Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 144

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 140

←

Archive 142

→

Bolton being promoted in 3rd place

@Muur: has added 'Honours' to all of Bolton's players after they finished 3rd and were promoted; is that an honour or not? I say not. Giant Snowman 21:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you trying to get consensus, but I believe this is a plainly obvious "no." SportingFlyer T·C 21:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

There are hundreds (prob thousands) of instances of players and managers being listed on wikipedia with promotions. I don't recall where it was listed, but when there was a discussion on if league runner up counts as an honour and it was stated that it doesn't, unless it's a lower league that comes with promotion.Muur (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you aware of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? If a league a runner up doesn't count (by your own admission), why would 3rd place? Giant Snowman 21:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Players for the club who finishes third in League Two receive a bronze medal, so this is usually included in the honours section. This addition to the respective player articles is not unusual as they are added after the end of each season. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

If that is the case and a medal is awarded then fair enough - but we need an explicit reference saying that the player in question has won the honour, not just a match report saying "the club was promoted after this game". Giant Snowman 21:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

it was only stated that it doesnt count for top leagues, cuz its not an honour apparently. however, it counts for lower leagues because promotion is an honour. the EFL literally gives trophies to the teams that get promoted, such as bolton in 2016/17 since bolton are relevant here. watford, having been promoted today as well as runners-up in the championship lifted a trophy today.Muur (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Read what I said - that is fair enough (if true), but where is the specific reference saying players X and Y received a medal? you cannot simply assume every squad/contracted player has got one. Giant Snowman 21:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

EFL regulations state: "To be eligible to receive a Championship, League One or Two winners medal, a player must have been named on the team sheet in at least 25% of the club's league fixtures in that season. Any medals agreed over and above those detailed above will be at cost to the Club concerned." I would assume this applies to the second and third-placed clubs also. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source that second/third place also get medals? Giant Snowman 21:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

as for stats, I notice people usually include the players's stats and the league table to show they played that season+where the team finished that season, but I figured the match was enough for the players who played since it showed they were promoted. if that's enough we can just switch to the stats+table for everyone. my only qualm is on if the players who played in the first half of the season then left on loan in january count (so Liam Gordon, Ali Crawford, Jak Hickman, and Jamie Mascoll). I didn't list those because they left on loan in January, but all of them other than Hickman played more than 5 games. also, the EFL state to get a medal you need to appear on the team sheet in 25% of matches (not even play, interestingly, just appear in the 18 for 25% of the 46 matches, which would be 11 matches) here. since again, this is bolton, we see 2016/17 captain jay spearing and josh vela here with their promotion medals when bolton came second.Muur (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

We need a source saying that 2nd/3rd place clubs get medals in 2020–21, and then we need a source saying that player X and Y has got the medal. You rightly point out the issue of players who left on loan. Were you just going to ignore them, even though they might have got a medal? Giant Snowman 21:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

looks like leaving in january *does* get you a medal, as this showed that Sébastien Bassong got two medals in in 14/15 due to playing for two teams who got promoted from the championship that season. so yeah I guess all four of those loaned out bolton players count.Muur (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

here's crewe stating they got promotion medals in 19/20. here's a newport player saying he would get a medal for getting promoted last month (oops, they bottled it, he'll have to make do with the play offs)Muur (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the sort of article you would need to use as a source, which shows Plymouth's captain with a bronze medal for their third place finish in 2019–20. However, this wouldn't be sufficient for the rest of the Plymouth's squad that season. LTFC 95 (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

there are multiple of these talk pages that state promotion is an honour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Players/Archive_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_116 consensus seems to be that being promoted counts (and like I said, its listed on thousands of player articles here on wikipedia.) This one is most relevant. it states "They are included for cup competitions, not league competitions (unless it's a promotion, in which case it's a promotion honour not runners-up honour)." so perhaps that means the formatting should be changed as it seems the accepted it "promoted", not "runner-up" (or in regards to league two, third place). note that this is from december 2020. promotion counts as an honour that can be listed. (with the technicality that the *promotion* is the honour rather then 2nd/3rd place. thats why I made sure to state promotion on them, as its a promotion hounour)Muur (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Muur: you need to use better sources than the league table on Soccerbase btw. I have added a Guardian article on the promotion for now - but please find specific references confirming players in question have a medal, otherwise I will remove them again. Giant Snowman 08:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on this picture, it passes the duck test. Can anyone spot any differences from picture?--Echetus Xe 10:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, my main point now - where is the source confirming which specific players have a medal? Giant Snowman 11:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

All four teams involved could've finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th on the final day. they obviously weren't going to have all the medals and trophies in just one of the 4 places. Morecambe missed out, but it easily could've been bolton, chelthnam, and/or cambridge missing out and ending up fourth. the efl will send medals to the three promoted teams now that its confirmed. its why the trophy itself and winners medals werent involved in the cheltenham celebrations as seen in that pic the other guy linked, they hadnt won the title until the final whistle blew. cambridge and bolton could've walked out as champions instead. so they will send the trophies and medals out to the teams (covid stuff prob wouldnt have allowed them to go from, lets say, bolton to cambridge to swap medals depending on who was 2nd/3rd). with past promotions it was usually confirmed weeks before. for example in 2018, as seen in this picture they had cardiff's runner up trophy and medals (medals shown in pic) ready cuz they couldn't win the league on the final day, so were already confirmed runners up. BTW, here's a source that states "But even if United miss out on winning the league, the EFL have confirmed that they will be presented with a smaller trophy on the final day – and all the members of the squad will be handed runners-up medals for their efforts in the promotion campaign." so theres confirmation the entire squad gets a medal (though having to appear in 25% of the matchday squads will presumably still be in effect). according to the same source the first time they had runners up trophies/medals was in the 2010/11 season, so i guess any time before that would not pass as an honour cuz they got no trophy before 2011. i specifically remember southampton in league one complained that they wouldn't get anything for coming second and the EFL said "fair enough" and created the medals and a trophy for the runners up (and third place in regards to league two, always thought it was stupid league 2 had 3 automatic spots). right now we dont even have pics of the cheltneham team medals cuz they didnt give them out yet. if you want we coudl put a citation needed thing on it? also here's the guys who actually make the trophies and state that they also make medals to go alongside the trophies. but anywhere there's a source stating the entire squad get a medal, and there was previously an image linked of Plymouth's bronze medal from 2020. (and actually, it seems third place get a "Sky Bet League Two silver salver" for third place going by that plymouth pic, but also get medals. the medals are the relevant part.)Muur (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

So to cut a long reply short, there's a source up there that states all members of the squad get a medal. and in regards to the EFL's 25% match day squads, all the bolton players it was added to were involved in more than 25% of the 46 match day squads.Muur (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

But is it really an honour? Just because someone gets a medal doesn't mean they actually won anything. If the Football League started giving out medals recognising every club all the way down to last place, would we consider all of them honours? Coming third earns you promotion to the next division, sure, but it's no different than finishing in the top four of the Premier League and qualifying for the Champions League, and we wouldn't put "Champions League qualifier" in someone's list of honours. – Pee Jay 12:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with PeeJee that it really shouldn't go. Many of those "pre-season international touraments" like the International Champions Cup give out a trophy, but we don't include those in honours. Referees get medals for reffing in a final. It's more of a token. If a league starts giving out participation trophies to every team like youth soccer, would those be honours then? RedPatch (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree - but where does that leave us? Shall I remove the entries? Giant Snowman 14:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I think the fact we're struggling as much as we are to prove the EFL hands out medals to teams that didn't finish top shows that it's not really a notable thing. I'm still in favour of removing them from the honours. SportingFlyer T·C 14:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Giant Snowman 17:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

IMO, promotion is pretty obviously an honour, as it is the main aim of a lower-league team's given season. Also, we include play-off wins in the honours so leaving out automatic promotion would be rather odd. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. A third place promotion is listed as an honour for the club, so why not the player? Chris (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

first place and play offs counting but not the other team that gets promoted is really stupid. thats why the EFL created a trophy and medals in the first place. there are more people saying it counts here than not, there's no consensus that it doesnt. also pre-season tourneys aren't competitive matches and the EFL obviously aren't going to give anything out for coming 15th or whatever. counting 1st and play offs but not runner-up (and 3rd in league two) is really really stupid.Muur (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't even put the promotion playoffs. That's like a "oops you failed, here's a second chance" option available to a couple teams. I'd put league winner and that's it. An honour, IMO, is something that every team had a chance at and one team succeeded at. This year 40 teams are going to be promoted to the Primera División RFEF....should all 40 of those teams get an honour because they won promotion to a higher division because they are revamping the league structure. A line has to be drawn somewhere. If third place is an honour for League Two then third place should be an honour for every league in every country - there should be consistency, which gets to be a bit much. If there are different rules for different countries, then it could result in arguments of "why is your country is more important/better than my country". 1st place is a much simpler way. Really from my own experience, people/teams only bascally 'show off' a 2nd/3rd place honour when they have no real championships. Once they get 1st places they stop talking about those 2nd/3rds because they're not important or memorable after a while. As a Bolton fan, in a couple of years say you're talking to someone highlighting the clubs history, you'll say things like "we were in the premier league for X number of years and we're 3 time Championship winners". Would a "3rd place in League Two" fall in the same level or be mentioned. It'll be very quickly forgotten. If it's forgettable, it's not an honour RedPatch (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatch: isnt third in the world cup the same though? the two losers fight over a third place medal after having already lost.

Agreed. League winner and cup final winner/runner up is enough. Coming 3rd in the 4th tier? Getting up in playoffs? No. Giant Snowman 14:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Something being "stupid" in your view is not reason to edit war. There is no consensus for inclusion. Giant Snowman 14:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean Bolton's promotion in 2017 is still brought up pretty often enough. a league being restructured obviously is different, that isnt earned on the pitch. the "runner-up" isnt the honour, the promotion is. (the *earned* promotion, not a league re-structure). thats why 2nd/3rd in the PL means nothing. past discussions over a decade (as I linked further up) had/have people agreeing they should be added, which means current is to include them. the place where it is right now, unless agreed otherwise, in a new thing, is that promotion is an honour. I linked multiple talks on it before where the agreement is that promotion is an honour. wikipedia currently counts it as such. you realise there are thousands of articles where promotion is listed right? the "status quo" is that they count.Muur (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually the two conversations you link mention nothing of the sort. I just looked them over. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_116#Isthmian_Division_One_North_Playoffs has no consensus at all like you are claiming and ONLY ONE EDITOR said for an automatic promotion to be listed, the rest talked about playoffs, of which there was no consensus -some in favour some against and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players/Archive 5 is a) about players not clubs and b) is a RFC that discusses runner-ups but no third place/auto promotion (one user who was the same as the previous discussion mentions it briefly offhand, but it is not referred to again since it wasn't the purpose of the RFC). So, what you are saying is because 1 editor agrees with you in past discussions, we have to include it and ignore the many more editors who don't agree - meanwhile in this current discussion its split 50/50. Basically, your point here is WP:ILIKEIT You mention Bolton's "promotion in 2017" is still talked about. That still falls under WP:RECENT given its their most recent promotion, hence why it would be compared and discussed with their current promotion and their last successful season where they finished above 21st. How much discussion do their 1995 or 2001 promotions get now? If anything, an RFC can be started to come up with a consensus, of which none currently exists (for or against) RedPatch (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

literally an article talking about every single promotion bolton have had only a few days ago. here's one from this week that talks about the fact that sarcevic has been promoted four times from league two in his career (2014, 2017, 2020, and 2021). here's one where matt gilks's promotions in 2010 and 2018 are mentioned (alongside 2021). anyway: "about players not clubs" this entire thing is about players, not clubs. as for runners-up, third place for L2 counts alongside runner-up for champs and L1 due to how that league is structured for automatic promotion.Muur (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I misread it and thought this was about clubs not players. With that said, the past rfc discussion you linked as consensus does not discuss this topic and is therefore irrelevant. Also, linking non-wikipedia articles does not affect wikipedia consensus. Thank you for starting the RFC below. RedPatch (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should club promotion (non-league title) be listed in a player's honours section

Is promotion when not finishing as champions an honour? So runner-up (and in league two, third) and play-offs. Muur (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No - In a club article, maybe. In a player article, no. Only first place in the league, and winners + runners-up in cups (+ third-place in knock-out competitions with third-place matches). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
No As mentioned above, only league winner should be considered honour. Prevents opening up a can of worms where others will say if third place in League Two is an honour, then 3rd place in La Liga, Serie D, Bulgarian Second Division, USL League One, etc, should be listed as an honour. Mention in the article prose instead if you want to include it. RedPatch (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Those instances aren't promotion.Muur (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said, prevents opening up a can of worms. RedPatch (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

that's why its a promotion honour. you'd simply say "coming second in the premier league isnt promotion."Muur (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

And I repeat, can of worms. Someone will say third place is third place. If third place is allowed for some leagues, then I can apply it to another league. I'm not saying me, I'm saying what others users will do when they see. Opening a can of worms means "If you 'open a can of worms', you [often unexpectedly] set in motion or discover something that has wide-reaching consequences". You're intending to do 3rd place for promotion only, what could easily happen is it becomes third place for everything. RedPatch (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

No - Per above. Kante4 (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
No, not for a player. Mention it in a club article, yes, but not a player 'honour' - that should be restricted to league titles and cup winner/runner-up positions only. Giant Snowman 16:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

wouldn't that discount things like world player of the year or manager of the month as well though?Muur (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No as per GS, mention it in club article, but not in honours section of players. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
No it’s an achievement but not an honour. Winning a cup or a title is an honour, coming third, in this case, gains you promotion but that’s it.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You get medals and a trophy too actually. @Egghead06:Muur (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: IDK if I'm even allowed to vote on it, but I say yes. and you guys all realise this includes play offs too right? so no play off final wins would be counted (which will be relevant as there are three English play offs finals about to happen).Muur (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Question: What do reliable published sources list as player honours? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

whenever a team signs a player they pretty much always mention player's promotions.Muur (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Neither NFT nor Soccerway give Tammy Abraham any sort of title for Aston Villa's 2018–19 EFL Championship play-off win. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

soccerway does mention sheffield united's 2018/19 championshiip runner up tho. (since you mentioned 2018/19 specfically) [1]. also surely if only league titles and cup winner/runner up count in hounours section then literally every award such as world player of the year isnt relevant either?Muur (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

We are only talking about club honours, obviously, not individual honours... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Promotion is in itself an honour, regardless of where a team finishes in the table. The articles found by Muur show that sources make little distinction between promotion and winning a league and I personally don't think there is any real difference between finishing 1st, 2nd or 3rd in League Two. Contrary to RedPatch's assertion that promotion honours are "very quickly forgotten", I can tell you about every one of Leeds United's and Crawley Town's promotion's but I can't neccesarily remember where in the league they finished. Also, I can't quite work out from the discussion above but I think 3rd place in L2 gets medals, which would also suggest it is an honour. In response to RedPatch asking This year 40 teams are going to be promoted to the Primera División RFEF....should all 40 of those teams get an honour because they won promotion to a higher division, the answer is obviously no, as that is a restructuring and teams are only moving to a higher tier if they win the promotion play-offs for the Segunda Division and not if they qualify for the new Primera División RFEF, like how Crawley Town's promotion from the 2003–04 Southern Football League was an honour, but Weymouth's second-place finish was not. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

they get medals and a trophy yes. The conversation just before the RFC was "even though they get medals and trophies promotion isn't an honour". That's why playoffs are included in this as well.Muur (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Muur: ok, ta. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No, promotion is a team honor, if anything, and should remain in the club article. Alyo (chat·edits) 01:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes It's an honour so seems sensible to include it in the honours section.--Echetus Xe 22:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Bolton players have now recieved their medals.. @GiantSnowman: @Egghead06: @SportingFlyer: Muur (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment: @Muur: So are you suggesting that the receipt of a medal always signifies an honour regardless of where you finish in the league?--Egghead06 (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Well they don't give out medals for those who came 17th or whatever. the efl give out medals to promoted teams (including first place) and cups winners. its the entire reason world cup third place is included, cuz they get a medal.Muur (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No For all the reasons mentioned above, only league championships should be included as "personal honors." Even then, I am on the fence regarding league championships as personal honors, but the current consensus is that they are listed. Promotion for any reason is a team honor and should remain on team pages. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
No Usually, I would say it depends on who we're talking about but for these circumstances and the reason above, I think it's best not to include it in the honours section. It should however be covered as prose within the career section as for most players, winning promotion is a significant and notable event. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment I have to say I am a bit bemused by people saying that something can be an honour for the club but not the players. If we regard achieving something as an honour for the club, why would we not also regard it as an honour for the players who actually achieved it by their performance on the pitch.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
No Not in the honours section. It can be included in prose if relevant. SportingFlyer T·C 10:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
No Neither for players or clubs. Agree with Egghead06 that this is an achievement, not an honour. Number 5 7 10:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
No Not in players' honours lists but to be mentioned in the article body.--Tanonero (msg) 11:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Quick question - where do we stand on play-off final wins as honours? It would seem (to me, at any rate) odd to not credit the players of the team which finished 3rd in League Two with an honour for getting promoted but to credit the players of the team that finished (potentially) 7th with an honour for getting promoted just because it was decided by a single game at Wembley and they got a trophy...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

play offs are included in this for not counting. if this gets a "no", the play off finals are snubbed off as well. also, the runners up (and 3rd in league 2) get medals and a trophy as well, which has been proven multiple times at this point but now its a "even tho they get medals we don't wanna count it anyway" thing, which is why the play offs have been thrown in too.Muur (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Another question And is it an honour to be a runner-up in a play-off final.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

course not.Muur (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment Someone better tell Neil Warnock, famously promoted eight times as a manager, that only two of them count as honours. Of course his Conference Manager of the Month award from November 1986 is an honour and getting Cardiff promoted into the Premier League isn't an honour. That makes perfect sense and doesn't make the encyclopedia look ridiculous to bemused readers. The List of Cardiff City F.C. managers featured article will have to be revised as well, seen as a random selection of the promotions will no longer be classed as honours.--Echetus Xe 21:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
No Per the reasons mentioned above, It is not an honour but rather an achievement. Sea Ane (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Should winning a promotion-playoff match/final be listed in a player's honours section

