Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 148

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. 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 145

Archive 146

Archive 147

→

Giuliano Maiorana

Because it's disputed, I was advised to remove that he worked in a bakery when he signed for Histon. I just need help rewording it correctly so it doesn't sound like he signed his contract while literally on the pitch in a game please.
I'd like to also delete two useless redirects, Giuliano "Jules" Maiorana and Jules Maiorana, and maybe the article itself since links 9, 4, 3 and 2 are the only ones that lead anywhere. 21:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:38FC:A300:C937:98C0:35AA:B7EE (talk)

I'm sure the wording fix can be done, but why are those redirects useless? He was commonly known as Jules Maiorana for a while, so I see nothing wrong with keeping either of them. As for deleting the article itself, that definitely won't happen since he played in the Football League seven times for Manchester United. Not exactly a non-notable feat. – Pee Jay 21:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

In the previous discussion, I suggested "He had been playing in a recreational Sunday League football league, before joining ECL club Histon in the summer of 1987". Would that work? (I also noticed there was another discussion in 2019 so its interesting how this article has had quite the attention for a pretty short career. RedPatch (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

One of the accounts that has edited the article was run by someone claiming to be Maiorana's daughter, so I wouldn't be surprised if the person who started this discussion has a vested interest in the subject. – Pee Jay 22:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think he is notable enough but is it a strong article if 9/13 sources can't be reached?

I'm pretty sure the redirects fail reason 8. at WP:RDELETE, also "Jules" was not his name or what he wanted to be called, apparently just a disparaging nickname given by Brian Kidd.[1]
Thanks RedPatch but do you think that reads as well as it could? PeeJay has now reworded it but I was told we could remove that he worked in a bakery since its disputed. Thanks, 22:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:38FC:A300:C937:98C0:35AA:B7EE (talk)

If it was such a bad nickname, why is his Twitter username "@Jules11Maiorana"? Or is that not him? – Pee Jay 22:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I just read the source. Nothing in there suggests there was anything "disparaging" about calling him Jules. – Pee Jay 22:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the contention over the years, I don't get why the bakery needs to be there at all. It's not like it's an important detail. He was 18. Lots of teenagers have part-time jobs, lots of low level footballers have second jobs. I rarely, if ever, see those jobs listed in articles, because it's not really that important. Just because something is in a "source" doesn't mean it needs to be used. The fact he worked in a bakery or a clothing shop or whatever isn't really important. He didn't get scouted in a clothing shop or a bakery, he got scouted from playing Sunday league football. That's all that's really needed and could solve this multi-year long disagreement on such a small point that doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme of things. I went ahead and just removed it and replaced it with something from the same source that is more relevant. RedPatch (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that RedPatch, it reads much better now. But does it need to be repeated that he was born in England to Italian parents, at the start of and before the career section?
Lastly, will the linkrot be fixable? 2A02:C7F:38FC:A300:C937:98C0:35AA:B7EE (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I found archives for some of them. The ones that used Flash Player I couldn't save because that is no longer supported. However, I did find other sources to replace those and added those. RedPatch (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again, the last issue I have with the page is why it's listed twice that he was born in England of Italian parentage.
The FourFourTwo article doesn't even mention this. According to the Italian article, his grandfather was from Avellino, his mother is just called Italian. Like you said "just because something is in a "source" doesn't mean it needs to be used", worth noting his parents are Italian but is the specific area important? 2A02:C7F:38FC:A300:C937:98C0:35AA:B7EE (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm really confused as to why you're so intent on removing information from the article. – Pee Jay 09:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Because I don't think the sources support it, FourFourTwo doesn't even mention it and L'Uono Nel Pallone doesn't say his mother was from that town. It's also just trivial and as for the repeated sentance, if I remove one, which?2A02:C7F:38FC:A300:3545:DF53:8C1B:BA4F (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no repeated sentence. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, so there's bound to be some repetition, but it doesn't count as actual repetition. – Pee Jay 11:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

For example, on the Mario Balotelli page his background is mentioned once in an early life section, here it's in the lede and career section (which seems an odd place for it). 21:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I've slightly reworded the article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but in the previous discussion we concluded that his nationality shouldn't be in the lede (see Thiago Alcântara).
In this interview he claims both his parents are from Avellino and in another he's called "the son of an upholsterer from Cassano Irpino," his "country of origin".
I think his background is important to note because of confusion over his nationality but not whereabouts in Italy, which is trivial. 2A02:C7F:38FC:A300:3545:DF53:8C1B:BA4F (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, Thiago Alcântara should be described as a "Spanish footballer", as he has only represented Spain internationally: the fact that he was born in Italy bears no effect on his nationality, and the fact that he has Brazilian ancestry isn't reason to remove "Spanish" (see Zinedine Zidane or Paul Pogba, for example). Database websites claim Maiorana is English only ([2], [3]), and news articles emphasise that he is English with Italian ancestry, rather than some saying he is English and others saying he is Italian. I don't see why cities his parents are from should be removed, it's not that trivial. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

From the same sources: "I certainly am Italian and always classed myself as one. I’ve never had a British passport and both my parents are Italian. I was brought up as one. My ambitions were to play in Serie A and my dream was to play for Italy."[4] He lived in Italy for four years before settling permanently in the UK.[5] If you insist we specify where in Italy his family are from, why not use the interview where he claims both his parents, not just his grandfather, are from Avellino or the one that calls Cassano Irpino "his country of origin". 2A02:C7F:38FC:A300:3545:DF53:8C1B:BA4F (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Without a British passport he can't really be defined as "English", so at that point he should only be defined as "Italian". Regarding his origin, I agree with the use of the two sources. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am good with how it was previously stated, with being saying "Born in England to Italian parents....". It's similar to what we do for other players who have represented two different nations, we omit the nationality in the lead and refer to it in a separate sentence. Given that situation, even though a bit different, is of a comparable nature, given that there are sources that explicitly state he was Italian, not English, so it is not clear-cut. Given this was the result of the discussion reached last month I think it should be maintained. Given the previous recent consensus, I am going to restore it to what it wasRedPatch (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, lastly, can we remove that his grandfather was from Avellino and the ref supporting it please? I've been saying specifying where in Italy his family's from is not relevent to his football career, but if you have to there's an interview where he says both his parents, not just his grandfather, are from Avellino and another that calls Cassano Irpino "his country of origin". 2A02:C7F:38FC:A300:3545:DF53:8C1B:BA4F (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Done, I left Avelino, but put it with the new reference you provided since it does state that. I've seen many articles that say Player X's parents are from Y, so leaving that does have some precedence, but is properly sourced now. RedPatch (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for everything. 2A02:C7F:38FC:A300:3545:DF53:8C1B:BA4F (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

FC Liefering and FC Red Bull Salzburg

Currently editors are treating these 2 clubs as seperate. RB players playing for Liefering are listed as on loan and Liefering themselves are being refrered to as "feeder club". Isn´t this wrong? Liefering is just RBs B team. It is a bit confusing as they are not called " Red Bull B/II/U23...". They are part of the academy and players are not constricted to just one squad. All of this disqualifies them from being just a feeder club. Shouldn´t there be a change in the editing process on Liefering and other connectetd articles? SerVasi (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

IMO, we should treat both clubs' relationship the same way as we treat Spanish reserve teams (FC Barcelona and FC Barcelona B, for an example), since some players like Daouda Guindo can play for both sides. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pjesnik21: Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SerVasi (talk • contribs) 22:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Kaio or Kaio Jorge?

How should we call Kaio Jorge beetween Kaio and Kaio Jorge? Dr Salvus 14:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean for the article name or in prose in the body of the article? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

He seems to call himself Kario Jorge on Instagram and Twitter, so I would go with that. I don't know if you feel that's me running WP:OR and primary source pushing know. Govvy (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Nehme1499, ~~I mean both of them~~ I mean in the body of the article Dr Salvus 15:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Kaio Jorge seems to be more common between the two. I would write "Kaio" in prose though to aviod repetition. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think Kaio Jorge should be written in the article as title and one per section in the body and in the footballboxes. Dr Salvus 15:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Kaio Jorge as article title and Kaio throughout the article is fine. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this the correct title....?

List of men's footballers with the most official appearances - the title implies that the footballers listed belong to men.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we mention "official", as we wouldn't care about unofficial appearances. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Yeah, the bold characters aren't needed at all, but this part was highlighted a long time ago, since many people would go and add friendly matches/numbers in the list. Kind regards! Lorry Gundersen (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

What's more the inclusion criteria is bizarre. Junior caps for national teams are included, but not other junior matches. Who is official too? FIFA? UEFA? The clubs involved? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Junior appearances with clubs have never been included (since the beginning), and is something I personally agree with. Also, the no inclusion has been discussed in detail in the talk page of the article, so I would kindly ask you to read the discussion there: in a nutshell, it would be total unfair if the list had such stats for only some players, especially when for most players these numbers can't be found-proven, in contrast to international numbers with U- teams that can be traced for all players. Now, regarding who is the official, I must say that the list never had any criterion when I took over about this, so, having said that, even non-FIFA official matches could be included in the list and/or matches that e.g. UEFA hasn't deemed as official, but an FA has (this is also a criterion RSSSF uses, i.e. if one country's FA has one match as official, and is not so by the respective confederation and/or FIFA). However, such matches have never been included in the list (e.g. matches with Catalonia, Occitania et c. – and other unofficial or not recognized/not belonging to FIFA national teams such as the CONIFA matches, official – by an FA – matches with state teams, matches from select teams that some FAs include as official, e.g. teams like England XI, Scotland XI, et c.). Obviously, FIFA is the responsible official for the tournaments they organize and the international friendlies, and for the other international matches indirectly as well, i.e. UEFA is for its tournaments, CONMEBOL for its tournaments, et c., but FIFA eventually recognizes a match or not, and, if they do, they categorize it as official (or official friendly for international ones) or friendly. For the club level, UEFA is directly responsible for UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europe League et c., CONCACAF is for the CONCACAF Champions League, and so on, and the FAs are responsible for the domestic level directly, then the confederations indirectly: UEFA is for European countries belonging to UEFA, and so on... Furthermore, I think the basis for that list is this RSSSF list (hasn't been updated since 2009), which does include official non-FIFA matches (for instance, Callaghan with 2 matches with Football League XI, Shilton with 4 matches with Football League XI, et c.), but these haven't ever been included by anyone in the WP's list. Kind regards! Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! The title implies it's only about men footballers, and women footballers are not included in it. All other football lists have that in the title (except the list with 500 or more goals, which had it before, but it was renamed). "men's" should be included since it's only about male footballers, and also so people to not add female footballers in it. Lorry Gundersen (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Lorry Gundersen the term "men's footballers" means footballers that belong to men. I think that's the point being made, in that it is not grammatically correct. "Male footballers" would be correct. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I had changed it to include "men's footballers" in the title because I had before seen the other similar lists having that in title, and, because of being used, thought it was grammatically correct, but of course I have no objections to be changed to "male footballers", should be, actually, so to be grammatically correct. Regards! Lorry Gundersen (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi again! I would like to add "men's" can be found on many articles on the web (e.g. here, here, here, and here), but, if it leads to confusion, then I agree it definitely needs to be changed to "male footballers". Kind regards! Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that the title is correct other than the issue with "official" not being needed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with "official" being on the title, but, having on the description the explanation it's only about official matches, "official" could be omitted from the title. Lorry Gundersen (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why we should be listing youth NT statistics. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Since FIFA, all six continental confederations, all the FAs, all the known football databases and football statistics sites find them important, since we also consider them important in WP articles (we include these statistics in the infobox, we don't include those from the club level), and since these stats exist-can be traced for all players, we should include them. Cheers! Lorry Gundersen (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you prove that FIFA, all six continental confederations, all the FAs, all the known football databases and football statistics sites find them important? We also include college club statistics in the infobox, but it doesn't mean that they are "senior" statistics. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Representing a national team

Hello. Often in player articles where we explain a player's nationality (like Seko Fofana for example) instead of saying "French" or "Ivorian", I see people writing that a player represents a national team.
For example, I might see "Seko Fofana is a professional footballer who plays as a midfielder for Ligue 1 club Lens. Born in France, he represents the Ivory Coast national team." I think that this doesn't make sense because players represents countries, not teams, and the teams themselves represent the country. So I think it's more adequate to put "Born in France, he plays for the Ivort Coast national team", or "Born in France, he represents the Ivory Coast at international level" (Ivory Coast unlinked for last one). Thoughts? Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. I would say that you either play for the national team, or represent the country - either would be valid IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Kosack

It appears Kosack hasn't been editing on Wikipedia for a while given what I've noticed for a few days running. If anyone noticed that username has not been on anyone's watchlists for a while, you're not the only one to notice. I think the nomination of Thomas Tuchel as a good article has been on hold for a few weeks now and I feel it should have been promoted to a GA this month. What gives? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

A discussion on his talk page about a month ago seems to suggest that he's been ill recently. Perhaps it's something to do with that? (He'll probably show up and tell me off for snooping around on his talk page. Which would probably be justified!) REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I have now noticed that discussion, hope that gets cleared up if it still persists. We'll see if the user does indeed return when the first edit gets made. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Club's name changed - Article moved - How to move categories?

Hello everybody. The Austrian football club WSG Swarovski Tirol has dropped its sponsors name Swarovski from the club's name. Thus I moved the article to WSG Tirol and added of course a reference to the article. But now, I'm wondering about how to deal with "Category:WSG Swarovski Tirol players". I can't see a move button there and also how can one change all the uses of this category in player's articles? Is there maybe a tool for such matters to automatize this work? Kind regards, DrunkenGerman (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@DrunkenGerman: Put in a request at WP:CFDS. --SuperJew (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Only admins can move categories (because it causes lots of edits to change it, I guess). It will be done by an admin in about 2 days, as they leave it 48 hours to see if anyone objects (which logically they shouldn't in this case). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@DrunkenGerman: You can manually put in a request at WP:CFDS and add the tag to the category. However, to simplify this process if you are going to be doing it more than once, I recommend getting Twinkle and using the shortcut from there. I do it and it saves a lot of time. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Raúl de Tomás

Should that info in intro be there ("...known as RdT")? 300% irrelevant in my humble opinion. I reverted, was reverted on the "irrefutable" grounds that Cristiano Ronaldo has it in his article as well. Fair enough...

