Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 104

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100←Archive 102Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105Archive 106→Archive 110

New Caledonia flags

See the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Country data New Caledonia#Template-protected edit request on 23 June 2016. --Theurgist (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Templates

Youth squads at tournament should not be covered in tempalte like this. We did agree on that, or? Kante4 (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. The main issue is that many of the players on them may not be article-worthy. Number 57 15:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Seems they all have articles though. Do you include Olympics teams in youth squads? It is technically U-23 (exception of 3 players). --SuperJew (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe we deem Olympics players notable through having played at the Olympics (it's a bit different to youth internationals, as you say). Qualifiers don't count though. Number 57 15:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
So, TFD? Kante4 (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
There are a bunch of those templates, here. Kante4 (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Olympics templates are notable but youth tournaments are not. I have already informed the creator about this. If somebody has the time please can you TFD? GiantSnowman 10:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

UEFA Referees

Hi. Can someone please tell me whether we should we add UEFA Europa League, UEFA Champions League and UEFA EURO under international leagues in the infobox of a football referee's page? Please help! And also what about the domestic leagues section - should only the premier first-tier home country league be mentioned it or even the 2nd and 3rd tier teams are to be mentioned as well? Someone if please tell me! Cricket246 (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Robbie Wakenshaw place of birth

Five different places (in two countries!) mentioned so far - any help welcome... Talk:Robbie Wakenshaw#Place of birth. GiantSnowman 19:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Assists in Euro 2016

Hi, I started a discussion about removing the assists on Euro 2016 and would appreciate your input there. Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for Admin intervention

The following pages 2016–17 Ukrainian First League, 2016–17 Ukrainian Second League, 2015–16 Ukrainian First League are continually being reverted by User:46.200.26.232. A request has been made for WP:3RR violations due him continually changing team names by placing a hyphen in the team's name. He has been targetting reformed teams that are returning back into the professional leagues. For instance FC Arsenal Kyiv is being editted to FC Arsenal-Kyiv (which has a redirect) and the recently readmitted FC Metalurh Zaporizhya into the Second league as Metalurh-Zaporizhya. Usually WP:COMMONNAME has diffused the situation but this individual has been incessant in his plight. The articles have been tagged for discussion. IS it possible that some admin place these pages in semi-protect mode until there is some more consensus to this issue. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have PP'd where there have been recent edits for 2 days. This needs to be discussed on the talk page and is widespread enough to be a bit disruptive. Fenix down (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair enuff! Talk page has a section about this is issue. The proceeding started with creation of unnecessary pages where forking off stub pages for new clubs and inconsistent name referrals to teams confusing all concerned. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
From my talk page: I am not convinced that WP:COMMONNAME is met here. For example this may use "-", but the badges here and here on the same site does not. Additionally, plenty of English language sources such as this and this for example do not. Please keep the discussion in one place. Fenix down (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Your second link is about another Arsenal. Your third link uses "-". Fourth link is from 2014, before renaming. The correct names of this club is FC Arsenal-Kyiv, see the official site [10] 46.200.26.232 (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. I know the second link is about a different team I am trying to illustrate the lack of consistency on the PFL website not just for Arsenal Kiev, but other clubs. The purpose of this is to highlight the lack of WP:COMMONNAME.
  2. Third link does not use "-". Please re-read I am referring to the badge, click on the second tab on the page. This comment is again about the inconsistency being shown.
  3. Fourth link - you are incorrect. This is from December 2014. This clearly states the club were reformed in January 2014. Fenix down (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Again. PFL site wrote in the title: FC Arsenal-Kyiv [11] (sections about history use old name, yes, logically). Official club site wrote in the title: FC Arsenal-Kyiv. [12] And what is the reason to keep the old name now? 46.200.26.232 (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
You are also wrong that the link of how PFL provides the name of the team. They call the team "«Арсенал-Київ» Київ" which translates to Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv where Kyiv is in the name twice. How inconsistent is that? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The link that you provided to Arsenal Kyiv is full of naming conflict and inconsistencies. For instance and this has been pointed out before in Talk:2015–16 Ukrainian Second League 1) Logo: FC Arsenal Kyiv (no dash) 2) Banner: FC Arsenal (no Kyiv or hyphen Kyiv) 3) Team: "Arsenal-Kyiv" (no FC). You ask why keep the old name? Well, for historical links like on their website (История киевского «Арсенала») for History of "Arsenal" Kyiv which they acknowledge they are a part of. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Design features for logos or banners are not relevant here. Standings section clear says: FC Arsenal-Kyiv [13]. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
If standings are relevant then here is an English reference for this WP:English since we want English language source which is clearly Arsenal Kyiv [14]. No hyphen, no double Kyiv just the common name. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Soccerway uses old names of many clubs. They write Real Pharm, but club was renamed to FC Real Pharma Odesa. They use simply Nikopol, but club is named FC Nikopol-NPHU. They write Arsenal Bila T, but club was renamed to FC Arsenal-Kyivshchyna Bila Tserkva. So, that source have many errors. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
In the case of "Arsenal Kyiv" they have not made an error because they are well aware of the historical link of the team. As pointed out by @Fenix down:, the English source in RSSSF Ukraine Second League also has "No hyphen, no double Kyiv" and the location of the team is also given. The inconsistencies across the board of different team names on so many sources including the teams themselves only leads to the use of WP:COMMONNAME which is more than appropriate. Both the registration name of Arsenal Kyiv and Metalurh Zaporizhya is a ploy used by the PFL so that the administrations of the clubs can keep the historical ties to previously defunct clubs while at the same time allowing the clubs to enter the professional league without legal ramifications. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Copa América Centenario Team of the Tournament

Is {{Copa América Centenario Team of the Tournament}} notable? SLBedit (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Separated group articles

Should 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round really have been split into individual articles for each group (A, B, C, D, E)?

The only qualifiaction article that has been split is UEFA first round (being 260 matches), while this is only 60 matches and less than other rounds. The creator of the group articles has been asked but keeps on editing without response.

Keep, merge or delete? AfD? Qed237 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If there are people willing to give there time to keep all the group pages updated, I don't see a problem in all the group rounds to be split. That way the round page gives a broader view, and if the reader is interested in a specific group they can go to that page. --SuperJew (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@SuperJew: Even if there is no new content? The only difference is that matches that previously was in 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round is now in group articles. Qed237 (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
That's the new content. For an overview of the round I don't think it's necessary to have the matches with all their details (if at all). --SuperJew (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
And of course there can be goalscorers and discipline sections. --SuperJew (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Why not? Seems like a good idea to me. Kante4 (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion: separated pages for 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round not needed. 60 matches too few for separate. All 5 groups on one page is normal. For example, we don't split pages 2015–16 UEFA Champions League group stage or 2015–16 UEFA Europa League group stage (in this pages matches more then 60). Also without separate pages: 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Fourth Round, 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round. And see 2 sections on different pages: FIFA and CAF. They are the same. I think: need merge in one page (originally was in one page until one user splitted it). GAV80 (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I think I'm in favour of merging these articles. SuperJew (talk · contribs), if people want to look at a specific group on a merged page, they can go to the appropriate section. Splitting the articles doesn't make it that much easier to find the information you want. Furthermore, goalscorers and discipline won't be recorded separately for each group by CAF or FIFA; we'll be lucky if they record them individually for each round of qualifying! – PeeJay 17:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there aren't enough matches to give each group its own article; 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round had 132 matches, and groups were not given their own articles. UEFA will have 270 matches, so giving each group its own article is necessary to prevent the article from becoming so large that it cannot be maintained easily. I am in favor of merging the articles back into the main article. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I actually think that the splitting into separate pages makes the maintaining harder. From personal experience, a couple of seasons back in the A-League we had all of the matches on the league season page as well as season pages for each club. The more well maintained page by more people was the main league page by far. After that season it was decided by the task force to not have matches on the main league page, but only on the club season pages, and the maintenance of the pages is in freefall since then. --SuperJew (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Management positions in infobox

Milovan Rajevac was manager of a Slovenian club side for just under 2 weeks before leaving to become the new Algeria manager. He never took control of the Slovenian side for a competitive match. @Panam2014: believes that that role should not be reflected in the infobox; I disagree. Bringing this here as it has ramifications wider than this article. GiantSnowman 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Should be listed in my opinion- after all, he's listed as playing for FK Borac Čačak and Lunds BK despite not appearing to have ever played for them? Why should it be different for his managerial career. Technically, he was manager after all. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Should be listed. Managing, especially a club, is beyond taking control of competitive matches. It's also the tactical preparation for matches, training, scouting for and signing players, managing the players between games etc. etc. --SuperJew (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep, agreed, as above. – PeeJay 17:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
He never participated in a press conference the club nor the trainings. When not playing in clubs, he trained.--Panam2014 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Panam2014: Firstly, You're talking very specific about this one (about Rajevac). I think the discussion here is more general. Secondly, even for Rajevac, there is notability that he was chosen to manage the club and it should be reflected in the article. --SuperJew (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I surprised that a note was not made in the article indicating that he did not manage any games for Algeria. Why not have a clarification? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
On the general point, we list clubs for players as soon as they're contracted to them, whether they play or not. I don't see why it should be diferent for managers. On Rajevac specifically, the image on this page shows him on a training pitch with players. As does the page where the club thanked him for his good work..... Or a man that looks very much like him, anyway... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Should be listed. Number 57 20:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if he trained the team, it should be listed. Even if it was only "two weeks", he'd still get paid for it. So if he was in the club's employ, why omit the info? Jared Preston (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Fb team templates

So I was going over Fb team templates, specifically Australia and some of them are a serious clusterfuck (especially Japan and South Korea). I started nominating for deletion some of the templates which don't even link to a football team, but rather a suburb. I've seen two other cases which I'd like your guidance on: 1) Team names which link to a suburb/city. 2) Teams which link to non-existent article (usually I doubt they'll be created as they are lower tier clubs). What would you think to do with them? --SuperJew (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There are also many templates which link to the same club with different names, for example Manly United and Manly Warringah Dolphins both link to Manly United FC. My question with these is if to delete the (I guess old) name template, and if we keep it, which name to sort it by? --SuperJew (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(pinging @Matilda Maniac: as I saw you created a bunch of them back in the day) --SuperJew (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Started doing a whole lot to use through Fb cl team until someone showed me how to use Fb cl2 team.
If they both point to the same link - and its a football team not a suburb - then maybe just leave them . . . different keys to the same lock.
If its pointing to a suburb, make a list on your user page - or somewhere in the Task Force pages - and I'll help to refresh them when i can. Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
There is past consensus at TFD that they are not required and should be deleted. GiantSnowman 17:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd be interested to see a link to the discussion if you have it? --SuperJew (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
There are definitely more recent ones, but one off the top of my head is Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 20#Unused fb team templates. Search the WT:FOOTY archives for numerous discussion saying they should be subst and deleted. GiantSnowman 19:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
So it seems there was a massive consensus then for the deletion. This was 3 years ago. Is there a reason a bot hasn't been tasked with this yet? --SuperJew (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the last time I managed to get around 2000 deleted, someone came around and created about 5000 new ones in their place. Unfortunately, this is a mammoth task, albeit, one that needs to be done some time. Jared Preston (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that many table templates use them, for example Template:Fb in2 player or Template:Fb out2 player, and these tables syntax is easier to use than a regular table. Maybe if a module could be created to replace these kinds of tables then we can be in business. --SuperJew (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Cape Town City

I've made the following changes:

I've also updated the following:

Links on articles
  • Cape Town City F.C. - > Cape Town City F.C. (NFL)
Categories on player articles
  • Cape Town City F.C. players -> Cape Town City F.C. (NFL) players

TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Was a page move needed? Probably not, given the history of the original team it's a clear PRIMARY. But what's done is done - so if you want to move over then I suggest a WP:RM, though keeping it as a disambig is probably best. GiantSnowman 19:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I would think the new club would be primary, as it is the club which will be in the media and is current. Honestly, the old team doesn't seem to have so much history - hardly any info on the page and a handful of sources. --SuperJew (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Indian Super League season

Hey, can someone help me and User:Debarghya89 on this page. We have an anon user and a new user (who I am pretty sure are the same) who keep adding in two foreign players who have yet to be signed officially, adding in random sponsors which have yet to be confirmed, and a bunch of other useless things. I don't want to be caught up in 3RR and neither does Deb so a little help would be appreciated. Cheers. Already submitted a protection request as well. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Page is now protected for a week. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Bury points deduction

Bury have had 3 points deducted retrospectively from last season in Football League One, dropping them two places. I've updated the table template, as well as Bury, Southend and Swindon's infoboxes and list of Bury and Southend seasons (Swindon's hadn't been updated yet, and I'm just off out so don't have time to update it myself). Just a heads up, and to see if anyone thinks of any other articles that might need updating accordingly. - Chrism would like to hear from you 12:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

New syntax for penalties list

One month ago, I enhanced the {{Football box}} and {{Football box collapsible}} templates to add support for listing goals and penalties, rather than just separating them with <br>s. This came after Walter Görlitz made a good point on the talk page about improving MOS:ACCESSIBILITY on these templates by using {{plainlist}} instead of the more crude linebreaks. Apart from accessibility and semantics, another benefit is that the list of goals becomes much more readable in the code this way, which is of course especially important for collaborative projects such as Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, when I used this new syntax recently on the Euro 2016 articles, people reverted it because they were not used to this syntax. I don't really blame them because it's very new and so it currently looks unusual, but that's always the case with change :) So I was wondering whether I could get support to encourage using the listing syntax instead of the line breaks, at least for penalty shootouts. Of course line breaks will always be supported, I'm not saying that should change, I would just like to officially 'encourage' the listing syntax (e.g. on the doc page) so that people can actually make use of the new syntax without it getting reverted to the more 'primitive' syntax.

For easy comparison, here is the penalty shootout from the recent Switzerland - Poland game:

Linebreak syntax: 

|penalties1=[[Stephan Lichtsteiner|Lichtsteiner]] {{pengoal}}<br />[[Granit Xhaka|Xhaka]] {{penmiss}}<br />[[Xherdan Shaqiri|Shaqiri]] {{pengoal}}<br />[[Fabian Schär|Schär]] {{pengoal}}<br />[[Ricardo Rodríguez (footballer)|Rodríguez]] {{pengoal}}
|penaltyscore=4–5
|penalties2={{pengoal}} [[Robert Lewandowski|Lewandowski]]<br />{{pengoal}} [[Arkadiusz Milik|Milik]]<br />{{pengoal}} [[Kamil Glik|Glik]]<br />{{pengoal}} [[Jakub Błaszczykowski|Błaszczykowski]]<br />{{pengoal}} [[Grzegorz Krychowiak|Krychowiak]]

Listing syntax: 

|penaltyscore=4–5
|penalties1=
* [[Stephan Lichtsteiner|Lichtsteiner]] {{pengoal}}
* [[Granit Xhaka|Xhaka]] {{penmiss}}
* [[Xherdan Shaqiri|Shaqiri]] {{pengoal}}
* [[Fabian Schär|Schär]] {{pengoal}}
* [[Ricardo Rodríguez (footballer)|Rodríguez]] {{pengoal}}
|penalties2=
* {{pengoal}} [[Robert Lewandowski|Lewandowski]]
* {{pengoal}} [[Arkadiusz Milik|Milik]]
* {{pengoal}} [[Kamil Glik|Glik]]
* {{pengoal}} [[Jakub Błaszczykowski|Błaszczykowski]]
* {{pengoal}} [[Grzegorz Krychowiak|Krychowiak]]

Both are supported, but which one should be recommended? –Sygmoral (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I had the same problem when I first used it. People reverted. As editors get used to the new format, they will see that it's easier to implement. The accessibility issue may be lost on them though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
It's beautyfull. -Koppapa (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
It certainly does look better. Direct any poo-pooers over here. Jared Preston (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thought I was going to hate it cause it's new and all that, but decided to give it a go and I like it :) Cheers, --SuperJew (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
After a lot of thinking, I can see it used for penalties. But what about regular goals? With 1 goal it semms unnecessary to make a new row and one item in the list. How about when it is 2 goals? Should this only be used for penalties or both penalties and goals? Qed237 (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I used it only for more than one. For only one it indeed seems unnecessary. --SuperJew (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I guess the criterium is whether there is actually a list. Penalty shootouts always have two lists, so there's little argument there, but regular goals are of course often limited to just one (or zero). There is no 'technical' reason to use the listing syntax then. I could come up with an argument though: to create full consistency. That could be beneficial in the long run: I could imagine a future where people are used to just always put a * in front of any goal, as if there's no other way to create them. I.e. goals are always listed, even if there's just one; that would make for a simple rule at least. But I'm just thinking here... By the way, you can actually use it inline too, if there's only a single goal: |goals2=* [[Robbie Brady|Brady]] {{goal|2|pen.}} (although I'm not sure whether that should be recommended).
One final thought: an extra row is not necessarily a bad thing. I used to compress my code in the past, but I've learned that it's much more important to have maintainable code than it is to save a few bytes by obfuscating things. Not sure whether there's a Wikipedia style / rule about this, but it certainly is a 'best practice' for any high level programming language. –Sygmoral (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@Qed23: The code is used in the goals section as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Need help reorganising and watch the Singapore national football team page