This has come up a few times in the RFC, so starting a section for it here. Pinging voters and commenters of the previous section @Muur, Nehme1499, GiantSnowman, Joseph2302, Struway2, Microwave Anarchist, Alyo, EchetusXe, Stevie fae Scotland, Egghead06, Jkudlick, ChrisTheDude, SportingFlyer, Number 57, and Tanonero:

No Not in players' honours lists but mentioned in article prose. My explanation is in the original commentary. Only league title. Note: This refers only to promotion playoffs. Championship playoffs such as the MLS Cup Playoffs are obviously different, since those determine the actual league champion (not the league table). We don't list automatic qualification to the Champions League/Europa League as an honour, that's the equivalent of the League Two auto promotion. 3rd place in Premier League gets a hybrid "promotion" to the higher level Champions League the next season. Similar to automatic/playoff promotion in my eyes. RedPatch (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
No As a rule of thumb, fine in prose, but not in the honours section. Does it count if say Kilmarnock win the relegation play-off and don't get relegated? This is limited to promotion playoffs only as RedPatch notes. SportingFlyer T·C 11:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes / No: I've said more than enough at this point in regards to my support for it. As for relegation vs promotion play off for someone like Kilmarnock that wouldn't count because it's avoiding relegation, not achieving promotion. although if the situation is that runner-up and third in league two dont count, then I don't thikn play off should count either. so my yes/no depends on how the runners-up are handled. PS, the original RFC included the play offs as well.Muur (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies, I missed that the original RfC did indeed cover play-offs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

some others may not have realised that too, so this makes it more clear at least.Muur (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No Agree with the above that prose is enough. Number 5 7 12:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging me RedPatch. No - Same reason as above, it's a significant/notable event rather than an honour. For countries like Scotland/Germany/France where we have divisional play-offs rather than the promotion play-offs you have in England it really doesn't make sense to consider winning the play-offs as an honour. As a supporter, I considered it much more of a relief in 2016 when Kilmarnock stayed up through the play-offs.

As an aside, I could see merit in including a list of notable events (for want of a better title) in player/club articles when they aren't Lionel Messi or Manchester United and don't have many, if any, winners' medals. It would only really be relevant for players/clubs who have a couple of promotions as a runner up or for play-off winners. It would very much depend on context as a club/player with several runners-up medals or one or two trophy wins might not need it as they have actual honours. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: still feels a tad odd to me that something like a promotion wouldn't count, yet things like world player of the year count.Muur (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Same as result for promotion vote - The honour is with the promotion, not the play-off tournament win. It would be absurd to list a play-off tournament win as an honour but not finishing in an automatic promotion place. I mean, of course it's already absurd to talk about removing promotion honours from the honours section, but here we are. They are listed as honours by primary sources but a few editors don't like it and have come up with a few nonsensical strawman arguements.--Echetus Xe 14:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
No In the pre-woke, pre-politically correct world they were winners and losers, not winners and a series of people who were runners-up. To win is an honour. Other than that you are not a winner and that is no honour despite what they may teach in schools these days.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

and yet cup runners-up are allowed. kinda goes against your point.Muur (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Football play-offs are "woke". I've heard it all now. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Didn’t say that, but them you knew that. Giving rewards to those who have failed to win the league they were is definitely a modern day pat on the back for failure just like the top FOUR in the Premier league making the CHAMPIONS League. --Egghead06 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Runners-up in the second tier have been promoted to the top flight since the 1898–99 Football League season. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Think there has already been a discussion elsewhere on whether being a runner-up is an honour? Can’t remember the outcome but personally I think it’s again, an achievement, but coming second or third in the league or maybe even sixth in the case of the play-offs, is no honour.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

No - prose is sufficient. Giant Snowman 15:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
No - I would support including it if we were including automatic promotion, but as there is a pretty clear concensus to not include automatic promotion, the same should apply to play-off winners. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
No - Promotion is a team accomplishment, not an individual accomplishment; it can be included in the article prose but should not be listed as a player honor. However, winning a major international tournament (e.g. FIFA World Cup) is something that can be included in personal honors because of how rarely it occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkudlick (talk • contribs)
- @Jkudlick: - out of interest, why would promotion be a team accomplishment, but not an individual accomplishment, given that it's the players on the pitch who accomplish it? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  - @ChrisTheDude: Because it takes the entire team to win promotion, not any one individual. Club promotion is definitely suitable for the prose of an individual player's article, but I will always argue against its inclusion in individual honors. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
    - It takes an entire team to win any competition, not just to get promoted. – Pee Jay 18:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
    - @Jkudlick: - so by the same logic we shouldn't list any of his four Champions League wins or ten La Liga titles as honours on Lionel Messi's article, because it took an entire team to win each one, not just him......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
      - @ChrisTheDude: That would be correct. However, current consensus is that they are included and this discussion is not about that. I also doubt that consensus will change should I bring it up, so I am content to leave it as it is. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Even if we decide that promotions aren't deemed to be "honourworthy", the play-offs are competitions in their own right, so why wouldn't we include them? We include the FA Community Shield as an honour, which is a one-match tournament and the result of which is of no consequence, so why not the play-offs, a tournament that includes four (or more) teams and which results in promotion for the winner? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Well someone has now added it for all players of Dundee F.C. with their latest promotion as well. RedPatch (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

because lower league fans very clearly see promotion as an honour. scrapping it will honestly be controversial as shit and will prob cause quite the shit storm once it starts getting deleted from all the pages.Muur (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

- Well of course, Paul McGowan winning a SFL Young Player of the Month award is more significant than captaining a team to promotion into the Premier League from the play-offs isn't it? I mean come on, this isn't a completely braindead discussion where people just vote "no" without reading any of the points made or knowing the first thing about football you know!--Echetus Xe 16:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

people involved dont like lower league football it seems. they support teams like man city and chelsea most likely and dont realise how much promotion means to fans. also, who's going to be the one to go through 200 seasons of english football and remove promotions from every single player? its crazy that a few big 6 fans dont like something and can cause it to shit all over lower league football.Muur (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

someone tell brentford's manager that getting promoted to the premier league for the first time in 74 years means nothing. speaking of someone added it to all the brentford players, so uh, time to delete!Muur (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't mean "nothing," but it's not specifically an "honour." Nor is this a conspiracy against lower league clubs and I'm honestly kind of miffed at that general accusation even though it's not targeted at anyone. This is an exercise to gain a consensus about what constitutes an "honour" which will need to be applied world-wide, not just to English competitions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

and what is the definition of "hounour" here?Muur (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:POINT. Removing a load of sourced honours when you yourself agree that they are notable for inclusion is disruptive. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

but consensus is now that it doesn't count? @RedPatch: already did the same thing for dundee.Muur (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion (well, !vote) is leaning that way, although I don't think there's been a consensus established yet. While we're discussing it, I think those !voting should acknowledge, promotion/relegation outcomes aside, that play-offs are competitions in their own right, with trophies, medals etc given to winners. What other competitions do we exclude when they've been won outright? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

it was already stated multiple times that being given a medal and trophy means nothing. read the entire discussion. I even showed pics of players in 2nd/3rd place promotion with medals and trophies over the last few years. multiple people said that "just cuz you get a medal and trophy for second doesnt mean its an hounour and only winning the league counts."Muur (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

In the case of leagues where play-offs incorporate teams from multiple tiers, "winning" the competition may be more of a relief to a team that doesn't get relegated than an honour. We need to maintain consistency, and there's no reason why winning the play-off can't be discussed in prose. SportingFlyer T·C 23:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand why promotion-relegation play-offs are put forward as some "gotcha" moment that proves winning play-offs aren't an honour. No. The logical conclusion is that the promotion is the honour. Teams that avoid relegation by winning a play-offs are not promoted, thus no honour.--Echetus Xe 12:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone has been adding Chelsea's Champions League win to player's honours section. Is it really an honour though? They have a trophy and medals but it's been established that those are meaningless when it comes to defining honours. Someone made the point that a team wins a promotion, individual players. This is also true for cup competitions. Echetus Xe 12:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems like you are now grasping at straws because consensus is going against your personal preference. People were saying to not include promotion playoffs because basically its a team that had come in 3rd-7th. Obviously there is a difference between finishing 3-7th and 1st like a CL victory. The top-tier equivalent to winning promotion is qualifying for the UCL/UEL finishing non-first. We don't add those to the honours. Should we add relegation playoff winners to honours? It's the same thing, they won a 'play off'. What about promotion playoffs where it ends up being a team that finished 3rd in the lower league versus a team that finnished 19th in the higher league. Potential honour for one team only then (the lower team). Needs to be something equal for all teams not just one. No one ever said it needs to be completely omitted in the wikipedia page, rather just put it in the prose section where it is more appropriate. RedPatch (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

By winning the play-off, you have, by definition, finished 1st (i.e. winner, champion). How you qualified for the play-off competition, by finishing second, third, etc, in your regular league season is immaterial. In the same way we wouldn't exclude the Champions League on the basis that teams can qualify for that competition having finished as low as fourth in their league. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That isn't a championship playoff, I know you're well aware of that. It's not really a "playoff", it's more of a "Play Off" - note the space. They're playing for a second crack at it. If they're in it, it's because they specifically did not come in first. In these League Two ones, the league 1st placers, nor the 2nd placers aren't in it. There's trophies for a lot of things that are not true honours. I don't go around adding the Trillium Cup to players honours sections. There's a trophy involved: see here, here, and here's Jermain Defoe holding it. We don't go around adding the International Champions Cup to articles, but there's a trophy like here and here. Honestly, I feel people have different standards when it comes to English teams that there are special rules and everything there is more important. It's like when I made a suggestion to add a Playoffs column to the MOS for the stats table for players who played primarily in Championship Playoffs in North America, which are more important than league games and domestic cups and basically got told it should stay in other because not all leagues have those, but something like League Cup couldn't be put in other, even if the player only played one year in England and had dashes for that section everywhere else. Same as when someone wanted to include the L5-8 League Cup in the League Cup section, despite meeting all the requirements, there was a whole lot of pushback because they wanted to protect the importance of the English League Cup. If this discussion had started over someone adding Belgian second or third division playoffs, I feel like there would be a totally different sentiment. RedPatch (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with this notion of there being "true honours", it's not for us to judge how 'worthy' a competition is. I mean, the FA Community Shield is essentially a glorified friendly, the result of which is of no real consequence, but we still include it because it's a senior, first-team competition. And I don't know where your insinuations of English bias are coming from, perhaps there's some previous here I'm unaware of here. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I might be mixing up the English bias with a discussion I've had elsewhere not on wikipedia and applying it to some I've had here, so I'll strike out that comment since it'd be biased of me to make that claim and apply it to all. But to go back to my original point way at the beginning of this discussion last week, these just open up a can of worms. 2nd/3rd place auto-promotion, what about 3rd place in leagues without promotion. Promotion playoffs that award a trophy, what about promotion playoffs in countries that don't give a medal for that, what about promotion/relegation hybrid playoff between two different level teams, what about relegation playoffs. If we say yes to some of those and not other, then we are judging worthiness. As an added point, though I'm of the less is better crowd. The more things that are included, the more complicated it gets. A point was raised earlier about things like Player of the Month awards, etc., I don't believe those should be included either. I'd limit those to Player of the Year at the very minimum and only those of major recognition like a Ballon D'Or or maybe a League MVP awarded by the league if at all (not a player of the year from some random website). RedPatch (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You are forgetting WP:POLL. Consensus isn't reached by polls where a majority of people say "I don't think play-offs should be an honour because I don't think it's an honour" and do not engage with any actual discussion. Your points are asinine. "what about 3rd place in leagues without promotion" - I would suggest that in those cases where teams do not finish in promotion places then the players do not have the non-existent promotion listed in their honours section. The previous consensus was that "medals or promotion = honour", now this poll seems to be suggesting that "medals = honour (except in certain circumstances)". Talk about opening a can of worms, I'm just asking for clarification on what these exceptions will be. I agree with you that honours section can become bloated. There are about 100 lines each of Cristiano Ronaldo and Zlatan Ibrahimović's honours section, deciding that promotions are no longer honours does not remove any from those or any other excessively long list.--Echetus Xe 13:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

RedPatch was clearly demonstrating that just because someone receives a trophy or even a medal doesn't necessarily imply that it's an honour worthy of the honours section of a Wikipedia page. Honours are pretty well defined in my mind - did you win a sanctioned trophy of some sort, or a sanctioned award of some sort? I don't have much issue with lower league championships, but extending this to promotions doesn't make a lot of sense, and it appears consensus is clear that's a correct argument. SportingFlyer T·C 14:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You claimed that my point is that medal = honour "sometimes" and is inconsistent and yours is consistent medal = honour - and I feel it is the opposite. Mine is very consistent in my mind - 1st place and 1st place only. "First place for the 3rd place game" - which is basically what that promotion playoff game is - a glorified 3rd place competition game - is not 1st place and thus very consistent with my point. I listed an examples actual trophies which do not merit inclusion because they are not real 1st place trophies. Players get random "Man of the Match" trophies all the time. Are those honours because they got a trophy? If the Serie A had a 2nd and 3rd place trophy would that mean 3rd place in Serie A could be included, but 3rd place in La Liga could not be because there was no trophy. My point is very clear - 1st place only to prevent a can of worms. You claim that my points are asinine, but really it's you don't agree with my point so you're automatically dismissing any opposing point as meritless. I've never said that promotion is irrelevant, but I've said a line needs to be drawn somewhere. I never said ignore promotion entirely, I said put it in the prose - include it, just elsewhere. For many clubs, avoiding relegation in the top flight is a tremendous achievement, why isn't that an honour, it's just as valuable as promotion to those clubs. It's actually more important, would that team rather be in the top flight for five straight years or get promoted, immediately relegated, promoted back 3 years later for 2 years of 5 in the top flight? Again, its not that promotion isn't important, it's that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. If it was a true playoffs, that 1st place team in the league would be involved as the top seeded team, instead they're not in it at all, so those promotion playoffs are a "best of the rest" not a "best of the best" compeition. Honours section should be for the "best of the best". RedPatch (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to have my say on this sort of thing, but after being notified of this policy while adding this honour to the winners of the most recent League One play-off final I thought I'd put forward my view. This entire discussion seems like unneeded pedantry over what constitutes an "honour". Isn't the purpose of the honours section just to showcase the achievements of a player/club in a concise manner? Promotions, via the play-offs or not, are no doubt worthy of a mention as a very notable achievement even if they aren't outright titles. Morecambe have "won" promotion to the third tier for the first time in their history today but apparently it isn't worthy of mention under this policy. They are all huge moments for the fans and significant achievements for the players which come as a result of the team excelling in the league. I don't see what is to be gained by removing all of these honours other than to needlessly water down those of clubs without a plethora of actual titles and make the lesser honours much, much harder to discover. Is there a genuine concern that there will be an inability among readers to ascertain that a promotion, runners-up or play-off victory are worth less than a title? And that the only way to address that is to have them pushed behind the curtain? It all seems pointlessly reductive to me and I'd like to see them kept. If not then I believe a separate section should be created to list these sorts of things as they should certainly be presented somewhere without forcing readers to scour through articles for the information. UTMP1887 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the previous comparisons for medals are pre season tourneys. Non competitive matches obviously don't count. Getting a medal is the only reason people consider third place in the World Cup to be relevant, so I don't see how third place in the World Cup is any different to 3rd place/runner up that comes with promotion. And *no one* is going to list coming third in the Premier League on someone's page. If they do, you tell them that is worthless, and it's only relevant with a promotion in a lower league. they aint gonna give out medals for qualifying for the Champions League. Winning promotion is competitive, not friendlies. If this truely pulls through then i'm going to motion to remove third place in cups.Muur (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

One one pre-season, the other was not. Involved competitive league matches. RedPatch (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Trillim Cup means nothing. It's a fake trophy made up by the teams involved. the EFL make promotion trophies.