Attentively, have a nice evening --2001:8A0:7667:5801:442E:6F84:2410:7EEB (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Both should be removed. "also known as CR7" was recently added to the article by FMSky (dif). Also pinging Cracker-Kun, who reverted the IPs attempt to remove "RdT". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Agreed. That's why I removed both. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499:: Ok and why should they be removed..? FMSky (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

We do have a link to Cristiano Ronaldo on our disambiguation page CR7 and a link to Raúl de Tomás on disambig page RDT. --SuperJew (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't have "also known as [nickname]" for every player with some sort of nickname. I wouldn't expect to see "also known as D10S" for Diego Maradona. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, If there is a link in the disambig page, it should be mentioned on the article page (maybe not in the lede, but that's a case per case discussion IMO). --SuperJew (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that CR7 should be included in the article, though I don't think it should be in the opening sentence and bolded. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

In the case of Ronaldo, CR7 isnt just an ordinary nickname, more like a brand. Imo it has to be in there FMSky (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

FAO Nampa DC, re: "CR7". Not sure how you have missed it, but thanks for reverting even though you were told a discussion was already underway. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope, CR7 is not worthy of being in the lead, as it's just a nickname, which is adequately covered in the infobox. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: An RFC has been started on this: Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo#Request for comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The RFC has been terminated as duplicating this discussion. But I don't see any encyclopedic value to adding CR7 to the lead of Ronaldo's article (or initials followed by shirt number for any other players). The infobox is correct place for these. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen the infobox being used to indicate player nicknames. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure there is/was a parameter nickname in infoboxes, and there's one for other_names, which looks to be for nicknames. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

a nickname parameter for footballers doesn't exist. --FMSky (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, there used to be a nickname parameter in the footballer infobox but it was removed probably over a decade ago because it just attracted so much crap.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It was less than a decade ago, but yes, that was what I was referring to. Infobox would be a better place than in the first sentence of the article, but nowhere expect in the text is fine too. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: it seems that you don't normally edit football-related articles or know anything about ronaldo, as its not just a "ordinary nickname" when literally a museum is named CR7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museu_CR7), a fashion line, loads of other stuff, and commentators and newspapers regularly refer to him by that name. i'd also advise typing "CR7" into google FMSky (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

it seems that you don't normally edit football-related articles or know anything about ronaldo thanks for the personal attack, of which none of what you're saying is remotely correct. Just because there's a museum with that name doesn't mean the nickname needs to be in the lead. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

yeah and also a whole bunch of other stuff.... like a galaxy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos_Redshift_7 ... no offense, just please dont comment on topics you're not familiar with --FMSky (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Stop saying I'm not familiar with football just because I disagree with you. I'm definitely an active member of this Wikiproject, and don't like your aggressive tone. The fact is that CR7 is his nickname, but a mention of this isn't worthy of being in the lead, as per MOS:LEAD. It's already linked in the template sidebar about him, and the Outside football section, but isn't prominent and important enough to the career of a footballer to be in the lead. If you actually listened instead of insulting and belittling, this conversation would be a whole lot easier. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with @Joseph2302:. The nickname is not a worthy information to have in the lead, maybe somewhere else with a proper reference (which was not the case there). BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan flag

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:2022 AFC U-23 Asian Cup qualification#Afghanistan flag regarding the use of the previous flag of Afghanistan. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Harry Erentz

I noticed on his article there is Oldham County F.C. is this related to Oldham Athletic ?? Govvy (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

No. Oldham Athletic existed as Pine Villa at the same time that Oldham County existed. Number 5 7 14:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, are you sure the club has no relationship to Oldham Athletic? All I can see online from an initial search is this [6] , not much to go on. Govvy (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes: "Boundary Park was known as the Athletic Ground when it was laid out in 1896 for Oldham's first professional club, Oldham County. When County folded in 1899, Pine Villa took over the ground and changed their name to Oldham Athletic." Number 5 7 15:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: I was thinking about creating an article for Oldham County after reading that, it's a little bit. I am not sure if there is enough sources to pass GNG know. Govvy (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I doubt you'll find much, TBH. The club only played competitively for two-and-a-bit seasons per [7] and never played in a national league or cup, so I'd be very surprised if there are any decent in-depth sources out there. But hey - you never know..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

They did play in the 1896–97 FA Cup, entered at 1st qualifying round and lost to Nelson in the 3QR. See the FA's archive. So potentially notable, but ... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, not sure why the FCHD doesn't list that. So, as you say, technically notable but I am still sceptical that there's the sources out there to write more than three or four sentences about the club. But I'm happy to be proved wrong :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

FCHD doesn't list the earlier rounds of the FA Cup for seasons before the Second World War. See its summary page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Women’s National Teams

Does playing for a women’s National team make a player pass WP:NFOOTBALL? For example playing for France or The Gambia. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, women's senior national teams pass WP:NFOOTBALL.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Ricky Thomson

Wondering if the above appears in a book or an online reference (that I'm not seeing) someone here might have. He's been red-linked in the West Lancashire derby article for a long time. He played (at least) for Blackpool in a derby fixture with Preston, but that was in the Anglo-Scottish Cup, so I'm not sure if he passes notability. If anyone's able to provide the basics (DOB, DOD and the reference), I'm happy to create his article myself if he meets the basic requirement. Seasider53 (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that bit in the West Lancs derby page has got something arse about face. Ricky Thomson was playing for Preston and Tom McAlister was Blackpool's goalkeeper... This is Ricky Thomson's page at Hugman's site. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanking ye. Seasider53 (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Assistant positions in infoboxes

For managerial section of infoboxes, should assistant manager positions be listed? The template documentation says that the manager parameters are A list of clubs that the person has served within the capacity of team manager. Please do not list positions other than team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career; this will apply primarily to those with significant or perhaps primary experience in management. Clubs listed can be both local and national and should be restricted to those ordinarily considered notable in themselves. That suggests we shouldn't list assistant managers positions in infobox. Pinging Geschichte as we disagree with this on Olli Harder, so would be good to get your thoughts in a centralised discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Good idea to discuss this. To me, the text from the template documentation seems to reflect the consensus as it stood 10 years ago. I cannot fathom why, though. The infobox is for information, and it would be detrimental to an article if the infobox omitted this information. Assistant manager spells are equally as important in a person's career as being manager. As are goalkeeper coach, director of sports, U20 manager and scout. Furthermore, being assistant manager of a bigger club or a national team is more important than managing a small club, and this should not be decided on a case-by-case basis. The only positions that should be excluded are when someone coaches their kids' team in little league, i.e. positions that aren't recorded in any sources. All positions documented by RS should be included though, and the template documentation be changed ASAP, if the project agrees. Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

If we are going to go down to level of showing positions like scout, would that not require a heading change? The heading is "Teams managed" and being a scout doesn't by any sane definition equate to managing a team..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think managers and assistant managers is enough. If we have youth manager, director of sports, goalkeeper coach, etc, etc where does it end? --SuperJew (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the documentation. Can detail any other positions in the prose. Spike 'em (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

And keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. Spike 'em (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - keep it to actual manager positions, not other roles (so no assistant managers, coaches, scouts etc.) Giant Snowman 09:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed to @SuperJew, manager and assistant manager roles should be enough. Some actual managers (like Domènec Torrent and Germán Burgos) actually became managers because of their assistant time. I think it would be unfair not to list those periods in the infobox. And also agree with @GiantSnowman about the "other roles", not necessary in the infobox, should be described in the storyline. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

In many cases there is a very thin line between an assistant coach and other roles like gk coach, reserves coach or simply 'coach'. All of them are basically assistants, just with more specific duties. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no standardisation. In some places, the assistant coach is the second in charge and in others is the assistant to a coach who sits below a manager. Hack (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I would also remove the assistants (I'm ok if it's from a national team but not in favour). Kante4 (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

assistant is only added if its the only thing theyd done, so like theyre just a career assistant manager and have never actually been a proper manager. really, for the most part, assistant shouldnt be in the box. thats how its always beenMuur (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Help

Today, I've added some FIGC links to Alessandro Pio Riccio (a Juventus U23 player) relative to the appearances with Italy under-Xs teams. I don't understand why they don't work well. Can someone fix this problem and explain me what I did wrong? Dr Salvus 18:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Zeki Çelik

Hi, I tried to undo a vandal's actions on Zeki Çelik but would appreciate if people could double check that I've not made any howlers. (It turned out to be two IPs doing strange things to his appearance numbers and goals, and they needed updating) Red Fiona (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Redfiona99: The stats were wrong, should be league only in info box, have fixed. Govvy (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Also there is a lot better prose on the Turkish article which really should be transferred over. Govvy (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately I don't read Turkish so I can't translate. Red Fiona (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism in UEFA club competition records article

This IP has vandalized that article adding biased info and deleting facts. I reverted these edits and here I explained the reasons. Please check it, thanks.--179.6.198.114 (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I further point out that this IP threatened to block me, taking over as administrator of this site.--2800:200:E840:20B3:3847:E5DE:BA0E:509 (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC) P.D. I am the same user than 179.6.198.114, but I don't know why this IP changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:200:E840:20B3:3847:E5DE:BA0E:509 (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Try to ignore them. It's yet another example of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 147#Blocked ip editor: the blocked Flix11 editing anonymously. This IP has now been blocked for block evasion. They have a habit of dishing out level 4im warnings to anyone who touches one of the many, many, articles they think of as their own. I make no judgment on the quality of your edit, club competition records aren't something I understand. But if they start again with the aggressive warnings, report them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

That certainly seems a very high level warning to issue to those who edit only once and I fail to see how that was vandalism in any case. Thankfully the IP address range, including "This IP" has become the second group of 256 addresses to be blocked. By the way, the blocked Flix11 has been editing since the indefinite block for ages, I thought an experienced user should know better than to edit anonymously in order to avoid detection, however, it won't work. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Bremer SV 0–12 FC Bayern Munich

Is this really notable? I can't find much on the game besides routine match reports and I strongly doubt there is any long-term significance to it. Am happy to start an AFD on this if necessary. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not notable since Bremer plays in German 5th tier.--2800:200:E840:20B3:D8B2:D30D:2D65:D0D2 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree not notable due to the very low stature of the opposition. Worth a line in the history of both clubs but not much more. Crowsus (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

not notable in any way, deleteMuur (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I've started an AfD here. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Nationality in the lead

I see different editors having different approaches to how nationality should be displayed in the lead. I agree that in ambiguous situations it's best to remove the nationality from the opening sentence, and then describe it further down. However, what people define as "ambiguous" seems to be different:

Born in country X and has represented countries X and Y (at youth/senior level) --> Alan Carvalho
Born in country X to parents Y and has represented country X (or Y, or Z) --> Zinedine Zidane (or Riyad Mahrez, or Thiago Alcântara)
Born in country X to parents Y and has represented countries X and Y --> Taulant Xhaka
Born in country X to parents Y and Z and has represented X (or Y, or Z, or none) --> Kylian Mbappé
Born in country X to parents Y and has not represented any NT

Pretty much, for me if someone has played for more than one NT: it's ambiguous. If someone has not played for any NT and is eligible to potentially play for more than one: it's ambiguous (unless sources clearly indicate the player as being of one specific nationality). If someone has only played for one NT: the player's nationality is represented by the NT's country. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

While there are different views, the one I think I'm used to seeing most that I've been going along with is to use country of birth (if represented NT or has not represented a team). If they represented another national team that they weren't born in then omit it and write in another sentence "Born in X, represents Y". Some exceptions to these (ie.players who weren't eligible to represent country they were born in such as a player born in a refugee camp then moved to new nation, such as Alphonso Davies, since I don't think he was ever eligible to represent Ghana where he was born) RedPatch (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why place of birth takes "precedence" over descent, as both are potential ways of gaining nationality. So, in your opinion, nationality should be omitted from Riyad Mahrez (born in France and represented only Algeria), but not from Zinedine Zidane? Mahrez is French through jus soli, while Zidane is Algerian through jus sanguinis, but both only represented one nation. In many cases we don't know whether someone has citizenship on the basis of being born in a specific country, so I don't think that it's a valid argument to make. The only "defining" factor for me is the amount national teams they played for. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It's just what I thought was most commonly accepted consensus, so it's what I've been doing. My personal preference would to use their current national team or a hyphenated one for a dual nationality player (ie. a French-American), but I have seen lots of opposition to that, so I typically just go with what I thought was the 'WP:FOOTY preferred method'. RedPatch (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not a fan of double-hyphenated nationalities especially for players that have only ever represented one national team. I am glad we've moved away from that generally. I think it's a Wikipedia wide consensus that we don't mention ethnicity in the lead (unless they're notable for their ethnicity) which is why we shouldn't have Algerian in the lead for Zidane, while the fact that Mahrez was born and raised in France and would have been considered French before his callup means we should note his birthplace. Maybe my own interpretation.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point, but also Zidane would have been considered eligible to represent Algeria prior to his France call-up. I also oppose the use of hyphenated nationalities per MOS:ETHNICITY, but I don't see why Mahrez's nationality should be omitted. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Any other opinions? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. My opinion is that when a player is dual nationality or something like that, we omit nationality and just explain something like "Born in France, Mahrez represents Algeria at international level". It's way more simple. I disagree with hyphenated nationalities, and to only have one nationality would be denying the other nationality. However, for someone like Zidane, he was born, raised, played in and for France. I don't see how his Algerian ethnicity has anything to do with the nationality in the lead. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: Because Zidane and Mahrez have the same exact nationality situation. Both have dual Algerian-French citizenship, and both only represented one national team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Just state Zidane's Algerian ethnicity and nationality further down. Not in the opening sentence, though. Mahrez's French nationality is more important to the article than Zidane's Algerian nationality. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This is what I'm getting at: why? I would list Zidane as French, and Mahrez as Algerian. We can then explain further down (in both articles) their ethnicity/nationality situation. Given that they have only represented one national team, there is no need to omit the nationality (unlike Kalidou Koulibaly, for e.g.) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Because Mahrez isn't simply Algerian. He's born, raised and trained as a footballer in France, he is a Frenchman. As a Frenchman of Algerian heritage, he has chosen to play for Algeria internationally. But putting 'Algerian' in the lead does not cover that situation. You're right that Zidane is the same, except he went for France so it's French all the way. Crowsus (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

At this point we would need a "threshold", because there are way too many gray areas. What about Alphonso Davies (mentioned above)? He was born in Ghana to Liberian parents, and moved to Canada aged five. So, is five an appropriate threshold? What about Jorginho, born in Brazil and moved to Italy aged 16, and has played all his career there. Is 16 an appropriate threshold? This is why the only "determinant" should be the amount of NTs one has played for, because it's much clearer to define whether someone is in an "ambiguous" situation or not. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging active users in this project: @Struway2, Muur, Joseph2302, Govvy, Iggy the Swan, SuperJew, Kante4, GiantSnowman, BlameRuiner, Spike 'em, and ChrisTheDude. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Nehme1499 I am not sure what you want from me, a player is born a player dies. As long as the lead paragraph is precise it shouldn't matter. There is some degree of accuracy when placing country names. For the United Kingdom, as there are multiple countries, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. It's better to be more precise and not use the UK and use the native country name. Govvy (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I hoped for a clearer answer than a player is born a player dies (?). And I have no idea how the example of the UK applies in any way to this discussion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

*shrugs* comme ci comme ça :/ Govvy (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

List of footballers who achieved hat-trick records

Jimmygrant93 created a new article, interesting topic, the article needs some finesse, thought you guys be interested. Govvy (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- There's quite a lot of unnecessary detail/trivia in there and some of the inclusion criteria are a bit odd. The "Defenders who scored a hat-trick" section, for example, makes it look like only 10 defenders have ever scored a hat-trick, which is obviously nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  - Not all of that should be included, and we also have a Lists of hat-tricks page which covers certain players and national teams, including both Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. This whole page could be unnecessary. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Needs heavy pruning, seems to rely heavily on OR for inclusion criteria, and has many feats in friendlies / low-level / amateur football. Spike 'em (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Bahamas CONCACAF Membership

Both the Bahamas Football Association page and the general CONCACAF Members section list the Bahamas having CONCACAF affiliation "between 1961 and 1973". However, both the BFA website and the CONCACAF website list them as current members. and soccerway show their first Nations League match in Sep 2019. The sources on the BFA page for the 1961-73 affiliation do not seem to support this and I cannot find any source that agrees or gives an official date for The Bahamas joining CONCACAF. Any suggestions? --dashiellx (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I've just looked at the source on the BFA page, I think it means that they are current members and that they became members some time between 1961 and 1973, we just don't know when. There was a previous version of the FIFA website I'm sure which included details of continental affiliation but I don't know how long ago and recent entries on Wayback Machine don't include it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

FIFA.com only listed the FIFA affiliation year. Re "between 1961 and 1973", I agree with Stevie above: it means that they joined in a date between 1961 and 1973 (and have been members ever since). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, bahamasFA.net has them joining only in 1981: "Membership with the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association of Football (CONCACAF) came in 1981". -Koppapa (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Koppapa. I had read that on the BFA but totally forgot about it. I'd prefer 3rd party source, but unless there are objections, I'll use 1981. --dashiellx (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Timmy96

This is a serious problem I think. This user has severe issues of competence, and has been heavily criticised over many years by many people, but will not stop adding vast amounts of inadequate text to articles about footballers. As one can see from their Special:Contributions/Timmy96, their habit is to add huge amounts of text in one single edit. The problems with their additions are firstly that they add far, far, far too much detail, massively in excess of what is appropriate for a general encyclopaedia. Secondly, they are written in extremely poor English. Grammar and spelling errors abound, and often the text is barely even comprehensible.

A recent example is this. Just in the first paragraph of the article after this edit, one finds "Etuhu joined Manchester City’s academy when he was fourteen years", "Despite Dickson left the club", and "resulting in Manchester City reached the finals".

Looking at the user's talk page, one can see years of problems. The user has been discussed [on this talk page] previously also. But they continue to edit in exactly the same way, and clearly have no intention of editing in accordance with encyclopaedic norms.

Can anything be done about this problematic behaviour? 82.132.214.69 (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right, 82.132.214.69 (talk). I do have a problematic behaviour, who has autism (with learning difficilty) and wants to do something it when it comes to editing Wikipedia. I do the same routine over and over again. Why don't you leave my edits alone, please? I could stop editing Wikipedia if someone from the administration team banned me. But then, I would edit anonymously, just like you, User:Dubrain. It's not the first time someone has complained to me before. See this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_140#Timmy96

The reason I add "vast amounts of inadequate text to articles about footballers" is because I literally want to expand articles and I won't stop until I see it's up to date. Unlike you, User:Dubrain, at least, User:GiantSnowman and User:Struway2 didn't revert my work and respect their wishes if they change something. But at least, I succeeded at making a change on the Wikipedia article.