A lot of information on the page, but one issue kept surfacing, which is the current squad section was moved to the top of the page by some editor which is not complying with the style here. I'm currently in the process of reorganising and updating the page with the latest squad info, but will do with some help to reorganise the page since the items are all over the place and consistently watch the page to prevent the current squad section from being moved again. Frankie goh (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

worldofstadiums.com

I have seen an editor adding links to worldofstadiums.com so I opened a discussion about the site at WP:RSN. Feel free to comment there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Nampalys Mendy

Could you please keep am eye on Nampalys Mendy, maybe an Admin can protect? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Article seems okay for now. But might need semi-protecting if too many IP vandals continue. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent call-up and club

There is a minor dispute regarding player club in "recent call-up list" and I would like some input. Should we show the club the player is currently at, or the club he was playing for at the time he was called? Qed237 (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I've always edited under the assumption of club the player is currently at. --SuperJew (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I've always edited under that assumption too. As a reader, I think it's more interesting to know the current club than knowing the club the player represented 10 months ago. But there are pros and cons for both sides, of course... // Mattias321 (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there has been a widespread practice troughout articles to update the teams whenever a player changes club. I understand what you mean Qed237, I also thought about it, if the club should indicate the club at time of the last call or the current one. Seems there has been preference for the currrent one. FkpCascais (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the argument for last club is that it is more relevant on that particular page. Let's say Watford were to sign recent England regular John Doe from Liverpool, and Doe does not receive further call-ups following the transfer. I know which club I would prefer to see next to his name, but which would be the more relevant? In those circumstances I'd say the former club. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
What the Watford bloke said. We're recording who was called up, and if "Fred Smith of Foo FC" was called up, then that should be what we record. There may be a grey area in the rare case of the player moving between call-up and match, but in general, it has to be the club they were at when they were called up because that section of the page is about the player when they were called up. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree completely, that's the only option that makes sense. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It's a good argument, but I still think that the current club is a better option. I think that it might be confusing for readers when Player X actually is retired but the article says he's playing for Liverpool, Player Y plays for Manchester United but the article says Arsenal and Player Z plays for Chelsea, but the article says he's unattached. // Mattias321 (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

But the article doesn't say Player X is playing for Liverpool, it says that when he was last called up, he was playing for Liverpool. A standard note at the top of each recent callups table to clarify the meaning would stop both editors and readers getting confused. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Is the club he was playing at when he was last called up relevant? --SuperJew (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
To a section of a page that records players' last call-ups, I'd have thought so, yes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Another point regarding this I thought about, the age column is current age, not age when called-up. --SuperJew (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

All of the data presented should be accurate as of the date of the call-up - age (which you can set with {{Birth date and age2}}) & club. Recent call-ups for national teams should not go back more than 12 months IMO. GiantSnowman 07:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, so do you mean that also caps and goals should be accurate as of when they were called up? And does all of this go for both "Current squad" and "Recent call-ups"? Rather confusing to me. If we take Nolito as an example, should his age say age 29 or aged 29, his caps/goals 13/5 or 9/4 and his club Celta Vigo or Manchester City? // Mattias321 (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
It'll be a real bother to editors to change everytime a player is dropped/called-up from {{Birth date and age}} to {{Birth date and age2}} and back. The effort isn't worth the return on this IMO. --SuperJew (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate Updated timestamps in Infoboxes

I'm starting to notice occasions where editors are updating the |updated parameter in Infoboxes when they've only correctly updated a subset of the facts in the infobox. This leads to wikipedia making a factually incorrect statement that: All statistics are correct as of (timestamp) when they categorically aren't.

This appears to be prevalent in season articles, for example at 2016 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, where (an|some) IP editor(s) are extremely eager to update result and goalscorer related statistics, when attendance related statistics take a little more research.

Some editors here are notable for their insistence on updating timestamps, so I guess the positive point here is at least the timestamp is being updated. I would like to see some sort of consensus, though, that in doing so a factual error should not be introduced. Maybe this means guidance (or stronger) that the infobox should not be updated unless you are doing a complete update of stats? Would appreciate hearing other thoughts... Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Guessing this genuinely doesn't annoy anyone else as much as me. I've asked the IP in question on the article in question to stop, but I would really like to have pointed to consensus here. Oh well. Gricehead (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Mixed up infoboxes

Has anyone noticed that IPs have recently been changing player articles to have the infobox table in seemingly random orders? Such as:
year1
club1
national team1
national cap 1
club-update
year 4
club 4
youthyear1
youthclub1
For example. Is there some kind of tool going wrong?--EchetusXe 13:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I've noticed it - I wonder if there is some tool/script they are using but it's not working properly. GiantSnowman 13:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
That's caused by the visual editor. I've tried to fixed it whenever I saw such an edit. --Jaellee (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
How do you know it's the VE? Is it worth raising at WP:VPT to try and get a fix? GiantSnowman 14:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Because each time when I saw such an edit, it had the tag Visual edit. See for example [15] [16], [17] [18], [19] etc. Even if these edits are no proof, they strongly suggest that the visual editor causes this random ordering. I'd really appreciate a fix because it is very difficult to see the differences. --Jaellee (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it's because the TemplateData stuff isn't set up properly. The infobox entries seem to be mangled arranged by VE into the peculiar order in which they appear in the TemplateData section, and any infobox entries for fields not explicitly specified in that layout, like club4 etc, come afterwards. On the basis that there must be a better way to fix it than having an individual entry for every possible parameter up to |caps39= or whatever, we do need some input from someone who understands the thing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
How can we find such an expert? --Jaellee (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
We should WP:VPT. GiantSnowman 09:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@EchetusXe, Jaellee, and Struway2: - see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Template:Infobox football biography. GiantSnowman 11:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jaellee (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Brace yourselves...

The mass moving of categories relating to, and rewriting of subjects relating to, Segunda División is coming [20] '''tAD''' (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Almightey Drill: True that. And did you notice that La Liga is also partly wrong? According to them, it's now called LaLiga (uglier enough, IMO) with Segunda being named LaLiga2 (all "glued up" too?). MYS77 ✉ 03:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@MYS77: I think it was DURING this season past that Segunda Liga became the LigaPro. And I believe I have seen Chievo Verona written as ChievoVerona. IHopeThisDoesn'tBecomeAFashion. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"Former" national teams

Hey guys, I've been going through articles of footballers who have represented both a current national team, and its predecessor (e.g. Nemanja Vidic, Savo Milosevic, Radoslav Latal, etc. Players representing countries which have since split up into two or more nations such as Czechoslovakia and FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro are affected. Looking through player articles such as Vidic's and Milosevic's, only one country is listed in both cases (Serbia), even though both of them clearly represented two different nations, creating quite an innacurayc. It seems that there is not much consistency around these articles, as Latal's infobox lists him as representing both Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic. I don't mind how we decide to approach this problem, as long as there is consistency.

The way I see it, we could follow Latal's article's approach, by listing the two national teams he has represented, or only listing the latest national team a player has played for, as long as that team is the FIFA-recognised successor of the earlier nation (like Vidic's article); however, in the case of the latter, this means that present national teams which competed previously as a part of a different nation, but are not the successor to that nation (e.g. Slovakia) would both have to be listed for a player that represented both.

Cheers lads.

LeoC12 (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Both nations should be listed in the infobox, with separate entries. GiantSnowman 07:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Football manager history

I've spotted an issue in the template: this new way of listing manager instead of adding another template works perfectly, but only for active clubs. I mean, UD Salamanca folded in 2013, but its template lists José María Hernández (the last manager) with the dash after the year.

Should we add a parameter in the template for folded clubs, or should I simply add 2013 to 13 to the last manager in the template? MYS77 ✉ 22:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a good catch :) Seems relevant for folded clubs whose last manager was less than a year in the job. I think 2013 to 13 won't work because it would give 2013-13, which looks silly. I'd suggest adding a parameter to the template. --SuperJew (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@SuperJew: That's what I thought too, but as the source code is blocked (at least for me), I can't elaborate more on an answer or at least analyze if this parameter creation is too hard to be made. MYS77 ✉ 23:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
It's now as a Module, written in Lua (if you know it). Try here. --SuperJew (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: (pinging the writer of it :) ) --SuperJew (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Please work out what syntax should be used and I'll fix it. I recommend editing Template:Football manager history/doc to document the new parameter before it gets added because documenting something often shows it should have been done slightly differently. Once a decision is made, I'm very likely to fix it within 24 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
SuperJew, @Johnuniq: I know nothing about Lua :( Although, what needs to be fixed is: we should allow the user to input a param if the club is folded or not (it could be a | folded = yes with the default in no). Then, when this param is set to "yes", and if (that's the main part of the problem) the last manager only managed the folded club for a few months in the same year, we should change the last line of the managerlist to a list without the –.
From what I could understand in the code (pardon me if I'm wrong, one and a half year without programming), we should change the make_list function with two if's in the part after the third if not name then line, like something which would be captured from the param (folded). Cheers, and thank you both. MYS77 ✉ 03:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's decide on the parameter name. Is "folded" going to be understood by editors? Is it memorable? Could it be confused with anything else? I'm neutral as my only involvement was to write the module to speed up the old template because it was failing on some articles and putting pages in an error category (well, one article, but it was obviously going to be more). Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I think dissolved = would be a better option, like appears in the infobox on the club's page. And of course a note about it should be added to the documentation :) --SuperJew (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
No parameter would be best. So just "2013" in the template works, thats intuitive and same code for previous managers that have been there only a yeas. If you want to see 2013- one should use "2013 to" in the template (though probably all current inclusions would have to be modified). -Koppapa (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
That raises a question of what's more common. Obviously dissolved clubs aren't as common, so would seem the common would be the one with just "2013". --SuperJew (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@Koppapa: I think you didn't undertand the problem raised here. Did you see the template? Did you know that Salamanca was dissolved in 2013? Either you didn't express yourself very well or either I didn't understand your point properly. MYS77 ✉ 18:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Koppapa's proposal is that "2013 to" should be entered if "(2013–)" is wanted for the last entry. I think that has a couple of problems. I have converted 1400 navboxes to the new syntax and many of them had dubious wikitext, and having a dangling "to" would be unclear—every editor looking at that would wonder whether something has been accidentally removed. An example of strange wikitext was at {{USM Alger managers}} which used {{Football manager last}} 52 times. Another problem can be seen by considering {{Uganda national football team managers}}. It has six entries like "Ssali 1983" where there is no "to" year. That includes the last entry which is "Sredojević 2013" and which displays as "Sredojević (2013–)" in the navbox. That automatic behavior of adding a dash would be better than requiring that every future adjustment to the hundreds of active navboxes must have "to" with no number on the last line. I think having an unambiguous parameter such as |dissolved=yes would be best—it only has to be added once, assuming a club is not undissolved. I need some help at my sandbox (permalink) where I put a list of navboxes that might need the new parameter. If someone can confirm what is needed, I will do it. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I implemented |dissolved=yes and added it to three navboxes, including {{UD Salamanca managers}} mentioned above. I found there were a handful of navboxes that did not have the new syntax, so I converted them. In doing that, I noticed that Dynafen11 had removed the incorrect dash in a navbox and my edit had inadvertently restored it. Therefore I didn't wait. If something else is wanted, that can be done instead, however "dissolved" sounds good because it is used in {{Infobox football club}}. Johnuniq (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Great. I went through the list and removed a bunch of teams who are not dissolved. --SuperJew (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Thank you very much mate :) Problem solved in Salamanca's navbox, works perfectly! MYS77 ✉ 14:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all, I think it's done. There are probably a couple of glitches, but they can be fixed later. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"Tournament rankings"

Some users at 2015 Copa América have been zealously defending an unsourced chart which ranks the teams in order according to the 3-points-for a win and 1 point for a draw, even in knockout matches. This is original research because there is no proof that CONMEBOL sort the teams like this (I can't imagine Brazil were soothed from a quarter-final exit by knowing they "came 5th"). I was told to tag the chart for maintenance, so that people can search for a reference that doesn't exist, rather than the general rule of WP:V that the burden is on the claimer to prove. These users have admittedly invented their own rules for a tournament ranking, the very definition of WP:OR. Please go to the talk page to discuss '''tAD''' (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that this began as editors wanted to replicate for continental tournaments the tournament rankings that FIFA slightly bizzarely produce for World Cups. Without sourcing, though, I agree that we cannot state 'positions' beyond 1st, 2nd and sometimes 3rd and 4th. I suggest we need to remove this from all continental competition and national team articles as a Wikipedian invention. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree, delete them unless UEFA/CAF/CONMEBOL etc. publish them. World Cup ones are fine (I guess) if FIFA publish them. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely agree, with the exception of the world cup rankings, unless, as in the instance of this year's Copa América, all such rankings should be removed from tournament and national team articles unless a reliable source can be provided or a specific match was played to determine a finishing position. Where this creates gaps in tables the ranking should simply be replaced with "N/A". Until this time I wasn't aware how widespread this was. Fenix down (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The tournament ranking at this year's Copa América is also unsourced, only a table of results for teams is given, not a ranking. There are no places given in this table. One can look in the tournament regulations if rules are given for ranking teams overall or not.--2003:5F:3E0B:EF5B:649C:518C:1EF5:D394 (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

A load of English clubs have apparently won the "EFL Cup"

I noticed this edit which led to this Category. None of these clubs have won the "EFL Cup", because it's only just been renamed. Is this the way we normally handle these trophy name changes? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, yes. I don't really see it being a big problem for the categories. However, it should probably remain as the Football League Cup in the honours lists (until a club wins another under the new name). Number 57 12:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it is standard practice, although I'm also not sure the method used with the UEFA Cup/Europa League is any better. There are arguments for both. Renaming List of Football League Cup finals to List of EFL Cup finals without mention of 55 years of previous name isn't either standard practice or (IMO) desirable: alternative models include List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers and List of winners of the Scottish Championship and predecessors. And we'd normally stick to historically accurate names in honours lists or prose.