And the promotion trophy was a made up trophy for that promotion game. How many teams will go into the season and say our goal is to win the promotion playoff trophy? No, the goal is to win the League One/Two title. The promotion playoff is a consolation match. I'm saying an honour should be what the primary goal is. The goal is to win the league. The goal isn't I hope I come anywhere between 3rd and 7th so I get a second chance. What about leagues that have promotion playoffs but don't award a random trophy for it? I've been consistent all along. 1st place and 1st place only. Even for Cup finals, I still would say winners only not runners-up (that wasn't being discussed here, although some others have referenced those although I don't agree). The only one I would say were 2nd/3rd could be is Olympics, not because I feel its different, but because that'd be more of a WP:SPORTS thing than a WP:FOOTY thing. RedPatch (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

So should those players that won the Europa League after dropping out of the Champions League get their honours removed too? Europa League certainly wasn't the goal at the start of their season, but they won the competition that was put in front of them. UTMP1887 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

also I get yelled at for removing play offs from brentford players, yet @GiantSnowman: can remove it from Morcambe players without being yelled at? brentford players still have play offs listed. this is getting hella inconsistent now. I'm also kinda worried if I start to go through the 200 seasons and remove all promotions I'm going to be banned, lol.Muur (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case then the double standards are ridiculous. And using "promotion honours are quickly forgotten" as a justification is even more ridiculous; any sources on that claim? UTMP1887 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not right that @GiantSnowman: removes these honours while this discussion is still ongoing. Also, as the editor who "yelled" at @Muur: for removing the Brentford honours, I wasn't aware of the Blackpool ones being removed, although I don't have the time or inclination to engage in mass reverting at this hour. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"And the promotion trophy was a made up trophy for that promotion game. How many teams will go into the season and say our goal is to win the promotion playoff trophy? No, the goal is to win the League One/Two title." actually, they always just say "the goal is to get promoted". the teams dont care if its 1st, 2nd, or 3rd as long as they get promoted. Like I said, that Trillian thing is made up by the teams. if man united beat man city and give themselves a trophy, it doesnt count lol. if the EFL make a trophy and give it, then obviously it counts. runners-up and play off winners are relevant for honours, they get medals and trophies and players talk about their promotions years later. no one would go "oh yeah in 2005 I qualified for the UCL that one time". winning promotion apparently wont be remembered, but the time a guy won best young player of the month in the cambodian 4th tier will always be remembered.Muur (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is clear here, and my removals were justified. Giant Snowman 10:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If editors (currently @Rupert1904:) could please stop adding these as 'honours' in player articles, when the consensus above is clear, that would. be grand. Giant Snowman 14:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this discussion before but I think a promotion play-off is worthy as there is a trophy presentation and all the players receive a medal. It's an officially sanctioned trophy by the EFL so think it's just as worthy of an inclusion as say the Community Shield which is a glorified pre-season kick about. But if there is a consensus not to include that is okay too as I also think it's not noteworthy to include the team that gets automatically promoted in 2nd place. Rupert1904 (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Second place teams *also* get given a trophy and medals and lift a trophy, though. people here said "trophies and medals mean nothing."Muur (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

So it's currently 5 supporting Yes the play-off honours should be kept, against 7 supporting No they should be scrapped. Is that really what counts as a clear consensus around here? UTMP1887 (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE (even though the numbers are in favour of excluding them as you say). It's strength of argument. Giant Snowman

So what exactly makes this such a clear consensus? Most of the arguments against seem to boil down to "promotion/play-offs isn't 1st place" which is hardly a hugely compelling argument. If you've spent any time following lower-league football it's obvious that fans and players care massively about promotion and they are hugely significant events in the history of dozens of clubs and the careers of hundreds of players. This discussion just seems to overlook the spirit of the honours section which seems to be to display the accomplishments of the player and not just their outright titles as evidenced by the many existing player articles which already list promotions and play-off victories. As people keep reiterating there are plenty of individual awards which feature and are certainly less relevant than gaining promotion. What is the actual goal of this change? UTMP1887 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

it's simply an admin not liking it. but I feel like that's countered by another admin, mattythewhite, disagreeing making it 1-1 on admins.Muur (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

When there's disagreement on Wikipedia, it's always good to look to see what other sites do. I'd like to point out that other sources don't view this as an honour - not that we use Transfermarkt for anything, but for Ivan Toney they only list his top scorer status and his Trophy win with Barnsley. Football-reference.com lists Jamie Vardy's EPL win and his player of the season wins, but none of his promotions (nor his FA Cup win.) Soccerbase doesn't list any honours. Soccerway.com lists lower league championships, but not promotions. Of the major database sites which might list player honours, none of them list promotions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

One of them not listing the FA Cup kinda throws the entire thing out for me.Muur (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In that case it should be noted that Soccerway records runners-up honours for league titles. UTMP1887 (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A quick look and they do indeed. they list second place in league one, for example which is uh - promtion.Muur (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Except they are doing that for EVERY league, so they are NOT doing it because it is promotion. They are doing it because it is second place. So like I said it's the same can of worms, they do second place for every league which is why League one gets it on soccerway, not because it is promotion. Way to ignore half of it to suit your point. Wikipedia doesn't do runner-up for league, so saying soccerway does it for league one is moot because they do it for every league including La Liga, Premier League, etc where 2nd is not a promotion. RedPatch (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The important thing here is that even though different secondary sites determine honours differently, none of them call promotion an honour. SportingFlyer T·C 10:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Bernio Verhagen

An alleged football player who has signed for four clubs but never played a single minute's football, surely Bernio Verhagen fails WP:NFOOTBALL? Mjroots (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

He seems to pass WP:GNG, with multiple sources talking about his scamming/fraud as well as his personal life and arrest. --SuperJew (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Salis Abdul Samed

Salis Abdul Samed is on loan from a youth team (JMG Academy) to a professional team (Clermont Foot). Is the current way the loan is written in the infobox correct? Or should I move JMG Academy to the senior career even if it's not a senior team? Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

A good question! It's fine for now, but I might include the youth team in the senior info-box with "(youth)" next to it just to make clear which team he was loaned from. SportingFlyer T·C 10:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I agreed. It's probably a good idea to (also) include the club in the senior section for clarity. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep, it's standard to include the parent club in the 'senior' bit. Giant Snowman 16:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Better referencing needed at Alec Ashworth and Lennart Askinger

Alec Ashworth has only one reference, and it is to a fan club website. If anyone has time to add a more quality reference that would be great as the subject appears to be notable. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Also the reference at Lennart Askinger is coming up empty with no content in the wayback machine link and a deadlink in the other link; essentially making the article unsourced.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashworth's article now has two high-quality references -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: Askinger's source is still live, but the publisher had changed its url structure (it happens, regularly). The wayback machine has a copy, but unfortunately not the one linked in the article (that also happens, far too regularly). Have fixed and tidied a bit. Struway2 (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Using football manager as a source

Seems fine to me. Their database is used by professional football teams like Everton. What do people think? Proper sources would be preferred but when it's super low down leagues like let's say the English tenth tier I think it's fair to use the stats from football manager.Muur (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I would not consider Football Manager to be a reliable source. The data is generally supplied by specific teams of users. SportingFlyer T·C 10:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

its still officially published information. I doubt it's wrong, SEGA wouldn't allow false information like that.Muur (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Giant Snowman 10:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hermitage football club

In 1890s there was a London club called Hermitage F.C. , we don't have any article for it, does anyone know anything about the club? Govvy (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the early history of Spurs (or Tottenham FC) - see this article about Stanley Briggs link (there are a couple of others about Briggs too). - Paul W (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

According to this "The player in question was Stanley Briggs, who started his career down in Kent with Folkestone, near where he was at school, from the tender age of 14 before he was brought to Hermitage FC in 1890. This club was morphed into the Tottenham Football Club, which was not the same as Tottenham Hotspur, a club he did move to in 1892." So a club from the Tottenham area, but seems to be pretty obscure. Never played in the FA Cup as far as I can see, and there seems to be almost nothing on the web about them (other than that they played Spurs in a friendly in 1886), so the club definitely fails all relevant guidelines in terms of getting an article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

heh, it's funny you mentioning Briggs, because I was working on User:Govvy/Stanley Briggs, that's where I got it from, but there was like little to no information on the club. Govvy (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It was probably one of the many amateur teams from London in the late 1800s. They most likely played at or around Finsbury Park. I can't find any other reference to them anywhere though. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Jack Taylor (referee)

I am in a small disagreement with an editor, (@Augustus End:) who is related to Taylor, as to his date of birth. Reliable sources claim April 1930. He is saying they are wrong and it was May 1930 and that the reliable sources are copying an earlier error in Wikipedia. Anyone know a definitive date of birth for Jack Taylor?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This is getting rather silly!

Would you like to see his birth certificate, marriage licence or death certificate? Augustus End (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Augustus End, it's not silly. This is about Wikipedia:Verifiability, a core Wikipedia policy:

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Official documents can be used to verify dates of birth/death for deceased people only, although it's still not ideal, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. If it needs to be verified then use WP:OTRS. Giant Snowman 10:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The family of Jack Taylor are flattered that people are still interested in his career. Not many people have relations that have obituaries published in newspapers around the world. Sadly, either a lazy journalist or a Wikipedia editor entered the wrong date of birth on his passing. Now, the family have to contend with the fact that there is a lot more erroneously published data out there, than the documents in our hands and the knowledge in our heads. Jack would find all of this rather amusing. Augustus End (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Augustus End: What exactly is your source for the other date of birth? Can you send a link to it? Upload a file? Something? Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: - Augustus can supply relevant documentation to WP:OTRS (as mentioned above) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m the executor of his wife’s will. I have their marriage licence, his death certificate and his birth certificate is with his daughter (my wife’s mother). Honestly, I’ve got better things to do than this. Augustus End (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Augustus End: I don't get if this an attempt to troll or if you're being serious. We have told you multiple times that you can verify your documents via WP:OTRS. You keep ignoring us, and proceed to get offended... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Augustus End: I understand how it can be frustrating to see inaccuracies appear, and your desire to have them corrected. Currently, your request has to be based only on your word written here above, and unfortunately this can be written by anyone (for example I could create a new account and change the date of death to one month ago and write that I am related). Therefore, to avoid a case of anyone saying what they want which could be wrong (if it's with some agenda or just for trolling), Wikipedia is supposed to include only facts which are supported by verifiable and reliable sources. The Guardian is of couse such a source. Even so, even these kinds of sources can be wrong and may have mistakes. In such a case, the relevant documentation can be supplied as said above to WP:OTRS. I would also suggest directly contacting the source (The Guardian in this case) regarding the issue and asking them to correct. Lastly, I want to assure you that the editors here are as interested as you that the information is correct and accurate as possible, but also to make sure that not any person with an internet connection will write whatever they want. --SuperJew (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m quite serious. I’ll send an email to one of the addresses listed under WP:OTRS. Augustus End (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Augustus End: - I'm not vastly familiar with OTRS, but I think info-en-q@wikimedia.org would be the best email to use..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an email address. This is the first time that I have ever been bothered enough to want to change what is on Wikipedia. The only reason that I care is because both Jack and Sue are in our thoughts at this time. Augustus End (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a brief update: I have sent documentation to the email address suggested. Hopefully, this will suffice and I return to focusing on Mrs Taylor’s estate and funeral arrangements. Augustus End (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

…and primary data is ‘less reliable’, apparently. I’m now going to dig out a copy of his autobiography, to see if he mentions his birthday! Augustus End (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Jack has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography:

https://www.oxforddnb.com/search?q0=Jack+Taylor&t=OccupationsAndRealmsOfRenown%3A1604

Surely, in the world of Wikipedia, this has credibility?

It corresponds with the documents that don’t seem to count. Augustus End (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you all happy with the ODNB? Augustus End (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

…and it’s been changed back again!

Why would anyone do that? This is bloody annoying! Augustus End (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

As you know, I emailed the OTRS address a few days ago. As I’m new to all this, they provided a few pointers, but I didn’t get the impression that they were actually going to help - I might be wrong…

As the Egghead person stated, I’m part of Jack’s family. So, I know full well his date of birth. I now know that this doesn’t count for much!

I think it was Robby that advised me about the importance of Wikipedia Verifiability. Jack has an entry in the ODNB - this is quite a big deal and not many people get the chance to have their lives documented in this way. Given that the biographer was able to state with confidence the very street in which Jack was born, you’d like to think that the date given would be based upon substance and is reliable.

We bury Jack’s widow in two weeks time. It would be nice to think that this could be resolved by 30th June. Augustus End (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added a footnote mentioning his disputed DoB and used the ODNB as a reference, but I would say that a member of his family directly editing the article does raise WP:COI concerns. Spike 'em (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I notice he released an autobiography, does that have any mention of his DoB? (p.s. I see you mentioned that above) Spike 'em (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I have expanded the article based on the ODNB entry, and slightly expanded the footnote. ODNB states "Taylor, John Keith (Jack) (1930–2012), football referee, was born on 21 May 1930 at 33 Sweetman Street, Wolverhampton, the son of Albert Taylor, butcher, and his wife, Olive Gertrude, née Lane." I wonder if the family have written to The Guardian? It has been zealous about accuracy, publishing regular 'Notes and Corrections' if information was found to be incorrect - if it now published a correction to its obituary, that, surely, would immediately be reliable? Paul W (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The most recent update is really well written. To avoid any potential conflict of interest, I won’t edit things again.

However, I would like to point out that Jack and Hazel had a daughter; the other three children were from Sue’s prior relationship. Augustus End (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

So, has the ODNB got it wrong regarding Jack Taylor's children from the respective marriages (re Hazel, it says "with whom he had two sons and two daughters")? Is there a published source with the correct allocation of children? Paul W (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If Guardian and ODNB both use May, then I think we should as well. Giant Snowman 18:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian has April not May.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The article now says April (cited to The Guardian), with the fact that the ONDB says May buried in a footnote. But surely the ONDB is a more reliable source than a newspaper article? I would suggest that the article should say May, with the alternative suggestion of April in a footnote..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of the FIFA World Cup [2] has April.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

it's not just the Guardian, the Telegraph and Independent obits also had April. Not managed to check being the Times payroll. Spike 'em (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I’ve emailed The Guardian. Hopefully they will take note of Jack’s personal details where Wikipedia cannot.

That might make things easier. Augustus End (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for moving this to May. There are sources that confirm it as May. I don't see the COI case here as an issue. Wikipedia discourages Conflict of editing due to the issue of neutrality. Neutrality isn't an issue here because there is nothing subjective here. Date of Birth is an objective fact. Augustus isn't trying to change content in the article, apart from the DOB, which to me seems a perfectly valid reason. I understand the issue of COI and have seen articles in the past with COI editors and have seen the issues there - this one seems completely different to me because of the circumstances. The only issue being raised is a DOB which is an objective fact and a reliable source HAS BEEN provided to back up the claim. RedPatch (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

And there are at least 5 reliable sources that use April (though we have little way of telling if any reproduced information from each other) Spike 'em (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If it helps, I’ll write to each of these publications. He doesn’t mention his own date of birth in his refereeing book, but may have done so in the other one… I’ll have to dig it out. No longer am I annoyed; I’m actually finding this whole thing fascinating! Augustus End (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

So in summary, both dates can be sourced to at least one reliable independent source, so the only issue is deciding which one(s) to trust over the other(s). Can we not just assume good faith that Augustus End is telling the truth when he says he has evidence that the date he is arguing for is the correct one and go with that one, with a footnote indicating that some sources give the other date? It's not like he is arguing for the inclusion of a date which isn't supported by any reliable independent sources at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this is sensible. Paul W (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If it helps at all, the 1939 Register (an official document) gives 21 May 1930: link to Ancestry.com, for those with access. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The 1939 Registry entry is one of the documents that I’ve already shared with OTRS. Augustus End (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree - change it to May. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that one source has got something wrong and the others have copied... Giant Snowman 09:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI - the Independent have responded already and have changed their obituary. The Guardian have also replied - asking me to explain my relationship. Hopefully, they will follow suit. Thank you all for the professional manner in which you’ve worked towards a resolution - I’ll try to stay clear of Wikipedia editing from now on! Augustus End (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Augustus End: - stick around, you might find you like it ;) Giant Snowman 10:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude has changed the article and its footnote so that the May date is now paramount. Pleased to see this resolved - and, echoing GS, @Augustus End:, please consider editing Wikipedia again - it is, as you said, 'fascinating' to be part of a community building an open knowledge resource, and more volunteers are always welcome. Paul W (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Good morning. The Guardian have just changed their article too! Thank you for all your help! Augustus End (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

…and finally! Nigel Farndale of The Times have just emailed - they’re also changing their obituary to 21st May. Augustus End (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

has! Augustus End (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Gennaro Gattuso at Fiorentina

Should Gennaro Gattuso’s spell ‘managing’ Fiorentina be in the infobox? Judging by what I can see, he left before his contract officially started. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 14:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@NouveauSarfas: I can see both arguments towards keeping or removing it. "Legally" speaking, he was never a Fiorentina manager, so a strong case can be made to remove the spell. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t have a strong opinion but would lean toward keeping it - there should just be consistency, see Marcelo Bielsa for an example off the top of my head. Also pinging involved editors @Chris Calvin, Angelo.romano, and ItsKesha:. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