User:Timmy96 10:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

~~The thread starter has been blocked as a long term abuser. I wouldn't consider anything that Dubrain posted here as relevant. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)~~

Do we really need all this information on the affected articles e.g. Jon Daly (footballer) which is 170,000+ bytes long? The size of that article appears to be close to half the size of Cristiano Ronaldo who is far more notable. Having a look through the Daly article that is too comprehensive to me, the Cristiano Ronaldo article would have been far too long if it followed the same way as this type of editing. There are many articles which covers all notable things they've done in their association football careers that are definitely not as large as what Timmy96 made to these articles. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The thread starter has not been blocked for anything, actually. In any case, would that give this user a free pass to continue adding scandalously substandard material to Wikipedia? The material they are adding is awful. The articles they have edited are far worse as a result. They are harming Wikipedia grievously, and as you see from their reply above, they are not going to stop doing so. Don't you think that needs dealing with? 82.132.213.74 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought the LTA Dubrain had started this thread. Ignore my previous comment then, my apologies. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

similar to the article on Will Bruin by another user which I raised here in March that basically listed every goal, assist, etc and I edited down and linked to the discussion and then the information was subsequently just re-added to the article to how it is now. RedPatch (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Repeated reverts, massive additions and removals have been caught by Huggle and I was about to open a discussion on ANI before I noticed the discussion here. Unfortunately, while the level of detail that User:Timmy96 puts into his edits are astounding, they simply *do not belong* on a wiki page. Ultimately, almost every single edit that the user has done can be tagged with Fanpov, overly detailed, overquotation and will need to be significantly altered for tone. The messages on both the user talk page and the one here seems to indicate that User:Timmy96 agreed to work with User:GiantSnowman to improve the quality of their edits. I don't know whether that has been done or not for the recent edits but the quality still appears to be substandard. I am not going to revert these edits for now and will wait for a consensus to be reached, but as of now I do not believe that these edits should be in main article space without a significant rewrite. Dark-World25 (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree that it is too much information, trivia ones (he gets sent off, ok but not include worthy). And his response saying if he was banned he would continue without an account and would not stop until it is up to date is worrying. Kante4 (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention that a lot of it is not in good English, indeed some of it veers towards incomprehensible at times. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted a number of the massive additions, they are not an improvement. I fully expect to be reverted but we have 3RR for a reason. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I have previously raised concerns about this user here, which others shared. Their content is poorly written and lots of it is unsuitable for biographies - but they view any concerns/criticism as an attack and they have refused to listen or, given this thread, change. Giant Snowman 18:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Rayan Ibrahim Ahmed Ragab

I am confused, I was in new page feed, came across this article, but I don't see anything online for this name. Is it a fake? Govvy (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Well this source for her debut doesn't mention any squads, and her apparent goal against Tunisia in the 2021 Arab Women's Cup was actually scored by someone called Rawan Abdel-Moneim, according to Google Translate of [8]. It could be a different translation/transliteration of that person, but those names seem remarkably different. Amara94 as article creator, can you clarify? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is a Rayan Ragab listed for the Sudan team at 2021 Arab Women's Cup squads. Also if I google "Rayan Ragab football", some Facebook highlight clips pop up. RedPatch (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

UAFA (the competition organizers) notes Ragab as the scorer of the game. We are definitely not dealing with a hoax player. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: she scored vs Lebanon, not Tunisia. Rawan Abdelmoneim is the scorer vs Tunisia. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not very trusting of facebook, I've seen hoaxes on facebook! :/ Govvy (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

uafaac.com is not Facebook... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying- this Wiki article originally said she scored against Tunisia not Lebanon, which was where my name confusions came from. So all looks good then- she does exist, and did actually play and score. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, much better, that fixes my confusion! heh. Govvy (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Amara94 originally had the two swapped. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ben Foster#Requested move 28 October 2021

I have started a move request on the talk page linked above - I'm not really convinced the actor is the primary Ben Foster and I don't think it ever was in the first place ever since that was moved in late 2013. I suspect there could be agreement between ourselves with that. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Notable deaths

Just to let you know that might be of your interest. In the last week died several footballers, inclusive several that played for the national team and looks notable: Arnošt Pazdera, Miguel Ángel Basílico [es]. (When interested in others: Giuseppe Porrino [it], Nikolai Golofayev [ru] and earlier this month Vasiliy Shitikov [ru]). SportsOlympic (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Nano Macedo

What possibility is there of moving this page to the previous title ("Nano (footballer, born 1982)")? The current version is a name/nickname compound, like "Isco Alarcón", "Pedro Mantorras", "Luís Nani" and many many others; "Nano" is not even short for "Fernando", so it's completely wrong in my view.

11 of the 13 refs in the article address him as "Nano" (when they don't, i guess it's due to the idiotic trend described above), and this Google search (https://www.google.com/search?q=nano+canterano+barcelona&oq=nano+canterano+barcelona&aqs=chrome..69i57.5839j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) follows suit.

Attentively, thank you for your time. --2001:8A0:7667:5801:E412:20:4F9F:5DB5 (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

You can try requesting a move; see WP:RM (I would even be inclined to support). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @Nehme1499:! --2001:8A0:7667:5801:18C5:43A0:3CE8:257D (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Just added the RM on the talk page. I also think that "Nano" only is a way more correct name than "Nano Macedo". BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

User:LShepard1996‬

Can anyone help me with @LShepard1996:? The user is changing the apps and goals in the infobox of Leon Dajaku but without updating the timestamp. I reverted and tried to explain on their talk page why their edits are not good but I don't seem to get trough. In the meantime they have resorted to personal attacks on my talk page but maybe someone else could explain the matter with the timestamps better than I and resolve this issue without any further escalation? --Jaellee (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I've just updated the time-date stamp, but seriously, you could have done that without conflict. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

And blimey, you two over the past week have been at it, [9] I am surprised no admin have slapped blocks on you. Seriously, you've gone way past Go on this one. Govvy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

LShepard1996's comments on Jaellee's talk page warrant a block, imo. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, clear WP:NPA there. And also WP:NOTLISTENING is also a valid reason to block people- yes Jaellee could fix it, but if LShepard1996 doesn't actually listen to the advice on how to properly update infoboxes (i.e. always update the timestamp), they'll just keep doing the same thing again, which won't solve anything. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. Of course I could update the timestamp without big effort. But then I would have to do it every time LShepard1996 edits the infobox. This is not a good solution. Why should they change their behaviour if someone always cleans up their messes? --Jaellee (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jaellee: Can you please be careful, you've already edit-warred with the user now you're and yesterday evening you're templating their page. [10] You need to leave it be, if anything else happens just inform an admin. As far as I am concerned you're already in hot-water. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, but I doubt that anything happens when the other editor "updates" again after the next match and I inform an admin. Except that you fixed the time stamp and someone said that the behaviour of the other editor would be a reason to block them, nothing happened so far. No one tried to talk to the other editor and tell them that their behavior is problematic (or even block them). In their worldview everything is fine and they did everything right [11] so there is no reason to change their behavior. --Jaellee (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a good chance they are "trolling", as these comments should not warrant these responses ("In future look on the internet properly on how many appearances and goals footballers score before you publish the edits because that's what I have been doing"). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)With new editors, I don't feel using those templated messages is beneficial. It seems kind of (not sure of the best word) but like "too official/technical/etc", especially with references to the coding and such. Writing a simple message in layman's terms like "Hi, I saw you updated the stats for Player X, but you forgot to update the date at the bottom which is a couple of lines underneath. I have updated the date now, next time would you be also be able to update the date when you update the games played, so readers know the date the stats are correct as of. Thanks again" I don't mention the tildes (~) or things like that because too much info all at once becomes overload and could appear 'antagonistic' because it appears to be trying to have so many rules for a simple thing. With time, they'll figure those out. I feel simpler is better for new users. I've been here for a while and I still update the dates manually rather than with the tildes/mdytime thing. It's just easier to me. RedPatch (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the person was trolling. I think the person legitimately came in with good faith. They kept getting reverted (which gives those red notifications) and getting templated. I definitely see their side where they are adding correct information (just didn't notice they had to update the date as well). Jaelle kept writing "timestamp" over and over again. If LShepherd doesn't understand what the word timestamp is, then repeating it over and over isn't going to make them understand. Sometimes, you just need to change the word. Call it "update date, date of last match, etc". That's one reason I don't like to revert the first error, but instead correct it myself. Getting those red notifications leads to someone getting upset and then it doesn't matter if you try to be helpful later, they're still focused on the initial reaction. RedPatch (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

If the wording of the {{Footyiu}} template is too complicated for some editors, then maybe someone could write a version which explains it in easier terms? I tried to explain the problem with an example (without any templates) but that didn't help either. --Jaellee (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I have warned both users for 3RR and also left @LShepard1996: a message regarding infobox stats. If they do it again I'll block per WP:CIR. Giant Snowman 17:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Grégoire Defrel

Given that he was called-up for the Martinique national football team in 2019 (hasn't represented them though), shouldn't we be using the Martinique flagicon rather than the French one (for example, in Sassuolo's current squad section). This seems to be GSA's approach. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't have thought being named in a 40-man pre-squad for something but not making the cut would count as a change of nationality. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a borderline case, since he was called up but never capped. I think we need a consensus for how to go forward in cases like this, but my vote is to keep him French until otherwise capped.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Struway2, it's still more than France, for whom he was not even called-up at all. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Struway - a call-up is not enough to 'change' the nationality/flag. Giant Snowman 21:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

So place of birth > being called up? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

For this situation and ones like it, yes. Giant Snowman 21:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I would say if he actually makes a roster (not a preliminary) and makes a bench then yes, since that would show him confirming allegiance. That Gold Cup provisional squad I would say no. Players didn't have to declare/accept it and it was more of a possibility list. There were some players on those lists for a few countries on the 60 man provisional squad who had been named more out of hope than anything and were/are still deciding and the countries did it more as a "we want you". If I remember correctly, Luke Singh got named to both Canada and Trinidad's pre-tournament squads and didn't join either because he's still deciding which country he wants to represent at senior level. RedPatch (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The analysis makes sense, I agree. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed you wrote 2019 GC and I was referring the 2021 GC (where it was expanded to 60 from 40), but I guess my point kind of still makes sense. Preliminary, I'd say no. Actual team, then I'd say yes. RedPatch (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

2021 in football

I think the issue is that the seasons span over two years

2020-21 season but it include 2020 season.

Aa077 (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aa077: What article are you referring to? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: From what I could gather, I think it was 2021 in association football, where @Aa077 was recently warned for disruptive editing. Honestly, I couldn't find anything wrong with the article itself before Aa077's edits, and I did find them actually disruptive, that's why I reverted them. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Ryan Bennett

It has been bought to my attention that there is only one notable Wikipedia entry, Ryan Bennett (footballer), with that name. By checking the page history of the dab page, the other pages (drummer and sportscaster) does not exist, the latter was deleted last year. The ice hockey version was deleted in 2014 (here as well. I don't think we will have any other famous people of that name so, because we don't have any Ryan Bennetts on Wikipedia except the footballer, I say there should not be any issues in moving the page without any identifiers in the title. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Sportcaster was deleted at AfD, and drummer was deleted as an abandoned draft. So I agree that the footballer should be moved to Ryan Bennett. If another article with the name is created (and not deleted), then we can rediscuss in future, but no point having a disambiguation page with one link. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

DAB should be deleted, and footballer moved to base name, agreed. Seems uncontroversial.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

An administrator will need to do that if they agree with it, the same as us. The redirect can't be deleted automatically which is why I can't move it by myself. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I have put that on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests giving the reason that there is only one Wikipedia page with that name so an admin can move the page as an uncontroversial move. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I have now noticed the page has been moved, job done. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

One other thing - the same issue is also at the Portuguese Wikipedia (there), is there anyone with some Portuguese language knowledge and have made enough edits to move the page able to do so? I don't. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Born in Canada, represented Lebanon NT

Pilar Khoury was born in Canada, and has played for the Lebanon national team. Should the article still use Canadian English and MDY, or since she represented Lebanon it's not necessary? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so, Canadian seems the most appropriate variation of English to use. If there isn't a compelling reason to change the variation of English on a given page then it's best just to leave it and I can't see any reason to change this one. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

In this discussion, I've been told to use "footballer" and not "soccer player". Also pinging MonFrontieres who made the change to Khoury's article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Scott Arfield represents Canada but he's 100 per cent a footballer and not a soccer player (see here). In that discussion it was also pointed out that the standard for players who are born in one country and play for another were to be called footballers and not soccer players. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Meaning that, in Khoury's case, we should be using Canadian English and MDY, but use "football" rather than soccer? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's see, Pilar Khoury having the "Use Canadian English" (or the "Use American English" if she were American) and "Use mdy dates" templates meanwhile some famous personality who was actually born in Lebanon has also the "Use American English" and "Use mdy dates" templates does not make sense for me. Both articles go in different ways. One (Khoury) has gone from North America to Lebanon. The other did the contrary. The fact English is not an official language in Lebanon does not change my perspective.--MonFrontieres (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

If there is a particular national tie, it would be to Lebanon, based on career notability. The early versions used "football" which at least suggests a non-American form of English. Also, WP:DATETIES should be read more carefully. Dl2000 (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

In one of User:Nehme1499 edit summaries, it says: "I'm inclined to belive that she was born Lebanese (and Canadian), rather than having acquired Lebanese citizenship later in life". If she was born Lebanese and also represents Lebanon, why treat her like if she were a Canadian national who represents Canada? Fellow Lebanon international women's footballers Nadia Assaf and Nadine Schtakleff were born in the United Arab Emirates, but they are not treated as Emirati but as Lebanese. Assaf was raised in Australia, but she does not have the "Use Australian English" template. I don't understand why it is important to diminish Pilar Khoury's Lebanese nationality in favour of the Canadian one. She did not do that (quite the opposite), why do we do?.--MonFrontieres (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

She is more likely to be have born Canadian, then acquired Lebanese citizenship through heritage. With that said, according to Wikipedia, Canadian articles can use either MDY or DMY formats (while Canada mainly uses MDY except for the province of Quebec which uses DMY, Wikipedia conventions say either can be used for any Canadian, so the date format is a non-issue here). With that said, given she is Canadian by birth, I would say Canadian English is more applicable than American English (i.e. I would write Honours rather than Honors for that section). RedPatch (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatch: To use Canadian English would imply to call her "soccer player", but she has already played for the senior Lebanon women's national football team, so she has the "Category:Lebanon women's international footballers" and therefore the "Category:Lebanese women's footballers". Also, both of her current "short description" template and her current lede say she is a "Lebanese footballer".--MonFrontieres (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I hadn't even noticed the soccer/footballer (wasn't part of my consideration when I said Canadian English (given there is no Lebanese English). When I opened the page the word "Honors" stuck out to me since it was a subheading (which has since been changed to Honours). That's what I had meant by Canadian English. As for footballer/soccer, my view has always been go with the national team they are representing, so in this case footballer, similar to Emilio Estevez (footballer) who is also born and raised in Canada, but represents another national team. RedPatch (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Lebanon uses DMY dates, according Date format by country#Listing.--MonFrontieres (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

And Canada doesn't have a specific date format anyway, as per MOS:DATETIES, so don't see a problem with dmy. Also I see nowhere in tgat article where it's using Canadian spelling rather than British spellings? Joseph2302 (talk) 07:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Khoury has not gone from North America to Lebanon; she is a Canadian citizen born and raised in Canada. It's not like she "renounced" Canadian citizenship. My main point is that there is no such thing as "Lebanese English"; therefore, I don't understand the need to default to "British English".
Assaf and Schtakleff are both not good examples, as they are 99% not Emirati citizens (as the UAE doesn't grant citizenship based on jus soli, contrary to Canada, which does). There is a case for using Australian English in the case of Assaf, though.
I don't see how using Canadian English rather than British English diminish[es] Pilar Khoury's Lebanese nationality: the lead still defines her as a "Lebanese footballer", rather than a "footballer".
MOS:TIES states: An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. Khoury has ties to both Canada and Lebanon; the former is an English-speaking nation, the latter isn't.
Re dme/mdy, MOS:DATETIES says, as more than one one you has noted, that Articles related to Canada may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article (which I didn't know; so dmy is appropriate).
In short, I would use Canadian (not British) English, and dmy. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 08:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, this discussion as a bit pedantic as Canadian English is pretty much the same as British English. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree, the only difference I see between the two in that article would be canceled (Canadian spelling) rather than cancelled (British spelling), and Canadians would call it soccer rather than football, but I guess we don't want to use soccer anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems to suggest using "cancelled" rather than "canceled". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