One category change that bothered me was Category:English Football League representative players, for people who played for The Football League XI. Technically, the category should reflect the parent article title. And particularly as that article says it was a representative side of the Football League; if the team's defunct, it has nothing to do with the EFL. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Category-wise, I don't see any problem with saying any club has won the "EFL Cup" despite the recency of the renaming. In club articles, however, I would say stick with "Football League Cup" or "League Cup" until they've actually won the renamed tournament. – PeeJay 16:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree fully with PeeJay. GiantSnowman 17:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a wider issue. A large number of 'Football League' categories have been speedy moved to EFL or English Football League. See 2 July at this page. Whilst it is appreciated there is some (further) renaming by the FL is it appropriate for all of these categories to be renamed? Eldumpo (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Cambodian club pages

Could any admins about take a look at the recent contributions from 175.100.59.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They've copy/paste moved a few articles on Cambodian football clubs. The name changes appear to be appropriate, but need to be done as proper page moves. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

European association football club records

Mikel Sarwono (talk · contribs) is edit warring on European association football club records. This new user won't stop adding unsourced content that was previously removed because of lack of sources. SLBedit (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Football box templates

Why do we still have Template:Football box collapsible and Template:Football box as separate templates? Shouldn't they be merged into one template? They mostly serve the same purpose. TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well one is collapsible and one isn't. The collapsible is used for pages where it's summaries (like season pages), while the non-collapsible when it's less matches. --SuperJew (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
What we could do, I guess, is merge it into Template:Football box but add a parameter collapsible, and Template:Football box collapsible could then 'forward' to the other template with that parameter on. This would un-duplicate some code which is always good, but be quite a bit of work to ensure everything still looks as it should. –Sygmoral (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Germany-Italy

We know that penalty shoot-outs are recorded as draws, so is then the previous record of Germany never beating Italy in a competitive match broken or not? There seems to be a dispute with User:Canon 108 on the Italy national football team page. In my view, even though it is recorded as a draw, the technicality of it is that they won the game in order to progress, so the record is technically broken. The other user seems to think otherwise. I'm fine with either way as long as we stay consistent on the other pages. What should it be written as? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Canon 108: In my view you can't count a draw as a win. Yes, they eliminated the Italians for the first time in their nations history. But the score was 1-1 after extra time, so in the eyes of UEFA, Germany, and Italy it goes down as a draw, even though a team was eliminated via penalty shootout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure, UEFA may record the result statistically as a draw, but the UEFA match report says it's Germany's first victory over Italy in a major tournament. If you asked anyone if Germany beat Italy yesterday, obviously the intuitive answer would be yes. – PeeJay 17:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
^ Exactly. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
That's why I worded my edit as "the Germans eliminated Italy for the first time in a major competition." It got the point across without conflicting with the point that it was a draw. My whole family is German, I'm happy they advanced, but if you post it as a "Win" on the Italian page, people are bound to disagree. The way I worded my response was in a way they wouldn't be able to argue with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
But that makes it sound like Germany might have beaten Italy in a game that wasn't a knockout game (e.g. in the group stage). – PeeJay 18:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Not when I edited that the result was 6-5 in a penalty shootout for Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
You've misunderstood my point. I'm saying that the way you've worded it makes it sound like Germany might have previously beaten Italy in a non-knockout game and that the special thing about last night was that it was the first time they actually knocked Italy out directly. – PeeJay 18:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Canon 108: Please stop making it sound better than it is. Italy lost, that's it. We can't make Wikipedia biased, we must tell it as it is and not make it more complicated than it needs to be, AND how PeeJay even pointed out that UEFA even recognizes it as Germany's first win. Should we not say that Italy won the 2006 World Cup just because it was a shootout win? No, they won it. It's the same thing here. Please stop your reverting. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

My exact edit was "Italy then faced off against rivals Germany in a quarter final which ended 1–1 after extra time and 6–5 after penalty shoot-out in favour of Germany. It was the first time the Germans had eliminated Italy in a major tournament." I'm keeping it like that, it gets the point across clearly, doesn't conflict with the fact it was a draw, and if need be, you can get in touch with someone higher up to settle the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You can't say "I'm keeping it like that", it doesn't work that way.We go off of consensus, and the way it stands right now, you are against the consensus. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

No, we go off of facts. And what I posted doesn't conflict in any way with how the game played out. I love the fact that Germany advanced, but they advanced on penalties with a final score of 1-1. That's why I edited it initially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The match itself was a draw, but Germany was still victorious over Italy - it just means that the victory came in the penalty shootout as opposed to the first 120 minutes. -Gopherbashi (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That's why following the shootout result I posted it was the first time they eliminated Italy, instead of posting they flat out won. This way everybody wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

But the fact of the matter is isn't that it's the first time Germany eliminated Italy in a major tournament, it's that Germany won, yes won, it's first ever game in a major tournament over Italy. UEFA records it as a draw, but has acknowledged the fact that Germany did win. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
No, this way everyone draws. :/ -Gopherbashi (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
^Haha. It's the same thing in that should we not say Italy won the World Cup in 2006 since it was on penalties. No. It's the same thing here. Did Germany not advance yesterday? Someone must have won to advance. It is simply Germany's first victory over Italy in a major tournament and should be stated as such as even UEFA recognizes it as that. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Could an acceptable compromise be something along the lines of "It was the first time Germany defeated Italy in a major tournament, albeit requiring a penalty shootout to do so."? This simultaneously describes that Italy was the team who was eliminated, while specifying that Germany was unable to make that happen within a standard match. -Gopherbashi (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Germany get to advance, but on the head to head record with Italy it'll say draw on July 2, 2016. It was the first time where Germany eliminated Italy however, it doesn't change the fact that it was a big day for the team. I simply wanted to make it as clear as possible without any Italian fans coming in to dispute it, since we're posting on their team's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs)
Yes, the match itself was drawn, but the overall contest (encompassing the match and the penalties) was won by Germany. Germany defeated Italy in the overall contest even if the match portion of that was a draw. -Gopherbashi (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That's true, I'm just trying to save the trouble of more edits later on. Italian fans would claim the match ended 1-1...and they would be right in saying so. My edit simply said the shootout ended 6-5 in favour of Germany. And it was the first time the Germans eliminated Italy in a major competition. Gets the point across, and is exactly what was proposed above as a compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The last thing I'm going to add on this is from the 2016/17 FIFA LOTG, page 71.
"When competition rules require a winning team after a drawn match or home-and-away tie, the only permitted procedures to determine the winning team (emphasis mine) are:
• away goals rule
• extra time
• kicks from the penalty mark"
Yesterday's match was drawn, yet required a winning team. Kicks from the penalty mark was the procedure used to determine the winning team. Germany, having won the kicks from the penalty mark, is therefore the winning team. -Gopherbashi (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I like Gopherbashi compromise. States that it was the first time Germany beat Italy in a major tournament as well as encompasses the penalties. The fact is, as Gopherbashi said, the match portion ended in a draw, but there must be a winner with the penalties. Myself being an Italy fan, want to give accurate info. We cannot give info that sounds better than it is. Even though it ended as a draw, there was a victor and again, even UEFA recognizes it. "beat Italy in a major tournament for the first time" or something along those lines must be included. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to get to as well. I didn't want to say they beat Italy since technically the match ended 1-1. But I wanted to emphasise that it was the first time Germany has eliminated Italy in a major tournament, I just wanted to make sure I mentioned the shootout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

IMO, the match was not a draw. The rules of elimination indicate that the penalty kicks are part of the match and there has to be a victor. Sure UEFA, bookmakers and statisticians look at the certain parts of the contest, but in an elimination tie there are only two outcomes - a win or a loss. WP should focus on the result including graphics and wording and not add to the confusion of what the outcome was. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Brudder Andrusha: Thank you for your input, I agree. It seems that Canon 108 is on the other side of the consensus. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I like Gopherbashi's compromise, too, and I personally believe the Germany beat Italy. As a side note, I don't know a single Italian (and I am one myself) who considers that outcome a draw (if any, a honorable defeat). --Tanonero (msg) 18:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tanonero: Thanks for your input as well. I've communicated this on Canon's talk page as well, but refuses to listen to consensus or compromise. Canon has suggested going to an admin, which I have now done. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: I want also to add that stating that it was just the first time the Germany eliminated Italy (namely the version proposed by Canon 108) can be open to disagreement, because in the last group match of Euro 1996 Italy needed to win against Germany to qualify, whereas they drew. As a result, Germany advanced to the next stage and eliminated de facto Italy. --Tanonero (msg) 20:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tanonero: Good point. I've now talked to admin User:Number 57 on his talk page, where he will close the discussion in 2-3 days if this thread remains inactive for users in favour of Canon's wording. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Vaselineeeeeeee: Germany did not beat Italy. The match ended 1-1. It was a draw. Penalties are used to see which team goes through to the next round, not which team wins the match. Hashim-afc (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Hashim-afc: Yes, we know penalties are considered draws on paper, HOWEVER, did you see the source above released by UEFA that states that it was the first time Germany beat Italy in a competitive match? This situation is really about the record that was broken, NOT the technicality that it was a draw. The main thing is that there was a victor, Germany, and UEFA even supports this. Also, the point made by Tanonero in that using Canon's wording of "eliminated" instead of "defeat" causes problems as Germany eliminated Italy in Euro 1996 without defeating them. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Vaselineeeeeeee: Well, the record is not broken because Germany did not beat Italy. However I guess that source is reliable seeing as it's from UEFA. In my opinion, we should use words like 'Germany overcame Italy for the first time' rather than they 'eliminated them for the first time', because 'overcame' doesn't necessarily have to mean that they actually won the game, rather that they simply knocked them out. Or, we could say it was the first time they eliminated them in the knockout stage, or something like that, if the word 'overcame' is not enough for whatever reason. Hashim-afc (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Overcame isn't specific enough though. I, as well as User:Tanonero really liked User:Gopherbashi's suggestion saying that they defeated them (as it says in the UEFA article), although requiring a shootout to do so. If UEFA, the very tournament they played in classified it as the first defeat in a major competition, then we should too end of story. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: I like that idea too, but I still prefer the use of overcame as opposed to defeated. "Germany overcame Italy for the first time, although requiring a penalty shootout to do so" would be the ideal wording for me. Hashim-afc (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Hashim-afc: Okay, I guess I could live with that. It beats what we have right now (eliminated), which is factually wrong. I'm going to implement the wording you suggested with the imput of "in a major competition" ti have "Germany overcame Italy for the first time in a major tournament, although requiring a penalty shootout to do so."; if anyone has any concerns with this let us know. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 12:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Canon 108: And Canon still insists on edit warring but is now absent from the discussion! He claims to be "in line with consensus" when he is not. Using "eliminated" is not the appropriate wording as we have all pointed out to you since they eliminated them in Euro 96 without beating them. What don't you understand?? It's factually incorrect. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

All we need to do is change "eliminated" with the compormise "overcame" and we're good. Again, eliminated is factually incorrect. We've made compromises, Canon, why can't you. If you continue, I will have no choice but to report you. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Germany eliminated Italy for the first time in euro 16...euro 96 Italy left the group stage because of two other performances that contributed to their exit in the round...Germany eliminated Italy for the first time this year, that's factually correct. Eliminated is the accurate term since Italy were eliminated on penalties — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Canon 108:. Ok. So, does, in your opinion, the record of Italy never been beaten by Germany in a major tournament still stand? --Tanonero (msg) 14:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically yes, the match is recorded as a draw. The consensus on the discussion page was to emphasise the penalty shootout however, so I edited it appropriately. I edited it to state they defeated Italy 6-5 on penalties, and that it was the first time they've eliminated Italy in a major tournament (which is correct since it was an elimination game and one team wasn't going to advance)...but now Vaselineeeeeeee is contesting that eliminated isn't the correct term to describe the outcome of an elimination game... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, it really doesn't matter what Canon, or I , or anyone thinks about if Germany defeat Italy, because the source released by UEFA saying that the record that Germany first defeated Italy in a competitive match is broken. That source trumps anyone's opinion. Now, eliminated is not the best word since the euro in 96 which still eliminated Italy in the group stage, largely because of that last Germany Italy match. I get what canon is saying that all the group matches were a factor for Italy's elimination, but the final game is the biggest. We cannot expect our readers to be an expert on this matter and there is always room for improvement and so there can be a better word. I thought hashim's word of "overcame" was s good compromise for everyone, but obviously not for canon. There must be s better word we can think of Taft everyone likes to avoid any potential confusion. Canon, you can think there is no confusion all you want, but the truth is, you don't know that, and we must make it the simplest way possible for our readers who may or may not be experts on the matter. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee You're literally the only person taking issue with this. Italy were dependent on more than one factor going into their match with Germany in 1996. They either needed to beat Germany and have Czech Republic lose or draw, or draw with Germany and hope for a Russia win. Their fate was out of their hands as soon as they lost to Czech Republic in the second game. There's no confusion however, Germany eliminated Italy for the first time in 2016 after defeating then 6-5 on penalties. It was an elimination match and Italy did not advance, they were eliminated. Where in 1996 their fate was dependant on more than one factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

As you can see by Hashim's edit, I'm not the only one. Your wording of "eliminated" is also a factual error since the UEFA source states it's the first time Italy were defeated (or overcome) by Germany in a competitive tournament, NOT eliminated. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Canon 108: I really don't see the problem here. The use of the word 'eliminated' = a tiny bit of confusion may arise. The use of the word 'overcame' = no confusion arises whatsoever. So why should we use 'eliminated' when it would be more sensible to use another word? You're the only person taking issue with the use of 'overcame'. Hashim-afc (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically speaking, you're the only person for it. Vaselineeeeeeee said he was indifferent in the matter. And my reasoning is that in an elimination game, a team is eliminated. I clearly stated in my edit that "The score remained 1–1 after extra time and Germany defeated Italy 6–5 in a penalty shootout. It was the first time Germany had eliminated Italy in a major tournament." There's no confusion, the statement is clear as day and lets the reader know the match needed to be resolved via penalty shootout, and that Italy were eliminated as a result. It doesn't need to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Canon, when did I say I didn't care? I don't see that I have, unless I missed it and must have been before I was reminded about Euro 96, if I did. I 100% agree with Hashim's wording. You're really the only one for your wording. ALSO may I add that how you have it makes it seem like the record was that Germany eliminated Italy for the first time, which is factually incorrect since UEFA acknowledges it as Italy's first defeat (overcome) works here as well. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Once again I will add my few cents and responded that the Germany defeated, eliminated, beat, overcame choose whatever word you want but the describing the contest as a draw is oblivious to the fact that one team went home as a loser while the other team advance to play another game. If a draw is like kissing your sister then the Italian Team will tell you that it far from that - For them it was a bitter defeat. The contest did not stop after added extra time with the teams going back into the locker rooms and calling the game over and replaying the match. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@Brudder Andrusha: Good point about the defeat. However, using "eliminated", as you've probably read, can cause some issues, and it would just be better to avoid it for any potential risks. No matter if Canon thinks there are none, we can't expect our readers to be experts on the matter, so we should choose the word with the least possible confusion. He seems to love that word though, meanwhile we are giving plenty of other better suggestions. 15:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I used beat when referring to the shootout win and defeated when referring to the first time making they eliminated Italy, does that work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
It works for me. Canon confuses me a lot though. This whole discussion is about how he did not agree with the use of 'defeated' because the match ended in a draw, and now all of a sudden he is fine with it? Strange. Hashim-afc (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@Hashim-afc: I guess he just wanted to hear it from an admin I guess... Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk

Would appreciate if someone could takle a look at FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk. The squad list of first team players has a a source which I followed, but an IP adds a lot of players using a training camp and a pre-season friendly as a source that they are in first team. But in my mind it is not certain that you are a first team player just because you are with the team pre-season. I am to close to edit warring so I am stopping here. Please take a look. Qed237 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sure, they are all in the first team squad, really. Sources were shown: [21] [22] All listed players are in the first team squad now, and play in the games, after the "bancrupcy" of the club, read the recent news. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said those "sources" only say what players played a recent match and went to training camp. NO evidence that they are in first team squad. In pre-season it is very common for clubs to have test players and young players who are not in the first team when season starts. The source in the section contained an official list of first team players, and that is what we should follow in our list of first team players. Qed237 (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
That source [23] were not updated very well (for example, listed Jan Laštůvka, and Papa Gueye, which both leaved the club already). The squad was updated almost all after the club owner had stopped funding it, see [24] 46.200.26.232 (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I removed the red-linked players without squad numbers who aren't on the official team squad page. They are probably youth players or trialists, and as Qed237 said pre-season rarely reflects the starting squad. There are however a few who I'm not sure about... there are 3 players on the team's website who appear there but not on the Wiki-squad, but their pages say the played at Dnipro until 2016 (recently released and not yet updated on official site?). Also there are 4 players on wikipage but not on official site which I'm not sure about as they seem to have been playing for Dnipro for a while, including the captain and 2 returning from loan. --SuperJew (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Not trialists, but first team players already. Red links and no numbers are not a reasons to remove them. Try to read another official page links: [25] and last game: [26] Again: "official team squad page" were not updated well due to financial problems of the club. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I read them. It's a training camp and a pre-season match. Not a basis for senior squad list. If you have a source for them signing a senior contract with the club, then that'll be different. As it stands the most verifiable source we have is the squad listing on the official club site. If that's not completely updated yet, patience, there is no deadline. --SuperJew (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I have added the "new" players to the different section. They all were in the U-21 team squad last year (the link does not available now in the league site [27]). The deadline is now. Is it Ok now? 46.200.26.232 (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Excellent. --SuperJew (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, if you're using WP:NOW, you should be aware of more than just it's title: When an article contains unverifiable content, it needs to be corrected now before someone reads it and is misled by it. - as in the unverifiable content being the players you added originally to the senior squad list, which also misled Qed237. --SuperJew (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
There was no any unverifiable content in this situation. The subtitle was "Current squad" (not "First team squad") before your edit [28]. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikinews

An editor has been going around the UEFA Euro articles (and some others) adding wikinews, for example see this version of UEFA Euro 2016 knockout phase containing the wikinews boxes, or this diff at Copa América Centenario knockout stage how they are added inside the section-tag so it is transcluded to other articles. What do we think about these templates? Keep or not? When I removed the the editor came to my talkpage claiming that Wikimedia sister projects can't be ignored and that they should be re-added. Qed237 (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd say keep. It's the same as having a link to wikiquote on a movie page or a link to wikicommons on a page. --SuperJew (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Naming customs with a Portuguese approach

I don't remember sincerely if I have ever filed out a report on this (I think I have, not sure), but if I have i'll try it again, for the last time,

after a difference of opinions at Adrien Silva, the following: Portuguese sports broadcasters have this idiotic custom (and I am also Portuguese, so no racism accusations please) of addressing 99,999999999999% of the players by first and last name 99,9999999999999% of the time (and sometimes even three names), they even go as far as to "make" name/nickname compounds (Nuno Capucho, Pedro Pauleta, Pedro Mantorras, etc); I once heard in disbelief as a commentator from Sport TV said, over the course of a La Liga match, "Radamel Falcao García" 40/50 TIMES.