If it's based on his contract not officially starting, should we remove Gascoigne's reign at Kettering as he never even signed a contract? And what about Leroy Rosenior's 10 minutes in charge at Torquay? And what about players on trial at a club? What about the "obligation to buy" used mostly in Italy, where a player like Ionut Radu can be owned by Inter, loaned to Genoa with an obligation to buy, and then immediately re-signed by Inter due to a buy-back clause (and then immediately loaned out to... Genoa!). He was officially owned by Genoa for a cup of coffee. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think since Gattuso's contract was rescinded before it started and before he played any games, the Fiorentina stint with Gattuso should not be kept. Gascoigne actually managed the team in several games so that stint should be kept, same as Leroy Rosenior. Trials should not count unless a player makes a competitive appearance with the team. Radu should have all the moves listed as long as he was legally the player for Genoa. I think the difference in Gattuso's case is that he was due to start in the future, not at the moment of the contract's signing, although I wouldn't be opposed to the stint being listed with a note or an asterisk.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I generally agree with @Ortizesp:. I think we should use a note citation for both Bielsa and Gattuso. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 15:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

All reliable sources are reporting he left after 23 days - Sky Sports, ESPN, The Athletic, RTE, BBC, Marca, FourFourTwo. The announcement of his appointment says "Il nuovo allenatore della Fiorentina guiderà la squadra viola a partire dal 1 luglio 2021", translated as "The new coach of Fiorentina will lead the Viola squad from July 1, 2021". That doesn't say "when his contract begins". He was appointed manager and left after 23 days. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Marcelo Bielsa case is a bit different. He was appointed after 1st of July, so he technically was a manager of the team for 2 days. Gattuso in another hand, had never started his managerial career in Fiorentina. And "will lead Viola squad from July 1,2021" for me means that his work will start from 1st, so he is not technically manager of the team before the date.Chris Calvin (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

His work with the squad would start from that date, as that is when pre-season begins. Why would his work with the squad begin at the end of May when the season is over? If Juventus sacked Allegri tomorrow, would you argue that he wasn't technically manager as it wasn't 1st July? All the reliable sources highlighted above say he was manager for 23 days. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

As somebody stated correctly, Bielsa's case is quite different. He was "legally" contracted as Lazio manager for a couple days, as the contract was signed and formally confirmed by the Serie A league. This wasn't Gattuso's case, as his contract was indeed signed but never entered into effect and never submitted to the Serie A football league (see [3] as one of many references you can easily find), therefore Gattuso never formally served as Fiorentina boss (which Bielsa technically did), and - on the other hand - never acted as Fiorentina boss in any way, may it be a football game, or even just a training session (differently than Gascoigne's case raised above). --Angelo (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't list it, as the contract never ended up starting.Muur (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - this was a pre-contract which never came into effect. Giant Snowman 18:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the SPLIT table used in the SQUAD sections of the Club manual of style

Use of this system seems to lead to conflicts with the mobile version of Wikipedia. Perhaps with Accessibility software too?

On mobile versions of club pages a user needs to swipe from the right in order to view the entirety of the squad. However, this action brings up the context menu.

In order to access the entirety of the table, the user needs to delicately slide their digit from the right.

Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Tables mentions;

Splitting lists and tables per summary style is advised against. Among other problems, arbitrarily splitting a wikitable effectively disables the powerful and useful sorting feature from working across the entire table.

Are there Accessibility issues with splitting the table?

Can Screen readers and other web browsing tools make use of specific table tags to help users navigate the data contained within tables when the tables are split?

I understand the design choice involved with wanting the table to fill more of the screen real estate in desktop browsers, but maybe there is a better CSS solution that can better marry both the desktop and the mobile version without the need to split the table?

A possible solution (adding more relevant column data);

Current squad

No.	Pos.	Name	Age	Nation	Apps	Goals
19	FW	Tema Templovic	(2000-01-01) 1 January 2000 (age 24)	Canada	32	2

Tamccullough (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tamccullough: See this lengthy discussion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tamccullough: Which was followed up by the discussion HERE. In particular, the issue is how to make a "responsive template" and if that was easy for me to do, I would have done it already. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Are you including style="width:75%" or any sort of property:value pairs like that? And why did members here decide to not use more columns in the table VS placing tables side by side as a solution? Tamccullough (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Tamccullough, Template:Football squad player is the more popular version which uses Template:Football squad mid to split the table to two columns. Template:Football squad player2 is the alternative that uses only one column. They both use table syntax (see Help:Table). What the templates are doing is building (wiki)tables so as to not force novice editors to learn the table syntax in order to create a squad list. In other words the template syntax is deemed easier for novice editors than the table syntax. The CSS used by these templates is kind of hidden from template editors. Template:Football squad start (or Template:Football squad start2) is the template used to start the table. Hope that helps. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tamccullough: You don't need to swipe from the far right edge of the screen though, just swipe from right to left in the middle of the screen. That shouldn't bring up the context menu. I don't know what device you're using, but it works fine on iPhone when using the Wikipedia app and all the browsers I've tested. – Pee Jay 11:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: But the discussion is closed, with RESPONSIVE (IF POSSIBLE) chosen as the solution, but without implementation, it is not a solution. What takes precedence? The league or the club. Currently, in pages for the Canadian Premier League, 87.5% of the clubs (7of10) use the single table format. I believe all the club pages should conform to the same style. I am both a heavy desktop and a mobile user. The split table breaks the ability to scrape the data from the desktop table (try using =IMPORTHTML() on Google Sheets with the split), and it is poor UI/UX design on mobile. Where can I go to discuss this? Tamccullough (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tamccullough: Please sign your comments. The two templates are still technically in the process of being merged, though as far as I can tell there are some technical problems impeding that (@Wbm1058: might explain the issue better). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Where do I go to help with the CSS implementation or other developer work that is required? Tamccullough (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tamccullough: Try contacting wbm1058 (talk · contribs). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tamccullough: I've taken time in the past to study CSS, but I haven't worked with it enough to become fluent. Wikipedia:Interface administrators are our users most fluent in CSS and JavaScript; you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard. wbm1058 (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

There are some default CSS specifications in the Mediawiki namespace. MediaWiki:Mobile.css – I don't know if that helps with this. I don't do Wikipedia on mobile, I like my widescreen desktop. wbm1058 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Matt Armstrong death date

Hi all. I'm currently expanding Deaths in 1995, and I am wondering if the article on Matt Armstrong has the correct date of death. This source cited in the article states he died in 2002. And this source says October 4, 1995. Given the discrepancy I am wondering which source to trust or if there was perhaps a mix up between two different athletes in the sourcing of the article? This isn't my area of expertise so I thought I would ask here. Thanks for any help in advance.4meter4 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Per the Scottish statutory register of deaths, there's a record for a Matthew Armstrong who died in 1995 but none for 2002. So I'd go for 1995. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The 1995 date is correct as per the new book by football historian Andy Mitchell, The Men Who Made Scotland (ISBN 9798513846642). Jellyman (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Article about Juventus' nine consecutive scudetti

An article about Juventus' nine consecutive scudetti would be notable? Dr Salvus 20:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It already exists - History of Juventus F.C.. Giant Snowman 21:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Martin Dubravka

I'm issuing an early warning over vandalism potentially made to the article as I saw he made a howler with a hand. Two edits at least have been made since the mistake. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it was semi-protected a few minutes ago. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Dr Salvus/Articles to be created

Are there users who would like to help me to create the footballers listed in this subpage? Dr Salvus 20:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

List of top international men's football goal scorers by country

Can we please get protection on this page for a day or two whilst Ronaldo fans / haters calm down?

Felixsv7 (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The best place where a user can ask protection is WP:RPP Dr Salvus 21:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Felixsv7 (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible that after a merger the new team to have summed up honours?

So long story short, FC Farul Constanța took FC Viitorul Constanța's place in the Romanian first division after a merger. Romanian legend Gheorghe Hagi, founder of Viitorul in 2009, agreed to make his brand virtually disappear in order for his youth club Farul to return to the first league, have shares in it and coach it. What I find controversial about this is that Hagi claimed that the new club will have both "Faruls's history started in 1920" and Viitorul's honours (three domestic trophies in the 2010s).

So, my question exactly—Is it possible that the club resulted from a merger to have both of the merged teams' honours? For the moment, me and my Romanian colleagues consider Viitorul disbanded and Farul promoted, which would erase the three trophies from the new club's honours.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 09:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@8Dodo8: What do reliable sources and/or the Romanian FA say? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: The Romanian FA or its officials haven't yet said anything about this merger, and probably won't anytime soon. The Romanian press hasn't discussed the issue of the founding date and the honours yet, they only act as Farul promoted to First Division and Viitorul got disbanded. When in truth, it might be possible that it is the other way around, and IS actually Viitorul who acquired the Farul name and logo. It's messed up a little.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@8Dodo8: I think that, for now, it's best to just treat it as if Farul were promoted, and Viitorul were disbanded (as sources say). If the Romanian FA comes out with a statement saying that Farul is the official continuation of Viitorul, then we will edit the pages accordingly. For now, we should stick to what sources say. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Ok, thanks for sharing your opinion on this matter. 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

So has Viitorul merged into Farul, or have they merged together to form an entirely new club? Giant Snowman 13:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: That's the issue, because we don't have a juridical point of view. They say they merged together to form a "new Farul", but actually they say the new Farul is still the old one from 1920 and now also has Viitorul's honours. I'm strongly considering that they try to hide that this team is Viitorul which changed its name into Farul, and actually is the old Farul which got disbanded, because the Liga I team kept Viitorul's players, instagram account, website etc. This would leave the new team with Viitorul honours but would infuriate old Farul fans.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 21:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like legally, Farul merged into Viitorul - the new team will continue in Viitorul's spot in the first division, with their squad, in their stadium. The name/brand/history seems to come from Farul on the other hand which existed long before Viitorul started in 2009. Funnily enough, Viitorul had more successes in the 11 years than Farul's whole history. It's a true merger though, executive and technical staff will be mixed, youth teams all consolidated into one. Kind of a weird one to be honest.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Football Winner Templates up for deletion

Check out Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_24 if you want to participate, things like World Cup champions and U-17, U-20 winners have been nominated.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 23:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

2019-20 Coppa Italia Serie C

I added the bracket of the knock-out stage. I am not well-verced with templates and I don't know how can I add the infos about the semi-finals which are two-legged. Please, could you fix the bracket? Dr Salvus 19:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Caden Clark

How should Caden Clark page be set up. He has just transferred to RB Leipzig from the New York Red Bulls, but will remain with New York until the end of the 2021 MLS season. I've seen several sources claim he has transferred to Leipzig and is remaining with NY "on loan". Here is a source from the Bundesliga website which says that. That is how I set the page up, but it was reverted with someone essentially saying it is a pre-contract. Although based on the sources, I feel like how I had it in this edit was correct. There is some precedence for how I did it, such as when Jermain Defoe signed in MLS, he remained with Tottenham 'on loan' for a couple of months and his infobox is recorded as such. RedPatch (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Your format is correct. Plus, it's not like we're dealing with any random source: the Bundesliga wouldn't randomly use the word "loan". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Giant Snowman 20:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

1972–73 UEFA Cup

I am just picking this one out of the hat for the moment, but I added some changes a while back to add citations and some of the missing data. So at this point [4] but now the current article, the missing data was entered, but the citations are gone. So... does the reports on each article work? It feels like a hidden citation, is there a way to echo the reports or change the code that allows them to show as citations? Would that be useful? Govvy (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Qatar SC

Recently, I came across several players who play/played for Qatar SC. I just wanted to bring it up here that I sometimes see in the infobox "Qatar" in the club section for the player's period at the club. What we should do is write "Qatar SC" in the club section in the infobox because just "Qatar" is ambiguous and can be confused with the Qatar national team. Do we agree? Or should infoboxes say "Qatar"? An example is Javi Martinez. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Same goes with Kuwait SC. I would personally keep the SC. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep, good points. Giant Snowman 17:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

2013–14 Sheffield Wednesday F.C. season

I'm tempted to remove the entire season review section. It is incomplete and has quite clearly been written by an impartial Wednesday fan. Would a removal be justified? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with having a season overview but that one is excessive!! It be better to strip parts out at a time if you ask me, I am sure there is some useful content there. Govvy (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It's ridiculously excessive. Eight paragraphs on pre-season?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That season is not the worse, omg, loads of Sheff Wednesday have stupid unneeded content that can be stripped out. Govvy (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD and take your machete to it (bit by bit)... Giant Snowman 16:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

NFT deletions

Can someone delete Mustafa Mohamed (footballer) and Mohamed Ali Mohamed (footballer)? Since I created the pages, national-football-teams.com have credited their appearances for Somalia to other players, thus rendering the articles useless since they have no international caps. Cheers. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 15:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@NouveauSarfas: Tag the pages with {{Db-g7}}. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

For the second page (Mohamed Ali Mohamed) you may have a little trouble using Db-g7, so I recommend using WP:AFD for the second one. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: Cheers, added {{Db-g7}} to both, for some reason, the AFD template didn't want to go through. Here's hoping they both get deleted. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 18:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

And just like that, they're gone in under a minute, appreciate it. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 18:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Henrique

Hello. Could someone verify the stats for Henrique (footballer, born 1994)? I don’t know how the previous editor wrote 192 apps and 1 goal for Vasco da Gama when Soccerway only has 156 apps and 0 goals for the player. Perhaps something to do with the State League? I need a bit of help here. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

State league stats are also included in the infobox for players in Brazilian leagues. However, Soccerway correctly has 156 apps 0 goals for BOTH league and state leagues, so 192 apps 1 goal are probably his stats in all competitions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Most definietely includes other competitions. Soccerway has him done for 156(0) in league and 29(1) for cups - total of 185(1), zerozero has him at 186(1) across all compeititons. Might be a couple other non-league appearances somewhere, but definitely 192 is a combo. 192 is listed in his arrival article here which mentions includes all competitions. RedPatch (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

they prob also just took 192 from wikipedia in all fairness.Muur (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and change it to 156(0) RedPatch (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

thanks everyone! Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Barca Residency Academy

Hello. I have seen several players come from the Barca Residency Academy in Arizona, such as Caden Clark. Should we wikilink to FC Barcelona/La Masia or just have no link? And should we include Category:FC Barcelona players? Paul Vaurie (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about linking to FC Barcelona. I would definitely not include him in the FC Barcelona players category. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather link to La Masia than the club itself, and no categories.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Giant Snowman 19:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Redlinks or Nolinks in Squad lists

When a player does not have an article (due to not having appeared in a match in a FPL yet), should they have a redlink or a no-link (ie. regular text). I've seen both ways and personally prefer redlinks, as it removes the need to fix the article(s)/templates/season articles later when they make their debut and get an article. I don't want to get into an edit war or make an incorrect change, so I came here for insight first. RedPatch (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd say no link. If you add one and the player never actually plays then you'd need to go back and remove the redlinks. WP:REDLINK suggests As with other topics, red links can be created to biographies of people who would likely meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. If player does go ahead and make debut then go ahead and add redlink before article is created. Spike 'em (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Spike. Redlinks could encourage people to create articles on players who are NN -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd say redlink. If a player joins and FPL club, the probability they'll make an FPL debut by the end of their career is higher than the probability that they won't. As it is, Wikipedia isn't that well maintained, especially retroactively, so if we can create something which will stay relevant for longer, that's preferable IMO. --SuperJew (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd also prefer to keep redlinks, as it is also very useful for the "What links here" tool. As SJ says, if the guy is in a club that plays in a FPL, they are very likely to make their debut at some point in the near future. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

For a football squad player who is not currently notable - no link. Giant Snowman 19:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with both, personally. I don't mind about this too much. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sable FC/Sablé FC

I don't know how this has gone unnoticed for so long: there are two different clubs located at Sablé FC and Sable FC. The one with the accent is located in Sablé-sur-Sarthe in France, and the one without the accent is located in Batié in Cameroon. How would we disambiguate these articles? I'm not sure what to do. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

They could do with hatnotes each pointing to the other, but I'm not sure why anything more would be needed? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Because we don’t usually type diacritics in a search box. Sablé FC and Sable FC must be disambiguated. See Talk:Eric Martin (footballer, born 1946). Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I just don’t know if we should move to the city name in parenthesis or the country name. Or both. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

They do not have to be disambiguated. Having closed many RMs over the years, I have seen several discussions end in consensus that diacritics are sufficient disambiguation. If you type Sable FC into the search bar, you see both clubs appear. Number 5 7 22:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I participated in a few RM on this. Basically the outcome was if one was to put the country as a disambiguator, so Sablé FC (France) and Sable FC (Cameroon). Unless one was deemed to be Primary Topic, in which case it would stay at one Sable and the other would get the country in brackets. Examples: Talk:Aurora FC (Canada)#Requested move 13 July 2020 and Talk:Pacific F.C. (Mexico)#Requested move 20 August 2020. In this case, neither appears to be primary, so I'd say both get country in brackets and turn Sable FC into a DAB page. I disagree with N57, every player situation in which two players had the same name but the presenece of diacritics that I've been involved in, they needed to be disambiguated. Example: Talk:Mamadi_Camará_(footballer,_born_2003)#Requested_move_26_March_2021 and Talk:Cristián Gutiérrez (soccer, born 1997)#Requested move 18 June 2021. A RM can be started for these to be more formal. RedPatch (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