In that case, there's literally no difference in spellings in that article from Canadian English to British or any other non-US English language. Which makes this discussion about ENGVAR a waste of time. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

To remove the "Use Canadian English" template does not mean the article is going to be written in a fully British English unless the "Use British English" template were added.--MonFrontieres (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Then what English would you use? American? Indian? Australian? Given the choice, Canadian is the most logical option. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The same English you use for the other Lebanon women's international footballers.--MonFrontieres (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Marcelo (footballer, born 1987)

In August 2021, Marcelo (footballer, born 1987) was demoted to Lyon's reserve side. Should we end his career for Lyon's first team in the infobox? Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

If he is not going to play for the first team again, yes. Giant Snowman 17:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Unless the set-up is very different in France, can we categorically state that he won't play for the first team again? Surely he could be brought back into the first team at any point.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Given that he's included in the website's first team section, I would keep his stint at Lyon open for now. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You could close it and then reopen it, if and when he does return, akin to an international player who hasn't played in years, who gets a sudden call up and cap. It is recent though, so could justify leaving it open as well. RedPatch (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Unless he is removed from the first-team list by the club then the corresponding section should remain open. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring / going against MOS

Hi everyone, @Nehme1499: and I have engaged in a ridiculous edit war on both Hassan Maatouk and Al Ahed FC articles. I will take part responsibility for this and I should have stopped but I have grown increasingly frustrated as Nehme seems to be following my edits now plus seems to be going against the MOS on both counts and won't explain their edits or respond to me on their talk page so I am coming to this forum for advice. On Hassan Maatouk, Nehme has added a date to the top of Maatouk's entire honours section. This date apparently applies to Maatouk's career record as Lebanon's top ever goalscorer. I see no reason why this should be included at all and certainly not for the entire honours section as it only applies to one record. It's not in the MOS and is the only honours section I have ever seen on wikipedia with a date. And on Al Ahed FC, Nehme keeps adding back italics to runners-up even though this isn't correct and I know they've been told before about MOS:ITALIC with regards to runners-up medals. Any input is much appreciated. Thank you. Rupert1904 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

A Lebanese editor having Lebanese articles under their watchlist is not "following". Someone looking at my userpage and editing my top edited pages (for the first time) is following, and trying to prove a point (following the discussion above about notes in the career stats table). Also, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players: This page provides a suggested layout for footballer biographies [...] nothing is set in stone. Just because an article doesn't 100% respect the suggested MOS, doesn't mean that it should. In Maatouk's case, there are volatile statistics (appearances and goals) which must be anchored to a date. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 07:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

No- I landed on those articles through the Tim Template image on the MOS player article and used that as a basis for my edits. Don’t turn this around on me when you keep reverting my MOS supported edits. There’s no explanation for italics with runners-up, you’ve been told before that’s incorrect. And an Honours section isn’t a statistics section and has no need to be anchored to a date. If it is properly sourced then that is all that is needed. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"Don’t turn this around"? You're the one who blatantly stated that I've been "following" you around. Also, I've been told before... by who? You? And yes, we need to know when Maatouk has made 97 appearances. Just because the MOS doesn't happen to have an updated template, doesn't mean that no article at all should have one. You are being way too pedantic and WP:POINTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It makes no sense to have a date on the top of the honours section and it also just doesn't look right and out of place. His article is the only honours section with a date and that date has nothing to do with 99.9% of the section. Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Players/Archive_4 Rupert1904 (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The honours section in the MOS has since been reworked from that discussion. Also, there is nothing about an updated template. It might have nothing to do with "99.9%" of the section, but it is necessary for the records section. Rather than blindly reverting and reverting, wouldn't it have been more constructive to open a discussion after I first reverted you (WP:BRD)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You are being destructive. You're going against the MOS and don't explain your edits. And flat out, it's not necessary for the honours section. That's why you don't see it in any other article on wikipedia - not on Ronaldo, or Messi, Rooney, Lukaku, Bale, etc. The honours section is not a "volatile" section. An update date is very important for career statistics but brings no value and looks out of place in an honours section. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment - first of all, @Nehme1499 and Rupert1904: both of you have broken the 3RR on both articles, and you could both be blocked immediately for that. Please knock off the edit warring and concentrate on discussion. I will block either of you for 24 hours if you edit war again. On the issue itself, I lean towards Rupert's point of view regarding the italics, I don't think those are warranted and it would be better for "Runners-up" to be in normal text. On the other issue, "as of October 2021", I'm kind of neutral as to whether that's necessary. In principle he could win more honours, and the section would need updating, but on the other hand that's not a frequent occurrence so perhaps the "as of" notice is needless clutter. It's not a major deal either way though. — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Rupert1904: please don't call other users "desctructive", that looks like a personal attack. As far as I can see, both of you are in good faith here so keep the conversation civil and discuss the issue not the editors. — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) "You are being destructive": that was a bit unnecessary but ok. Regarding the actual discussion: the same way an update date is necessary for career statistics to show when the appearances and goals where updated, it is necessary in the honours section to show when Maatouk made 97 appearances and scored 21 goals. Your only argument against adding something useful is "it isn't in the MOS" and "Messi doesn't have it". You still haven't explained why you preferred to ignore BRD. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Youth competitions

should youth competition wins be mentioned in player honour sections? so like, winning the FA Youth Cup or the Premier League 2 as a youth player.Muur (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, consensus is that if the competition is notable, it should be included. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Full name field in infobox

Quick question - if a player has changed his name, should this field show his birth name or his current name (or even both)....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say both. That's how it's done for many female players after they change their name after they get married, such as Alex Morgan. RedPatch (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Birth name should be in birth_name field, and full name (including middle names and surnames if they have more than 1 surname e.g. Spanish/Portuguese names) should be in full_name field. Fine to have both fields in the infobox IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't clocked that there's a separate birth name field. Nice one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:TRANSNAME is relevant for transgender and nonbinary footballers. Hack (talk) 08:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Dennis Greene (footballer)

Can anything be done against a ridiculous edit war happening in this article's history? There's some pretty ugly (but properly referenced) information about this person's troubles with the law that's being constantly removed (presumably by subject himself) and added back by an IP editor. This is going on for months. --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It would probably make sense to request a page protection. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 07:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"constantly removed (presumably by subject himself)" - the user in question has confirmed multiple times on the talk page that he is Dennis Greene. He also claims that everything listed about his troubles with the law is "vandalism" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It is out of proportion. These "minor" incidents add up to more article text then his playing and coaching carrerr. It really should be trimmed down or removed. This twitter stuff doesn't warrant an own section in the article for sure. -Koppapa (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

They are quite minor. For now I've removed the subheadings to make it just one heading and paragraph so it's not so overwhelming.--Echetus Xe 10:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I've trimmed the coverage of one of the three incidents. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

And as if by magic, up pops Greene himself again to remove it altogether -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's time Densmagic receives a block. COI (which they have admitted to) or not: they're edit-warring and they have been for years. From their Talk page: "have been doing this for 2 years i remove it and it goes back on". This is also the only article they have ever edited. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All of the sources for these incidents are local newspapers: [12], [13], [14]. Were these events actually covered in detail in non-local sources? If not, seems WP:UNDUE to have half an article dedicated to them. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, we don't need a separate section for it (as the MOS advises against controversy sections, which is what this is). The second two incidents could be added to his managerial career- as he offered to resign after the 2013-14 one [https://www.thenonleaguefootballpaper.com/features/featured/9828/dennis-greene-gets-boston-united-backing-after-benefit-fraud/}, and the other one seems to be a minor incident, that I don't think is encyclopedia-worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I haven't checked whether the incidents were covered elsewhere. But we have about four sentences per incident, that doesn't seem excessive to me. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

We have 7 sentences of content on his entire playing and managerial career, and more than that on these incidents. That seems like too much focus on these incidents to me, unless we can find lots more about his actual football career. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I have posted an explanatory message to their Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Densmagic#Repeated_removal_of_sourced_content Robby.is.on (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME applies - though I believe the content is relevant to the career/biography and so should be included, but re-worded and kept brief and neutral. I have added back as such. Giant Snowman 11:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

As the user in question (Greene himself) continues to remove cited prose and is clearly not interested in editing constructively, I have blocked him for 72 hours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Based on editing history, I think Bobo sheriff bobo (talk · contribs) is a sock/meat puppet. Giant Snowman 14:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I got the impression that Bobo is just a troll/vandal. His behavior is different and also not restricted to this one page. --BlameRuiner (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

He seems to have assembled quite the star-studded team for Dagenham and Redbridge FC... — Amakuru (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

On a related note someone has removed the personal life section of Jamie Guy, claiming "These articles online are causing mr Guy problems in his personal life also causing severe stress and mental health problems which is starting to become worrying as he’s has recently spoken about taking his own life. Please can this section not be re edited thank you." The section in question describes his history of violence against friends, women and ethnic minorities.--Echetus Xe 17:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've commented out the section. While those things are relevant and sourced and can be discussed in the article, they need to be balanced with other aspects of his life, otherwise the "Personal life" is just a WP:CRITICISMSECTION which can't really exist in a BLP. — Amakuru (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

So violent criminals need to have their history covered up because there aren't details on their hobbies and interests? Five sentences on his various offences aren't balanced out by 73 sentences of his minor mostly non-league football career? Sorry that's not good enough to airbrush the section out like that.--Echetus Xe 16:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Echetus above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. This guy is notable for being a footballer, he is not notable as a "violent criminal". And dedicating an entire personal life section to convictions and allegations of violence is a clear violation of WP:BLPBALANCE. It would be fine to mention those things in a sentence or two alongside other sourced discussion of his personal life, but they are not relevant to his football career and should be kept to a minimum. I have no particular affiliation to this person and what's written about him sounds reprehensible, but that doesn't detract from our duties per the BLP policy. — Amakuru (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

As Echetus states above: there are 73 sentences on his football career; five sentences on his offences aren't unbalanced. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I have listed this issue at WP:BLPN, so hopefully we'll get some independent opinion on the issue. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Alex Scott (footballer, born 1984)

Is the two different references list necessary? Looks a little odd at the bottom. I wasn't sure what to make of it. Govvy (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope, not needed, now removed. Folk might want to have a look at the Matches and goals scored at World Cup & Olympic tournaments section, seems (very) over-detailed. Crowsus (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

k, thanks for cleaning that up. Govvy (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I've taken care of the sections. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, ye some of that was a bit much. Was watching Football Focus on the BBC and then looked at her profile, 140 caps for England women is dam impressive. Govvy (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Is a table with her record on Strictly necessary? Seems to me to get in the way of her media career section. If it stays, maybe we make it collapsible? Rupert1904 (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

List of Algerian football players in foreign leagues

I've just come across this article - surely not needed? Even if notable, the article needs a huge overhaul... Giant Snowman 20:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It's all over the place. The scope of the article is insane and goes well beyond a simple list of Algerians playing professionally outside of the country too. Plus, since they have a pretty sizable diaspora in Europe, specifically France, it would be a challenge to keep the article updated which it is clearly not. Rupert1904 (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I think some people has made a list to doc every blue link Brazilian footballers that played outside Brazil (can't remember the exact list title or got deleted?). Here is sort of well maintained sublist List of Brazilian footballers in Serie A. here is the Romanian: List of Romanian expatriate footballers. Matthew hk (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

List of Lebanon women's international footballers born outside Lebanon

I have made a draft; while extensive, the article is probably too short. What are your thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

is 8 players really notable? one of them doesnt even have a wikipedia.Muur (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

She's notable, though, having played senior international football. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Muur: The fact that she doesn't have an article on Wikipedia (yet - I'm sure Nehme will rectify that soon enough) doesn't mean she isn't notable. --SuperJew (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more simple too add the information in List of Lebanon women's international footballers? --Fredde (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense; I've done that. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fredde 99: There are quite a lot of lists of this style. See at {{International footballers}} all the lists under title "Outside". --SuperJew (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but to be fair the shortest list (Sweden) has over 20 players. I think 7 players is a bit too little to warrant its separate article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I think moving it to the international footballers page is good for now. Like you all said 7 is pretty short. If it increases then it could warrant a separate page. Maybe there could be a standard such as minimum 20 players and/or 15 different nations. Personally, though I'm nt the biggest fan of all the bullet points (although maybe I just like wikitables too much). I made something like this maybe could add a years represented column). Not sure if a table is better or worse. RedPatch (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the table is bad, though I don't know what other information can be added (as the year of debut and of the last match are already present in the main table). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

List of Chinese naturalized footballers only has 11 players and a couple of them aren't even eligible to play for China. Rupert1904 (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

While the entries are few, there is a good amount of prose, and the topic at hand is probably more notable than Lebanese women's international footballers not being born in Lebanon. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true. Might be more difficult to get a Chinese passport or citizenship than Lebanese (I don't know) but in my opinion, one is just as notable as the next. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, you could just add it to the main List of Lebanon international footballers born outside Lebanon article and have a women's section until it warrants it's own article once it reaches a certain number. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

For the time being, I've added it here. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Notes for National Cup and League Cup columns in stats table

Rupert1904 has removed these notes from Amad Diallo on the basis that "this is not in the MOS" and "these are self explanatory". Firstly, the MOS isn't a rigid ruleset, it's just the "recommended" layout. Secondly, for what I've seen, these notes have been included in almost all stats tables I have seen. Not everyone knows that Italy's domestic cup is the Coppa Italia, for example. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

They are specific and self explanatory already. It's not in the MOS and in my belief, it's redundant to have a note about them. In-line notes are helpful for Continental and Other columnns as there is ambiguity to these columns because appearances could be made across a multitude of competitions from continental competitions like the UEFA Champions League, Europa League, Europa Conference League, AFC Champions League, Copa Libertadores, to super cups like the UEFA Super Cup, to the Club World Cup, to end of season promotion or relegation play-offs, to the EFL Trophy, and more. Also, if a player only competes in one country for the entirety of his career then I would have no issue with the National Cup column being re-titled as FA Cup, the DFB-Pokal, or Coppa Italia, etc. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

"these notes have been included in almost all stats tables I have seen" - the exact opposite to my experience, in which very few have them. I do not think these notes are needed in the MOS, and do not think they are needed in mainspace with the exception of very few cases. Giant Snowman 17:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Over half of Juventus players have the note, which is why I assumed most had it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

In the interests of accessibility and consistency, these footnotes should be included. How are we to assume that the average reader will know the names of the cup competitions in a range of national associations? If we include the name of a cup competition in the column header when a player only played in one, I don't see why it would be problematic to retain this information when they've played in more than one in the form of a fairly unintrusive footnote. And it would be inconsistent to name competitions in some cases, e.g. European and other competitions (and the divisions in the division column), but not for national and league cups, especially when this information is just as pertinent. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The notes in continental and other columns is because a distinction needs to be made because there are so many different competitions that are included in a single column. Only one competition is included in the national cup or league cup columns. Not only do I think it's redundant, I also think it is especially confusing and convoluted to add a note saying what the national cup column refers to when a player has traveled and played in a number of different leagues as no distinction is made by the note and it's always something like National Cup includes appearances in FA Cup, Scottish Cup, Copa do Brasil, Copa del Rey, KNVB Cup, Russian Cup, Coppa Italia, etc. I think that makes it more confusing for the average reader. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

A list of national cups is confusing? I honestly don't see how. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Would the placement of the footnote be more appropriate with the number of appearance stat like it appears for CL and Europa appearances under the Europe column? --dashiellx (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a footnote is necessary at all. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you use a Tooltip instead - where relevant? Felixsv7 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that a footnote is any more or any less necessary for a cup competition than any other competition. To me, this would probably be the ideal way forward where there's more than one competition in a cup column. It would take away potential confusion as to what competition matches with which appearances (as with your example with the numerous cup competitions) and would be consistent with the footnotes for other competitions. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

My point is the national cup and league cup columns signify that there is only one competition so no need for extra notes. Continental and Other have a many possibilities and can have multiple different competitions in just one season so the notes are helpful for those. Rupert1904 (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The national cup for a club isn't the same as that of another. I don't see how removing information is more useful than keeping a small note. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably overkill on my part, but I used KDB stats and put the note next to the appearance stats. When you get down the ManCity stats it could be argued it looks a bit busy --dashiellx (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Kevin De Bruyne club career statistics table