Now, translating this to the example I spoke of before. This chap is mostly known as Adrien but, of course, with the "professionalism" of the broadcasters, he is also often referred as "Adrien Silva". But I think in his intro we should have only "commonly known as Adrien", that would suffice 100%. The fact that the ref provided displays him as Adrien Silva is not enough to back the "he-is-known-as-Adrien-Silva" up, as most players in the world have first name and surname displayed on their respective club's official profile; plus, in the biography immediately below his vital stats, he is referred to as Adrien.

Speaking of Sporting players, Silva's teammate Marvin Zeegelaar: last time I checked SOCCERWAY.com there is only ONE PLAYER in the world with this surname. Well, the Portuguese broadcasters could not care less about this fact, and refer to him as "Marvin Zegeelaar" 100% of the time. I rest my case, inputs please.

Attentively --Be Quiet AL (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You mean Sport TV. It happens because most Portuguese commentators are attention ******. Ignore them. SLBedit (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, correct, SPORT TV and not SPORTV. I could not care less about them (or all in general), but what about the issue at hand (Mr. Silva's intro)? --Be Quiet AL (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

A primary source should not be used. SLBedit (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Not sure exactly what your point is but whilst we're on the subject I'd appreciate if you look a minute to check out Port Vale's new Portuguese signings: Bruno Ribeiro, Kiko (footballer, born 1993), Carlos Saleiro, and Paulo Tavares. Kiko is named differently because everywhere is calling him Kiko instead of Francisco Manuel Geraldo Ros or whatever. For club names I went with what appears at the box of the club's infobox, so Vitória Setúbal, Académico Viseu (or Académico de Viseu?), União de Leiria, Beira-Mar, Santa Clara, GD Chaves, Farense, Moura, Pinhalnovense, Académica de Coimbra, Oriental, Sporting B, Sporting CP, Olivais e Moscavide, Fátima, Leixões, Padroense, Ribeirão, and Estoril.--EchetusXe 12:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • My point? Thought I had explained myself thoroughly, I see I have not... Silva should NOT be "commonly known as Adrien Silva", much as "Wayne Mark Rooney" is known as "Rooney" not "Wayne Rooney" and "Iker Casillas Fernández" is known as "Casillas" not "Iker Casillas"! The Port Vale stuff, regarding your question: I never write the "de" in infoboxes (and NEVER the humungous Académica de Coimbra, "Académica" suffices, only one club in the world like that to my knowledge), only in storyline, where I write the club names in full not compressed (and by the way, in box it's "Chaves" not "GD Chaves") 2 - the players, what do you want me to check there? But I must point out that I don't intend to ever edit there again after taking care of Saleiro/Ribeiro due to the approach having been completely altered (safe for Kiko and Tavares, they had nothing but a box), out of respect for you I must leave it be; but i'll assist in what I can. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Algeria national football team season

An editor has created season articles for Algeria national football team

All they seem to contain is list of matches for that year and stats.

Are they notable? Qed237 (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I also wonder about

Qed237 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the Algeria national football team home stadium and List of Algeria national football team managers seem notable enough but the rest lacks any references and prove of meeting WP:GNG, their notability seems very doubtful. Calistemon (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Would like to mention a number of Australian equivalents here (e.g. 2015 Australia national soccer team season). My understanding is that these 1-season national team articles shouldn't exist, but should instead be merged into single articles which cover longer periods of time (around two decades). Macosal (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, they should be merged into a period of time (10/20 years, depending on content). GiantSnowman 07:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Could you as an admin do that? Or do we have to to a merge request? Qed237 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Merging the histories of 20 aticles is not feasible; you'd have to merge content and create redirects. GiantSnowman 07:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Now I also found List of foreign Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 players, which is not notable? Qed237 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is it not notable? It's a fully professional league. --SuperJew (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Obviously the league is notable, but there's been a consensus for a while (if I recall) that laundry lists of foreign players in a given league are not encyclopedic..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Although having said that, I've just noticed the contents of Category:Lists of expatriate association football players, so clearly I misremembered the consensus...... :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Since we're on the subject, is there a reason the list for foreign Ligue 1 players is divided by letter? I reckon it should be merged into 1 article like the foreign Premier League players. --SuperJew (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that is obviously notable. But could someone merge the season articles and then we can nominate the other for deletion? Qed237 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Calistemon, Macosal, GiantSnowman, SuperJew, and ChrisTheDude: Have bben busy, but I have now nominated List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 players, List of All-time appearances for USM Alger and List of USM Alger players for deletion and I will look at the merging soon. Might also be a few more AFD coming. Qed237 (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

There are already results page that follow the normal 10/20 year lists such as Algeria national football team 2010–19 results and Algeria national football team 2000–09 results, so I don't really know what the purpose of an article like Algeria national football team 2013. An article like that doesn't really follow convention. Maybe info like that can be put into a page like 2015–16 in Algerian football. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Vietnamese naming conventions

Hi, I've had a bit of a discussion lately on footballboxes with another user regarding Vietnamese naming conventions. s/he claims that the full name should be used while I went according to the conventions here. After discussions between us on our talkpages, at my advice the user opened a discussion on the talk page of the conventions page. If anyone here is knowledgeable about this I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Trialists in preseason friendlies

Is there a consensus as to whether we should be naming trialists who score in preseason friendlies? I'm guessing the right thing to do would be to name them only if the reliable source (i.e. match report) names them? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean to name them in general or to specify that they're triallists? --SuperJew (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, should have been more specific. If a trialist scored, should we identify them as "Trialist" or by their name if quoted in the match report? Gricehead (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
By their name surely if it is reliable sourced?--EchetusXe 10:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree. If we can reliably source who they are, even if they have to go down as "A. Trialist" in the official match report, we should use their real name. – PeeJay 14:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Remind me...

I think we have a rule about the date from which summer transfers apply to the new club on a player's bio. Are we past that yet? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I think consensus has moved more towards updating the club as soon as it's a done deal, as long as the "old" club has finished its season, rather than trying to rigidly enforce a "threshold" date which people other than contract lawyers generally aren't aware of. But from what I recall, even when we did use a date it was 1 July, so we are well past that.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, splendid, thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dweller: It all depends on when the different Transfer windows opens (note that the article is not updated). When a window is open, the clubs in that nation can buy players. For example the English window opens the night a team has played their last match, so they can buy players right away, while in Sweden it opens on 15 July (for this season). There is one "exception" do this rule and that is players with ending contracts. All contracts officially ends on 30 June, so they can not be signed as free agents (per "Bosman rule") until 1 July 2016. For example Manchester United could not officially sign Zlatan Ibrahimović until 1 July when his contract with PSG had expired. Qed237 (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Ta. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
It's what Qed237 wrote. Also, players must pass medicals before signing a contract. Many people change a player's club even before medical. SLBedit (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The medicals though are usually just a formality, and when a club doesn't sign a player because of a medical it's important and notable to put in the article too (so the article should be indicated after a "failed" medical anyway), as per the recent case of Chris Naumoff. My point is clubs will often announce players before the official medical, but won't make an announcement after the medical saying the player "passed" the medical. --SuperJew (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not "just a formality". Usually clubs announce that a player passed the medical, and only then it's official. Wikipedia is not WP:NEWS. SLBedit (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you have some examples? --SuperJew (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
There are plenty. Search for them. SLBedit (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I understand you don't have then. As someone who edits the A-League clubs, almost every time it'll say a club signed someone pending medical and then after that never mention the medical again, or they won't mention a medical in the first place. --SuperJew (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
You are assuming that I don't have, but the reality is that there are plenty of news confirming that, and I'm not a search engine. SLBedit (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Great way to run a discussion mate --SuperJew (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Medhi Benatia is an example. He under went his Juventus medical today, however, it is getting held up and although it is expected he should pass it, the club hasn't officially signed or announced his signing, so we don't add it yet. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to examples of announcements of players passing medicals. --SuperJew (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, when a player passes a medical, the next step is to sign them, that's why there is not usually an announcement solely on passing the medical. So in the article announcing the player's signing, it will probably mention "after passing the medical Juventus have official signed, etc etc", but obviously the medical is not the focus; the signing is. The main thing is that signings are usually not official until the medical is complete and passed. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said above, most signings in the A-League don't mention a medical or the signing announcement will say pending medical and then never mention signing/medical again. --SuperJew (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Just as an example: Demba Ba failed the medical at Stoke City and subsequently they didn't sign him [29] So a medical is not just a formality. --Jaellee (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, I said that is the exemption and when it happens it's notable and important enough to put on player's wikipage --SuperJew (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Continental column

Where a player has not played (or even featured in squads) in any/many Continental club match, do we need a 'Continental' column in his career stats table? Certainly not if there are zero apps, and I think that until he has made a decent number of appearances, it's fine to absorb any appearances into the 'Other' column. FYI @SuperJew:. GiantSnowman 17:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I think there should be a separate. As per the Manual Of Style and to keep consistency between players. --SuperJew (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
By that logic we should have 'College career', 'International' and 'Management' entries in the infobox for players who only played at club level - and just put 'BLANK' or something in them?! The MOS is a guide for what stuff, when it is included, should look like - but not everything has to be included if it's not relevant. GiantSnowman 17:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I think if a player was eligible to appear in continental matches during his time at a club, then the 'Continental' column should be included regardless of whether he actually played or not. – PeeJay 17:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3:- and how do you determine eligibility (thinking of players in pre-internet age)? GiantSnowman 17:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
For the pre-internet age, I would suggest that if a player was with a club at the same time as they played at least one game in a continental competition, he was probably eligible, which is good enough for me. – PeeJay 18:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Even as a reserve player? GiantSnowman 20:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I guess that's why I said "probably eligible". But then if a player is in the reserves, he's probably not playing for the first team, and if he's playing for the first team he's probably in contention to play in a European game. – PeeJay 20:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I would also say that the first row in the stats table should be the first season where the player makes an appearance. Any seasons with zero appearances before that should not be included, but any seasons with zero appearances after that should be, even if the player is on loan to another club. – PeeJay 20:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
So for Ashley Fletcher, the article in dispute that led to this discussion - would you include a 'Continental' column? GiantSnowman 20:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think so. He was eligible to play in any of Manchester United's Champions League matches before he went on loan to Barnsley, so I reckon including a "Continental" column would make sense. – PeeJay 20:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

But he was a reserve player with zero appearances in any competition for Man Utd... GiantSnowman 20:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

But if you leave out that row altogether, it doesn't indicate from whom he was on loan to Barnsley. – PeeJay 20:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Leave the Man Utd row - just remove the 'Continental' column. GiantSnowman 07:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
So should we remove the "goals" columns for most goalkeepers GiantSnowman? --SuperJew (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Nope, that would be technically impossible, whereas removing a column from a table is not reliant upon an infobox in use on thousands of articles. GiantSnowman 17:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm talking about in the club statistics table. Definitely possible. --SuperJew (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
But then it'd look significantly different to the vast majority of articles, and not "keep[ing] consistency between players" which you want - whereas the 'Continental' column is not present in many at all. You need to differentiate between something which is key/core, and something which is optional. GiantSnowman 17:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think the removal of these columns as opposed to the remove of these other colums makes a table look significantly different? If you want it to be consistent, they should either be the same tables (and what is filled with 0 is filled with 0) or it should be with whatever is optional is optional for all of them. --SuperJew (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
"Whatever is optional is optional for all of them" - err that was my point exactly, namely that the 'Continental' column is not required on every table! GiantSnowman 20:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
If so, surely the goals column isn't required on every table too (most goalkeepers). --SuperJew (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
But 'goals' isn't optional. Every player has the chance to score goals (even keepers!), not every player plays for a team in a Continental competition. GiantSnowman 20:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Yet you suggested dropping continental column even in cases where a player played, but only a few matches. He obviously had the chance to play and even played! But yet a goalkeeper with zero goals you want to keep the goals because he has a chance to score? You're applying one logic to one case and another to a different one. --SuperJew (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine including it if and only if a player actually plays (though I think it's overkill for someone who makes 1 appearance). Simply not needed when he makes zero. GiantSnowman 07:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
As goals column is not needed when he scores zero goals in his career --SuperJew (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

As the MOS states, these tables can (and should) be formatted specifically by player. I think that while a player who has never played top flight football, for example, should not have a "continental" column, those who have played for clubs participating in Europe certainly could, regardless of whether or not they actually played. As to whether they should, I don't think it is too important whether that final column is "other" or "continental" (although I don't think both should be used if a player has played in neither). Macosal (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Visual appearance of "Football in XYZ-land" navboxes

Out of interest (and since I have not been that active in this project lately), what is the current consensus on the visual appearance of navboxes like Template:Football in England, Template:Football in Italy, Template:Football in Turkey or Template:Football in Serbia? –– Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 21:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Nobody here to enlighten a poor soul? –– Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

History of the Portuguese National Football Team

Is anyone working on this? I mean since they just won the Euro's I figured it could be updated. It only goes up to 2014 world cup qualifiers. I'm willing to do it myself, but I wanted to know if there's anyone else working on this. I'm Portuguese so this means more to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therolder (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Go for it! --SuperJew (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Sweet I'll get on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therolder (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it ok if I get rid of the qualifying results tables? They don't seem to fit with the rest of the article, and other ones like this don't have qualifying results, and those group tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therolder (talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Compare with some highly rated other articles: for example Peru which is Featured Article, and Belgium which is Good Article (and close to getting Featured). You could use them as guideline / inspiration for Portugal's format! (by the way, add ~~~~ at the end of your comments on Talk pages, that way they'll get signed :) ) –Sygmoral (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the help, :).2001:1970:575F:F000:4809:8F9C:929C:7070 (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)<nowwiki>

Carles Puyol

There is an IP repeatedly changing Mr Puyol's nationality to "Spanish/Catalan" without consensus. Just a request for people to help keep an eye on this. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Pre-season and shirt numbers

As far as I know, shirt numbers used by players during pre-season are not official. Is there consensus about this? SLBedit (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Now Besteirense (talk · contribs) is reverting me on 2016–17 S.L. Benfica season. SLBedit (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, the club have announced the official numbers. SLBedit (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Interview?

I've been emailed by a journalist from Four Four Two magazine, who wants to interview me for a piece he's writing about people who edit football content on WP. He asked if I knew of any other footy Wikipedians who would agree to being interviewed so that he can include content about more than just me. I said I'd ask the question. So if anyone else fancies it, email me and I will pass your details on........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Aye, I'm up for it. – PeeJay 09:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you want to email me your email address and I'll pass it on to him........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
He emailed me separately a few days ago, I thought I was special! </3 GiantSnowman 17:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I should start allowing people to email me from Wikipedia again! – PeeJay 17:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
He should now have the contact details of me, GiantSnowman, Number 57, PeeJay2K3 and EchetusXe. Now we just wait and see what he does with them........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I've just done my interview. It's shaped up pretty well, if I do say so myself. Just the photoshoot ahead now! – PeeJay 16:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Very good (I'm not doing mine as they wanted name and photo), please send us the link when it's published! GiantSnowman 17:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Are the interviews in the issue released today? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

They didn't say when the issue in question would be published and I wasn't aware that one came out yesterday but as I only had my photo taken on Wednesday night, I would say it is unlikely to be in that one............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I asked and was told it would be the August one. @ChrisTheDude: How was your photoshoot? They were determined to make me look as geeky as possible (dressing me up like Moss from the IT Crowd) – the remit was apparently that "you're not a normal football supporter"... Number 57 11:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The photographer that did mine didn't do anything unusual, he just had me sitting or standing in different places in my house with a laptop or tablet in my hands, in my normal clothes. He did tell me I couldn't wear a football shirt for some reason............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, mine was the same. Just a polo, jeans and trainers for me. However, I was staying with a mate, so none of the stuff in the background of my photos is mine. – PeeJay 10:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been active in the Wiki community for quite some time and every once in a while I visit and/or make edits but I'm curious to read the interviews when they come out. :^) Cheers, --MicroX (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

My photoshoot took an hour. Sitting up, standing up, with laptop, without laptop, sitting on the stairs, sitting on a chair, kneeling, close ups, long shots, laughing, chin up, smiling, always smiling, bigger smile! I dunno if they wanted fill the magazine with just pictures of me or what. I had it done at my office so he put up a white background screen. I forgot mention I was going into my office so he originally turned up at my house and found that I wasn't at home. It was in the back of my mind all the time that he was pissed off about me messing him around like that so he was secretly planning to make me look like a total mug. He didn't try to dress me though, must have reckoned I already looked abnormal enough.--EchetusXe 20:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Player nationalities

Recently, I've came across an issue within articles involving players who are from Nation A (say England) and are registered as a domestic player, but then at a later date choose to represent Nation B internationally (ie Canada) between the 2013-14 and 2014-15 season. While there's no issue showing the player as Canadian in the season articles of his club starting from the 2014-15 season onwards, my question is do you guys think these players should being listed within previous season articles retroactively as Canadian, rather than English?