They should be disambiguated, as a diacritic is not a standard character on an English language keyboard, so it makes finding one of the articles (the one with é) really unnecessarily difficult. For some reason, Wikipedians don't seem to like to disambiguate in this scenario though. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I started a Rename Request here: Talk:Sable_FC#Requested_move_29_June_2021 RedPatch (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Note, original consensus on this last year is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_133#How_to_name_articles_for_teams_with_same_name_in_different_countries? RedPatch (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Maxen Kapo

Hello. I am preparing this draft (Draft:Maxen Kapo) for an eventual first-team appearance of the subject in the 2021-22 season with Lausanne-Sport, who are in an FPL. Basically, my issue is when to end the youth career for Kapo. The scenario is relatively simple: he was a player of PSG from 2013 to 2021. Since he turned 19 in January 2020, the last season he was able to play for a youth team was the 2019-20 season, when he was a U19 player. However, in the 2020-21 season, he didn't play for the youth team because he's too old, nor did he play for the B team (because there is none). He made four bench appearances for PSG during the first half of the Ligue 1 season. What should we do? Include the 2020-21 season in the youth or senior career? Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

If Kapo was never called-up to the U19 squad in 20/21, and was on the bench for the PSG senior squad that season, his youth career should end in 2020 and his senior career for PSG should span from 2020 to 2021 (with 0 apps). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Any more opinions? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Appearing on a bench a few times is not indicative of being a first teamer. Keep it as youth career. Giant Snowman 19:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm reading he signed a pro contract in 2019, so wouldn't it make sense to start his pro career then? O caps from 2019-21 IMO and end youth career in 2019.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No, Ortizesp, pro contract means nothing in defining youth vs pro career, we have already established that. What counts is the first appearance, normally. But in the case of Maxen Kapo, he was no longer a youth player in 2020–21, so I'm unsure what to do. He was however a youth player until 2020. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean it sounds like he should be considered a senior player from those bench appearances alongside not being eligible for the youth team any more.Muur (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

If he was an active youth player until 2020, then stopped due to being overage, he can't physically be considered a PSG youth player post-2020. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good, Nehme1499. I changed the draft. Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

“EFL” Championship, League One, League Two

Hello. I have noticed that the template {{English football updater}} has an issue. For the Premier League, it’s just fine, but for EFL clubs, there’s a problem: it says “plays as a defender for Championship club Fulham” for example. It SHOULD say “plays as a defender for EFL Championship club Fulham”. Can we make a change to the template? I decided to bring it forth here before making changes.

My reasoning behind this change is that there are several Championships and League Ones, and it’s unclear. It needs to be unambiguous and clearly state the EFL Championship. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Coverage on football topics should not be English-centric in my opinion even if the game originated from England. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. Any other views before I (try to) fix it? Giant Snowman 16:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The template is primarily designed for use in club infoboxes. Do we really need to add 'EFL' to these? If not, it may be better to remove the template from player bios. If we do want to do it, you update the league names at {{ENGLs}}. Number 5 7 16:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The template has a very valid use in the opening sentence of player bios, as it exponentially reduces the amount of players wrongly assigned to a league when, in fact, their team has been relegated to the lower division. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

" very valid use in the opening sentence of player bios" vs the template instruction "Please only update this at the end of each season". So no it's not valid in the opening sentence of player bios. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

How do the two sentences contradict each other? Yes, the template should be updated at the end of the season, obviously. I don't see how that negates the validity of its use in player bios. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Also in club infoboxes it should have EFL, just stating "Championship" as the league Fulham play in on their page, assumes the natural inclanation is English (even the infobox on Premier League states relegation is to the EFL Championship). Also, I can even see a reasonable argument to write "English Premier League" instead of "Premier League", but that has both directions as the name of the article is "Premier League". --SuperJew (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't actually think adding "EFL" is a necessary disambiguation in all cases. SportingFlyer T·C 18:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: From what I've seen, the EFL leagues are the only league in which the actual name of the league is cut in player articles. We never remove "Scottish" from "Scottish Premiership", why should "Championship" be interpreted only as EFL Championship when even the article name is EFL Championship and not "Championship"? Also, championship is a very generic word, it applies to many things. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That's true, but there's also sort of a "primary topic" argument - the fact England called theirs the Championship meant everyone else followed after that. There's also a hint of obviousness to it - Sampdoria are listed in playing in Serie A, even though there are multiple Serie As - the EFL occupies that space in my mind as well, even internationally. SportingFlyer T·C 11:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

EFL should be added because it’s ambiguous, Championship could mean Scottish Championship, NIFL Championship, or whatever. Same goes for the other two EFL leagues. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Premier League also refers to many things --SuperJew (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No, because Premier League is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That is not the case with Championship/League One/League Two. Giant Snowman 11:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Depends where. In England, sure. Other places? Not so much. --SuperJew (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it literally is the PRIMARYTOPIC, that is why the article is located where it is. Giant Snowman 13:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I can say anecdotally that in other places, the "Premier League" or "Premiership" refers to the league in England, which appears backed by reports in foreign newspapers (I looked at the Sydney Morning Herald). SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

My view on this is that it should say EFL Championship, L1, L2 at the first mention but all later mentions just be Championship, L1, L2 alone. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say for all of them the first mention (lede, maybe first mention in the club section as well), they should all contain the name prior to the league, including English Premier League. It's only one extra word (or three letters for EFL C/L1/L2) and makes it perfectly clear. Seems like an easy way to prevent any future issue. In the future, what if someone says I don't need to write "Scottish" because the club is in Scotland/the player is Scottish, so it's "obvious". Also, it helps for the "less obvious teams". Sure teams like ManUtd, Arsenal, Liverpool, everyone will know they're in the England, but a team like Brentford, which is far less known, many people might not be sure, so the extra one word could definitely help. Just because something is a primary topic, doesn't mean it's universal. An extra 'one word' is minor, but would completely clarify everything. RedPatch (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that with the Premier League, it is "THE Premier League" as the official name. Whereas in EFL Championship, EFL is part of the official name. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The "official name" isn't always the decider though. North Korea is not the name of the country - it's Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (no mention of "north"). Yet, the country is always referred to as North Korea outside of that country, its also where the article is located. The same for Taiwan, which is not the official name (it's Republic of China). So despite being the official name, there is nothing wrong with referring to it as the English Premier League for better consistency. RedPatch (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Can also have the country unlinked so could write XYZ plays for XYZ in the English Premier League. Could also do for Serie A and write Italian Serie A. Basically uses the country as an adjective. RedPatch (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

but the Premier League can have Welsh clubs in it / the MLS has both Canadian & American etc. - using both country and league is overkill. Giant Snowman 16:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would use the article names. So, Premier League, EFL Championship, EFL League One/Two, etc... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree weith RedPatch - using the country is a fine solution, adds information, and doesn't detract anything (we don't have a word limit ;) ). I started doing this with the Australian W-League (to differentiate from the (now-defunct) American W-League). Regarding GiantSnowman's comment (which we can add Wellington Phoenix the Kiwi club in the A-League) - these are outlier cases and anyway don't affect the nationality of the league. Also saying "Taylor joined New Zealand club Wellington Phoenix who play in the Australian A-League" is fine and not overkill. --SuperJew (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding "English" to "Premier League" is completely unnecessary. The article is located at Premier League for a reason, it's the primary topic. However, EFL Championship is located at EFL Championship, just like EFL League One and EFL League Two. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew and RedPatch: if the article is located at Premier League, it's very clear that when we write "Premier League" it refers to this league. If there is another Premier League, like the Malaysia Premier League, then we will write the actual name Malaysia Premier League, because it's part of the actual name, whereas it is not with the PL. Paul Vaurie (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Could you please try and fix the template? Thank you! Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(Sorry if that came off as rude, it was not intended.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I've had a look and his beyond my technical ability! Giant Snowman 12:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The change has been made by Paine Ellsworth. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Indian Super League Organiser

Hi! I've been in a discussion with Sinan 2004 in the the talk page for the Indian Super League. The topic being "who organizes the league?". I'm on the side that the organizer is just Football Sports Development Limited and not the All India Football Federation, while Sinan 2004 is stating that they are both the organizers. His main argument, to me, seems to come only from the league website at the bottom where it says "League Organisers". There, it says the All India Football Federation, Reliance Industries, and Star India. My argument is that the league is either wrong, or is very loosely calling the AIFF and Star "organizers". For one, organization has been taken over by Reliance's subsidiary Football Sports Development Limited. This is not updated in that part of the website. Also, in the about ISL page, it says that the league is "co-promoted" by the AIFF, Reliance, and Star. I have also presented reliable sources which make it clear that the organizer is FSDL and not both them and the AIFF: sources such as Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, India Today, Scroll.in, Outlook India, Livemint, ESPN, Goal.com, Telegraph India, onmanorama, Business-Standard, and hell... even the league itself.

Could someone jump in and provide some opinions here or the ISL talk page? It's obviously at a point of deadlock. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

UEFA European Championship qualifying

Does anyone know if there's a particular reason why articles relating to qualification for the UEFA European Championship use 'qualifying' in their titles rather than 'qualification'? See Category:UEFA European Championship qualifying. Per Category:Qualification for association football competitions, the vast majority of our articles on qualification for competitions use 'qualification'. I would propose that the articles be moved to use 'qualification' for consistency, unless there's a good reason that 'qualifying' be preferred. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Start an RM. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

UEFA's website and regulations seem to all use "qualifying", far more frequently than "qualification" (examples: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]). S.A. Julio (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Al-Jaish

While editing, I came across the fact that there are two clubs named Al-Jaish SC, one based in Damascus, Syria and the other in Baghdad, Iraq. Now I see that Al-Jaish SC (Syria) is disambiguated by country while Al-Jaish SC (Baghdad) is disambiguated by city. Is there a reason for this difference or should they both be disambiguated by the same level? And if so which one should be moved? --SuperJew (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the correct disambiguator should be by nation. So, Al-Jaish SC (Baghdad) should be moved to Al-Jaish SC (Iraq). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 08:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Giant Snowman 09:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Moved :) --SuperJew (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Larry Sullivan

Does Larry Sullivan (soccer) meet notability guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.179.154 (talk • contribs)

Not notable under WP:NSOCCER but might meet WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps starting an AfD would be a good idea. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Nationality

So if a player is called up for a different international team to where they were born, but then never actually plays for them do we go with their birth place for squad lists or the one they were called up for many years before? so they're english and get called up for Nigeria, but don't play. then 2 years later they have never called up again. they also never played for any countries youth team.Muur (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

From what you're telling me, I would go with birthplace. But can you show us the article in question with this scenario? Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I would also go by birthplace (assuming they are a citizen of that country and are eligible to represent them internationally). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

We have a few precedence's: Michail Antonio is currently going through this. See also Ashley Barnes and Dan Potts. Generally the player is considered the nation of the country they were born in (and are eligible to represent) until they choose to represent another country. Even if they do not subsequently play for that country, so long as they are eligible then this should be absolutely fine to consider them of that nation. i.e. Ashley Barnes and Dan Potts both erroneously believed they could play for other nations, and when it was confirmed this wasn't the case they were re-classed as English. Antonio in comparison is eligible, and even if he never makes an appearance we have no reason to undo the change (unless he subsequently indicates so via reliable sources, or receives an alternative call-up). Koncorde (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

the player in question, Reiss Greenidge, was called up for guyana in 2019 but didnt play (was on the bench) and has never been called up again.Muur (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess there's a good argument to be made that, if they were at least called-up for Guyana, then Guyana is the guy's sporting nationality. Indeed, Global Sports Archive list him as being born in England and having Guyanese nationality. Same for Soccerway. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

yeah but lets say that in 15 years hes managing someone, and winds up never actually playing for guyana. would wikipedia be listing him as an english or guyanan manager? FIFA 21 lists him as English, though that matters less those other sources I imagine.Muur (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess Guyanan, just because he has more of a claim of having Guyana as his sporting nationality than England. I don't have a strong opinion regarding this case though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

If he was on the bench in a competitive game that in and of itself would be indicative of him being Guyanan for the purposes of footballing nationality. But reliable sources are our primary info we should be relying on. Koncorde (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

If a player born and raised in one country is called-up by another country (usually due to parentage) but never actually play, then use the birth place. Giant Snowman 21:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that. Let’s wait until he actually plays for Guyana to change the sporting nationality. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You know that is functionally nonsense GS. We literally have hundreds if not thousands of players born in Britain eligible to play for any number of teams from the British Isles and beyond. Eyeballing their birth place is not what we do, and shouldn't be a factor in their sporting nationality - verifiable reliable sources are - and if there is any confusion we do what we have always done: "born in England, but received a call up to the Guyana national team in 2019" or equivalent narrative description (as per Callum Harriott for example). Right now Greenidge is even in the 2021 Gold Cup squad.[12][13][14] Koncorde (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't even realise he'd been called up to the 2021 gold cup. I guess he's about to make his debut. so this is no longer relevant (unless he doesnt play i guess? but being in a tournement team seems like itd be fair to keep him with the Guyana flag anyway even if he ends up retiring with 0 caps)Muur (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Wembley Stadium

Can someone else deal with this, [15], Wembley Stadium is not a list article, we don't list every match, Flix11 refuses to add a paragraph and keeps restoring what i consider overkill content. This is already on the England national team page, on the tournament page, one or two other places. That's more than enough. Govvy (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Then delete all results from all stadiums. It is a pandora box. Flix11 (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

There are stadium articles, then there are list articles. Stadium articles are not list articles. Besides, you have all that on England national football team results (2020–present) and all the previous articles. :/ Govvy (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we do not need a list of all games/results at a stadium on the stadium's article. Giant Snowman 10:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Whilst not directly FOOTY related, the same article does have lists of games in other multi-national sporting events (Rugby League World Cup / 4 nations and Rugby Union World Cup). There is absolutely no need to list all internationals played there, but I can see an argument for showing just major championship matches. Spike 'em (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Also agree that it's overkill. I have reverted the addition of the table. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This is complete BS. Wembley Stadium (1923) has a full table of 1966 World Cup matches; Stadio Olimpico has the table of its Euro 2020 matches, as do Hampden Park, Estadio de La Cartuja, Krestovsky Stadium, Parken Stadium, Johan Cruyff Arena, Baku Olympic Stadium, Arena Națională, Puskás Aréna and Allianz Arena (i.e ALL 11 OTHERS); and as stated above, new Wembley has the significant rugby league and rugby union matches. Three examples of inconsistency and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The table should either be restored, or at least go to the effort to remove all tables from the other Euro stadia and the other sports from Wembley if you dislike it that much. The first option seems much more useful and less confrontational to me. Crowsus (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The alternative would be to create List of events at Wembley Stadium and put them there. Plenty of similar exist, and "There are stadium articles, then there are list articles". So let's make a list article for this stadium perhaps. Crowsus (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

For most sports stadia, we list the important matches that they host. Seems fine to me to list the Euros fixtures there. Every match would be an overkill, but the Euros seems fine. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

as the 2 editors above have stated, every other host stadium in the tournament lists the games, as does old Wembley for the '66 World Cup. Spike 'em (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to open an RfC on this issue? The edit summary accompanying Govvy's latest removal of the list says "already there was a conversation to remove it at WT:FOOTBALL", but I don't believe the above, fairly evenly-split, discussion can be considered a consensus in favour of removal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

What annoyed me more was the removal of perfectly good prose, first by Flix then not even noticed by Spike. Govvy (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

and your misrepresentation of this discussion annoyed me.Spike 'em (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

John McGreal

John McGreal on this page, an editor is claiming that his swindon contract didnt start until july 1st "using the precedence set by Gennaro Gattuso". they are literally not the same situation as McGreal left colechester on 14 July 2020. he was a free agent that was hired by swindon in may 2021. he was not under contract with colchester until june 30 2021, cuz there was kinda sorta another dude in charge of colechester. there was no contract they had to wait for him to run out and they did *not* state "he will join on july 1st" when they hired him, unlike what was stated with Gattuso. it is not correct to go "it works this way for this guy, so should work that way for this other guy too". he was swindon manager from May 26 until Jun 25.Muur (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Gattuso wasn't under contract with Napoli, as he'd been sacked. Fiorentina didn't say his contract started on 1 July. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

"Fiorentina didn't say his contract started on 1 July.". Yes they did. "Il nuovo allenatore della Fiorentina guiderà la squadra viola a partire dal 1 luglio 2021".Muur (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It appears none of those words are "contrarre". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