Appearances and goals by club, season and competition
Club	Season	League			National Cup		League Cup		Europe		Other		Total
Club	Season	Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Genk	2008–09^[1]	Belgian First Division	2	0	0	0	—		—		—		2	0
	2009–10^[1]	Belgian Pro League	35	3	2^[a]	0	—		2^[b]	0	1^[c]	0	40	3
	2010–11^[1]	Belgian Pro League	32	5	0	0	—		3^[b]	1	0	0	35	6
	2011–12^[1]	Belgian Pro League	28	8	1^[a]	0	—		6^[d]	0	1^[c]	0	36	8
	Total		97	16	3	0	—		11	1	2	0	113	17
Werder Bremen (loan)	2012–13^[2]	Bundesliga	33	10	1^[e]	0	—		—		—		34	10
Chelsea	2013–14^[1]	Premier League	3	0	0	0	3^[f]	0	3^[d]	0	—		9	0
VfL Wolfsburg	2013–14^[3]	Bundesliga	16	3	2^[e]	0	—		—		—		18	3
	2014–15^[4]	Bundesliga	34	10	6^[e]	1	—		11^[b]	5	—		51	16
	2015–16^[5]	Bundesliga	2	0	1^[e]	1	—		—		1^[g]	0	4	1
	Total		52	13	9	2	—		11	5	1	0	73	20
Manchester City	2015–16^[5]	Premier League	25	7	1^[h]	1	5^[f]	5	10^[d]	3	—		41	16
	2016–17^[6]	Premier League	36	6	5^[h]	0	1^[f]	0	7^[d]	1	—		49	7
	2017–18^[7]	Premier League	37	8	3^[h]	1	4^[f]	2	8^[d]	1	—		52	12
	2018–19^[8]	Premier League	19	2	4^[h]	2	5^[f]	2	4^[d]	0	0	0	32	6
	2019–20^[9]	Premier League	35	13	2^[h]	1	3^[f]	0	7^[d]	2	1^[i]	0	48	16
	2020–21^[10]	Premier League	25	6	3^[h]	1	4^[f]	0	8^[d]	3	—		40	10
	2021–22^[11]	Premier League	7	2	0	0	2^[f]	1	3^[d]	0	0	0	12	3
	Total		184	44	18	6	24	10	47	10	1	0	274	70
Career total			369	83	31	8	27	10	72	16	4	0	503	117

^ ^a ^b Appearances in Belgian Cup
^ ^a ^b ^c Appearances in UEFA Europa League
^ ^a ^b Appearance in Belgian Super Cup
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Appearances in UEFA Champions League
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Appearances in DFB-Pokal
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Appearances in Football League/EFL Cup
^ Appearance in DFL-Supercup
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Appearances in FA Cup
^ Appearance in FA Community Shield

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Cite error: The named reference SW was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Kevin De Bruyne". kicker.de (in German). kicker. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
^ "Kevin De Bruyne". kicker.de (in German). kicker. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
^ "Kevin De Bruyne". kicker.de (in German). kicker. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
^ ^a ^b "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 148 in 2015/2016". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 27 January 2018.
^ "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 148 in 2016/2017". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 27 January 2018.
^ "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 148 in 2017/2018". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 27 January 2018.
^ "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 148 in 2018/2019". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 27 January 2019.
^ "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 148 in 2019/2020". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 27 January 2019.
^ "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 148 in 2020/2021". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 21 September 2020.
^ "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 148 in 2021/2022". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 15 August 2021.

Yes, definitely too busy! Giant Snowman 12:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

When doing Andrei Kanchelskis' stats box, I lumped them all together in the headers as I thought it looked best like that, much less clunky. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd personally be happy to go with the De Bruyne example, I don't think it's looks unduly busy or confusing, and it conveys all the information I think most readers would expect to see. It would take out the confusion that might arise in an instance like Rupert's example above where there's a significant number of cup competitions, where a reader might be left wondering which competition matches up to which club. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo / season abbreviations

Hi everyone - having a debate with User:PeeJay and User:FMSky on how to name some of the sub-sections within the club career on his article. The sections specifically in question are 2008–2009 and 2017–2018; and really 2007–2008 and 2020–2021 as those are unnecessarily extended to include a half season on either side. I am of the belief that these sections should be abbreviated as 2008–09 and 2017–18 as these are very clearly about specific seasons in Ronaldo's career. They are not about years in his career as PeeJay and FMSky have suggested to me. The MOS states that abbreviations are acceptable for consecutive years and furthermore, we abbreviate competitions and season articles in that manner too, i.e. 2021–22 UEFA Champions League not 2021–2022 UEFA Champions League. I do not understand why then we would keep these sections as 2008–2009 and 2017–2018 when the prose in both are about a period of time spanning the professional season in Europe, July/August - May. Welcome all feedback. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

They're not about seasons. One section is called "2017–2018: Fifth Champions League title and fifth Ballon d'Or". Idk if you have noticed but he didn't win ballon dor in the 2017-18 season. So by changing the heading you'd be introducing factual errors. FMSky (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine to abbreviate. No reader is going to get confused and think sections in a person's biography titled 2008–09 and 2017–18 are referring to 2008–2109 and 2017–2118. If the MoS says otherwise, it should be changed imo. --SuperJew (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

the MOS says "non-abbreviated years are generally preferred" (MOS:DATERANGE). the rest of the headings also uses full date ranges -- FMSky (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: pinging PeeJay who was also involved FMSky (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@FMSky: The MoS also says two-digit ending years may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years --SuperJew (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

why is this even a discussion ffs. it says the other one is preferred, what about it is hard to understand? -- (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

my main problem is, when you write it as 2017-18, most people assume the football season 2017-18 is meant, which again, it isnt. it also includes stuff later in the calender year, like the ballon d'or. --FMSky (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Firstly, I don't think that is what people assume. Secondly, the Ballon D'Or might not take place in the season proper, but it does refer to the season afaik. Thirdly, I was mostly commenting on the claim that the MoS is clear on how we should represent the years. Personally, I don't mind either way, but don't see a reason to battle it out in an edit war or even bother discussing it so vigourously. --SuperJew (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"the Ballon D'Or might not take place in the season proper, but it does refer to the season afaik", no it doesnt --FMSky (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

And my main problem is that it creates inconsistency with the section titles. Yes, it's true that football seasons are normally written in the form "YYYY–YY", but not every subsection in that article is about a single season, so naming some of them "YYYY–YY: blah blah blah" and some of them "YYYY–YYYY: blah blah blah" looks messy. Furthermore, as FMSky said, we're not really talking about seasons here, we're talking about date ranges. The section titled "2008–2009: Final season and continued success" doesn't just refer to the 2008–09 season, but a lot of stuff that happened between 2008 and 2009. Yes, it picks up midway through 2008 and stops midway through 2009, but it's still a date range more than it is a signifier of a football season. – Pee Jay 10:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that, for consistency with the other sections in the article, the date ranges should be displayed in full (YYYY–YYYY). Just because we can display them as YYYY-YY, doesn't mean that we should in this specific case. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Peejay, makes no sense to create inconsistency. Like having a section with 2015–2017 followed by a section with 2017–2018. Non-abbreviated years are preferred, and are consistent with the rest of the article, so they should definitely be used in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency of content (such as having one section cover two years while another covers three) is not a problem, inconsistency of style is. But of course I agree with the rest of what you said. – Pee Jay 11:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

That is what I meant, but not what I wrote... 2015–2017 followed by a section with 2017–2018 is fine, 2015–2017 followed by a section with 2017–18 is inconsistent. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

User:PeeJay, but since these are about specific seasons in Ronaldo's career, then there is an inconsistency in style with the rest of football articles on wikipedia. Which I think is the bigger consistency concern. And please don't suggest these are not about individual seasons because the 2008–2009 section starts with pre-season in July 2008 and ends with a sentence about his final goal for United in May 2009 while 2017–2018 begins with a sentence about his goal in the Spanish Super Cup at the start of the season and finished with a sentence about Madrid winning the Champions League at the end of the 2017–18 season. If the majority of his club career is sub-divided into blocks of multiple years rather than individual seasons, can these two just be added to other sections? I suggest combining 2007–2008 and 2008–2009 into one section titled 2007–2009 and adding 2017–2018 to the 2015–2017 section (to make it 2015–2018). Okay? Rupert1904 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the need for this. Why can't bi-annual events be noted down under a single section, called YYYY-YYYY? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

My issue is that these sections are about specific seasons in his career. It's certainly okay to sub-divide his professional career into multiple blocks of years but if there are going to be two outlying sections in his whole article about specific seasons they should be consistent with how we label all competitions and season articles across wikipedia. We abbreviate seasons and competitions as 2016–17 Real Madrid CF season, 2020–21 Premier League, 2018–19 Bundesliga, 2017–18 Coppa Italia, etc. not as YYYY-YYYY. I don't understand why we would break wikipedia football consistency on his article. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

THEY ARE NOT ABOUT SPECIFIC SEASONS -- FMSky (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

User:FMSky, please read the article. These two sections in question are about specific seasons. Here's the spark notes version that I wrote above about these sections: "the 2008–2009 section starts with pre-season in July 2008 and ends with a sentence about his final goal for United in May 2009 while 2017–2018 begins with a sentence about his goal in the Spanish Super Cup at the start of the season and finished with a sentence about Madrid winning the Champions League at the end of the 2017–18 season." How are those not about specific seasons? I don't know what you're basing this on. Also, no need for all caps. It's incredibly rude. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

A side question for FMSky - if we're not sub-dividing by seasons, what are we dividing by? Dividing by seasons makes sense, not by an arbitrary amount of years per section. --SuperJew (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Ike Ugbo

This player has just switched international allegiance from England to Canada. Other than other eyes on the article given the over zealous editors, we need to decide if there should be any change in wording/date formats etc. Giant Snowman 19:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Canadian and British English are pretty much identical. The only real "difference" is with soccer player and footballer. I would use Canadian English, but call him a footballer (omitting the nationality from the lead). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

the player himself probably doesnt even say soccer hes a british dude that chose canada cuz hes not good enough for englandMuur (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Haha. You're not wrong. I agree and would say call him a footballer. I think Canadians use both date formats interchangeably too so I would think okay to keep standard non-American date format of DD/MM/YYYY. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitely agree on dates - and happy to keep 'footballer' as well, but would not be opposed to change to 'soccer' if there is consensus to do so (which there is not). Giant Snowman 21:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Canada uses any date format, as per MOS:DATETIES (Canada is specifically mentioned there). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It's one of those that's probably going to be changed back and forth non stop by editors. Kind of like Alphonso Davies who gets changed between soccer and footballer every few days. RedPatch (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is that as soon as he's capped by Canada, just change everything to Canadian English (a la, soccer) and no, I don't care that he probably spent 2 weeks of his life in the country. I think it should be black and white, and any player that players for countries that call it "soccer" should be soccer players regardless of how much time they've spent in the country just for consistencies sake.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I would have no issues with that. Giant Snowman 08:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, should use "soccer player", as that is the term used in Canada, which is the country his international allegiance is for. --SuperJew (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, given that he switched to Canada, and not from, Canadian English (with soccer player) + dmy makes sense. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Xavi

Can we request protection on page Xavi, lots of vandalism/early moves over his potential impending move to Barcelona that hasn't been announced yet.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Done - reverted and protected. I'll leave you to clean/update the article. Giant Snowman 14:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Some recent edits that need looking it and I'm on three reverts. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Now officially announced. Giant Snowman 08:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Link first team or Academy in Youth Section

In the youth section of the infobox, what should be linked? Should it be the first team or the actual Academy system (if they have a wiki page)? What I have always done is link it to the academy page (but show it as the regular name). For example, I usually put it as - obviously with square brackets not the round brackets that I have here just to represent what I do - ((Chelsea F.C. Under-23s and Academy|Chelsea)), ((La Masia|Barcelona)), ((Toronto FC Academy|Toronto FC)), ((Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy|Manchester United)). However, I've started to notice several pages use the first team there instead such as ((Chelsea F.C.|Chelsea)), ((FC Barcelona|Barcelona)), ((Manchester United F.C.|Manchester United)). If there is no page for the academy, then I have just linked the main club page. Is what I have been doing (linking the academy if there is a separate page) correct? RedPatch (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I would do the same. Kante4 (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Me too. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

RM Lucas Hernandez → Lucas Hernández

An editor has requested for Lucas Hernandez to be moved to Lucas Hernández. Since you had some involvement with Lucas Hernandez, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Havelock Jones (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

2022 Philippines Football League

The 2021 Philippines Football League was cancelled due to COVID-19; rather than create a separate article for 2022, @Hariboneagle927: has simply moved the page to the current for 2022, and included a section on the Cancellation of the 2021 season. Most of the references in that article now are likely relevant only to the failed 2021 season (especially squad additions etc. from March 2021). I am wondering whether it is more appropriate to restore the 2021 Philippines Football League article, and have both season articles. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I am open to the possibility of restoring the cancelled 2021 season. But imo, most information is still relevant for the 2022 season including the squad changes and no games were played at all so I opted to just move the article. I have removed the depreciated info of the plans to have a single centralized venue since it may not necessarily be true for the 2022 season. Waiting for feedback from other users regarding this concern.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I would keep 2021 Philippines Football League, the same way we have 2019–20 Lebanese Premier League. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

And same as we have done with UEFA Euro 2020 (held in 2021) and lots of other tournaments affected by COVID... Giant Snowman 17:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I would keep it as 2021 season, and then a separate article for 2022. It's different than Euro 2020, which was postponed. The 2021 Phillipines season was officially cancelled per league source and this is the (separate) 2022 season. Another example is the Argentine 2020 Primera Nacional, that like the Euro was postponed not cancelled, and held until January 2021, so same article. Given it was 'officially cancelled', I think it makes sense to have two articles. Several other leagues are like that RedPatch (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Done Restored 2021 Philippines Football League article to the version from 21 October 2021 when the move occurred. Both articles will need some further copyedit to split the information into the correct year, but @Hariboneagle927: has largely achieved this in the 2022 article already. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ross Irwin (soccer)

Hi folks. Ross Irwin (soccer) is an interesting but very poorly sourced article. A Google search found me hardly anything. Maybe others have more luck? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Him being an ASL All-Star verified here. Giant Snowman 10:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Good find. I've added it to the article. Thanks, GS. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I screwed up.. Category:A.C. Trento S.C.S.D. players

Hello. I created Category:A.C. Trento 1921 players, and enlaced to this element Wikidata:Q9066865, so i started to add players to the new category. But then, i found this Category:A.C. Trento S.C.S.D. players, enlaced in Wikidata:Q86306280.. and i don't know what to do.... Somebody Help Me ! !. Thanks. Pincheira22 (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I should have fixed the issue. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ideally the old category should be moved and re-named, using WP:CFDS... Giant Snowman 08:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you!.Pincheira22 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Gaucho

Is this article notable at all? Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: It is a relatively known comic here in Brazil, such as the Turma do Pelezinho... BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Minifootball articles

Are these articles, created by Amara94, notable?

Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I think a shout could be made for the Asian Minifootball Confederation, but I don't see how the U23 Minifootball team of Tunisia should be a Wikipedia article... that's just not notable... Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

A.C. Milan Youth Sector

Sector? Why not name the article academy?? Govvy (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's a direct transaction of the Italian 'Settore Giovanile'. Giant Snowman 12:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't all football youth academy/sector articles on wikipedia have the same naming for consistency? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, at least most Italian articles have the same naming convention....e.g. Juventus F.C. Youth Sector, Inter Milan Youth Sector. Matthew hk (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thiago Almada

Hello. Could someone explain to me why Thiago Almada's statistics section has a weird 2020–21 season with no league appearances? Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

His club suspended both him and Miguel Brizuela after the charges became public. Probably this? Also South American football is too terrible on the domestic season may not match the continental season and then somehow they changed back to "calendar year" season as 2021 Argentine Primera División (probably 2022 Argentine Primera División). Matthew hk (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Probably has something to do with the weird scheduling Argentinian leagues did due to COVID which shut down their seasons in March 2020. The Argentinian top tier shut down in March 2020 in their 19-20 season. The next season only began July 2021 (when the 20-21 season would've normally started august 2020 and gone until june 2020). So it was probably done to line up the dates with the continental competition (which is in the row, which I guess still had somewhat of a consistent schedule to prior years) since the 20-21 domestic season was effectively skipped. The 2021 season is 2021 calendar year only, so they're probably going to do another short 2022-only season to get back on track date-wise for 22-23. RedPatch (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

.