A good example of this is both Tim Cahill and Paul Ifill. Cahill, whilst having played internationally for Australia for longer than a decade, originally represented Samoa's youth team in the 1990's and is listed as Samoan on the 2002–03 Millwall season page. Paul Ifill was playing in England (wherein he was born and raised), but decided to represent Barbados in 2004.

Should inconsistencies like these be made retroactive or chronological? - J man708 (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It should be nation at that time. If the player plays for Nation A before 2001 and Nation B after, then they should have flag of Nation A in club season articles until 2001. Qed237 (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Qed237, I think it should be the nation they were under at time of that season, as the page describes that season. If they do change nationality, especially in more famous cases such as Cahill a note could be added retroactively (as I've seen on some English season pages), but I don't think it should be a "must do it" issue. --SuperJew (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, these articles should be historically accurate. Nationality at the time. GiantSnowman 07:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

admin required at Template:2015–16 Premier League table

Is there an admin around? there is an IP edit waring at Template:2015–16 Premier League table. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Football player importance rating

Does anybody know what the hell happened here? I know this was two months ago, but I never came across it until now. Of course we have the Football project importance ratings and stuff, but then we have Task Force pages like WP:SOUNDERS who put together some of their own importance ratings for Articles that are within their scope of the Task Force (I don't know if that made any sense). I just checked Talk:Andy Craven to see if someone mistakenly changed the Sounders importance rating, and the answer was no, but for some reason it's not showing up which I can only assume the Quality log is telling us that all these articles were reassessed. But what happened? Did anyone else come across this and has this issue been addressed yet? – Michael (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they were moved into line of what they should be, how those articles had high class status I don't know. Govvy (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
No no no, the WP:FOOTY importance rating didn't change. In this case, I'm talking about the task force rating. That's not showing up. – Michael (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Footballers data in Wikidata

Hi. During the last months, I extracted data from French, English, Italian and German infoboxes, of about 150,000 players and added it to Wikidata. It represents 4 million information (clubs, periods, league matches, league goals, loan). The data I collected are neither perfect nor totally complete, because it reproduce the existing errors in infoboxes, and I could not always identify and treat so many inconsistencies. But these data form a significant mass of information, which is already exploitable (and, otherwise, I will not able to improve significantly the data quality by myself).

We've just started to use it. In WPfr, more than 5,000 articles of football players display in the infobox information from Wikidata (with fr:Template:Infobox Footballeur). Yellowcard told me he is also testing what could be done for WPde. There may be other tests elsewhere I do not know...

In my opinion, in a domain like sports, Wikiprojects of every languages would benefit greatly to share the work of updating the data in a tool like Wikidata. In WPfr, we have (tens of ?) thousands of articles of footballers which have never been updated since their creation ... I think the problem is the same everywhere.

Today, football projects in different languages can try and see. To those who are worried that this makes 2 websites to monitor, you must know that scripts exist today to show Wikidata changes in WP watchlists (fr:User:H4stings/wef-watchlist.js / ru:MediaWiki:Gadget-wefwatchlist.js) and history pages (fr:User:H4stings/wef-history.js). It is now quite easy to see what is happening in Wikidata without changing (too much…) its proper habits in WP.

If interested, please contact me and / or go to d:Wikidata_talk: WikiProject_Association_football to discuss with other interested people. :) In my side, I intend to import manager data now... Cheers. H4stings (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

2018–19 UEFA Nations League

If someone have some extra time could you take a look at 2018–19 UEFA Nations League? Some IP persistently adds news article to External link-section. Qed237 (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if the IP has a valid point, as this news article is where you end up when navigating the "All sections" main menu on uefa.com. So no idea if the article qualifies as some kind of "official site" for the time being. –– Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 12:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

International tournaments in lead

Pretty much any bio article worth its salt includes in the lead a summary of the player's international career, including their tournament picks. However, I have run into a user at Cyle Larin who is telling me that this is a pointless exercise, as the CONCACAF Gold Cup is no more important than World Cup qualifiers. I am not North American so I do not know, but if he is right would we have to rewrite the leads for the hundreds of players which have this tournament mentioned in the lead? '''tAD''' (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm from Canada (not that it really matters I guess), but I agree with The Almightey Drill. The Gold Cup is a significant tournament, unlike World Cup qualifiers, which are worth mentioning in the lead. For Europeans we don't write that they participated in Euro or World qualifiers, that would be silly as they aren't even a tournament; instead we do write that they participated at X Euro or X World Cup. I disagree with your additions to Larin's article being reverted. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
As it is the main continental competition of CONCACAF nations I would say it's worth the mention in the lead. In general I think the lead should mention World Cup and main continental competition. --SuperJew (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
^ Not qualifiers though, right? I've never seen that; I don't think they would be necessary. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't say qualifiers no and the main difference is that the main competition has a set squad of around 23 player (changes by tournament), while during the qualifiers the squad can (and often does, especially in the early stages) be switched completely between games. --SuperJew (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Just because these two things came up closely timed, what do you people think regarding the upcoming UEFA Nations League? Should it be in the league like a continental competition (which I guess it is sort of) or not like qualifiers (which I guess it also is sort of)? --SuperJew (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Closer to qualifiers I'd say, if not below! As with qualifiers, there's not a set squad so I can't see a reason for including it in the lead for a player. It will be interesting to see how FIFA categorize it for World Rankings purposes. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Armenian Cup

Just wanted to check for input before doing a lot of page moves. The article about the yearly main football cup in Armenia is at Armenian Independence Cup since 2007 (moved from Armenian Cup), but the season articles does not match the title. The season articles dont have "Independence" and are called 2015–16 Armenian Cup, 2014–15 Armenian Cup and so on. Should the individual articles not match the main? I have not look for any source, but lead says that the competition is known as "Independence Cup" since 1992, so my guess is that season articles should match that?

Also we have on Independence Cup (disambiguition) other articles like Independence Cup (Albania) and Lesotho Independence Cup. Should we not be consistent in the naming? Qed237 (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Just looked at Category:National association football cups for other cups and perhaps we should just call it Armenian Cup? Either way, I am all for consistency. Qed237 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Consistency would indeed be nice. For what it's worth, the English version of the Football Federation of Armenia website lists the competition either as "Armenian Cup" or "Armenian football cup", both versions have their fair share on the page. Soccerway simply lists it simply as "Cup". Provided that there is not a majority of other publications that suggests to use the "Independent" moniker, the proposal would be to either move the main article to Armenian Cup, which currently is a redirect, or move both the main and season articles to Armenian Football Cup if disambiguation would be necessary. Side note – the title of the Armenian article title is translated by Google as "Armenia's Independence Cup", other Wiki languages mostly use a variant of "Football Cup". –– Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 22:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Primera División leagues

Need some help/input from the WikiProject Football community. Some time ago we held a discussion for renaming La Liga to Primera División. No consensus was reached (and after re-reading the discussion I believe staying as La Liga was the best action) but the rest of the football leagues named Primera División were moved to disambiguate the leagues of Spanish-speaking nations. The format was Demonym Primera División (e.g. Argentine Primera División). I look at the list of Primera división leagues and using the English demonym with the Spanish for first division just seems a little off—not sure if you guys know what I mean. I was re-reading WP:COMMONNAME and I'm not sure if these should've been moved to their current format. Anyone have any thoughts? Should the discussion be re-opened? --MicroX (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Why can't it stay La Liga? Anyways, name of articles here is constantly being changed (last one was Belgian Pro League). I am of the opinion all the competitions should be named in this WP in English (i.e. Portuguese First Division, German Second Division, French Third Division) so we wouldn't have to worry anymore about future renaming of competitions, just my two cents. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Names of articles have to be changed because names of things keep getting changed. Not our fault organisations are always trying to rebrand themselves in an effort to stay "fresh". That said, I think unless there's a seismic shift in a league's name (e.g. Mexican Primera División → Liga MX) we should leave the names as they are and deal with them on a case-by-case basis going forward (as we have been for the last decade). – PeeJay 23:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

A good example of what I was trying to convey is the Bulgarian top flight. Article has changed name three or four times is as many years. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't saying to change La Liga. The arguments made to retain it as La Liga convinced me. I was referring to the other Primera División leagues. Also, why is it called Belgian First Division A and not "Belgium First Division A" like Belgium national football team (and not Belgian national football team). I'm really curious as to when to use the name of the country and not the demonym. --MicroX (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

team franchise relocation in the PSL

So in the Premier Soccer League of South Africa, Mpumalanga Black Aces dissolved, and their franchise was relocated to form Cape Town City F.C.. What would you say we should do with their templates? Should Black Aces squad be deleted and a new template made for Cape Town or should it just be a move? --SuperJew (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest a simple move. The proper way would probably be to start a new one for Cape Town and list the Black Aces template for deletion under Wikipedia:DEL10, " Redundant or otherwise useless templates". However, that creates work for you and others, so I'd suggest ignoring all rules and moving the template to the new franchise. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
As a general rule, if the page has been moved, the template and categories should as well, to maintain the page histories. GiantSnowman 19:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

List or article

I have noticed a few inconsistencies with a few of this WikiProjects FA/FL/GAs. Many clubs have a XYZ in European football page. A few of these articles have reached FA/FL/GA status. This is where the inconsistency lies. Two of these articles are FLs (therefore could never be an FA or GA) and three (with one more at GAN) are FA/GA (therefore could never be a FL). Shouldn't all these articles be either eligible for FL or for FA/GA not a mixture of both. Here are the articles concerned:

FLs
FA/GAs
At WP:GAN

What does this WikiProject think? Articles or lists? - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The content is different in these. Looking at just two: the Malmo one is a list - it has a list of European results for Malmo. The Liverpool one describes the history of Liverpool in Europe - there are some statistics, but it doesn't actually list Liverpool's results. So at the moment the categorisations are appropriate.
If we wanted to we could consider renaming the Malmo style pages "List of Malmo FF results in European football", but then that would seem to preclude adding further or contextual info. So I think it's fine as it is! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Per this removal nomination of Rosenborg's list, there is a quite a difference between the clubs aforementioned. Liverpool have a rich history in European football, so the minimum expectation would be an article-type structure, whereas for a club like Malmö, a list is sufficent and it's not like there isn't any prose to complement it by. That isn't to say if Malmö one day does the unthinkable and builds a European legacy, its list status can't be reassessed. Or if a user wanted to turn Hull City's entry (a club which has made few European appearances) into GA quality, there shouldn't be any stumbling blocks. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Jermaine Jenas page rating

At the moment it rated at Start, I don't think it's good enough for B yet, but I think we should change it to C, Govvy (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD. GiantSnowman 19:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
:/ Govvy (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Olympic qualifying tournaments categories

Does anybody have any suggestions for a category name that will group the following articles together? The articles have details about the African qualifying tournament for the Olympic games.

I'm considering "Football at the Summer Olympics – Men's African Qualifiers".

TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. Go ahead. -Koppapa (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Players in italics in squads

I have noteced sometimes club articles having their players without article listed in the squad section in italics, exemple: FC_Le_Mont#Players. I have never done that neither I see a point in it, but am I missing something? FkpCascais (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever seen it. --SuperJew (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm gonna change that. Utterly ridiculous. – PeeJay 09:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a good idea. Use of italics is difficult to read for some people, so superfluous use of it is A Bad Thing. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I've seen it here and there from time to time. Now we have a consensus here to point to if we ever cross with someone insisting on that. Thanks you all. FkpCascais (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

FC Salzburg

In UEFA competitions, the team referred as "FC Salzburg", according to UEFA regulations. In the articles, the team referred as "FC Red Bull Salzburg". Why? --IM-yb (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Because UEFA doesn't recognise sponsorship by any companies other than its own sponsors. Since Red Bull don't sponsor UEFA, they refer to Red Bull Salzburg as just Salzburg. – PeeJay 16:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I ask about the usage of "FC Red Bull Salzburg" in the enwiki UEFA competitions articles. We should not use the name given by UEFA (FC Salzburg) in the enwiki UEFA competitions articles? --IM-yb (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
No, why would we? The team is called "Red Bull Salzburg". We aren't beholden to UEFA just because they don't recognise the sponsored name. The same applies to the Allianz Arena; UEFA refers to that stadium as "Fußball-Arena München" (I believe), but we still use the sponsored name. – PeeJay 16:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Help with squad design

I need some help with the design of IFK Göteborg squad. As you can see there are some line break problems. The "captain)" in "(vice captain)", "Dalence" in "Martin Smedberg-Dalence" and "Leksell" in "Alexander Leksell" are all one step too low. I've tried to fix it with Nowrap, but it still doesn't work perfectly and it would be nice to fix it in an other way. Thankful for your help! // Mattias321 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mattias321: I tracked the error to this edit from User:Johan Elisson where he, by accident, created a wikitable inside a wikitable without closing the first wikitable at the end. This messed up the formatting for the next table (the squad), so I fixed it by removing the outer wikitable in sponsorship section. Hopefully it works now, at least it looks alright on my computer. Qed237 (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Jay Bothroyd

I was just reading his article, but what struck me was the Perugia section, it's the Muammar Gaddafi's third son, Al-Saadi Gaddafi section interview, is that copyvio? And another question, is it really needed there? This sounds like it should be under Personal life, or some other heading and I am not sure how encyclopaedia it is. Govvy (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

As it's a quote, then it's not really a copyvio as there is no alternative, see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, and it's sourced. It could probably do with being shortened as the whole quote is a bit overblown but the general information is of interest I would say given the subject. Not everyday you play football with the son of a dictator. Surely this is what the talk page of the article is for though? Kosack (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Philipp Lienhart

Quick question – on which grounds does Philipp Lienhart qualify as notable? He does not seem to meet WP:NFOOTBALL, so does he meet WP:N in general and if so, why? Background of this inquiry is that there currently is a discussion about his notability in the German football portal where the fact that the English article (and with it six articles of far inferior quality in six other languages) exists but the German article does not caused some confusion. –– Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd guess that he meets the spirit if not the letter of WP:NFOOTBALL by virtue of his Copa del Rey appearance. Although it was against a Segunda B (non-FPL) club, I'd guess that if a Chelsea kid made a brief appearance in the FA Cup against a National League club, he'd have an article before the final whistle went and, in the unlikely event that someone suggested deletion, there'd be huge amounts of "significant" coverage dredged up to justify keeping. Any Real Madrid kid would attract at least as much coverage as one from an English big club, especially if, as in Lienhart's case, he'd actually played a decent amount of men's football in the Segunda B and Austrian Regionalliga as well as under-age internationals. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Plus, if you look at the history, it was only moved into mainspace once he had made his first-team debut. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Struway2: Thanks for this extensive answer which basically confirms my assumption. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 14:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Medio Tiempo template issue

The links created by {{Medio Tiempo}} are 404. Could someone who speaks Spanish check whether the site has changed its link format, and update the template accordingly, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@Secret Agent Julio: Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Player nationality

Once again it is time for this discussion. User:TonyStarks insists on putting Ismaël Bennacer as Algerian when he most recently played for France (same thing on Arsenal F.C.. My understanding is that we always display the nation the footballer last played for after previous discussions. Also looking at other sources such as Soccerway the list nationality as "France" (could not find him at UEFA.com). Qed237 (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we need to change our policy on this. According to the article, Bennacer has "officially" switched his allegiance from France to Algeria. I'm not 100% au fait with how the switch of allegiance works, but if he is no longer allowed to play senior international football for France as User:TonyStarks suggests, I think we should start describing him as an Algerian footballer. – PeeJay 10:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: You say Maybe we need to change our policy on this, then you agree our policy (no matter what we think about it) is to display most recent cap (if any exists)? I understand the interest of a policy change but until then, should we not follow our policy? Qed237 (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Policies are not meant to be fixed, especially if we find holes in them, as we appear to have done. If a player 'switches nationality' in this way and that makes him ineligible for his previous nation (e.g. France), it wouldn't make sense to refer to him as French, would it? – PeeJay 11:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
And there was me thinking what we were actually supposed to do in cases where a player had more than one possible "nationality" was to avoid making a definitive but probably misleading declaration of "nationality" in the opening sentence and, instead, write explanatory words lower down the lead section. Hey ho... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Why not list it as Algerian-French and then as Struway mentions, explain it farther down the lead section? I say this because nationality isn't just ruled by the sport federations....a person can still be an X national in many cases even if their sport doesn't recognise it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Because it isn't necessary, and it'd be doubly misleading. As to necessity, I don't think the reader loses anything by not reading a nationality in the opening sentence of e.g. Semih Aydilek or Alpaslan Öztürk. As to misleading, if it were meant to be civil nationality, you'd have to say explicitly "of dual Algerian-French nationality". But convention is for football articles to use a player's sporting nationality in the opening sentence. "Algerian-French" isn't a sporting nationality, but does carry an implication of ethnicity or descent which, per sitewide MoS, isn't something to be emphasised unless relevant to the subject's notability. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is misleading at all. He is Algerian-French full stop. It doesn't necessarily carry an implication of ethnicity, that is why you link those terms to the nationality articles not the ethnicity ones. Frankly actual nationality is much more important in the lead than just the sporting nationality. That is how most other sports on the wiki handle it. If anything the fact that football is using sporting nationality in the lead instead of actual nationality is more misleading than anything. -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I'd agree with that last: I've always been uncomfortable with declaring someone Foolandish just because their grandmother was from that country and they've represented it at under-17 level, which is why I prefer to work round the matter. But that's not the question raised here.

