without certainty. Does anyone know about football in Costa Rica? No Great Shaker (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The league was discussed on a few occasions at the FPL talk page (here and here). The league is most likely professional, though it seems difficult to find reliable sources to confirm this. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@S.A. Julio: that leaves us with a loose end, then, and maybe we should allow benefit of doubt on notability. Thanks for the pointers. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, does the CONCACAF Champions League allow teams from non-pro leagues to compete? Because, for example, the AFC Champions League is exclusively for teams from pro-leagues, while the AFC Cup for teams from non pro-legues. Is there anything of the sort in the CONCACAF? Nehme1499 (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: To answer your question, yeah, teams from non-pro leagues compete in the CCL. After they changed the format and qualifying for the 2019 edition, it's generally only big, professional clubs that qualify, but there's still a route for non-pro teams to make it to the tournament. CONCACAF does get weird in the Caribbean, where the Caribbean Club Championship is solely for teams from "professional leagues" and the Caribbean Club Shield is for teams from " non-professional leagues which are working towards professional standards". CONCACAF has its own definition of professionalism that ties in with club licensing though, I still haven't been able to figure out exactly how they determine it. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the regulations of the League state (in Spanish) that a club must have a professional license to participate in the league. [2] Gricehead (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Yup, it is a professional league. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Player's club statistics[edit]

I have seen a number of player's club statistics table include Champions League and Europa League matches and goals in the "Other" column. I would like to clarify that having a Continental column is still the consensus here on Wikipedia. Kingjeff (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If a player has multiple seasons in Continental competitions then yes. If just one or two seasons then include in 'Other', otherwise you are going to have too many empty columns. GiantSnowman 21:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

football squad template[edit]

Template:Football squad on pitch This template is only for one team. Is there any template where both team lineups and formations can be shown?  :) S A H 19:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


Is it just me or are we getting a bit heavy-handed with maps on some of our articles? I was just alerted to the existence of a gallery of kits in some of the early Football League season articles when I spotted that there was a map showing the locations of each of the teams in each division. I'm fine with maps being used somewhat decoratively, but it feels like they've been included in (for example) 1894–95 Football League because people think the article isn't complete without a map and they're easy to do. In my opinion, we could easily do away with them all; the location of each team, especially in map form, seems a little crufty. – PeeJay 21:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)