Fora De Jogo broken

Hi folks, quick heads-up: foradejogo.net, which many of us rely on for Portuguese stats, seems to broken. I hope they fix the site soon. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on:, still not working as of today, worrisome indeed! It raised my eyebrow even before this happened, as site was working but without posting anything regarding the new/current season more than two months (in European countries, that is) into it.

Attentively --2001:8A0:7667:5801:38B8:BDFE:AC80:4B76 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese is your native tongue, I believe? Would you be willing to reach out to the people running the page to kindly ask what is going on? Robby.is.on (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Just went there, the "e-mail us" (or something to that effect) field that used to appear below in the homepage is now gone! Oh well :( --2001:8A0:7667:5801:38B8:BDFE:AC80:4B76 (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I've sent them a message on Facebook. Let's see what comes of it… Robby.is.on (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I got a reply. Apparently, the website and its content was sold to people running zerozero.pt: https://www.zerozero.pt/news.php?id=339137 The FDJ folks wrote: "We were told they had plans to maintain it, at least on a first stage, but try reaching out to them." AL, can you contact zerozero? Robby.is.on (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The site is working again. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The main page has always seemed to work. It's the subpages (such as matches) that don't. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Rats. At least I know what the problem looks like. I bet some of you had your hopes up with the fake news I posted here. False alarm. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Abdoulaye Diallo

Does Abdoulaye Diallo meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Because there are several other footballers called Abdoulaye Diallo but this guy who played for Rennes and Nottingham Forest apparently is the sole "owner" of the article title Abdoulaye Diallo. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, we have these three others:

The first of the three has played for major French clubs in Ligue 1 and Ligue 2.

Abdoulaye Diallo seems to have significantly more pageviews than the other three: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Abdoulaye_Diallo%7CAbdoulaye_Diallo_(footballer,_born_1963)%7CAbdoulaye_Diallo_(footballer,_born_October_1992)%7CAbdoulaye_Diallo_(footballer,_born_1996). I don't know if that is sufficient for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

page views are not indicative of something being a primary topic. Giant Snowman 18:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I supplied them because WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY states that Wikipedia article traffic statistics are "tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion". Robby.is.on (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"May" being the operative word. Giant Snowman 22:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"May" also doesn't mean "not indicative". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

He's the most popular at this point in time, but not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a historical sense. I'd rather his page be disambiguate further, but it's not a big deal that he's at the base name for now either.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Being the original/historical source of the name doesn't really matter. The fact of the matter is when people today search for Abdoulaye Diallo they most likely do not mean those other ones. --dashiellx (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll propose an RM. Please contribute. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Paul created the RM at this link. RedPatch (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Spain does not exist!

Just so you know guys. In case you missed the news: [15] [16] [17] [18]. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If they say it once it must be true. But If they say it a second time, it must be an undeniable fact RedPatch (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

First MotM

Are first-ever man of the match award in top-flight football notable? I've read this discussion Are players' marks relevant/allowed in articles and so it is clear not all MotM are warranted in the honors section, but my query is more for the club career section. Context: Talk:Conor_Gallagher#MotM. cc: Koncorde and Mattythewhite Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that not all goals, assists or MotMs warrant an inclusion in player articles; however, providing both goals in a 2–0 win against Man City, in addition to being awarded MotM, is clearly notable enough to be added. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Are we going to include every time a player provides assists? Or every time a player is a MOTM? Simply cited to match reports? Nonsense. Giant Snowman 15:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Well thankfully Murtaza isn't asking that all assists and MOTM's be mentioned, so we can completely ignore these nonsense questions. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

"providing both goals in a 2–0 win against Man City, in addition to being awarded MotM, is clearly notable enough to be added" - where is the line? What if mr Gallagher has a similar performance later in the season? what about players who have performances like that 10 times a season? That is the nonsense. Giant Snowman 15:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Players who have performances like that 10 times in a season should be treated accordingly. But you know and I know that Gallagher isn't one of those players in November 2021. Hence, a discussion about how to treat his first MOTM performance. Not his 10th. We should address Gallagher's MOTM in the confines of a) his current loan move and b) his career trajectory/progress to date. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Except of course (and I hadn't actually realised this until now) - it's not actually his first MOTM. He had two in August alone - 1, 2... Giant Snowman 16:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

His first one should definitely be mentioned, it was on his debut and with the quote from Vieira. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No issues mentioning that he was awarded MOTM by the club on his debut. But that is not what Murtaza.aliakbar wanted to add... Giant Snowman 16:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Goals, assists, MOTM and other errata might be worth including in significant matches or when they are landmarks which would confer some notability to the event itself and is discussed with some degree of notability in the sources utilised. So first MOTM isn't really notable to me, but MOTM in a vital win that saves the team from relegation or wins a cup may be notable. I think we already have a lot of blow by blow accounts for certain players that need culling, but I am not opposed to the inclusion of some context for events and career performances. For instance if a player was to win the clubs player of the season, it may be warranted to go back and maybe add some context as to what enabled them to win (i.e. how many goals they scored, assists, key performances). Koncorde (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: ^{: No issues mentioning that he was awarded MOTM by the club on his debut.} (edit) Thanks for making a concession! What I wanted to add was his first MotM by the Premier League. Besides, as someone else in this thread mentioned, in the context of his loan from Chels, the opponents, and his performance made it notable. It isn't "excessive detail", "what-about-x", "indiscriminate collection of things", "recent news", or any of the other claims you've made, imo. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

And would you add his first MOTM awarded by another organisation in the future? You are changing the goalposts. Giant Snowman 17:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Koncorde and others have already said that context matters. And it is clear to me that the reasons for your revert (aka "excessive detail" / "wikipedia is not news" / "what about x" / etc) have been overriden by the participators here. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and you have yet to convince me (or others) why this particular game should be mentioned. Giant Snowman 15:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

No. At this point, it is just you trolling around. Read Koncorde, Nehme1499, and ItsKesha's responses, they concur that the inclusion depends on the context which is amply justified. If I am mistaken about their consent, may be they'll let us all know. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't throw comments like 'troll' around, it cheapens you. Yes, I would appreciate clarity from @Koncorde, Nehme1499, and ItsKesha: - should Murtaza.aliakbar's edit be restored or not? Giant Snowman 19:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

For me, yes. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

For me, no. It's just cruft. It's the usual, and to me incredibly piss poor, editing that plagues the project and sports in general. Too many articles are written live, with very little review or oversight, and end up a laundry list of events to the extent that it might as well just be a series of bulletpoints.

Instead editors should be viewing what they are adding from the perspective of what a biography would look like. For instance rather than mentioning he scored, assisted or got a MOTM on multiple occasions in single sentences the answer is to write better paragraphs.

A better approach is instead to write at the season end, or when the events themselves are discussed by secondary sources with the context of the significance included - instead of us trying to create a narrative out of factual observations. For example this season in review about Conor may talk about "following the signing he became a regular first team player in manager Patrick Vieira's new look midfield. He achieved several notable performances in the season, scoring a personal best 10 goals and recording 8 assists. Following strong early season performances, including a MOTM against Manchester City in October, saw Conor discussed as a future England ayer and saw calls for him to be included in the squad. Following a successful campaign at Selhurst that saw Palace finish 10th and achieve a Quarter Final appearance in the Carabao Cup there were calls from Palace fans, pundits and club officials to make his signing permanent. After the conclusion of the season he won Crystal Palaces Player of the Season, and narrowly missed out on the PFA Young Player of the Year." Koncorde (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Koncorde that this is the same kind of poor editing that runs amok across football articles. "On X date he did this. on Y date he did this". We are an encyclopaedia, not a sports almanac. We report what reliable sources have reported in detail, we do not regurgitate match reports and/or match stats. Giant Snowman 21:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A better approach is instead to write at the season end This is a terrible approach to build up a page. Wikipedia is a living document (that is, anything that's not wp:not is fair). Besides, this line of thinking goes against Wikipedia's editing policy: imperfect. Come end of season, any contributor is welcome to remove redundant parts and rewrite the thing, but that shouldn't stop contributors from building the page as-notable-things-happen (wp:recentism notwithstanding). We are an encyclopaedia, not a sports almanac. Slippery slope. What's proposed is nothing remotely close to being unencyclopedic as three other wt:footy contributors on this thread have consented to. Don't throw comments like 'troll' around, it cheapens you. trolling isn't something any of us is immune from doing. Calling someone a troll is different from calling out trolling (imo). Though I agree that it may come off as offensive (and is against wikipedia's collaborative spirit), and for that accept my sincere apologies. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You ask my opinion, and then you can't be arsed including the full sentence before melting down into complete irrelevance, and ignoring what I said originally? or when the events themselves are discussed by secondary sources with the context of the significance included - instead of us trying to create a narrative out of factual observations. Onto the actual issues you raise:

Living document doesn't mean anything can or should be included if it's pointless or irrelevant. It's why there is editorial oversight and the BRD process.

Wikipedia "is not" is great, but this tells me you haven't read the WP:NOTNEWS section particularly item 1 & 2. A very bad habit regarding item 1 is for people to write very much in the here and now, slap a source from the BBC that then doesn't talk about the goal or assist in the same detail (for example). And item 2 is ritually abused in WP:FOOTBALL in general because people have poor self control and the volume of topics means it is difficult to exert sufficient editorial oversight to ensure content is encyclopaedic.

Citing Imperfect without also citing WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM or WP:CANTFIX or similar defeats the object of those policies. For example if we consider WP:UNDUE it states "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." - this is important as it speaks to the essence that an encyclopaedia should be including only what is what prominent about that player in reliable sources. Generally speaking a match report is in and of itself not a matter of prominence - one happens every week for every player that is playing. For example Kane scoring 3 goals vs Albania is an observable fact - but there is functionally barely any discussion of Kane or his achievement. The "viewpoint in the published source" is in effect absent as it's just news, so anyone writing about his 3 goals is effectively just doing The News. In contrast an article such as this analysis of Harry Kane, or this or even specific follow ups to games such as this carry actual weight (though I personally extend little weight to sources such as Talksport and similar on their own, they can be useful to demonstrate weight of public opinion to meet WP:WEIGHT).

For the purpose of discussing Conor Gallagher, sources such as this and this or this enable similar weight to be gained that we can reference but it should be written well and reflect the weight of the articles being used as reference, and the context they use it (otherwise we're just quote mining). Koncorde (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

then you can't be arsed including the full sentence before melting down into complete irrelevance The latter half of what you wrote (that which follows or... "or when the events themselves...") in fact supports the inclusion of what GiantSnowman reverted. I only wanted to highlight the first part of your concern as being inconsistent with Wikipedia's editing policies. Living document doesn't mean anything can or should be included if it's pointless or irrelevant. Conor's first MoTM is neither trivial nor pointless, given the nature of the match (away to man city), and his performance. we can reference but it should be written well This isn't the right topic to discuss manual of style (MOS), as it were (though, I agree with what's being said). MOS isn't why GiantSnowman reverted the edit. In short, re: all of your concerns: wp:imperfect allows liberty to edit as-we-go given the content meets wp:5p2, and isn't wp:not. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The second part supports the inclusion WHEN the reliable secondary sources support its inclusion, AND other policies do not exclude it. My first part is not inconsistent at all specifically because running coverage is covered specifically by WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTNEWS and so on.

Onto specific claims Conor's first MoTM is neither trivial nor pointless, given the nature of the match (away to man city), and his performance. - you don't make that decision on which opposing teams or fixtures extend triviality or pointlessness. Policy does. The secondary coverage does. A basic match report or similar does not support WP:WEIGHT vs an actual article writing about the significance of that performance and so on. A post season review of his year would be even better because it would have broader context for each event. It's why with historic players we use biographical details and articles written about THEM and not match reports. That the bad habit is we have written about players based on match reports is a reflection of bad writing.

This isn't an MOS issue. This is core policy; and reflects the need for good writing, and appropriate sourcing. To summarise:

"Conor got his first MOTM against Man City" sourced to a match report is cruft and NEWS. The mere presence of such coverage does not mean we use our POV to assign weight or value to the match, performance, or player.

"Following an impressive start to his Crystal Palace career, including a MoTM performance against reigning Champions Manchester City, there were calls for Gallagher to be included in the England squad for the European Championship qualifiers" sourced to actual articles discussing Conors performances (such as those provided) that mention each element etc both eliminates the need for our POV assessment of the significance of the fixture, avoids WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

The content as intended to be written was firmly in the WP:NOTNEWS, and as described by GS in his first comment on that talk page No, there is long established consensus at WT:FOOTBALL that we do not include every single game or goal or event. We are an encyclopedia, not a sports almanac. Please see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE for Wikipedia wide policies that justify this position. GiantSnowman 10:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC) so misrepresenting his position as well as mine is also unnecessary. Koncorde (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for such detailed explanations Koncorde. I appreciate it. I hear you. But: I don't think the edit is cruft (3 other editors on this thread, concur). The edit isn't as dramatically indiscriminate / news, as what's claimed, either. The edit GiantSnowman reverted cited an article that went We must be entering into signing-of-the-season territory with the on-loan Chelsea man. He was yet again absolutely everywhere for Palace at the tip of their midfield, setting the tone for their intense pressing in the early stages which led to the opening goal for Zaha. But he is not only a player with tremendous workhorse capabilities, he has bags of quality too. The finish for his goal showed that.. My edit isn't close to "inclusion of every single game or goal or event" like GiantSnowman claimed in the Talk page. That assessment is a blatant straw-man which can be used to strike-down any wp:imperfect edit. Your other points while valid are veering off on some tangent about content quality and assessment. Conor Gallagher's article is a stub or stub-like. It needs to be built first. Brick by brick. Deletionist stance (most of which I concur with for articles already with FA/GA/A assessments) isn't of much help here, I feel. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

No offence to the 3 other editors, but maybe they write in a crufty way too and are guilty of the same behaviour? Straw-polling doesn't overcome policy arguments - or the need for quality - nor does it negate concerns of other editors. I have repeatedly explained how to write better in order to meet policy requirements. I have explained how to write for inclusion of content, and what is appropriate sourcing - yet you are still defending the original crufty inclusion. If you are genuinely hearing me then recognise WHY what I am saying is meant to be helping you and anyone else to write better and avoid the issues raised by GS.

So, for instance you were adding a single sentence about a MOTM performance, which followed on from a single sentence about 2 goals scored in an earlier match. The net result read as In July 2021 Gallagher joined Premier League club Crystal Palace on a one-year loan deal.[16][17] He scored two goals in a 2-2 draw with West Ham United on 28 August, his first goals for Palace.[18] On October 30, Gallagher scored and assisted a goal and was named Man of the Match as Crystal Palace beat champions Manchester City 2–0 at the Etihad.[19]. GS's concern is pretty valid, it looks like we're just going to keep stacking up events based on the POV of the editors - the sources in question being basic bland match coverage.

Now GS could have found other sources and re-written the content to be less crufty - but so could you. In fact there were any numbers of ways to approach resolving the argument in a constructive way that would have both alleviated GS's concerns and met your needs and so on. I've given repeated examples. Resorting back to IMPERFECT ignores that any other editor can disagree with you and the only way to resolve that is to discuss and resolve the issue. it isn't a straw man.

And no, I am not veering off - I am very specifically on topic. You can read my comments at the thread you linked at the top of this discussion by yourself to see that this is entirely on topic to explain the policy to help you support your arguments for inclusion. As an Inclusionist; accusing me of being a Deletionist or holding a "Deletionist stance" suggests you aren't actually reading my words. Koncorde (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If you are genuinely hearing me then recognise WHY what I am saying is meant to be helping you and anyone else to write better and avoid the issues raised by GS. Gotcha. Just for the record, the reasons behind your concerns weren't the reasons behind GiantSnowman's reverts (their reason was that the MotM award (in the context of the match and Gallagher's career) wasn't notable at all to be included; whereas yours is, "cite a ref emphasizing Gallagher's contribs and summarise it as in the ref"). On your little note about wp:fixfirst and wp:fixtheproblem, (Now GS could have found other sources and re-written the content to be less crufty - but so could you., I hope GiantSnowman takes notice.