I don't agree that Algerian-French is unambiguous, certainly in British English; and without specialist knowledge of the various nationality laws and/or explicit sourcing, I don't see how a person born in France of Algerian and Moroccan descent is "Algerian-French full stop". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

TfD candidates

1 - in Eduardo Berizzo, two O'Higgins F.C. champion squad templates; 2 - in Nicolae Stanciu (footballer, born 1993), seasonal top scorer template. User:Mattythewhite concurs with me it is overkill, anybody else has a different opinion?

Cheers --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The club champions template must be removed immediately. The other one is only valid for captaincy, I guess. MYS77 ✉ 21:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the top scorer template, my understanding is that succession boxes are being faded out. If the info is to be kept it should be converted to a template. --SuperJew (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Captaincy templates are being slowly (but surely) eliminated, that's a given. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

One Club Men

Can someone deal with the chaos at that page? It's over-the-top. Can the list be cut down some? For example, only players from clubs who were in the top flight league of their country.Correctron (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

List of one-club men needs splitting into separate football pages for football and rugby and any other sports - and possibly increase the minimum years from 10 to 15 or something. GiantSnowman 06:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that. My main problem is the list is cluttered by too many players who were never in top flights. Not even in second level flights.Correctron (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Huge article size on Premier League season pages

Taking a look at this article for example, the scrollbar thumbs are tiny therefore making it very difficult to scroll the page. Just wondering why this is happening and how can that problem be sorted out? Thanks. Minima© (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's something to do with the "Team of the Year" Infobox. Commenting it out fixes the article width and height issues. Don't know what is required to fix it properly though, so I'll defer to others to take action. Gricehead (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Minimac: (edit conflict) It was the display of the team of the season on a pitch background – the distance figures were wrong, causing the names to display far to the right and bottom the actual pitch. I've no idea how it works, so for now I've commented it out. Number 57 12:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
It looks like it was recent changes in Template:Image label from User:Matt Fitzpatrick that caused this errors with the labelled names being placed a long way outside the image. I reverted those changes for now, so it should work. Qed237 (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
It works now. Thanks, Qed237! Minima© (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Template:Australia Labelled Map, Template:United States Cities Labeled Map, and all similar templates not specifying a scale, now get a default scale of 400 on the image and a default scale of 1 on the labels. It is probably not a good idea to make the two default scales different from each other. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Matt Fitzpatrick: I have not looked very closely due to lack of time (and a bit of knowledge about these templates). I just saw when the error occured and reverted to a version that was working for these articles. Not sure what the best solution is. Qed237 (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like the Premier League article was using incorrect syntax (missing image label begin, missing image label end, etc.). I made an edit to that article directly, that should fix it. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, tested the Premier League article using Image label/sandbox (still my old version) and that now works. It should be safe to revert back to my version to unbreak the Australia map etc. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Matt Fitzpatrick: Thanks. Great work. Qed237 (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Players with missing club categories

I have managed to get a list of all players in Category:English footballers that are missing "Category:Footown F.C. players" based on the clubs listed in their infobox – see User:Number 57/sandbox2.

Having been through it and started doing a bit of work to resolve the missing categorisation, there are some points to note:

  • If a club's name is incorrectly put into the infobox (for example with FC rather than F.C. or A.F.C.) then the player appears in the list
  • In a small number of cases the list has picked up managerial jobs rather than playing clubs (I think this is because it also included "current club" in the search string).

So, if anyone wants to help out reducing the list (it currently has around 11,500 "missing" categories – some players have multiple ones missing), please do. If you add a category, please remove the player from the list (unfortunately due to its size, it is a bit difficult to edit – I've found the best way is to copy it into notepad and then edit it there and then paste it all back in in one go). Additionally, could I ask that in order to remove someone from the list, you either:

  • Add the missing category – in some cases, especially for non-League clubs, this will involve creating new categories.
  • Correct the link in the infobox to match exactly the format used in the category name – this will prevent them from appearing again next time we want to run off a list.

Hope that all makes sense? Cheers, Number 57 21:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Would it be possible maybe to split it into a few sub-pages to work with the size issue? --SuperJew (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
No, because some players are listed multiple times, as are many clubs – if you want to focus on a single club or player, then you need the whole list in front of you. However, there are some large blocks of players listed largely as a result of club renames – doing the top 20 clubs will remove over 13% of the articles), so we hopefully can begin cutting it down quite quickly. Number 57 22:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, are all clubs notable enough for a category? --SuperJew (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Not all of them, but I think any club that could potentially have an article (i.e. which has played in the FA Cup/Trophy/Vase/Amateur Cup etc) should have one. Worth checking the FCHD for the club listing. Number 57 22:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking for example Jamie Gosling is currently playing for FNQ Heat, which is a semi-pro club in Australia's second tier. Most of the players who play there aren't notable enough for an article (as not having played at pro level) (currently Gosling is the only one with an article from the players). Do we create a category for one player? --SuperJew (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
IMO, yes, as the category has potential to grow. Other people who could be in it are Takuya Iwata, Alex Smith, Mitch Bevan and Zenon Caravella for a start (always worth checking the "What links here" on clubs too). Number 57 22:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment - looking at the Rotherham United (F.C.) entries in the list, I note that

  • Non-playing staff are extracted, who have never played for the club (eg Mark Stein (footballer), Alan Stubbs)
  • Wartime Guests (marked as such in the infobox) are extracted (eg Dennis Thompson (footballer) - these are already included in the Category Rotherham United F.C. wartime guest players. Gricehead (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think the non-playing staff are in there because of the "Current team" listing, so perhaps than can be excluded for the next run (although I've found at least two players who have a club in the current section but not in the full listing, so it was useful in some way. With regards to the wartime guest players, I guess next time the search should be for missing "Footown F.C. players" or "Footown F.C. wartime guests".
    • Also could I possibly make a request – I see a few editors have already started using the list, which is great, but only removing the listings for certain clubs. Many players have multiple categories listed, so if you're doing a player for your club, could you also check to see if they have any others missing? In the long run, it'll help get the numbers down much quicker! Cheers, Number 57 16:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Just an update on this: A bot is being set up that will create and regularly update this list, and for other nationalities. The main page for this is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Missing categories and I'll link to the bot logs (they'll be in its userspace) once it starts running. It should now avoid listing wartime guests, non-playing positions and players in "Footown SC footballers" instead of the more common "Footown F.C. players".

I have also created a list of clubs that it is probably not worth having a category for – clubs that do not meet the criteria for their own article. So far I've only done the A clubs from the original list, but please feel free to add to it. Missing categories for the clubs listed in here will not appear in the lists the bot produces. If by chance a club becomes notable (e.g. reaches the required level to have an article) it can be removed from the list and players should appear.

I should also give a huge amount of credit to KSFT who created the original list and has been incredibly helpful and patient, and is also now setting up the bot. In the meantime, we've removed around 600 entries from the list, including one article that I saw identified as having untrue information in it (it's now at AfD). Cheers, Number 57 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I just finished setting things up, and I ran the bot on the same category as before. The list is here. It has 6768 articles listed. As I'm writing this, the bot just finished updating the list because I forgot to have it ignore the categories on that list. I will start to run the bot on other nationality categories to create similarly-named lists. You should be able to see a list of them here. KSFTC 22:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment For Turkish clubs, for example Horace Armitage, it seems different as they don't seem to follow the same convention (the category doesn't necessarily match the club name) --SuperJew (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@KSFT: This is another exception for the bot – it looks like some Turkish clubs are at Footown SC (football) and players are at Footown SC footballers. Can the bot ignore these ones too (like the wartime guest exception). @SuperJew: Hopefully we can fix this, although some of the Turkish categories are misnamed as they don't match the article name (e.g. Category:Fenerbahçe footballers needs to be renamed Category:Fenerbahçe S.K. footballers to match Fenerbahçe S.K., which I've already requested) Number 57 13:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't sure about that one. Thanks :) --SuperJew (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Also I noticed that both Huddersfield Town A.F.C. and Leeds United F.C. are many times linked as Huddersfield Town F.C. and Leeds United A.F.C., but are in the right categories. Should that (A.F.C <--> F.C.) also be added to the exceptions? --SuperJew (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be better to keep it and get the links right, as in some cases the redirect may not exist or they may be in an non-existent category. Probably worth remembering in future that if we move a club article, all the incoming links should be fixed. Should be quite simple to do using AWB though. Number 57 13:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@SuperJew and Struway2: I see you're making great progress, but to stop you having to spend ages on the Huddersfield/Leeds/Wrexham front – would it be worth doing a run on AWB to fix all the misplaced links to those articles, then delete them all from the player lists in one go (in cases where they are the only ones with an issue the whole line can be taken out)? Number 57 11:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That would def be helpful :) --SuperJew (talk) 11:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Cool, I'll make some time to do it this evening (I think there are over 500 Huddersfield ones on the English list alone). Number 57 11:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, there are 80–90 Stevenage Borough, where the category is at Stevenage F.C. Not as many as the other clubs mentioned, but would it be enough to warrant including in your AWB run? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, no probs. I might add Nuneaton Borough to the list too. Number 57 11:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
So, it turned out there were several thousand articles going to the redirects, and even after removing non-player articles, there were nearly 4,000 left. I'm about halfway through, but probably won't finish tonight... Number 57 19:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@Number 57: - what are some of the redirects? I can add them to my own AWB script to pick up as I do my own stuff. I've got Leeds, Huddersfield & Wrexham so far. GiantSnowman 20:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Stevenage Borough F.C. (now Stevenage F.C.) and Nuneaton Borough F.C. (now Nuneaton Town F.C.) are other two particularly common ones. Thanks for your help! Number 57 20:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@SuperJew and Struway2: I've done (I think) all the Leeds, Huddersfield, Wrexham, Nuneaton, Stevenage, Gresley and Ebbsfleet ones, plus a few others here and there. I believe KSFT will be doing another run towards the end of the weekend, so hopefully they'll all disappear off the list. Number 57 21:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a brilliant initiative that I am happy to help with, but is there any way that players whose only outstanding clubs are non-notable can be made to disappear from the list? I saw one player (I forget who) whose only outstanding club was "Guildford Post Office", who will never have a category. Will he stay on the list forever as it's not possible to clear him off? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Add any non-notable club to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Missing categories/Null. The bot ignores all clubs on that list. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the bot might not be picking up missing categories from loans. For example Alan Gilzean was missing Category:Aldershot Town F.C., but was not listed with Aldershot Town F.C.. --SuperJew (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@KSFT: Can this be built into the bot? Loan clubs are typically formatted like this: | clubs3 = → [[Aldershot Town F.C.|Aldershot]] (loan) (sometimes the space between the arrow and the link is missing). Number 57 19:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Ummm... so I was working on the list (while doing other stuff too :P), and my computer decided it felt like restarting, so I didn't have the change to save today's updates to the list. So anyways, It'd be great if we could run the bot again, and also it'll remove from the list all the clubs you changed with AWB. --SuperJew (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@SuperJew: It's just been run again and reduced the list by about 14% (the Leeds/Huddersfield/Wrexham ones have largely gone). Number 57 21:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Super :D Thanks! --SuperJew (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Olympic/London Stadium

So, the Olympic Stadium in Stratford has been officially renamed the London Stadium. Not a sponsored name, so that issue isn't relevant, but the question is whether the name will catch on. I can think of several grounds that had official names but were commonly referred to as something else (e.g. City Stadium/Filbert Street, Alexandra Stadium/Gresty Road), so should we wait a while before deciding? I ask now because I suspect an RM will appear in the not-too-distant future. Number 57 21:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I redirected London Stadium to the page, but my understanding is that it is essentially a holding name while they try to sell naming rights (see [30]). In the meantime, it's best known as the Olympic Stadium and I'd leave it as such for now. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It's the equivalent of the longstanding "Boleyn Ground" or "Upton Park" discussion / argument. I have to say I am not a big fan of renaming / moving articles due to sponsorship (particularly on an encyclopedia) but in the case of a formal renaming then you go with what it is referred to, but there is no harm in also using the common name within an article. Koncorde (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that at the bet365 Stadium page a difference was drawn between stadiums such as that one which don't have a non-sponsored name, and stadiums such as the City of Manchester Stadium which do. Either way, the Oylmpic Stadium is as clear a case of WP:COMMONNAME over 'London Stadium' as I can imagine (eg Guardian match report from last night). --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

FourFourTwo article

Just to say that the article about football Wikipedians is in the latest issue of the mag, which I believe is out today. I haven't seen it yet, but the preview on the iTunes app seems to show that the article starts with a full page filled entirely with the words "Wiki Geeks". So that's nice of them......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Have a look :) --SuperJew (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, I can't say I'm happy about the title. Or the photo they used of me... – PeeJay 14:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
On the plus side, your garden looks nice :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations to all involved, from this other geek! --Be Quiet AL (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well done to those who took part. Shame 442 had to go down the lazy journalistic "geek" route!--Egghead06 (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
haha god, I knew I shouldn't have trusted that damn photographer! Glad I ensured the shoot took place at my office and therefore in front of a white screen. I mean that is a nice looking garden you have there but you look a bit mad editing Wikipedia on a laptop in the middle of a rainforest. I am dreading my photo!EchetusXe 21:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Mine was taken in the kitchen, rather randomly, and came out alright, but I did get a lot of "OMG look at all that mess on the work surfaces!!!!!" from my wife..... ;-)
Has anyone got their copy yet? I got an e-mail a couple days ago to say it should have arrived by now. EchetusXe 07:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I have mine. It was in the shops on Wednesday -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
For anyone who wants to read them here they are. EchetusXe 18:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that, saves me having to buy a copy ;-) I wonder if the footballer you describe as trumpeting his own modest achievements will recognise himself. Well done to all of you, you're braver than me... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Well done all.. I guess outing doesn't apply here? JMHamo (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised they didn't use our Wiki names. Do you recognise the player in question Struway? [RB] EchetusXe 13:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I am so going have to buy a copy of the mag! Ye, is there no wiki names in the article?? Govvy (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Ben Tilney

Could an Admin please delete Ben Tilney.. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Division names