"SWINDON manager John McGreal has left the club after just one month in charge. The former Colchester boss was only appointed at the end of May [...] But the club announced on Friday that he and assistant Rene Gilmartin, who arrived at the start of June, had both left following the mutual termination of their contracts" - source. It is clear that McGreal's contract with Swindon had begun - whereas Gattuso clearly signed a pre-contract agreement which never began. Giant Snowman 08:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Also regarding Gattuso, I have re-added the source (Sky Sports) removed by ItsKesha which says 1 July was going to be his start date - and also added another (BBC) which says the same. Giant Snowman 08:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

So let me get this straight
1) Players only sign for a club on 1 July even if it's announced befor.e
2) Gattuso was announced to start work with the squad on 1 July, as that is when the new season begins (literally no mention whatsoever of when his contract started, and now you're picking and choosing which sources to believe about his departure). But OK, I'll go along with you and say his contract was due to begin on 1 July.
3) Greal's contract definitely started last month in spite of both of the above statements. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

1) No. Players' contracts (in England, anyway) end on 30 June, so they can't move under freedom of contract until 1 July, but players can be transferred at any time during the window. Rules about players don't apply to coaches or managers.
2) According to Fiorentina's announcement, Gattuso would start work as Fiorentina's coach on 1 July. It doesn't say why that date, and I'm not going to guess.
3) Neither 1) nor 2) have any bearing on the start date of McGreal's contract. It's clear from this message to supporters as well as from the announcement of his departure that he's been working as Swindon's manager during the last 4/5 weeks. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

there was no reason to remove fiorientina's statement, it still said 1 july. "The new Fiorentina coach will lead the Viola team starting July 1, 2021". but i suppose secondary sources are preffered over primary sources anyway i think?Muur (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

If it's clear from McGreal's statement that as he had been trying to sign players, therefore that means he has been Swindon's manager for the last 4/5 weeks, then it's also clear from Gattuso being let go for trying to sign players under Jorge Mendes' agency that he too had been working as Fiorentina's manager for 23 days. The statement about Gattuso's appointment mentions 1 July as that is when pre-season begins and when he'd then start working with the squad (la squadra Viola). Also, there's no mention of the word "contrarre" in the announcement. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Again - the Gattusso sources all make it clear his contract was not due to begin until 1 July, and the McGreal sources make it clear his contract had already begun. We follow the sources. Giant Snowman 13:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Again - the original Gattuso statement made no use of the word "contrarre", and sources post-sacking say different things. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:IDHT, thanks. Giant Snowman 20:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR, thanks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

All Italian coaches that have been appointed this summer have officially become head coach of their respective clubs on 1 July (Mourinho at Roma, and Giovanni Stroppa at Monza are examples on the top of my head). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Good point - hence why SkySports/BBC etc. say Gattusso's contract was to start on 1 July. Silly little things won't get in the way of ItsKesha disruptive editing though, no siree... Giant Snowman 08:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

History merge

Just found out two articles on the same player, Nélson Gama and Toni (footballer, born 1972). I think we should keep the infobox/display of the former (it has stats, a ref with a news article covering his entire career and beyond that), with the name of the latter per WP:COMMONNAME.

Attentively --193.137.135.2 (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, delete the latter, then move Nélson Gama to Toni (footballer, born 1972).--Ortizesp (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Histories merged at Toni (footballer, born 1972). Giant Snowman 08:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Push and run

I’m having a bit of trouble understanding the difference between push and run and give-and-go. Should they be merged? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like they should be merged on my side, curious that I can't find a connection to the two terms online though. Unless someone has some insight that we're missing?--Ortizesp (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Very loosely, give-and-go is a move, while push and run is a style of play with historical importance in English football, that exploits what is now called the "give-and-go" move as part of a quick-passing possession style that required much less rigid positional play than had been common. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that they can be merged, push and run can definetely fit into the give-and-go article under association football. Some irrelevant information can be removed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not convinced give-and-go needs any more than an entry in Glossary of association football terms. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Giant Snowman 09:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellent historical articles about Spanish football

A journalist called Alfredo Relano has written thousands of historical articles for El Pais and AS. El Pais has a free article limit of 10 per month but I'm sure people know how to get around that! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Guendouzi Le Classique

Hello. Mattéo Guendouzi was a youth player for Paris Saint-Germain. He never played for pro with them. He is on the verge of signing for Olympique de Marseille, according to Fabrizio Romano. Should we add Guendouzi to the “players who played for both clubs” section in Le Classique if/when he joins OM? Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that he played with both teams, yes. Giant Snowman 16:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I was just expecting a “no” since he wasn’t a pro for PSG. But good to know the answer is yes. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

German club common names

Hello. Shouldn't we use the English/international common names for clubs in Germany? I think the problem I am identifying is that too often I see "1. FC Köln" in the infoboxes of player articles. I personally think it should be just "Köln", like all other clubs we do for France, Italy, Spain, England, Bulgaria, or whatever. For some reason there seems to be a double-standard with German clubs, where "SC"s and "FC"s are commonly included in the infobox. Borussia Dortmund and Bayern Munich seem to be some of the rare clubs who omit the capital letters in the infobox name. What do you all think about this? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Also another example, why are we writing "1899 Hoffenheim" in infoboxes and not "Hoffenheim" when the international common name is just Hoffenheim? Same goes for Schalke, Stuttgart, Augsburg, and Freiburg. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above apart from, perhaps, the first example, due to potential confusion with Fortuna Köln, albeit a much smaller club. But yeah generally I don't see why the letters and full formats need to be in the infobox unless there is a possible ambiguity. Crowsus (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Paul Vaurie: WP:KARLSRUHER sets out guidelines on this which I tend to follow. The issue with just using "Köln", for example, is that it is ambiguous with "Fortuna Köln" and "Viktoria Koln" and I'm unconvinced its the common name anyway (much in the same way that an article about Newcastle United may refer to them as "Newcastle" more often than "Newcastle United"). The same principle applies to the others as far as I'm concerned ("Stuttgart" is ambiguous with "Stuttgarter Kickers" and the capitals in the other four convey meaning and are part of the club name in the same way that the "United" does to "Newcastle"). Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I've recently seen that Sir Sputnik (tagging them as they can probably explain better than me) has changed the naming display format on a bunch of squads pages on my watchlist, from something like Köln to something like 1. FC Köln, saying per WP:KARLSRUHER. Since I don't understand more about it I will leave the link and hope Sir Sputnik sees this and can elaborate further. --SuperJew (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I will add a question here though, and since I see now Microwave Anarchist has also bought the German guidelines would appreciate their thoughts. So for example "Barcelona" will usually refer to FC Barcelona, but is ambiguious with CD Barcelona Tarrafal, Barcelona Dragons, Barcelona Esporte Clube, Barcelona S.C., and San Felipe Barcelona FC. "Liverpool" usually refers to Liverpool F.C., but is ambiguious with A.F.C. Liverpool and Liverpool F.C. (Montevideo). "Juventus" usually refers to Juventus F.C., but is ambiguious with Juventus FC (Belize), SV Juventus, Clube Atlético Juventus, Atlético Clube Juventus, Grêmio Esportivo Juventus, Clube Atlético Juventus (SC), Juventus Atlético Clube, Juventus Futebol Clube, C.S.D. Juventus, ASG Juventus de Sainte-Anne, FC Juventus des Cayes, Juventus Managua, Juventus Corazón, AS Juventus de Saint-Martin, Juventus IF, and SC Young Fellows Juventus. I hope my point is clear. There are many clubs which could be ambiguous (and not neccesarily German), but we don't write the full name and rely on it being the common name. Sure, Stuttgart could mean "Stuttgarter Kickers", but 10 to 1 if you see only "Stuttgart", it's referring to VfB Stuttgart. --SuperJew (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The shortening of club names to exclude letter/number extensions only works in cases where the extension is not an integral part of the club name. In the UK for example, almost every club is an FC or AFC, so it makes sense that these extensions are not treated as the name in most cases. In Germany on the other hand, for a variety of historical and linguistic reasons, there is much greater diversity in the extensions, and these are often considered part of the club name. There's a reason the nickname for 1. FC Köln is Der FC. As such, shortening 1. FC Köln to Köln is much more akin to shortening Manchester United to Manchester, reasonable in prose where context is clear, but not when the name is standing alone like in infoboxes. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Liverpool, Barcelona and Juventus are international superpowers as far as football is concerned, far more notable than any of their namsakes, and they are referred to almost exclusively by their one word names (with the exception of FC Barcelona where the FC is quite commonly used and there is possibly an argument to be made about calling them 'FC Barcelona' in the infobox). The same is not the case with 'VfB Stuttgart' and 'Stuttgarter Kickers', where both are pretty prominent clubs (or were until recently in the case of Kickers) and full club names are most prevalent, with 'VfB' probably being the more common short name in German. So, in short, the FCs with Liverpool, Barcelona and Juventus are superfluous whilst with Stuttgart, it is an integral part of the name, like "United" is to Newcastle or Leeds, and to suggest that 'Stuttgart' is the common name for VfB Stuttgart and obviously refers to VfB is simply wrong. As a side note, the table on BBC Sport's website ([16]) uses full names for German clubs and short names for Spanish clubs ([17]), backing up my point about COMMONNAME. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

You might want to check the BBC German link, because it currently shows Stuttgart, Köln, Mainz, Augsburg, Wolfsburg etc for me - although for the promoted teams it has SpVgg Greuther Fürth and VfL Bochum 1848. I don't disagree with what the KARLSRUHER essay states, but there's clear inconsistency with the likes of France, where Lyon and Rennes seem to be what goes in the infobox (and is what BBC displays, FWIW) when their full club names Olympique Lyonnais and Stade Rennais also involve adjectives which alter the name. There are no more potential confusions with those cities/teams than there are with Karsruhe, Wolfsburg, Kaiserslautern or Nürnberg. The full names are more commonly used in German, but this isn't the German site. Crowsus (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

There's clear inconsistency with the likes of France Of course there are. Why would French clubs follow German naming conventions? There are going to be differences across national and linguistic boundaries, and we shouldn't pretend like there aren't. Consistency is not paramount here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but the inconsistency is with English, which tends not to use prefixes or suffixes unnecessarily for displaying football team names, except we have to use German native conventions but disregard others. Crowsus (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The preference to remove extensions is a British one, since almost all football clubs in the UK are FC's or AFC's. It is not consistent throughout the English speaking world. The conventions described in WP:KARLSRUHER more or less hold in Canada and the US. MLS clubs named FC City or City FC are not typically shortened either. We should not be applying a British convention for clubs outside the UK. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: I don't think this is just a British thing... in France we usually call clubs by their cities. Rennes, Lille, Strasbourg, Montpellier, Dijon, Troyes, Toulouse, etc. And this is a consistency throughout this whole WikiProject, we always use the English common names and we shorten club names in infoboxes & such. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, giving the UK or Canada as an example is not a great idea; personally, I cannot think of any clubs that have "FC" or "SC" in the names we use as common names other than New York City FC and Los Angeles FC, but those are to disambiguate with New York Red Bulls and Los Angeles Galaxy. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If that's what you think, then clearly you've not checked sufficiently. From my own experience, Toronto FC is far more likely to be shortened to TFC than Toronto. More concretely, a cursory check of articles on players for FC Cincinnati, Nashville SC, Toronto FC, Austin FC, and FC Dallas reveals the norm of keeping the extensions for those clubs. The same exercise for Sydney FC and Macarthur FC in Australia reveals something similar. The notion that removing extensions is a uniform English convention only holds when limiting one's view of English to Britain and Ireland. Consider the English speaking world as a whole, and it becomes clear that it varies from country to country. As such, the conventions is Britain and France should have no bearing on those in Germany or vice versa. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As Sir Sputnik said, North American teams all include the SC/FC as part of their common names. They are never referred to by just the city name, they always include the abbreviation. Their COMMONNAMES all include the abbreviation. So the standard for one country cannot just be applied to others. So cannot compare German with French teams, can't compare English with North American teams, etc RedPatch (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

In the end, all this chatting doesn't matter, it boils down to what the English common name for the club is. As for my knowledge, the English common name for 1. FC Köln is either Köln or FC Köln, VfB Stuttgart should be Stuttgart, 1899 Hoffenheim should be Hoffenheim, 1. FC Kaiserslautern should be Kaiserslautern, Schalke 04 should be Schalke, FC Augsburg should be Augsburg, and such. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This is probably true for German, but in the English language, the common names for clubs such as Stuttgart is without the VfB, etc. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree, I don't think we need the sporting abbreviation for German clubs specifically. This seems to be a minor stylistical preference though, so I'm not fussed to much as long as there's consistency.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with those that favour not indiscriminately implementing the "British" standards on any and all clubs and countries. Sweden is another country that more or less should use WP:KARLSRUHER, as the prefix/suffix forms a more integral part of the club name, differentiating it from other clubs using the the city name (or using the same non-geographical name). For example, five different clubs with "Göteborg" in their name have claimed Swedish championship medals: IFK Göteborg, Göteborgs AIS (though commonly known as GAIS), Göteborgs FF, Göteborgs IF (men), and Kopparbergs/Göteborg FC (women, "Kopparbergs" being a sponsor name). Another is the first Swedish club known by name (Göteborgs BK), and at least a half dozen more exist if you take a look down the pyramid. The same goes for other cities, where multiple clubs have visited the highest division using the same basic name (e.g. Malmö FF vs. IFK Malmö, IFK Sundsvall vs. GIF Sundsvall, Sandvikens AIK vs. Sandvikens IF, AFC Eskilstuna vs. IFK Eskilstuna, Västerås IK vs. Västerås SK), for some examples during the same season or in the same era.

There is of course merit to WP:COMMONNAME, but for most clubs outside the absolute European elite, is there really any actual English common name? Say for most of the Swedish clubs, how often are they appearing in English sources for us to be able to determine a common name (trivial mentions by news journalists just copy-pasting a club name from somewhere else doesn't really contribute to forming a standard)? Even for a club like IFK Göteborg (with two UEFA Cup titles to its name) a site like BBC seem to variously use "IFK Göteborg", "IFK Goteborg", "IFK Gothenburg", "Göteborg", and "Gothenburg". The same goes for 1. FC Köln which variously show up as "1. FC Köln", "FC Köln", "FC Koln", "Köln", "FC Cologne", and "Cologne" on a BBC search. I would much prefer that we do not remove prefixes and suffixes unless it is obvious that English media actually has established a common name (or if the club itself has done so), and until that is obvious treat the -fix'es just as we treat "United" and "City" for the Manchester clubs: as disambiguators when needed (i.e. in infoboxes, tables, results etc., but not necessarily in prose when the context is clear). – Elisson • T • C • 18:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I agree with that, let's keep the prefixes/suffixes for clubs when there is not an established English common name. However, I am sure there is an established English common name for all clubs in the Bundesliga, for example. Putting 1899 Hoffenheim in infoboxes is a bit ridiculous as I see it. Paul Vaurie (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

If we are agreed there are cases of an English language common name that is unambiguous, we ought to agree what those are and perhaps add that to the WP:KARLSRUHER essay. Off the top of my head, we already use English language common names for Bayern Munich and 1860 Munich. Of the current Bundesliga sides, any shortenings of VfB Stuttgart and 1. FC Köln are unacceptable IMO due to the ambiguity created, Hoffenheim is enough of a COMMONNAME IMO (and besides TSG Hoffenheim makes more sense than 1899 Hoffenheim) and possibly Freiburg, Wolfsburg, Mainz and Augsburg though I remain unconvinced (see my point about Newcastle above) whilst VfL Bochum seems to the a COMMONNAME to me. I still agree with Sir Sputnik though that we should not impose these British naming conventions on the rest of the world where they don't make sense. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

In the case of 1899 Hoffenheim, it's the club itself pushing that name, presumambly in an effort to combat its image as new money club. For the others mentioned, just off the top my head TSG Augsburg and Freiburger FC exist, so are also ambiguous. Because of the diversity of extentions in common use, shortening causing ambuity is the norm rather than the exception. In uniformly applying KARLSRUHER it's something we just don't even have to consider. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, first of all @Microwave Anarchist: yes, perhaps we should make a list of what the English common names are for Bundesliga/2.Bundesliga clubs at KARLSRUHER. Let’s discuss that on that talk page another day. However, on your mentioning of “British conventions”, I’m not entirely sure “VfB Stuttgart” is a common name for the club in any English-speaking country, for example. Let’s discuss that on the other talk page for KARLSRUHER.
@Sir Sputnik: Hoffenheim pushing forward the 1899 in their name doesn’t justify anything, the English common name is still Hoffenheim, and there is absolutely no issue of ambiguity here. By the way, please stop giving ambiguity as an excuse for not shortening FC Augsburg to Augsburg (for example); when someone says “Augsburg”, it’s 99% chance the club in question is FC Augsburg and not the other internationally-unknown TSG Augsburg. I’m not sure I understood your last two sentences, however. Could you rephrase them? Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