Let me muster up some free-time one of these week-days to find a ref and propose an edit. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Also incredibly poor form not notifying me about this discussion @Murtaza.aliakbar:. Giant Snowman 15:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Didn't know you were interested in consensus building on this (because your stance has been consensus already exists given your threats to revert edits until one of was dead (wp:3rr be damned). And so, I thought I must involve folks from earlier discussions (the archived discussion I linked to), to know if consensus did indeed exist). Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Just admit you were trying to obtain consensus to support your view without allowing me the opportunity to put forth counter arguments. Giant Snowman 17:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure he was trying to gain a secret consensus on a page where you've made comments in only eight different threads. That's a reasonable accusation to make. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Why ping other prolific posters, but not me? Was he just hoping I would stumble across this? (as, in the end, I did). Giant Snowman 18:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You didn't "stumble" across it, you're a regular poster on this page, the likelihood of you reading it was incredibly high. In fact, it took you 55 minutes to post a comment. But go off. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you knew the inner workings of my editing!!! I don't actually 'read' this page, I rely upon my watchlist to let me know what discussions are ongoing (hence why I comment on only some, and not all, threads). There was every chance I would never see this, or at least miss it for a long time. It was incredibly fortunate I found it as quickly as I did, actually. Go off indeed. Giant Snowman 19:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Be right back, just going to the musical instrument restoration shop to pick up my tiny violin. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, you claimed consensus existed on wt:footy on MotMs. In my searches I found a couple relevant discussions to which the answers were given by Mattythewhite and Koncorde, and so I pinged them to ask if their thoughts also applied to first MotMs. Assume bad faith all you want, but know that you're draining everyone else's energy with that paranoia. I appreciate your contributions GiantSnowman, I really do. You have put in more energy into Wikipedia than anyone else I know. Believe me when I say my attempts here are honest. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I think a well sourced man of the match performance for a player at a mid to lower table Premier League club like Crystal Palace against the reigning champions is notable enough for inclusion. Again we don't have to go overboard, just like we don't include every goal or assist but this seems to be a significant performance in his young career and it was on the biggest stage for a club like Crystal Palace who are fighting for Premier League survival every year. One example of a man of the match performance in prose that I like can be found in the Villarreal section of Étienne Capoue. Rupert1904 (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

We not have IPs adding that Conor Gallagher is an Irish international (which he is not). I am at 3RR. Can others keep an eye and revert please? Giant Snowman 19:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Close request

Can somebody please review and close Talk:Jimmy Jewell#Requested move 3 September 2021, which followed on from Talk:Jimmy Jewell (association football)#Requested move 2 September 2021? Pinging @Chumpih and Niceguyedc: who were involved in the previous closes. Giant Snowman 21:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Done (I hope). Apologies for not closing earlier. Chumpih. (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

nope, the discussion remains open... Giant Snowman 22:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: has done this now. Chumpih. (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Spain women's national football team, other repeated nationalist edits

Might be worth keeping an eye on this page, particularly the squad list and how every player has a regional flag by them. As I assume this is by birth - because no regional passports exist - this would be like decorating Raheem Sterling with a big Kingston, Jamaica flag. If you look at the talk page and the evidence provided in that diff, the IP who added these in 2012 resembles the same one that is restoring them over and over, with the same modus operandi of never leaving a single word in edit summaries. I think this is a covert way to promote nationalisms, as the men's team page is far too visible and watched to keep up these tendentious edits there. The fact that the original IP has a warning on their page for adding this childish edit suggests a political motive as well. I have also encountered the same user, with similar interest in women's football, regionalisms and not writing edit summaries, POV-pushing on Galicia national football team and Castile and León autonomous football team by repeatedly adding lists of players who didn't play for those teams, but had ancestors from those regions. [19] [20] [21] Hopefully with more watchers, this guy/gal will give up their decade-long crusade. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:188E:CD15:1EAB:CFA5 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree that those flags should not be there. I remember to remove them at some point but not sure. Kante4 (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

They were added back once again. Any more comment? Kante4 (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've requested a page protection. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Not just IPs doing it though. Subnational flags fail MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE, Subnational flags (regions, cities, etc.) should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article. That is clearly not the case here. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Then the user(s) should also be warned and banned. They are providing no justification for adding the flags. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

List of footballers with more goals than caps

This is surely total trivia and not deserving of a standalone article.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yup, nothing notable at all. Kante4 (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks like WP:TRIVIA to me, almost every source is just a stats website, which shows this isn't a notable topic (as it's not covered in e.g. newspapers). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:, @Kante4:, @Joseph2302: the list is very interesting and a lot of work has gone into it but I'm also a bit concerned that it doesn't meet guidelines. I've started an AfD here which you're more than welcome to add to. I have a feeling that this could be quite a controversial one so AfD is definitely better than PROD... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Lesbian footballers

On the page Homosexuality in association football there are lists of LGBT male and female footballers. The list is very incomplete, especially the female section. I started adding to it, but don't have much time recently so brought it here if someone wants to add (or to the contrary argue to remove the list part). It can be expanded with information from Category:LGBT association football players and from List of LGBT sportspeople (which is why I wonder if we need the list at the first page). --SuperJew (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest remove the female section completely. Unlike in mens football in general, homo or bi women footballers are really not that uncommon or that big of a deal in some of the bigger female footballing countries. If one then go okay let's only include those from countries where it's less accepted/common, we're going to have to decide which countries those are, and if you have a general list have people ask why all these other players aren't included. Altogether, just better not to have it at all. -- KTC (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a case of WP:DOAL points 5 and (especially) 6. Categories are enough. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

IIRC it started off as male gay footballers only, on the basis that they are incredibly uncommon (unlike women, as KTC says). If women are included it will likely be so long it will need a separate article. Giant Snowman 21:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the list part should just direct to List of LGBT sportspeople then? --SuperJew (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Alex Baptiste

after his appearance tonight it was stated he made his 600th career appearance. our stats were 10 off, but I fond his first season at mansfield (4 apps) hadnt been counted and his qpr total was missing 3 league matches for some reason, but that only took me to 597. ive counted a few times but I can only get to 597. and, weirdly enough, soccerbase show 600 total appearances if you count their stats on the actual page, but further research indicates to me they seem to have added three extra "other" appearances from somewhere. he made 6 total play off appearences for blackpool, but theyre counting 9. not really sure whats going on there but surely soccerbase are pulling these stats from somewhere? i dont appear to be missing anything but maybe someone can check over his stats to see if I have somehow missed three appearances (pretty sure i havent though) and soccerbase have inflated his stats by 3. (and this caused bolton to say he has 600 matches? bolton's report outright says it was his 600th match) maybe he played some cup matches during his non league loans in the early 2000s that soccerbase didnt catch? also just noticed they counted three play off appearences in 2003/4 as regular league appearances. is there anywhere that shows match line ups for the 2003/2004 fa trophy?Muur (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Muur, I think you are barking up the right tree with the 2003–04 FA Trophy as I see that Tamworth made it to a fifth round replay in the competition. Even though his loan spell was short, I have to imagine that is where there may be a missing game or all. I haven't found anything conclusive yet but will keep looking. Cheers. Rupert1904 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

he was also on loan at burton in the same season, and burton were in the competition as well so if it wasn't tamworth it was burton. ...or both, maybe there was no cup tieing back then and he played for both of them in the same competition?. the biggest problem I found was that our article on it doesnt include match dates so I couldn't go "oh, he was on loan when they played this one match" etc. (in fact, there isnt cup tieing in that I think, neil danns in 20/21 played for radcliffe in the fa trophy and then was on the bench (but didnt come on) later in the season for halifax so he could indeed have played in three matches total that season combined for both teams. that or soccerbase or wrong which they probably are cuz like I said, theyre counting 9 play off appearances for him for blackpool when he only played 6. (could also be early fa cup qualification games? its a shame this is from nearly 20 years ago).Muur (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Check this website out: Flashscore. It doesn't have lineups but it has the match dates which is the first I have seen. He would have been at Tamworth for their win over Burscough on 9 January 2004 and would have been on the books at Burton Albion for their loss to Hornchurch in the quarter-finals on 14 February. Rupert1904 (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

so he didnt play in the Burscough match due to a registration error (they apparently forgot to list their loan players for the competition) source here. I can confirm here however that he *did* play in that loss against hornchurch however. he's still missing two matches though... think bolton just took the soccerbase number where they added three extra play off matches to blackpool for... some reason.Muur (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to get in touch with the club or him about this to see how they got to the number? Rupert1904 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Matty Cash

Is it correct to describe him as a Polish footballer? He was born in England to an English father and Polish mother, and has recently obtained Polish citizenship in order to play for Poland. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

As he represented Poland yesterday, it is correct if i'm not wrong. Kante4 (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Given that he was naturalized, and not born Polish, I would omit the nationality. 18:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Standard in this case is omitting nationality in lead sentence, and then having a sentence saying something like "Born in England, Cash plays for the Poland national team.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, for these situations where a player was born in one country but represents another (usually through heritage), it is standard to omit nationality from the opening sentence. Giant Snowman 19:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I still think there is more to it than simply "being born in another country" (which you seem to agree with me on here). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of players this applies to will be situations like Cash. Giant Snowman 19:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Cash was born & raised in England, and qualifies through Poland through his mother. To describe him as 'Polish' is not reflective of his history. Sterling was born in Jamaica but raised in England from a young age. To describe him as anything other than 'English' is not accurate either. If there are any cases where it is not clear then, as with all things, we discuss and agree. Giant Snowman 20:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

To be fair Sterling was born in Jamaica to Jamaican parents, and gained English citizenship through naturalization. I think whether the player was born a citizen of the country they represent internationally, or if they gained it through naturalization is a more important factor than the country of birth. Also, Sterling was born in Jamaica but raised in England from a young age: when do we decide what "young age" means? Is 10 young? 15? 20? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I just want to be clear that I would also, personally, remove the nationality from the lead for Cash but not for Sterling, but I would rather there be a standard to apply, rather than having to open a discussion every time analogous situations pop up. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The default for players like Cash is well established. Giant Snowman 21:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You completely ignored what I said... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I did not. You want a standard - there is one, for most cases (as is the case with everything on Wikipedia!) Giant Snowman 12:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It is impossible to create a set of rules that covers every situation; there will sometimes be a need for editorial judgement. Spike 'em (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

So Sterling is English because we feel like it? That doesn't seem to be a good approach. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No, because multiple sources describe him as such, and it seems to fit in with MOS:CONTEXTBIO Spike 'em (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to have to side with User:Nehme1499 here, I don't see why Sterling would be the exception over hundreds of other pages. I remember early in his career, his nationality and who was going to play for was up in the air, like this Guardian article mentions. Yes, he's undoubtedly English, but he's also undoubtedly Jamaican born, of Jamaican descent, with Jamaican nationality.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

And that is mentioned in the lead of his article. The reason for his notability is as a footballer, and the only nation he has ever represented is England. Of the 38 List of England international footballers born outside England, over half are described as English in the first sentence. Most of the rest (12) omit a nationality there, 2 have "other country"-born English, 1 outright "Australian" (Tony Dorigo) and 1 British (Matt Le Tissier).Spike 'em (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Which brings me to my point: the national team(s) one plays for is the actual determinant here, not whether they where born abroad or not. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Would Sterling still be described as "English" if he had never had an international career? Probably yes. The same cannot be said for Cash. Giant Snowman 19:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the standard in this case is omitting nationality in lead sentence. Why can it not be written as "British-Polish footballer? This would be inline with how nationality is represented for comedians, baseball players, as well as other footy players. --dashiellx (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Because we can get ridiculous. How would you describe Ricky Shakes? Giant Snowman 21:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a slippery slope argument. I personally would describe Ricky as "an English-Guyanese footballer" and mention he represented Trinidad and Tobago for one cap before fully committing to Guyana. Having nationality, even dual nationalities, in the opening sentence seems more the standard for biographies. If the nationalities get outrageous like Albert Einstein's, you deal with that individually --dashiellx (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should have both nationalities in lead, standard we have now is fine. Dual citizenship in football is common, even though they only have 1 "sporting natinoality" at a time. I'd just like if it were applied flat, so Matty Cash and Sterling are treated the same.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I like how Mário Fernandes lead section is written, even though it would probably be more accurate to say he represented both the Brazil and Russian national teams. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Rupert - that is standard wording for these cases (see also Riyad Mahrez, Liam Moore and many others). Giant Snowman 18:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It makes sense to omit nationality for Fernandes and Moore, but not for Mahrez. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Why? Exactly the same situation. Giant Snowman 18:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Fernandes and Moore played for two national teams, Mahrez only represented one. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No, Moore played at youth level only. All three were born and raised in country X and represented country Y through heritage or residency. Giant Snowman 21:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

What about Curtis Tilt, Bobby Decordova-Reid etc.? Giant Snowman 21:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Moore represented both England and Jamaica internationally; a youth NT is still a NT. Assuming Tilt and Decorova-Reid were born Jamaican (and didn't obtain citizenship later on just to represent the NT), I would define them as Jamaican. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You know what they say about making assumptions...these were players born & raised in England! Giant Snowman 21:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

They were born Jamaican and have only represented Jamaica internationally. Plus, their UK citizenship is just as much of an assumption as their Jamaican one. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

where do you get this nonsense from?! Giant Snowman 22:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to demonstrate that your reasoning is flawed. The fact is that he has only represented Jamaica, he has Jamaican nationality and is of Jamaican descent. Therefore, he should be noted as Jamaican. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

He was born and raised in England, and was described as 'English' by sources only until such time as he applied for and received Jamaican citizenship in order to represent the national team. Describing him solely as 'Jamaican' is wrong; the long established standard wording is the best way of dealing with these situations. Giant Snowman 22:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not talking about players who received citizenship later on. I'm talking about the ones who were born with the citizenship of the country they later represent. I don't see why you put so much emphasis on "being born" in a country, when descent holds just as much importance. Being born in a country doesn't always confer nationality (not all countries have jus soli). For example, you would probably remove the nationality from Wassim Abdel-Hadi (Palestinian born in Lebanon), though people of non-Lebanese descent don't get Lebanese citizenship just for being born in Lebanon. We can't always go with the rule of "he represented X but was born in Y? I should remove the nationality". Each country has its own citizenship laws, and I'm not going to go look at each of them to know whether I should omit or keep the nationality. On the other hand, it's much simpler to base this on the national teams one has played for. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

And out of interest what sources are you using to verify whether or not players had citizenship of that country? Giant Snowman 22:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You are missing my point. I just look at how many national teams the player has played for. Only one? Then include that national team's nationality in the lead. More than one? Omit the nationality. If there is a source that clearly states that the player acquired citizenship in order to play for the national team (e.g. Omar Bugiel), then nationality should be omitted (as the nationality status of the player has changed). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

BFSF U-14 Academy Cup

Is this notable competition? I have doubts. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say that no it's not notable. Only the highest level of youth competitions are notable and I don't think this reaches that level - especially since it such a young age agroup. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

pretty obviously not.Muur (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rupert1904 and Muur: Thanks. Someone already nominated that for deletion. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There are currently 6 AfDs on this and similar topics: U14 AfD, U14 AfD 2, U15 AfD, U15 AfD 2, U18 AFD, U18 AFD 2. RedPatch (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Compact group stage results on main tournament page

Is there a consensus regarding displaying the group stage results like this (no scorers) or like this (with goalscorers)? There's no consistency whatsoever across even different editions of the same tournament, let alone different competitions. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I personally prefer it with the goalscorers. --dashiellx (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why the goalscorers shouldn't be displayed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Punjab State Super Football League

Do you all think the season articles for the Punjab State Super Football League are notable? Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

~~I wouldn't say so. The league in itself is notable but I don't think that season articles for a regional league would be accepted. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)~~

At the risk of getting all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we have plenty of season articles for regional leagues in other countries, e.g. all the articles in Category:Northern_Premier_League_seasons...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

When we have 2021–22 South West Peninsula League for a tier 10 English football league, seems like a WP:BIAS to delete a state level Indian league. Although my solution would be to delete all of these regional/county level league seasons. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

If the clubs at that level are deemed notable and the league is notable, personally I think it means league seasons are a valid content fork. Cheers, Number 5 7 12:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair point. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

San Marino kits

Does anyone have any idea what kit San Marino were wearing against England? It looks like the kitman got bored and ordered a bunch of cut-price Galatasaray shirts. Is this a one-off or have I missed a new kit launch? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It was a special-edition kit for their 90-year anniversary. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Celebrating a 90th anniversary seems a bit of a stretch ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, when you're ranked 210th in the world and last won a match in a friendly in 2004 against Liechtenstein, what are you gonna celebrate? ;) --SuperJew (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Women's club name articles

I would like to propose article name changes of the women's football teams playing in the FA Women's Super League and FA Women's Championship. We currently have Arsenal W.F.C., Aston Villa W.F.C., Brighton & Hove Albion W.F.C., etc. This is not how the media refer to these teams. For example, the BBC lists them as Arsenal Women, Aston Villa Women, Brighton & Hove Albion Women (see [22]). I have yet to find a mainstream reliable source that use W.F.C. I propose that as per WP:COMMONNAME we adopt these more commonly used names. I realise that a name like Arsenal Women does not convey that this pertains to football. But the abbreviation W.F.C. is so uncommon that it does not convey that either. There are alternatives that better convey the article pertains to a footbal club:

Arsenal Women Football Club: clear but uncommon and not concise
Arsenal Women F.C.: F.C. helps convey it's about football since F.C. is a better understood abbreviation, but it is not common I believe
Anything else?