Request for input into a dispute I am having with Johnelwaq (talk · contribs). This user insists on adding "English" to all English divisions, even though this is factually incorrect, as, for example, there is no such division as "English League One". There is no consensus that we should add nationalities to divisions to distinguish them from others. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

shouldn't the articles be named "EFL Championship" etc rather than "football league championship"? especially the season articles. It does come down to the 'common name' which is being used in the sources (BBC and Sky are both referring to the EFL). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't think in general that they should have 'English' tagged on in general though unless comparing different countries divisions=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The context in this case is re career stats tables. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
You are right Matty. I could see / accept some degree of differentiation if there was a transfer between two similarly named "leagues", but as most players transfer teams why is this a significant issue? Koncorde (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking at some of the recent edits, it makes no sense. 1. We don't mention the country for "Serie A" or "US Major League Soccer" similar. 2. There's no actual need for its inclusion in any table really, if it's a significant bone of contention just remove it entirely. 3. English Wikipedia, on English sports, are written for an English (well, English speaking) audience. You would not go into the NFL, NHL or NBA articles and start adding "American AFL conference" or "US Pacific Conference" or whatever. Koncorde (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Division such as Serie A do not have, to my knowledge, a similarly name competitor. The Premier League has several, and the Championship shares its name with the Championship in Scotland. --Johnelwaq (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Serie A exists in Brazil. You can find a big list here, just click on each country to expand. There are lots of Premier Leagues, they are all differentiated from the main one by their national title. Koncorde (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe there is a requirement for differentiation regarding the naming of leagues and division, particularly where footballers have played in several countries, with perhaps the some suitable distinction being the country of origin. The current usage of the Premier League appears ostensibly correct however, the subject to what it is referring to, the highest association footballer league in England, does not have a monopoly on the use of words Premier League. Indeed, there are several "Premier Leagues" in football (see Ukrainian for example) and in other sports, ie darts and cricket. Moreover, I also point to the use of the World Cup which is distinguished using prefixes such as FIFA World Cup, Cricket World Cup or Rugby World Cup to name a few.
The Premier League (for football in England), is official but so-called. While I agree with the guidance found on Wikipedia:Official names; "Official English names are candidates for what to call an article, because somebody presumably uses them. They should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used". I would also refer to the Premier League page which states "It is colloquially known as the Premiership and outside the UK it is commonly referred to as the English Premier League". Several media outlets from; Australia, India, Nigeria, the Middle East and the USA, use the term EPL or English Premier League.
Therefore, I rely upon guidance given in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which I believe requires users to edit "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". To assume that the Premier League (English football) is the only deserved user of this name, is incorrect and possibly shows editorial bias as en:wikipedia is for users of the English language and not users in England. However, I am not arguing for the Premier League page to be moved, only the usage of the league country of origin in Career Statistics tables, where the footballer has played in two or more separate footballing nations. --Johnelwaq (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the Premier League does have a monopoly on the words Premier League (it's an active trademark and copyright [[31]]). No other league holds the same (though they may vary upon it). Your solution would specifically not solve the issue of duplication of naming in any case. For instance several sports could all have English / Scottish Premier Leagues - so do we need to start differing on each career that it was the English premier League "Soccer" just in case English Premier League Crown Green Bowls launches?. Obviously not. Does each league that also uses "Premier League" differentiate by country? Yes they do. Are there any football Premier Leagues that we may confuse? No there aren't.
On naming conventions, the Ukranian Premier League for has a common name to English speaking audiences of the "Ukrainian Premier League" because its actual name (as written "Прем'єр-ліга") is unpronounceable. It is very unlikely to ever be referred to as "Premier League" without the use of Ukranian prefix (this is commonly accepted across wikipedia). The prefixing of international tournaments by sport, federation or competitive organisation is not a strong argument either.
The only obvious source of confusion I could potentially see is if "Scottish" was missed from the Scottish Premier League, which ceased to exist in 2013. Koncorde (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, as Johnelwaq appears to have misunderstood, all other leagues are known as their national premier league (or premiership) meaning they are defined by the presence of the country at the beginning of their name. This either their legal names, or common names derived from the meaning of their non-english title. The "Scottish Premiership" is the name of the league, just as "Scottish Premier League" was before it. A lot of your contributions have been constructive, don't ruin that by getting into something needless like this. Koncorde (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Definitely agree that we should not be adding "English" to any stats tables. Leagues should be listed as they are actually named. Also, blind reverts like this are seriously unhelpful (are York City really still in League Two??). Number 57 22:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Portsmouth F.C.

On my mobile when I look at the article I see only up to Players in the category at the top of the article when it's shortened down, but when you expand it you see the rest, I looked just now on my MacBook and it seems normal. So I don't understand what is going on. I fail to see why this error is occurring in mobile view. Maybe someone else can have a look. Cheers Govvy (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't know what you did but it looks fixed now... Also Portsmouth players at the FIFA World Cup That section has a lot of white space! A table perhaps? Govvy (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

talk page

It's getting a bit long, should we not add the page to the archive bot? Govvy (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

FIFA Player of the Century

I have added template hoax to this article, because most probably distered some informations in thos article. Mybe it is OK now, but I don't have got many time to check it. Is someone who can fixed this article? Dawid2009 (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

What is a hoax about it? Koncorde (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I've added a source for two lists back in. Also trimmed down the IFFHS list from like 60 to 10 and put at bottom of article. -Koppapa (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Any admins about

if they could kindly revdel this edit summary I'd be grateful. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Struway2: Done. Number 57 20:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Transfers involving free agents

Editor @Skyblueshaun: (who does a tremendous amount of work updating season articles) and I have been having a friendly debate about how to treat transfers of players to/from free agent status in the Transfers In and Transfers Out tables on season articles.

Skyblueshaun's view is that where a player is released by a club (particularly at end of contract - 30th June/1st July) and subsequently signs for another club weeks later, the "to" field should be populated with the new club, and a footnote saying "following release, X subsequently signed for Y".[32]

And where a player is signed by a club after being release by club Y the "from" field should be populated with club Y rather than "free agent". [33]

To me, whilst the former makes some sense, I would prefer the latter to show "free agent" in the "from" field, especially where reliable sources point to 1) the player being released and 2) the player being signed as a free agent.

There is probably a time factor here as well - for example a player joining a new club a day or two after being released compared with over a month later.

We wondered whether there was existing consensus on this matter, and if not could we seek a new consensus please? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless they were signed on a pre-contract / bosman / tribunal (and even in most cases of a tribunal typically the player doesn't really transfer from the other team) then they should say "Released" or "Free Agent". For instance Zlatan was not signed as a free agent from PSG, he signed as a free agent, and his last employer was PSG (which is a different thing, obviously). Per the Bosman ruling at the point where his contract terminated he ceased to be "from" anywhere really. I quite like the note thing, but at the same time I think it's a bit silly that if (per Rotherham example) Frazer Richardson is unsigned for 12 months, that someone might come back to edit the "to" and cue arguments.
For something to mull over - what is Chris Kirklands situation if he re-signs for another team tomorrow? Will he still have transferred from Bury? Koncorde (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Koncorde, if a player was free agent when he was signed, we should display free agent. We could always add a note saying when he became free agent but the main thing is that the player was a free agent and not bought from any club. The same for selling player if he wqas release (not sold) we should have "released". Qed237 (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Any more comments? Gricehead (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
As I'm sure I must have said here before, what I do is put Released or Free in the fee column and the previous/next club in brackets in the club column, with a note below the table that says what the brackets mean. See e.g. 2015–16 Birmingham City F.C. season#Transfers. It's both accurate and informative. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
But what's the relevance? --SuperJew (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Gives the reader an indication of where, i.e. what level of club, the club are getting their freebies/Bosmans from, and where their releases are going? Background to the club's recruitment and retention policy. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Some players though are free agents for months or years, which completely kills imo any relevance. If someone's interested about a specific player they can check their page. --SuperJew (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Although most are not. I don't see the problem with including content that might add to the reader's understanding of a club's season. But I'm not trying to force such an approach on everybody else. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The brackets option at least helps indicate some kind of difference in the type of signing, although I still question the to / from element. Koncorde (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

List of men's association football players with 50 or more international goals

Where is Ali Daei? And who is first person on this list? Who it is? Dawid2009 (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A vandal replaced Ali Daei. I have reverted. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Fenix down (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you can look on Mokhtar Dahari? There is an other information Dawid2009 (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I have removed that information as certainly false. His 167 caps are not recognised on the FIFA century factsheet linked to in the list of players with >50 goals. Fenix down (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking at one of the refs in the article, the claim of 167 includes Olympic games and others which would not be recognised by FIFA..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Red cards in football box

Should they be in the football box or not? I put them in, as they are serious game-changers, but lately it's been reverted. Thoughts from more experienced users? --SuperJew (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
pinging @Matilda Maniac: so he can comment. --SuperJew (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

They do have an effect on the game, sure, but they don't directly affect the score, and so I wouldn't put them in. – PeeJay 22:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we have discussed this before and then said to not include them in general (they are never included in domestic or international competitions unless we display match details such as UEFA Euro 2016 Final, but then not in the fooball box directly). However, if an editor updates a club season article or similar and adds them, there is no reason to remove them as long as they are added in all matches. The problem is when they are added to some matches but not others, then people may think "no cards in match X", when in fact cards just has not been updated. I advice against the use of cards. Qed237 (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I like to add them in on historical lists of matches because I agree they are serious game changers. They don't matter to the score, but neither do the exact minutes at which goals are scored or the players that score them :) In any case, it should of course be consistent across the list of matches. –Sygmoral (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason to put them in. Kante4 (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Qed237's analysis. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The parameter which is used for cards is named "goals". Weird, huh? A card doesn't look like a goal to me. Only one thing affects the score: goal. Not a card, not a missed penalty (another redundant item used in footballboxes). The cards should not be used, in my opinion. If it's UEFA Euro 2016 Final level match, then it can be mentioned in prose and in squad section anyway. -BlameRuiner (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

List of ....F.C. players

Can anyone remind me what the latest such list to get promoted to FL is, so that I can compare one I'm planning to nominate to the current standard? Cheers!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This one was pretty recent, not sure if it's the most recent though. BigDom (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

HELP NEEDED: GA review problem

Hey all. I volunteered to do some GA reviews. First up is 2015 UEFA Champions League Final and it's close to a pass except for some citations needed to support info about the Berlin venue. I placed the review on hold and then saw that the nominator has been banned from the site. Is there anyone else who has worked on the article or who can help with citations about the Berlin Olympiastadion so that it can pass? Any help much appreciated. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Boca Jóvenes: Added. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Haha, same thing happened to me for the 2014 Indian Super League Final where tAD was blocked indefinitely. If someone could take over that review that would be great! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Thank you for your help. Great stuff, much appreciated. I'm passing this article to GA (but the cricket one fails miserably). I'm reviewing Herbert Chapman too so if anyone has any comments on that, do please let me know (there's a criticism of intro length so far but I haven't read it fully yet). Thanks again. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help get this to GA! Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 11:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Some local derbies up for deletion discussion

I nominated a bunch of articles on particular local derbies/rivalries for deletion, but the discussion has stalled without consensus being reached - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A62 derby. More input from project members would probably be helpful. Ta. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It would also be good to get more involvement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002–03 Hereford United F.C. season. Number 57 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:KARLSRUHER

Has there been any consensus on WP:KARLSRUHER? There is a debate going on here. At WP:KARLSRUHER, there is a template calling it an "essay" and further states that it contains "advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." Kingjeff (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, WP:KARLSRUHER is an essay, but just because it is not an 'official policy or guideline' does not mean it should be disregarded. It represents (what I understand to be) a general consensus which is used on numerous German articles. Yet you ignore this style, which is used on many league articles, season articles, player articles, templates, etc. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to get some official consensus on this and, if it is agreed to keep it, transfer it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus. GiantSnowman 07:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I speak German quite well and the advice given in that essay is spot on. The writer has hit the nail on the head in explaining the differences between the noun and adjective forms. Another example is Hamburger SV, commonly known as Hamburg. SV is short for Sport-Verein meaning Sports Club and it needs an adjective Hamburger preceding it, not the noun Hamburg which in German would make no sense. Yes, there should be an official consensus. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, I am in complete agreement with you. Secret Agent Julio, until consensus is met, it should be treated only as an opinion. Kingjeff (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
From a complete bystander view here with no touch in the subject: Kingjeff, I completely hear what you say that it should be treated as only an opinion and not as consensus. Yet it seems most people in these discussions agree with this opinion. In that case don't you think it makes more sense that you comply with the majority than that the majority comply with you? --SuperJew (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Kingjeff, just because WP:KARLSRUHER is currently unofficial does not mean that all of the articles which follow that style should be disregarded. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we may need some flexibility depending on context here. In articles specifically about German leagues, it makes sense to use the full names because that's the common case there. In articles about international clubs/squads, it makes sense to use shorter names (as long as they make sense) because that's the common case there. This may seem inconsistent, but it will look a lot more consistent on the articles themselves, which is the main thing random editors will be acting on (an important thing to keep in mind, imo). Of course, nobody should ever write "Karlsruher" (adjective) or "Stuttgard" (ambiguous) anywhere, but "Wolfsburg" in between a long list of other European club names "looks more consistent". Personally, for international articles, I just go to the Wikipedia article about that club, and make sure that what I'm about to write is listed in the "commonly known as". Those include Wolfsburg, but obviously not Karlsruhe(r) or Stuttgard. –Sygmoral (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