When you claim that the common English name is "Hoffenheim" rather than "1899 Hoffenheim", what do you base that on? The BBC team page is at "1899 Hoffenheim"[18], the The Guardian team page is at "1899 Hoffenheim"[19] UEFA has the team page at "TSG 1899 Hoffenheim"[20] (while the Man Utd page is at "Manchester United"), a Google Books search results in a wide variety of English uses of "1899 Hoffenheim", "TSG Hoffenheim", or "TSG 1899 Hoffenheim", Transfermarkt lists them as "TSG 1899 Hoffenheim"[21] (and follows KARLSRUHER in general), and on it goes. I am not claiming that sites never use only "Hoffenheim", but I am surprised by your firm belief that the English common name is just "Hoffenheim". – Elisson • T • C • 17:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Because first of all, "1899" is never spoken in the name as of my knowledge. People speak about "Hoffenheim" in the English world. The article itself says Hoffenheim is a common name of the club, and the prose refers to the club as Hoffenheim WITHOUT the 1899. A quick Google search will show you most articles talk about "Hoffenheim" and not "1899 Hoffenheim". I think that's enough to suggest Hoffenheim is more of a common name than 1899 Hoffenheim. Maybe in German it's 1899 Hoffenheim, but this isn't the German Wikipedia. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, just as people rarely ever would say "Brighton & Hove Albion", yet that's what we use as the name in player infoboxes etc. And just as people usually only would say "Real" when referring to Real Madrid, yet that's not what we use. And just as my club is rarely ever referred to in daily speech with the full name, but rather just "IFK" or any of the common nicknames. What people say is largely irrelevant anyway as we go by reliable sources rather than what may be undocumented common usage. What's most common in prose does not equate what we should use as by that metric I would imagine that "United" is more common in texts in total than "Manchester United", because as soon as context has been established (and the club has been disambiguated from any namesakes) a shortened name can be used. Just like our articles use the full name of the club in the title, but then you're good to use variants in the prose. But player infoboxes and tables are stand-alone and do not provide that context and disambiguation. In general I am a little bit stumped by the strong urge to make information less clear and user-friendly, even though the alternative bascially has no downsides at all. – Elisson • T • C • 16:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The question is what is more user-friendly. Tell the average person about Ronaldo de Assis Moreira, Edson Arantes do Nascimento, or Arthur Antunes Coimbra, they probably won't know who you're referencing. --SuperJew (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct. And when two names do not bear any resemblance with each other, it is a valid point. But don't try and tell me that "1899 Hoffenheim" would confuse people. – Elisson • T • C • 20:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Prob not, but "Turn- und Sportgemeinschaft 1899 Hoffenheim e.V." might. BTW, I'm not claiming either side on 1899 Hoffenheim vs Hoffenheim vs TSG 1899 Hoffenheim, just saying it's a balance and maybe not neccesarily a one rule fits all situation. --SuperJew (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Rowspanning in player international goals table

I see that some people tend to not rowspan venues and/or competitions across different matches, while others do.

Not rowspanned
No.	Date	Venue	Opponent	Score	Result	Competition
1	23 March 2014	Template Temple, Template City, Templatonia	Lebanon	1–0	4–0	2014 FIFA World Cup qualification
2	17 April 2014	Template Temple, Template City, Templatonia	Italy	2–3	2–3	Friendly
3	14 June 2014	Stadio Sample, Città del Campione, Modellandia	Italy	1–0	2–2	2014 FIFA World Cup
4	14 June 2014	Stadio Sample, Città del Campione, Modellandia	Italy	2–1	2–2	2014 FIFA World Cup
5	17 August 2014	Example Stadium, Example Town, Examplia	Canada	2–1	2–3	2014 FIFA World Cup

Rowspanned
No.	Date	Venue	Opponent	Score	Result	Competition
1	23 March 2014	Template Temple, Template City, Templatonia	Lebanon	1–0	4–0	2014 FIFA World Cup qualification
2	17 April 2014	Template Temple, Template City, Templatonia	Italy	2–3	2–3	Friendly
3	14 June 2014	Stadio Sample, Città del Campione, Modellandia		1–0	2–2	2014 FIFA World Cup
4	14 June 2014	Stadio Sample, Città del Campione, Modellandia		2–1	2–2
5	17 August 2014	Example Stadium, Example Town, Examplia	Canada	2–1	2–3

I personally much prefer the not rowspanned version, as each match is individually described, and isn't "linked" in any way to non-related adjacent matches. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Nehme1499, don't rowspan for this. However, if the player scores twice in the same game, you can rowspan. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Only goals scored in the same match should be rowspanned. That's best for readability. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the first one. The second one is super confusing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't rowspan unless goals scored in the same game - very confusion otherwise. Giant Snowman 19:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't be rowspanned. Almost annoys me as much as when division cells are merged. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy to see I agree with everyone above. I'd seen increasing prevalence of the second way and was worried it was a new consensus... The first reads far more logically and easily. Macosal (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Jordan Henderson

The page needs protection and all the recent edits reverting. I tried, but just keep getting errors. Govvy (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, good goal he scored and very enjoyable England game. Govvy (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You know it must be coming home when even Henderson gets a goal. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: Don't count your chickens just yet. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I still see that tackle by Moore, and when Linekar sscored, Bobby belting the ball and Nobby Dancing.

Probably worth keeping an eye on related pages and extra dillegence for the next week or two. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Page Protection for Chris Armas

Can we get page protection on Chris Armas. Coach was recently fired after a terrible stretch of matches. IPs are continually editing the page with vandalism. RedPatch (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Luis Enrique: Manager profile

Hi all: I added a rather substantial Manager profile section on Luis Enrique (former Barcelona, current Spain national team). Though, I've sourced it just about well-enough, Barcelona fans may want to give it a pass to see if anything important is to be added, and if any contentious statements are to be removed. Thanks. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Competitive results section

I had updated the competitive results section in a couple of national team articles to reflect MOS:FLAGS but was reverted at Bolivia national football team citing the section as it appears at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams (tagging @SpinnDoctor: who reverted me so they are aware). As a result, I'd propose to update the section in the Manual of Style to reflect MOS:FLAGS (essentially just removing the flag icons). I've just copied what I've done from the Scotland national football team article because it is a featured article. I realise there are some other minor differences than just the flag icons between the two examples below but I'm not fussed about whether or not those are considered right now, it's easy enough to add or remove a column or two. The main thing I want to do is ensure it is compliant with Wikipedia's established policies and this minor change would achieve that. The rationale is that not everyone knows what every flag looks like so not everyone will know where every tournament was held just by looking at the flags so they would need to click through to the article anyway. You've also got the issue in places like Oceania and the Caribbean where multiple national teams have at different times used the same or similar flags.

Current

Taken from Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams#Competitive record

FIFA World Cup record										FIFA World Cup qualification record
Year	Round	Position	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	Squad	Position	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA
1930	Did not enter									Was not invited
1934	Quarter-finals	6th	2	1	0	1	5	4	Squad	1st	2	2	0	0	8	2

Proposed

Taken from Scotland national football team#Competitive record

Year	Final Tournament							Qualification
Year	Round	Pld	W	D	L	F	A	Pos.	Pld	W	D	L	F	A
1950	Qualified but withdrew							2nd	3	2	0	1	10	3
1954	Group Stage	2	0	0	2	0	8	2nd	3	1	1	1	8	8

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that the flags should stay. They are an easy way to show where the tournament was played. Weather that is relevant information or not is another matter... REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

How does the proposed suggestion show where the tournament was played? If it doesn't, then it is removing information. --SuperJew (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: It's easy enough to add an extra column or change the piping to say Switzerland 1954 if we're desperate to include it. As I've said above, we're not really removing information as not everyone knows what every flag means so they would have to click through to the article anyway. Personally, I'd agree with Lee Vilenski and argue it wasn't really relevant and that the event itself is the important part but, as I say, it's not difficult to add it in in a manner that is compliant with MOS:FLAGS. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Sounds to me that the process of complinace with MOS:FLAGS and MOS:ACCESS which have been brought up a lot recently to remove flags, decorations, colours, etc. eventually leads to us having a Wikipedia which is walls of text only (with the only difference being blue links). While for some that might be the best, but personally I find such reading a lot more tedious than if it is punctured with flags etc. Of course we don't that overdone either, as has been done too, but I think this process of getting rid of it all entirely is not good either. --SuperJew (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Yeah, I know what you mean. A good article has images and things to break up the text and that does make it easier to read and understand. I'm not averse to colours being used provided they are of a hue that means everyone can still read what's there, unfortunately, that isn't always the case at present. Personally, I love a good flag and if it was up to me there would be more but I know what they all mean, not everyone does. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Well, not everyone knows what all the words mean, but we don't limit ourselves to a certain vocabulary. I'm sorry, but the "not everyone understands every flag" argument is very weak in my opinion. --SuperJew (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Completely fails MOS:FLAG. We should never use a flad to show explicit information... And arguably, the location of the event isn't relevant anyway. If it is, simple enough to add a column for such a thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Domenico Berardi ‎

The fact that Domenico Berardi is a forward as well as a winger is well sourced in the 'Style of play' section - but an IP keeps on deleting the mention of forward in the infobox and is using Transfermarkt as a source (!) which flags warning bells. More eyes on the page please as I am at 3RR. Giant Snowman 16:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we not just say he plays as a forward? He’s not a wide midfielder, anyway, more of a wide forward. – Pee Jay 21:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

"He has been utilised as a striker and as a supporting forward, although his preferred position is on the right wing" - so 'winger & forward' is correct IMHO. Giant Snowman 21:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, a winger is a type of forward, so we could just say "Forward". He's not a wide midfielder, he's a wide forward. – Pee Jay 18:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that we list Cristiano Ronaldo, Neymar and Kylian Mbappé, for example, as "Forward"s, and not "Forward, winger", I would just go with Forward. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with describing him only as a "forward" in the infobox/lede, and leaving the 'Style of play' section to go into details - but we definitely should not be removing 'forward' and leaving only 'winger' as the IP has been doing... Giant Snowman 19:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be my ideal solution. – Pee Jay 19:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Reserve stats

Do we include statistics for reserves in the infobox? Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 seems to think we do and is wanting to keep them in for Josef Bican, but I'm positive we don't unless the team is an active part of the pyramid i.e. FC Barcelona B and Real Madrid Castilla in Spain. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If the reserve team plays in the same football pyramid as the senior team (like in France, Germany, Spain etc.) then we include them - but we do not include standard youth/reserve stats. Giant Snowman 19:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Reserve team of Rapid Vienna is an active part of the club, as those years all big clubs had reserve teams. It's the same with Barcelona B of our times. It can be mentioned as a different club, if this your problem, but this is clear in the statistics table. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Did the Rapid Vienna reserve team play in the Austrian league football pyramid at that time? Giant Snowman 19:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

RSSSF, the main source of Bican stats nowadays (here), says they played in the "Liga Reserve". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Austrian reserve teams have played in the Austrian league system, see 2009–10 Austrian Football First League (after which it stopped for a few years) - but was that the case in 1931–32? The only articles we have about that season (that I can see) are 1931–32 Austrian football championship and 1931–32 SK Rapid Wien season, the latter of which claims they played against Rapid II in the Cup... Giant Snowman 21:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Aye there's no record of any other games, either Reserves or Amateur, on this Austrian football website. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"Liga Reserve" surely just by name proves it wasnt an actual proper league, but reserves only. This screams of someone wanting to deny ronaldo first place.Muur (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of any evidence showing that Rapid II/the 'Liga Reserve' was part of the Austrian pyramid, we should exclude the stats as we do for other players. Giant Snowman 17:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Please now kindly revert your edits unless you have reliable sources informing us of the contrary, Γεώργιος Τερζής 2. And "DON TELL ME WHAT TO DO. THE I DON'T GIVE YOU THE RIGHT" doesn't count as a source, I'm afraid. Thank you. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I've done it for them. Giant Snowman 19:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Show me your sources that say that reserve team and leagues of the 30s, 40s were not playing domestic league games. RSSSF is a world wide famous statistics source and include them there. Find something similar. Don't forget that FIFA recognised 805 goals at the time (25 of September) the RSSSF number for Bican was 805+ goals, which means that recognised the whole "package". In an other case they will not do that. UEFA recognised 518 top division goals when RSSSF claimed for 537. SO YOU HAVE TO FIND A SOURCE, NOT ME. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

No, the WP:BURDEN is on you to make the change, not us. See WP:CONSENSUS as well. Giant Snowman 19:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) @Γεώργιος Τερζής 2: The onus is on you to provide a source showing that Rapid Vienna's reserve team played senior football, in the Austrian football pyramid. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

BYE BYE..... Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

AND THE RECOGNITION OF FIFA IS THE SOURCE. CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? OF COURSE NOT.... Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop shouting. If you learned to speak civilly... Giant Snowman 20:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Albania–Serbia football rivalry

How on Earth can this be a rivalry when there has only ever been two meetings?? Govvy (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I would imagine it's because Albania and Serbia have a historical rivalry outside of football, and this article goes into how their rivalry extends into the football sphere? – Pee Jay 19:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not against the concept of the article, though it definitely needs more context and information, rather than it being just a summary of Serbia v Albania (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If they've played twice ever, it doesn't warrant a separate article. One of those matches already has an article, and the other one doesn't seem significant. The politics between the 2 countries is explained at Serbia v Albania (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying), and seems to be the only reason why this called a "rivalry". But on the pitch, there isn't enough data to create a separate article on this. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Admin request for Zafuan Azeman (footballer)

Please could an admin move Zafuan Azeman (footballer) to Zafuan Azeman? The article was salted but it looks like the footballer now at least passes WP:NFOOTBALL so the article should be moved to its correct title. Thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Done, and history restored. Article needs improving/categories etc. Giant Snowman 10:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Number of team rosters in association football at 2020 Summer Olympics

Hi. Please see and join the following discussion related to association football at the 2020 Summer Olympics:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Number of team rosters in several sports at 2020 Summer Olympics

Thanks. --Phikia (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Cheshire County League season by season

Are the seasons of Cheshire County League inherently notable enough to warrant individual articles? For example, 1967–68 Cheshire County Football League and 1966–67 Cheshire County Football League are existing articles. Is anyone able to locate significant coverage outside of RSSSF? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Not that this directly answers the question, but prior to 1968, the CCL was at the highest level of non-League football in its area, right below the Football League..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah right, fair enough. That explains why quite a lot of big clubs have passed through the league. There probably would have been some decent newspaper/book coverage then I'd have thought. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Players will not actually be released until their contracts end on 30 June 2021

Yes, we're at that point when Football League clubs are starting to announce retained/released lists. Just a polite reminder that in 99% of cases players remain contracted until 30 June 2021, so they will be released only then. Please do not remove them from 'current squad' lists or similar until that time. Giant Snowman 14:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

technically they're released on July 1st, since June 30th is the final day of their contracts.Muur (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. The point is they are not released now. Giant Snowman 10:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Moreton Rangers

Can somebody move Moreton Rangers to Moreton Rangers F.C.? I've tried, but it's not letting me (presumably because it's a redirect). I could always copy and paste the contents to the article to the F.C. page, but would lose the edit history. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 15:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@NouveauSarfas: You should generally request these kinds of moves at WP:RMT. Manually copying and pasting should never be done. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, just requested a move. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 15:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Enis Bardhi

I'm on three reverts so would someone mind reverting the recent IP changes to Enis Bardhi, which were not in line with WP:MOSMAC. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. Giant Snowman 17:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, would you mind reverting this? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverted, and named account now blocked for 3RR - thanks also to @PeeJay: and @Spike 'em: for their reverts, and to @Ponyo: for protecting the page. Giant Snowman 10:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thanks, though it looks like the fun hasn't stopped yet. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sock reverted and blocked per WP:DENY. Giant Snowman 18:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

U23 or U22?

(Continuation of this discussion with RedPatch) In Asia, youth national teams are divided into three teams: U17, U20, U23. The issue is that it's very common to see, for example, U18 or U22 Asian NTs playing each other (in official or unofficial friendlies, or even in official competitions). This is all a matter of nomenclature: the Lebanon U19 and U20 teams are the exact same, with the same technical staff. The AFC U-20 Asian Cup was called AFC U-19 Championship until last year, but they are the same competition.

Two points: if someone had played 3 games in the U19 Asian Cup, then 2 games in the U20 World Cup, should they have 3 U19 caps and 2 U20 caps in the infobox, or 5 U20 caps? I would argue for the latter, as the team is the exact same (unlike UEFA youth NTs, for example). Also, what should be done in prose? Should we say "represented the U19 national team in the U19 Asian Cup, and the U20 NT in the U20 World Cup" (so, using the correct "labels") or "...the U20 NT in the U19 Asian Cup and U20 World Cup" (to emphasize that the team is the same)?