I would like to point out that @Amakuru: made the case in a recent discussion regarding renaming Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women into Arsenal W.F.C. 11–1 Bristol City W.F.C., that Arsenal W.F.C. and Bristol City W.F.C. are misnomers because neither are independent football clubs; instead they are departments of Arsenal Football Club and Bristol City Football Club. The Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women discussion concluded with a decision not to make a change. Renaming Arsenal W.F.C. and Bristol City W.F.C. into Arsenal Women and Bristol City Women would be consistent with this decision. I can understand the desire for consistency with the men's team names Arsenal F.C., etc, but as I said, the W.F.C. abbreviation is far more obscure than the F.C. abbreviation, so I propose a name change to Arsenal Women, Aston Villa Women, Brighton & Hove Albion Women, Chelsea Women, etc. I hope we can find a consensus. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't disagree with this, but the names will need to be e.g Arsenal F.C. (women) or Arsenal F.C. Women to match the main article. Crowsus (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with moves to e.g. Arsenal F.C. Women - as ling as the naming convention is a) agreed by consensus and b) consistent. Giant Snowman 19:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Given consensus at Talk:Juventus F.C. (women), I think we should be moving the articles to Arsenal F.C. (women), for example. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me - again, as long as there is consistency. Giant Snowman 19:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Include "women", definately. If you look at this report, you will see that the ten clubs listed in the results section all have "women" after the team names and the club in question are referred to as "Arsenal Women". Moving these pages for consistency could solve the naming problem which was earlier discussed with the naming of the article I created re the 11–1 scoreline. The table link provided also yields the same naming by the BBC as pointed out. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy with Arsenal F.C. Women or Arsenal F.C. (women), either is fine really per the above. — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

For clubs which have both a men's and women's team, the common name is the same. Manchester City, Chelsea, Celtic and Hibernian are all referred to as such in match reports from today's matches [23] [24] [25], there's no need to say women because you're talking about the Women's Super League or SWPL so you know it's the women's team (although BBC do redundantly put women at the end of every team's name in the league table). As a result, I would favour Arsenal F.C. (women) over Arsenal F.C. Women. Agree we should be consistent though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Stevie and would perfer Arsenal F.C. (women) over Arsenal F.C. Women. --dashiellx (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Stevie and dashiellx. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

some similar discussions commenced with naming of A-League Women clubs at the Football/Australia_task_force, where there has been rebranding of the men's A-League to A-League Men's, and renaming of the women's W-League to A-League Women's. All W-League articles for the teams and current season for teams were almost automatically changed to the new name within maybe 1-2 hours of the press release, boldly and with no discussion. Whereas neither competition has yet started (still in pre-season), it is difficult to know at this stage what is going to be considered as WP:COMMONNAME. My opinion is that for all of the Australian articles, we should wait until that is better defined before making further changes – perhaps early next year; whether there is consensus here around (re)naming of English clubs may also be an influence. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello folks,

I had started an 11 page move request to change to the (women) titles at the start of the week but it appears that "oppose" is the majority opinion of other people, two of those people who contributed to the talk page (Arsenal) have also done so in this section I've noticed. Are we saying those two people agree here but disagree with their views at the talk page because mass moving "does not fully bode well for the eventual page mover" as @Iggy the Swan: says… (It was Iggy who contributed to the talk page first and initially agreed with me before the flurry of opposes came in then that person said "agree re above" about the opposes listed). I never recall anyone changing views on anything which requires opinion till now. 46.149.249.106 (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I would have posted here, but as RM was started, I posted there. Guess it's the same for lots of others. And I'm saying there's not a consistency in women's team names, and so they cannot all be bundled together (as some teams are Women FC and others are FC Women, and we should treat these separately). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

On that talk page I didn't say I was disagreeing with the page moves, it's just that a mass page move discussion with potential different outcomes would require separate RMs as the talk page has that bit of information there. I had a look at the bold text on all 12 pages and only 3 out of 12 have their wording in a different order compared to the others. The titles of those three all have "F.C. Women" in that order so they are likely to bode different outcomes to the rest. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

To be blunt this is an awful proposal. The men's teams are referred to as for example Arsenal F.C. and the media simply use Arsenal, this proposal of changes is incohreant. Changed the Women's tams to things other than what they currently are and in particular moving pages away from W.F.C is treating these pages as subservient to the men's articles and as if the women game on Wikipedia is simply an afterthought. I hope this proposal dies like the Move request on the Arsenal W.F.C page is currently being mullered. 2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:4D41:A845:A89E:AC2 (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Stub notification

I've seen the "This biographical article about XYZ is a stub. You can help by expanding it" on a few articles, oftentimes it not even listed, but this article seems excessive with it listed five times. Five is overkill right, don't need to list it for every "About" RedPatch (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree, but not sure which ones to remove... Crowsus (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the English ones, as she's Mexican/Canadian, not English. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Is the page even a stub? My Rater tool is rating it as a start page... I can destub entirely if you think that makes sense.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I usually go by the "1.5k B of prose" rule. I think that with a couple more paragraphs it can become start level. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian and the category tree

UnitedStatesian who is known for mass removing "expatriate sportspeople" categories, is explaining his/her actions here. Have any of you ever come across the rationales that are laid out here? Geschichte (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Categories should be defining per WP:CATDEF and not based on current situation because this is an encyclopedia, not Football Manager. I have seen very few categories based on current status alone and most were snow deleted. The living people category is a special legal exveption. There is no way anybody could say it was not a defining part of Diego Maradona's note that he was an Argentine expatriate sportsperson in Italy. To the letter of that user's rationale, Maradona should be barely categorised as anything at all, having stopped being a Napoli or Argentina player 30 years ago. Heck, you wouldn't even be allowed to categorise Abe Lincoln as a Republican or a president. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:30D0:668E:C270:2B84 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Tournament notability criteria

Mikehawk10 initiated deletion discussions for two articles 1982 AFC Youth Championship qualification, 1990 AFC U-16 Championship qualification, which I authored. I checked the notability guidelines in FOOTY, there is league notability, but no precise tournament notability. I propose the following criteria:

1. Any continental or subcontinental tournament with age limit ≥ X is notable. (Here continental means it is organized/sanctioned by one of the six continental confederations, subcontinental means regional international federations, e.g. EAFF.) I suggest this X=16, the reason being that FIFA has a U-17 championship, and continental U-16 championships serve as qualifications to the FIFA U-17 World Cup.

2. If a tournament is notable, then each individual edition/season of it is notable as well. (E.g. if AFC Youth Championship is considered notable, then 1982 AFC Youth Championship is notable.)

3. If we document an individual tournament, then we should document the entire tournament, including the qualification, early rounds. (E.g., if 1982 AFC Youth Championship is notable, then 1982 AFC Youth Championship qualification is worth documenting.)

Please comment on the above proposal and leave comment on the two abovementioned articles for deletion. Sofeshue (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. I'll describe why piece-by-piece:
1. I'm not convinced that there's an age that exists where we can go back in time and say that [a]ny continental or subcontinental tournament with age limit ≥ X is notable. If we're struggling to find coverage of U-16 tournaments and U-20 tournaments from just under 40 years ago, it might just be the case that they weren't seen as significant. And, absent evidence significant coverage on these international tournaments, I'm unsure why we'd presume notability through all periods of time.
2. Notability for 40+ year-old tournaments is not inherited because we've managed to find WP:GNG on the tournament series. There can be non-notable editions of a tournament, even when that tournament receives significant coverage in two newspapers twenty years later during another edition of that tournament. This seems to reduce to another formulation of WP:INHERITED, which obviously shouldn't confer notability.
3. If a tournament is notable, we should document the tournament. That doesn't mean the qualifiers are independently notable of the tournament itself. In many cases, it seems likely that a notable tournament could absorb its qualifiers without automatically splitting into separate article. And, if we approach WP:TOOBIG territory, then a case-by-case approach would make more sense than a sweeping guideline that grants inherited notability to the qualifiers as an independent article; there's no need to create a new WP:SNG-based presumption that qualifiers should be blanketly presumed notable.

Overall, I don't think that this would ensure that we're actually putting up notable tournaments. It's entirely possible that, particularly early on, not every edition of a now-notable tournament was indeed notable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, this discussion belongs at WT:NSPORT, not on a WikiProject noticeboard, if there's a desire to establish a community consensus to modify the existing guidelines. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

- this discussion belongs at WT:NSPORT, not on a WikiProject noticeboard, sorry, should I move the discussion there? Sofeshue (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  - If your intent is to modify a community-established notability guideline, yes. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    - It is meaningless to defend some archivist articles. If Wikipedia is not a place for complete information for minor historical football tournaments, then I apologize for having written these articles and won't touch historic football again. Sofeshue (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Extended football squad player

The above needs to be amended please. The nationality field currently links to the country itself, when in this context it should clearly be either the national football team or association (as clearly indicated in the wording of the template guidelines which I looked over, although I'm too stupid to work out how to edit the actual code). The current format breaks both the general rule on linking to nations, and also the flag rule of displaying the icon without a label. Crowsus (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Making an edit request might help. Clog Wolf _Howl 12:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Just needs the {{flagicon}} replaced with {{fbicon}}? Is there consensus for this change, as it is quite a widely used template (hence the protection)? Spike 'em (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Consider this me seeking consensus then, I can't see anyone being able to argue successfully against the above. The only issue is whether it should be changed to {{fbicon}} or {{fbaicon}}. Crowsus (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request now made at template talk. Have suggested the same format be used as in the Template:Football squad start, which links to the national teams and displays the 3-letter code beside the flag, resolving both issues. Crowsus (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Update, template has now been amended. Hope everyone who might care is happy with it. PS I was talking crap above, the 'current squad' goes to the FA not the NT so that's also how the 'extended squad' has been tweaked. Crowsus (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

List of Coppa Italia finals

Hi there. Can someone have a look to the article's peer review? I've been waiting since 22 July for a reply. I'd like this article be a FL. Dr Salvus 18:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Kosack absence

Has anyone had any contact at all with Kosack recently? They haven't contributed since October 3rd, which is a weirdly long gap for such a consistent editor. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if that is a good idea or not, perhaps try commenting on one of the most recent posts by Cardiff City on Facebook, since the user has been updating stats on the club's players after their matches are over. Perhaps someone who knows the user may answer with better knowledge than us.

Last year, a Wikipedia user managed to find out on Facebook, via a friend, that one of the more experienced users on the site, Ronhjones, sadly passed away, see this section. I hope that is not the case with Kosack though. We both know the user was not 100% well in the FAC request section on the talk page, which is a good clue to consider. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Have you tried emailing the user to see how he is doing? Govvy (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I've sent an Email and hope to get a response soon... REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess it's down to workload when people notice these things, when I torn my calf and didn't edit for four months no one noticed I was gone!! heh. Govvy (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It was mostly that he'd left some reviews hanging, something that no good editor should do. (In my humble opinion). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Most notably this one which has not been checked since the day of Kosack's last edit to date. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively WP:VOLUNTEER: Anyone can take a break for any period of time or drop out whenever they like.Spike 'em (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Good point @Spike 'em:. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Liam Thompson (footballer)

Don't know if this the correct place to inform, but Liam Thompson has now made his debut so this draft can be published as an article, would create the article myself but don't want credit taken from the original author. --ParkingTheBus (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Done In accordance with ParkingTheBus's wishes, notified etc. to original creator. Eagleash (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

And DAB created, as now 3 Liam Thompsons, none of whom have overwhelming case to be primary topic. Spike 'em (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Ferenc Szusza

I declined a PROD for the Hungarian footballer Ferenc Szusza. While I find sources that show he existed, I don't immediately see good sources to support the claims in the article. Can someone from this WikiProject take a look? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@力: He certainly qualifies for an article, he played international football. [26], regards. Govvy (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure "worldfootball.net" qualifies as a "good" source. Maybe it is reliable, but I've never heard of it and don't know of a "reliable databases of football players" project-space page. (Is there such a page?) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@力: good sources added for the main claims, including one from the governing body of all European football -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

A UEFA obituary should definitely be good enough ... not sure why that didn't show up at the top of my Google search. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

worldfootball.net may seem amateurish but it's backed by and run by Heimspiel Medien GmbH & Co. KG which has a revenue of over $5 million. [27] However, that maybe just company under another company, so there maybe more money over the top, etc. Regards. Govvy (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The article needs an improvement drive, looks like he was an important figure in Hungarian football history, not to mention he was manager of Real Betis and Atlético Madrid. Govvy (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

He's featured in a great book about the golden age of Hungarian football called The Names Heard Long Ago by Jonathan Wilson. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Jota

Just noticed that the article Diogo Jota now has a "not to be confused with" hatnote then saw that Diego Jota was moved from Diego Jota Martins, a page I discovered in October this year and therefore added that article on Jota. I don't know much about the player which had his article title changed so I am not very sure if "Diego Jota" is the right location or not. And checking the talk page history (Talk:Diego Jota) there is no discussion on whether it should be moved or not. The same can be said for Diogo Jota in the way it was moved to Jota (footballer, born 1996) without an RM taking place first. It was returned whence it came during a discussion on an RM about moving the Birmingham Jota (at the time) per WP:COMMONNAME a few months after the initial move.

I suspect most of you have never heard of Diego Jota Martins before but I think this is the sort of move that should have been discussed first whether or not people know the player well or not (which most are not likely to consider him well known). Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate at WP:RM? Giant Snowman 18:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Done - with a "?" in place of a potential new name, returning it or stays. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Jadon Sancho

Could someone revert the incorrect change to the infobox stats and monitor for more after changes his Champions League goal today? I'm on three reverts. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I added a hidden message in the code to explain that it's league only. Hopefully that stops it. RedPatch (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I note that several of the IPs have added the goal but left the number of appearances unchanged, which makes a special kind of no-sense-at-all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, looks like my message in the code was just straight up ignored. "no champions league goals in this section", editor proceeds to add champions league goal. Oh well, I tried RedPatch (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I was amused to note how many edit requests there are on his talk page saying "change his current club to Man United because he has joined them" dated in the summer of 2020..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

[BelgianCup-2] Appearances in Belgian Cup

[UEL-3] Appearances in UEFA Europa League

[BSC-4] Appearance in Belgian Super Cup

[UCL-5] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Appearances in UEFA Champions League

[DFBPokal-7] Appearances in DFB-Pokal

[EFLCup-8] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Appearances in Football League/EFL Cup

[12] Appearance in DFL-Supercup

[FACup-13] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Appearances in FA Cup

[18] Appearance in FA Community Shield

[SW-1] Cite error: The named reference SW was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[6] "Kevin De Bruyne". kicker.de (in German). kicker. Retrieved 17 August 2015.

[9] "Kevin De Bruyne". kicker.de (in German). kicker. Retrieved 17 August 2015.

[10] "Kevin De Bruyne". kicker.de (in German). kicker. Retrieved 17 August 2015.

[sb1516-11] "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 148 in 2015/2016". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 27 January 2018.

[sb1617-14] "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 148 in 2016/2017". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 27 January 2018.

[sb1718-15] "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 148 in 2017/2018". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 27 January 2018.

[sb1819-16] "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 148 in 2018/2019". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 27 January 2019.

[sb1920-17] "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 148 in 2019/2020". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 27 January 2019.

[sb2021-19] "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 148 in 2020/2021". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 21 September 2020.

[sb2122-20] "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 148 in 2021/2022". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 15 August 2021.

[1]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[2]

[e]

[f]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[g]

[h]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[i]

[10]

[11]