SuperJew, this is why I brought it up here. I didn't think there was consensus yet and should have this discussion. If consensus is met, then articles are going to have to change like Hamburg at 2000–01 UEFA Champions League. @PeeJay2K3:, what do you think? Secret Agent Julio, until consensus has been met, or has been made a policy or guideline, I can completely disregard WP:KARLSRUHER. Kingjeff (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Sygmoral, I think for European competitions it is alright to be shortened, but on a domestic level it should follow WP:KARLSRUHER. And Kingjeff, I was not referring to WP:KARLSRUHER, but rather the fact that most German football articles use a consistent naming style which you insist on ignoring on the 2016–17 FC Bayern Munich season. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The essay is spot on and should be followed. Kante4 (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the text of KARLSRUHER is six years old at this point. The whole reason it was written was that there had been a discussion where, like here, most people agreed to the positions laid out in the essay. So ArtVandelay wrote the essay to avoid having to rehash the discussion again and again. As such, it falls under the class of essays represent widespread norms and shouldn't be ignored without good reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Can someone tell me what the actual problem is here? I see in the essay comments about grammar and the fact that in a few instances there are clubs which share names. However, I don't see any evidence or illustration of how this actually causes a tangible problem to the casual reader. I'm not saying what is being described isn't a problem, but the essay doesn't provide any evidence, nor have I come across it as an issue myself. when I read the three infoboxes, I see very little difference, certainly nothing that confuses me and I recognise what club is being referred to in all three cases.
Furthermore, is Karlsruher an adjective? The translation suggests it is a genitive noun? Either way, in English, bar a few examples, we do not refer to sports clubs as "SC of..." so to the english speaking reader Karlsruher is a noun as it is the name of a sports club.
I am against trying to establish a consensus here, because not only do I think there is no need to restrict editors use of nomenclature (since there is no evidence this is actually a problem), but also that it would be very difficult to enforce or at least onerous to trawl through thousands of articles correcting.
I accept the ambiguity point as valid, but this is not something that needs to be solved through an enforceable consensus, this is merely a point of clarity and is something that should be resolved on an ad hoc basis through copy editing. Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fenix down:, I opened this discussion and the very first thing I wrote was "has there been any consensus on WP:KARLSRUHER?" So, I came here looking for what the status of this "essay" was. Kingjeff (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The practice of referring to a football club simply by a city name is an British standard that isn't followed in the rest of the world, and is particularly problematic in Germany. Basically every football club in the British Isles is an "FC" or an "AFC" so leaving the extension in is redundant. This is not the case in most of the rest of the world, even the English-speaking parts (For example Toronto FC is more commonly shortened to TFC than just Toronto). In Germany, for historical reasons, and because there are three different words for club in common usage, there a plethora of widely used extensions, meaning that for most major cities, there are multiple clubs whose name is just the city name and a letter/number extension.
As for the the Karlsruher problem, there is a limitation in automatic translation here, because the adjective form of place names is almost always the same as the demonym. In the context of KSC the word Karlsruher is in fact an adjective (think Roman SC). In any case, the difference is small and intuitive enough that an English monolingual speaker is going to understand piping Karlsruher SC to Karlsruhe, whereas piping it to Karlsruher is going to make any German speaker cringe.
Finally, the trawling problem, just isn't one. The guidelines laid out in WP:KARLSRUHER are already broadly followed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sir Sputnik:, isn't this strictly a German-language proplem? If you check the "Clubs in the Australian Football League" template, you will see that it uses the "British standard". Therefore, it is applied in places other than the United Kingdom. Kingjeff (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe it varies from country to country, but in Germany, the British style is definitely not used. Sweden seems to be similar as well. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
In Germany just the city names are used too. Knowing the context everyone knows what clubs are meant when talking about Köln, Frankfurt, Stuttgart or Bayern. The existence of other clubs some levels further down doesn't matter. In the very example given above though Lippstadt or Landshut would not be shortened because clubs on that level down are not that prominent. -Koppapa (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
That seems logical. The biggest club in a particular city will most often be referred to as simply "Hamburg" or "Wolfsburg", but other clubs in that city would need to retain their long names to avoid confusion. – PeeJay 17:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a difference between talking informally with someone and what should be written on Wikipedia. It is natural to shorten club names to Real, United, Bayern, etc. in speech. But Wikipedia should contain a more formal style outside of prose, which is already used on most German football articles according to WP:KARLSRUHER. The casual reader who does not know much about German football could confuse 1. FC and Fortuna Köln, Eintracht and FSV Frankfurt, etc. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
As Secret Agent Julio says, to the casual reader it is really dependant on their origin point. I, for example, would only know casually of FSV Frankfurt, because Leckie recently played there, yet I'm guessing an average German football follower would assume Frankfurt refers to Eintracht Frankfurt as they are in the highest tier. (only knew that through checking it now :P) --SuperJew (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, I don't think anyone should refer to Eintracht Frankfurt by any other name. The reason I mentioned Hamburg and Wolfsburg above is because they don't have a second word to their name. They are simply Hamburger SV and VfL Wolfsburg, which is easily shortened to Hamburg and Wolfsburg. Their names even imply that they are the biggest team in their city, just as Liverpool does in England. I would also say that Borussia Dortmund shouldn't be referred to as just "Dortmund" when it first appears in an article, and the same for Borussia Monchengladbach. But then again, what do other sources do? It seems the BBC refers to Hamburg as "Hamburger SV" at the top of their Bundesliga match reports, but then as "Hamburg" consistently throughout the remainder. They do the same with Schalke, and if you check out the "Best of the rest" section at the bottom of that last link, they refer to Hoffenheim, Augsburg, Stuttgart and Wolfsburg by their short names. – PeeJay 18:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The BBC, UEFA, FIFA, kicker, DFB, Bundesliga, ESPN, Yahoo, worldfootball, and FOX Sports all seem to use a similar naming style. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3:, you are absolutely right on the naming of German Clubs. @Secret Agent Julio:, we're talking about WP:KARLSRUHER here, not the proper article title. Kingjeff (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Those websites are not all using the proper article title, many of the names which can be shortened are. PeeJay made a comparison to English football, which uses the "British style", unlike German football. From the first line of WP:KARLSRUHER, "in German football, it is not common practice to list clubs by just the town/city names, in the way that in England we refer to Liverpool or Blackpool". I am fine with shortening these club names in European competitions, but almost all German domestic football articles follow WP:KARLSRUHER, so I do not see a reason to change this. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
But we're speaking in English. What do English language sources do? – PeeJay 17:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This isn't really a language issue, and I included many links above, none of which shorten a club's name just to the city. Take FIFA for example, their Premier League table inlcudes just city names, while their Bundesliga table never shortens the names to just the city. Just like the BBC, ESPN, Yahoo, FOX, etc. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Secret Agent Julio: and @PeeJay2K3:, here at kicker magazine, where the scores are, shows 1. FC Nürnberg as Nürnberg, SV Sandhausen as Sandhausen, VfB Stuttgart as Stuttgart, VfL Bochum as Bochum, FC St. Pauli as St. Pauli, Hannover 96 as Hannover, 1. FC Kaiserslautern as K'lautern, and finally, Karlsruher SC as Karlsruhe. Kingjeff (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
That is irrelevant. Should we pipe 1. FC Kaiserslautern to just "K'lautern" as well? They used extremely short club names because they have a Twitter feed and match calendar on the right side of the page, which takes up space. A better example is kicker's league table, which does follow the common style. Once again, look at the websites I listed, like FIFA, BBC, ESPN, Yahoo, FOX, etc. which use the correct club names for the Bundesliga while just city names for the Premier League. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Can I clarify what we are asking? It seems to me that if we are on about the infobox - use the clubs proper name (often short of the AFC or FC in England unless it is actually a differentiator). Within the lede, use the full name for the current club (or clubs previously played for). Within the narrative, the first mention should be the name proper (and section titles should too), but after that you can use "Karslruhe" as you have already established you are referring to the sporting club. Doesn't seem particularly complex an argument, with longstanding precedents? Koncorde (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Koncorde, that is the common sense practical solution. Certainly there must be absolute clarity in the first mention of the club so that the reader knows which one is being discussed. So, at the first mention of Hamburger SV (Hamburg) it is written like that and subsequently Hamburg are just called that. Simple. Btw, some German teams like Hamburg have their names commonly reduced to initials only. Hamburger SV → HSV is a good example. BoJó | talk 10:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I would add that "Karlsruher", "Hamburger", etc. in this context ARE adjectives. To try and simplify it, the subject is a sports club and in German you do not "name" it, you "describe" it, hence that one is the "Hamburger sports club" and this other one is the "Karlsruher sports club". I suppose it is like "Scottish football team" in a way. German is a complex language. BoJó | talk 10:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Koncorde: , I started the discussion by asking "has there been any consensus on WP:KARLSRUHER?" This isn't just about infoboxes. This is about how to use the "British standard" when piping out names. There are a couple editors that are treating this "essay" like we consensus has been met or as if it's a policy or guideline. @Secret Agent Julio:, K'lautern is okay when there is a "lack of space" in the table. @Boca Jóvenes:, WP:KARLSRUHER allows for the first mention in prose then to pipe it out and use the "British standard". Kingjeff (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Well first of all, you yourself have cited WP:KARLSRUHER before to support your edits. As Sir Sputnik had mentioned, WP:KARLSRUHER came from a previous discussion where most people agreed on the essay. ArtVandelay13 was just the one who decided to write it up. And although WP:KARLSRUHER is not a "policy or guideline", it represents a general consensus which is already used on the majority of German football articles. Yet you decide to be the exception. And "K'lautern" should never be used, there is no scenario I can think of that would require such a short name to be used. And as far as prose goes, yes the first mention of the club should use the full name, but after that is established, the name can be shortened to make the text flow naturally. It sounds awkward to keep on repeating the full name. But this does not apply to tables, only written prose. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I second Julio there. Do you have an example of a place where there is a lack of space. I tried reading the talk page debate, but it also seems to be equally unclear as to what the actual argument / discussion is about or over? If it's a table issue, then I would be inclined to look at the specific table and force column widths to ensure adequate space is provided. Where the team name is self evident, I could see a 3 letter code being used instead perhaps (such as the "Results" table on 2015–16 Premier League and similar). Koncorde (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Secret Agent Julio:, I can think of when K'lautern can be used. When a table is lacking in space. Secret Agent Julio, WP:KARLSRUHER allow editors to use the "British standard" if that editor insists on it if it is appropriate. Kingjeff (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Koncorde:, WP:KARLSRUHER allows for the "British standard" in the following situation:
In the prose after the full name has been established,
In tables when there is a lack of space,
editors that insist on using it. Kingjeff (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, it would be good to get an official consensus on this essay instead of a few editors treating this like it's policy. Kingjeff (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, "K'lautern" should never be used, in no situation would 5 characters be the difference for it to fit in a table. And as far as one editor insisting on it, I believe that is more geared towards the usage of names outside German domestic football, not within German football articles. Again, why do you think that the majority should comply with you? This naming style is a long-standing practice that is used on the majority of German football articles. And WP:KARLSRUHER does not say to use the British style if an editor feels like it. The sentence is meant to insure there is no ambiguity for those who still decide to go against the correct naming style. Once again, you discredit WP:KARLSRUHER due to the fact it is not an official policy, yet this style is used on the majority of articles based on an understood consensus. @Koncorde: Kingjeff is trying to say that the fixture tables on 2016–17 FC Bayern Munich season lack so much space that a few characters cannot be added to the club names. Bear in mind the fact that there is enough room to put Borussia Mönchengladbach in full. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@Secret Agent Julio:, really? Do you really believe that it's "more geared towards the usage of names outside German domestic football, not within German football articles"? The problem is that WP:KARLSRUHER is exclusively about German football names and how they should be piped out. WP:KARLSRUHER is an "essay". It hasn't been promoted to a guideline or policy and there hasn't been any official consensus on it. Therefore, I'm not going to treat it as anything other than the author's opinion until one of those three things have happened. Kingjeff (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:KARLSRUHER makes sense to me. It's a well articulated way to describe how German teams can be presented in the articles. It must have been the consensus at some point, why else would it have been written up? The key point for me is that similar styles apply to British teams, just look at Inverness Caledonian Thistle. The full name is established in the first instance before being shortened to Inverness or Inverness CT however, the full name is used in tables. I can't think of any table that Inverness would be in where it isn't the longest name but, like every other team, it is still kept in full. If you're going to keep Borussia Mönchengladbach in full why not every other team? From the discussion above, it seems to me that this is the consensus and I would agree with it.
I understand the point that "Karlsruher" is the adjective but again, it seems that consensus has already been agreed to use the noun "Karlsruhe". Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@Kingjeff: Do you see everyone else disagreeing with you? That is consensus, whether or not WP:Karlsruher becomes part of the MOS or not. It does not require GS or anyone else for the weight of opinion here to agree with WP:Karlsruher or state its own collective agreement that happens to mirror WP:Karlsruher. Meanwhile you are the only one interpreting the "insist" phrase as anything other than "don't be a dick, but if you are a dick, at least try to be a considerate dick". WP:Karlsruher could be written better (no insult to ArtVandelay intended) to clear up any ambiguity. Koncorde (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Please show me where consensus was met? Right now I only see something under userspace calling this an essay. There is indication that this hasn't gone through any consensus. Kingjeff (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Naming conventions on articles are already of longstanding consensus without any of the information within WP:Karlsruhe being considered. It is already, without any change to the MOS or making WP:Karlsruhe official, a consensus that the full name be used at the first mention, and within tables (the last formal debate on any such naming issues was over a decade ago relating to whether articles should have "F.C." at the top or not).
I have asked on multiple occasions what this is actually about and all I have seen is evidence that you want to ignore all consensus until WP:Karlsruhe is made official in some sense, as if absence of WP:Karlsruhe being official is the same as an absence of consensus on naming conventions. WP:Karlsruhe is an essay of what was already a pre-established consensus, written to deal with (evidently) a specific issue of users editing German sports articles incorrectly. It serves as a guide and reference point for a very specific issue of German articles - whereas WP:CON and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) are the overarching principles and where this talk page serves as largely the consensus. Koncorde (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Kingjeff refuses to accept that he is the only one "against" Karlsruher and pushing his way through. (Not surprised by that, tbh...) Kante4 (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

WWK Arena

I came across the page WWK Arena, which seems to be named wrongly as WWK is a sponsorship name. Should it be moved to Augsburg Arena or Impuls Arena? --SuperJew (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

SuperJew or anyone else: Is Impuls a sponsor name? If it isn't, the article should be at Impuls Arena, but if Impuls is also a sponsor name, it should be at Augsburg Arena, its original name. Joseph2302 12:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure, which is the main reason I brought it up here. From a search of wiki seems there is a German aircraft manufacter named Impuls. Was hoping there'd be here people more understanding in German football and sponsorships :) --SuperJew (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Impuls is an insurance company that bought the naming rights. The stadium was opened named as impuls arena. Augsburg arena was only used while planning and building the stadium, so to most it was not known under that name. -Koppapa (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
moved it to Augsburg Arena. It should be under a non-sponsored name as the norm since sponsorships change. --SuperJew (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Frankenstadion

While on the topic, what about the Frankenstadion? It kept that sponsor-free name until 2006, before it was renamed to easyCredit-Stadion (deal with DZ Bank) until 2012, when it was renamed to Grundig-Stadion. Now this past July the city of Nuremberg could not find a new sponsor, so it currently is know as the Stadion Nürnberg ([34], [35], [36], [37]). Should the stadium be renamed to the most current, sponsor-free name? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what is the meaning of Frankenstadion? Why did they change to Stadion Nürnberg instead of reverting back to Frankenstadion? --SuperJew (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Franconia (Franken in German) is a region in Germany in which Nuremberg is located. I am not sure why it did not go back to Frankenstadion, but to me it seems that "Stadion Nürnberg" would be the most current neutral name. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I would agree. Though I think it is less problematic as Frankenstadion is also non-sponsored, but if the media and public refer to it as Stadion Nurnberg that should be it's name here. --SuperJew (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, not a huge deal but "Stadion Nürnberg" would probably be more accurate. I put up a move request at Talk:Frankenstadion, which was relisted yesterday after little feedback. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Penalties / Goals

Hi there, I'm just wondering, do penalties count towards the goals tally? In a statistics box, a player I'm editing scored a goal in the match then during penalties scored another, should that be counted as 2 goals in the statistics box? CDRL102 (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@CDRL102: In game penalties count towards the infobox tally, however penalties taken in a penalty shoot-out do not count towards the infobox goal tally. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It was penalty shoot-out I meant yes that's OK then, thank you. CDRL102 (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@CDRL102: To be clear, goals in penalty shoot-out (after the regulation time and extra time), do not count in the infobox. In your situation, you say he scored a goal in the match (that should count), but the one he scored during penalties (if I understand it that it was taken as part of a penalty shoot-out after 120 minutes, doesn't count). Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Penalty shoot-outs also count statistically as a draw, not a win or loss. --SuperJew (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Also remember that infobox stats are for the domestic league only. Was this a league match that went to penalties, if so, how?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I was assuming an international match here. --SuperJew (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Apologies, it seems that CDRL102 was actually referring to a full career statistics table, not the infobox -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The thing to remember is that technically the shoot-out is not part of the match. It is an additional "thing" that happens after the match has concluded in order to determine which team goes through to the next round/wins the tournament. Therefore nothing that happens in the shoot-out forms any part of the match, therefore it does not impact on a player's career stats -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I see, thank you all! CDRL102 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Dalian Atkinson death

Massive edit war going on at the moment which I want to play no direct part in. It is, however, being reported by Sky Sports News, Eurosport, The Independent and The Guardian. Are these not reliable enough sources? Spiderone 10:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems that editors were preferring to blindly revert the additions without checking for themselves whether it was true or not. A reference has eventually been added to the article which should hopefully calm things down a little. Number 57 11:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

CopyPatrol

Hey All We have a new bot that detects potential copyright concerns. You can sort them by WikiProject. Here is the link to the list for WP Football. Of course follow up requires some common sense as it could be the source copying from us. Ping me if you are interested in more details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Kit images

I wonder if someone competent could make kit images for Birmingham City F.C. They're pretty basic Adidas, so the same patterns or something similar probably already exist, but I can't do the colours with any degree of accuracy. See home and away. Many thanks, Struway2 (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Struway2: I'm on this. Just done the home kit, will upload shortly. 9:57, 9 August (UTC)
@Struway2: All done. Give it a check. Think I've got the colours right, and the detail of the small lighter dotted air holes. 10:11, 9 August (UTC)
@Kcleworth: Lovely, thank you very much. The only thing is (and this is entirely my fault, I didn't notice that the link I supplied didn't show them clearly) on the home kit, the three stripes go down the sides of the shirt as well as the shorts. It is shown clearly on this page. Can you add that? I'm really sorry for messing you about... Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Struway2: All sorted for you!
Again, many thanks, and sorry for not giving you a decent image to work from in the first place. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Struway2:Not a problem. Love the home kit, used to work at the blues in the boxes when I was uni so I have a bit of a soft-spot for them. If you see anyone else needing kits made, please point me in the right direction! 9:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
If anyone could do the Vale home shirt too that would be great. It is unique.--EchetusXe 14:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Kcleworth: has done the Bradford City kits and is clearly very talented at it... GiantSnowman 17:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@EchetusXe: All sorted for you! Thanks for the compliments @GiantSnowman:! 09:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Kcleworth: Would you be able to one for Kilmarnock? I've the basics of it done but I've no idea how to do it properly. Here's the home kit and the away kit.
Any one for Hull City A.F.C. kits? I dropped the URLs for these on the talk page but got no response. Keith D (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Keith D: Hi Keith. I'll do these when I get a minute, no problem. 14:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Keith D: All done Keith. I can't seem to find the 3rd kit design for 16/17 though, has it been released? Can you point me in the right direction.
@Kcleworth: Could you please attempt the Fulham home kit [38] and the away kit [39] Thank you! JMHamo (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@JMHamo: Will do when I get a moment! Kcleworth 16:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Irish season article

Hi. Could someone take a look at some Irish season articles like 2015 St Patrick's Athletic F.C. season. Should we really list what kits were worn on what match (for all matches), a list of what matches were broadcasted, and so on? Qed237 (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If it's referenced I don't think it's a problem. Otherwise, it might be WP:OR. --SuperJew (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The "how many times each kit was worn and who against" is definitely excessive -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Yup, too much. Should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Section about kits is probably excessive in my opinion, section of televised games seems ok. DjlnDjln (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTSTATS, definitely not. I would suggest to editors involved in that page that they spend some time adding sourced prose to the article discussing the season with reference to reliable sources rather than adding meaningless tables. Fenix down (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
This definitely falls under WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 17:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Completely agree that the statistics are excessive. OTT. The article should be extensively revised to comply with WP:NOTSTATS. BoJó | talk 17:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Category name

Whilst we have Leeds United F.C. and Category:Leeds United F.C. players, the wartime guest category is at Category:Leeds United A.F.C. wartime guest players. I'm not sure whether this was an oversight when the categories were moved, or whether it was deliberately kept at that title because Leeds were A.F.C. at the time of the war. I ask because the difference is causing Leeds wartime players to be flagged up in the missing categories bot run, so it would be good if the category were renamed. Personally I am in favour as I think we should use the current name of the club for all related categories, but I just wanted to check whether there was a reason why this wasn't changed, or any objections to doing so. Cheers, Number 57 20:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, use the current name, to keep in line with all other categories. GiantSnowman 20:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_104&oldid=1252130579"