The fact that there are only three teams is further noted in Arabic, where there are three names for the youth NTs: "olympic", "junior", "youth". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 06:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Go by what sources say. Personally, I'd keep each age group separate whether it's U19, U20 or whatever. I know what you're getting at when you say it's the exact same team but it isn't really, it's just players in one age group moving up to a different age category. The eligibility doesn't change because it's players born after x so they will be 19 in year one and 20 in year two (or younger). That does happen in UEFA as the U19s qualify for the U20 World Cup in the same way. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

and this year there's even U24 teams to muddle shit up even further.Muur (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Any other opinions? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I would go with the 'new field for each name' as Stevie fae Scotland has said. Its easier to keep track of the caps etc if you're looking for a specific name of the team on stats sites, more straightforward than adding some together and then having to add a note or something saying "this was actually the U19 team playing in an U20 tournament" or whatever for every player, nation, level and tournament, even though that might be the more logical description for what actually happened when you're focusing on one specific progression. Crowsus (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll be bold and start separating U19 and U20, U22 from U23, etc. from now on. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

We need to find something that tracks U24, cuz thats what the current olympics is using for one off.23:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I've seen some pages where it's listed as "Country Olympic", so that's one option instead of U23 (I think I've seen that more for the three "overage players", for example Ryan Giggs and Neymar both use "Country Olympic" RedPatch (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say the current Olympics is basically the U23, just with an exception to age limits due to the circumstances. --SuperJew (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

some countries are calling it an U24 team. here they refer to japan and Jamaica as U24. im curious as to if these players caps have been counted or not. Takefusa Kubo scored in this game, and yet his youth stats are listed as ending with the U22??? so not even U23, never mind U24.Muur (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I added the missing stats for the players who are listed as having played in U24 matches, though I listed them as U23. but this was only for japan. lots of teams will be missing these statsMuur (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability of players who have played in the amateur era of professional leagues

Are they notable? Dr Salvus 09:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have examples? If you are talking about an amateur player who played during a time when we consider the league 'fully-pro' (and outliers like that do pop up every now and again) then I have always considered them to meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, this is an example: Domenico Donna played for Juventus in the 1900s. He made 30 appearances in the Italian league who wasn't professional at that moment. Is he notable? Dr Salvus 10:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If the league isn't professional, then they'd have to meet WP:GNG. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Who wasn't professional - him and/or the club and/or the league? Giant Snowman 10:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, the league wasn't professional. Maybe, he meets GNG beacuse he had significant coverage Dr Salvus 10:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If the league was not fully-pro, then like Lee says, GNG has to be met. Giant Snowman 10:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

30 games in 10 years sure doesnt sound notable...Muur (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

10 year career at a historic club sounds notable to me. This might not count cup competitions as well.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

well they werent notable at the time. should a player from when man city were non league get a page cuz now theyre a big team?Muur (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The article says he was a co-founder so there's probably notability there somewhere. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we get page protection on Ayo Akinola

Ayo Akinola has filed his one-time switch to join Canada from the USA today (an hour ago). The page has been updated to note this, I've put a note in the <-- --> to not add it to the infobox with Canada 0(0) until his first cap, but several IPs have done it in the past hour. Can we get temporary page protection for 24-48 hours. RedPatch (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Done for 1 week, to be on the safe side. Giant Snowman 21:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GS RedPatch (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

IP just reverted now that protection expired. He should be making his debut on the July 11th or 15th once the tournament starts. RedPatch (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Alessandro Venezia looking fishy

Alessandro Venezia could use a few more eyes. Tim.1944.Au (talk · contribs), a WP:SPA editor, has repeatedly attempted to insert unsourced and poorly sourced content. See my post on the article Talk page (Talk:Alessandro Venezia) for some examples of what's going on. Reminds me of Bernio Verhagen… Robby.is.on (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Before write something and search a fake website, make sure to know what you edit :) just watch more live football so you will understand better . Who is Bernie Verhagen ? I don’t know him that’s why I don’t update . Wikipedia guys is something serious , we must to provide a proper information and not to be against each other or do something personal . Advice , Be more relax and enjoy the life . Take care my friend Tim.1944.Au (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This source (via Google Translate) says he renewed contract for Miami in May 2018- but doesn't say which one. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: This particular source basically repeats all the fake stats (caps and goals) that Tim.1944.Au repeatedly tries to add but in prose. None of these stats check out by proper stats sources like Soccerway, which makes that article a highly unreliable source. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Deffo. A block is overdue: WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:CIR, WP:SOCK, WP:IDHT, it's all there. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Unusual high alert count

Has anyone else had a bizarre high count of alerts (the white number on a red rectangle) when logging in... I have received plenty of them from multiple wikis and meta from "you know who". Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

All quite here. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I was exploring what vandalism occurred on the other wikis and found some other users have been affected with vandal messages from three sockpuppets than others, some frequently targeted. The vandal has also popped up at Tagalog and Portuguese wikis, the latter I want the existing talk page deleted. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they're pestering me at Meta and Tagalog. Pathetic. Giant Snowman 15:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Ditto for me. I changed my global preferences (as it was emailing me everytime someone posted on a talkpage anywhere), and now just ignoring it/ other people seem to be reverting it. I literally don't care what my talkpage on Tagalog Wikipedia says. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The original registered account had uploaded another three now deleted photos; I have no idea on what they were but I suspect they are photos of subjects of long term vandalism judging by the captions below the red links (see here for an example). Thankfully on a much lighter note, I noticed the affected articles are protected for a few months (by then lockdown should be a thing of the past before these protections expire). Hopefully that would end the mayhem caused by 'you know who' for many weeks. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

One-time switch and nationality

I know by default we typically go by 1)national team represented then 2)nation of birth when identifying a player's nationality on squad lists. What about the situation in which a player has officially filed a "FIFA one-time switch", but has yet to play for the new nation. Would we use the last national team represented or use the new national team with the one-time switch, if this new national team can be well-sourced? I saw an edit-war (I'm not involved) which is based on this topic. RedPatch (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

As we did with Aymeric Laporte - use the country of birth, not the country they have 'switched' to, until they play for the latter internationally. Giant Snowman 17:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

...assuming the player is a citizen of the country they were born in. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Julio Cesar

Is there a specific reason why Julio Cesar gets disambiguated as Júlio César (football goalkeeper, born 1979) using "football goalkeeper" instead of just "footballer"? There's no other ones with 1979 at Julio_Cesar#Players. Should it be footballer or just leave as is at football goalkeeper? I don't recall ever seeing it as football goalkeeper on other pages, but I guess with the sheer number of players with that name it does help a bit I guess RedPatch (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I probably should've checked that talk page before posting. The current name is the result of a previous move discussion Talk:Júlio_César_(football_goalkeeper,_born_1979)#Move_to_Júlio_César_Soares_de_Espíndola. Never mind I guess RedPatch (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It should be Júlio César (goalkeeper, born 1979) and Júlio César (midfielder, born 1979) IMHO. Worth a new RM? Giant Snowman 17:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

There are other sports that have goalkeepers. Also, the ex-Inter player is obviously the primary topic between the two: doesn't that count for something? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

What other articles are there about goalkeepers born in 1979? I can't see any listed at the Julio Cesar dab page. Giant Snowman 18:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

CONMEBOL

why is there so much north america stuff on here? this is south america. NA is covered by CONCACAF.Muur (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Muur Because of IP vandalism. I have reverted back to what I believe is the last clean version. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Transfer pages format

Hi, I remember this being discussed, but can't recall the final consensus. What do we think of pages which list the transfers per club (such as List of German football transfers summer 2021)? In my opinion this creates a redundant duplicity for every transfer which is between two clubs in the relevant league (in this example any two clubs in the Bundesliga and 2. Bundesliga). --SuperJew (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

O, I hate that format, it's horrible. We really need to stick to one format. What also I want to see is at the top a way to switch back and forth between all the transfer windows. Govvy (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. A sortable table makes so much more sense. And something like what we have at Scotland national football team results (2000–2019) to navigate between the transfer windows would be very helpful. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

To me the chronological order of List of Italian football transfers summer 2021 makes the most sense. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. Chronological order is not all that useful here and removes a fair bit of context that you get in the grouping by club. To take a random selection from the Italian list, the fact that the Alex Cordaz and Andrea Danzi transfers happened on the same day is not all that important in the grand scheme of things. However, a reader might reasonably wonder if Crotone have signed anyone to replace their starting goalkeeper (assuming they even realize that Cordaz is a goalkeeper, since that context is also missing). Grouping transfers by club would make it clear that they haven't yet. This format places transfers that are related close together, and provides clear information on the year-on-year change in each club's squad. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The table in the Italian summer transfers 2021 is also sortable, meaning that if you wanted to know Crotone's purchases you could just sort the "Moving from" column. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

There are two problems with that argument. First, we should make the reader go looking for context. For context to be useful, it needs to be presented by default. Second, sorting only gets you the incoming or outgoing transfer for a particular club. You cannot get the year-on-year squad change for a particular club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, as said the table is sortable so the information can be presented as wanted by the reader. Secondly, if a reader is interested in a certain club, they should got to that club's season page. The duplicity is very redundant in the case of listing per club and in general the format doesn't look very good. --SuperJew (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Exactly right. The use of {{fs start}} and its family of templates for lists of transfers is a case of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Why on earth are players' squad numbers relevant? Why are you sacrificing the date and transfer fee for unnecessary duplication of info? It boggles the mind. – Pee Jay 19:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Although that's a far better article than the German one, still, you shouldn't have loans and transfers in the same table. They should be separate tables. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: Why shouldn't loans and transfers be in the same table? --SuperJew (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Because a loan is not a transfer! Govvy (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Technically. But the average reader wants to know which player left clubs and joined clubs and aren't interested in the technical status of it as much. As you can see with every season preview in the media which has for clubs an "in" and "out" section. --SuperJew (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I highly doubt that. The average reader would want clear and precise information, not a mixture of information strung together without much thought for what the data is! Govvy (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you're basing off, but here are some actual examples: Skysports - Ceballos' loan from Real to Arsenal is right there between Cedric joining permanently and Runarsson transferring from Dijon, Transfermarkt, BeSoccer. --SuperJew (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Not my fault that other websites do it that way. It's one way of doing it, but I don't think it's the right way. Govvy (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: Well Wikipedia is written based on verifiable reliable sources, not on what an editor thinks. --SuperJew (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to consider off-wiki examples, I need only point out that both Transfermarkt, perhaps the largest transfer focused site out there, and Sky Sports format their lists the same way the German one does. It's pretty clear that major publishers in this subject area (Sky, Springer) don't see duplication as a problem, and do see grouping by club as worthwhile. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Or we could look at the BBC's lists of transfers (June 2021) and see that they're listed chronologically with no duplication of info, as well as the inclusion of the transfer fee. I'd also like to point out that they don't include the ends of loans in their lists of transfers; I've always been perplexed as to why other countries seem to think a player returning from a loan spell counts as a transfer. Finally, I have no particular preference when it comes to merging the tables of loans and transfers, but having them separate does have one benefit: you can remove the "Fee" column (usually redundant for loans) and add a column indicating the end date of the loan, which would totally negate the need to mention "loan returns" in these lists. – Pee Jay 19:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: Perhaps we shouldn't be calling it "transfers", but rather "player movements". But point of the matter is that at the end of a loan, player X moves from team B to team A, and is therefore relevant if we want to know player movements. Personally as a fan, and from interactions on the web with other fans I'm sure a lot more fans share my view, —when I look at such a listing I want to know which players left my club and which players joined, whether they transferred, went on loan, returned from loan, reached the end of their contract and didn't extend, or mutually terminated their contract. --SuperJew (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I think calling it anything other than "Transfers" would be unnecessarily opaque. If someone is looking for their own club's roster changes, they should be looking at that club's season article, not a general list of transfers. In this case, we're really just listing players who have joined a new club, hence no retirements or releases. As for loan returns, a player returning from a loan is par for the course, so no need to mention it as a "transfer" per se. – Pee Jay 19:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

when I look at such a listing I want to know which players left my club and which players joined. This is precisely my point. This is why other sources group their transfer lists by club, and why I'm arguing we should do the same. The ones that don't, like the BBC, tend to be news sources. With a much greater focus of reporting transfers as they occur, chronological ordering makes sense for news source, but less so for an encyclopedia. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

So you press a button and it sorts it by club. What's the issue? --SuperJew (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec) If you want to know your club's specific ins and outs, look at your club's season article (or use the sortability function). You're arguing to sacrifice the dates and fees in favour of repeating info unnecessarily. The benefits of the format you're arguing for are far outweighed by the one we should be using. – Pee Jay 22:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

As I've already said, the issue is two fold. If year-on-year squad changes is what readers are coming to the list for, we should not make them go looking for it, and sorting only gets you either the incoming or the outgoing transfers, but not both. In a sortable table you cannot easily see who replaced who. The exact chronological order not really matter in the grand scheme of things and actively obscures context that readers are likely to want. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

But I don't think people are going to that article for individual clubs' year-on-year squad changes. That article is just meant to be a list of the transfers that took place in a given transfer window. If readers want the transfers for a specific club, they should go to that club's season article, or use the sort function in the table. – Pee Jay 13:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pelotas: You might find this discussion useful in relation to your work on the Belgian transfers. Perhaps consider migrating your userspace work to the mainspace if we can come to a conclusion here. – Pee Jay 18:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC) (Thanks for the ping... Following this now. Not much new, but understand both views. It's not black or white, but just hard to meet in the middle. Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 10:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC))

Player movements? @SuperJew: I am with PeeJay on this, with loans you have some different information like a return date. A different table makes use of the different headings you can have. I feel it's cleaner and clearer to separate the two. Govvy (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Addition of data to Cristiano Ronaldo

I User:Leesjy2k have been trying to include the following relevant information regarding Cristiano Ronaldo’s transfer to Juventus. However, this useful information has been unnecessarily reverted by User:Nehme1499, he or she claimed that it was unnecessarily specific. However, I was directly citing from relevant press articles. The mentioned that Cristiano Ronaldo was faster than Kylian Mbappe at the 2018 FIFA World Cup (according to the official stats from FIFA themselves), it was not my own words. These stats are all relevant when noting about his performances in his 30s. I hope to re-include this into the Cristiano Ronaldo page soon, as this was an improvement on the article that was unnecessarily reverted by just one editor. I would like any commenters for this issue.

At the medical examination required to complete the transfer, his medical showed that Ronaldo, who was then a 33-year-old, had the physical age of a 20-year-old as he possessed 7% body fat, when the average for a professional footballer of the same age was 10%, whilst 50% of his body was made up of muscle mass, compared to 46% on average.^[1]^[2]

Ronaldo, then 33-years-old, was noted to be the fastest player at the 2018 FIFA World Cup tournament, reaching 33.98 kilometres per hour, faster even than the then-19-year-old teenager Kylian Mbappe.^[3]^[1] Leesjy2k (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The editor who has been amending my good faith and beneficial contributions is Nehme1499, whilst the relevant article is Cristiano Ronaldo Leesjy2k (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY applies, as does WP:TRIVIAL. Giant Snowman 09:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is also open on Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo; should it be closed there? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Keeping at the article talk page, rather than here, is preferable. Giant Snowman 14:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:FORUMSHOPPING are probably also worth a read. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b "Italy - Serie A: Cristiano Ronaldo's body has the physical age of a 20-year-old". MARCA in English. 2018-07-23. Retrieved 2021-07-09.
^ "Cristiano Ronaldo's Physical Condition At Age 34 Is The Same As A 20-Year-Old". www.sportbible.com. Retrieved 2021-07-09.
^ "FIFA World Cup 2018: This was Cristiano Ronaldo's World Cup: He couldn't score in the decisive moments". MARCA in English. 2018-07-01. Retrieved 2021-07-09.

Cannabis and sports

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Not heard of any real connection personally.--Echetus Xe 14:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Another Believer:: Lee Bowyer, Chris Armstrong and Bernard Lama have all tested positive for using cannabis in the past. There's quite a few cases if you look hard enough. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 21:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Added a quick thing about a CBD ground sponsorship. Crowsus (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it similar to Smoking in association football? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Referencing "List of foreign X league players"

On articles of this type, (for example List of foreign Premier League players) how should we be referencing? Seems most of the articles have a couple of very general references at the bottom, such as: for the EPL - one paywalled link, one dead link, and one BBC article about the status in 2009, for the Netherlands - general refs to footballdatabase and soccerway (not even specific to a Dutch league), for the Bundesliga - general refs to fussballdaten and worldfootball (Bundesliga section), for La Liga - reference to RSSSF page listing "Foreign Players in the Spanish League (First Division)". So what is the correct way here? It seems these rely on general references and/or a single reference. --SuperJew (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources and information

Requesting some clarity regarding sources and information, and what we should use. If 20+ independent sources say something (X) is correct, a different 20+ independent sources say something else (Y) is correct, and 1 source says their self-published information (Z) is correct, what do we do? Do we give equal priority to X, Y, and Z? Or should Z be discarded, even if some of those 40+ independent sources say Z does exist? Also, X and Y are, by and large, the same information. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

[:2-1] "Italy - Serie A: Cristiano Ronaldo's body has the physical age of a 20-year-old". MARCA in English. 2018-07-23. Retrieved 2021-07-09.

[2] "Cristiano Ronaldo's Physical Condition At Age 34 Is The Same As A 20-Year-Old". www.sportbible.com. Retrieved 2021-07-09.

[3] "FIFA World Cup 2018: This was Cristiano Ronaldo's World Cup: He couldn't score in the decisive moments". MARCA in English. 2018-07-01. Retrieved 2021-07-09.

[1]

[2]

[3]