Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 114

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

Archive 110

←

Archive 112

→

2A02:C7D:32B7:9E00:0:0:0:0/64

Someone using the IP address range has made edits to Brighton & Hove Albion players, updating stats but updating them in the format 'Monday 1st January 2018', which does not comply with WP:MOSDATE and therefore have been corrected by other editors. The latest I have noticed was on Glenn Murray which I've fixed recently. If anyone notices similar activity from this range of IP addresses, please correct the format as soon as someone sees the change first. Thanks, Iggy (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Notifying a football-related move review

There is a move review about article UAE Arabian Gulf League on Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 January, you can have some comment on Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 January, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Jamie Robson allegations

Can I have some opinions on the talk page for Jamie Robson regarding recent media coverage of alleged drink-driving, please? There was a similiar recent discussion here regarding David Moyes and an alleged assault, where the consensus was it didn't need to be in the article. Jellyman (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Should not be included unless / until it's reported in a reliable source, i.e. not the Daily Record (red-top) or Twitter (for goodness sake). It's also stretching credibility to breaking point to describe Jamie Robson as a "public figure". He won't even be a household name in most Dundee households. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPF says "Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article". This applies to most professional athletes, outside the minority of star who are generally well known (i.e. Messi, Ronaldo). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Managers in league season articles

Hi,

Should the "manager" column in the 'Personnel and kits' section of league season articles (see 2017–18 Premier League#Personnel and kits) only list the last manager or all managers over the season?

At the moment the standard seems to be only the most recent manager, which seems to me to be recentism, and could mislead readers into thinking that only those managers managed. For one particularly bad example of this, see the 2015/16 article, which lists Everton F.C.'s managers as being Joe Royle and David Unsworth, who managed one game (the last of the season), with no mention in that section of Roberto Martinez, manager for most of the season that the article is about.

I've checked a few other league articles and they all only have one manager listed, even in cases where clubs have many over the season. I think these should be changed to list all managers who took charge of the club over the season, with dates where necessary. OZOO (t) (c) 20:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

All that shows it the current manager of the team, directly below that 2017–18 Premier League#Managerial changes shows what changes happen to managers for the teams during the year. I think it is ok as it is. NZFC^(talk) 20:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Normally all changes are documented at the managerial changes section. Listed at the personal and kits should only be the recent one. Kante4 (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

IP editors changing "Steaua București" to "FCSB"

A few IP editors (82.137.9.167, 82.137.13.149, 82.137.13.244, 82.208.187.11) have been changing links from "[[FC Steaua București|Steaua București]]" to "[[FCSB | FCSB]]". I am aware of the controversy regarding the naming of the club but as far as I know, the change goes against current convention. They edits started on 30 December and have continued until today while other editors and I have been repeatedly reverting the changes. Should the IP editors be blocked? Robby.is.on (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: - some more of the same 'disruptive editing' has been made after your post. I will scan through the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.137.9.0/16 range and find more of the same type. As to your block querey, I agree with that as I consider that as disruptive editing (pointing re-directs to the page previously linked to) which is unnecessary. Iggy (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Iggy. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Another IP, 82.208.187.11, is reverting again. In a few cases, they have explained the change in an edit summary, for example at Denis Alibec which gives me the impression that they are willing to discuss. I have written on their Talk page to suggest they start a discussion here. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

5.15.11.185 has now appeared. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: I've blocked this latest IP - if anymore re-appear let me know directly. Giant Snowman 12:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Will do. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Harry Roberts

I have posted an update on the Harry Roberts date of birth issue, which was brought here by @Jesi last month. I am now suggesting that we move the page based on new information. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Squad on field in club articles

I’ve seen at Real Madrid C.F. and FC Barcelona, also Juventus F.C. use squad field boxes to show the squad from a Champions League title win. Since the squad can be found at the Final’s page, these are probably not necessary on a club article? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 05:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

FA articles about Manchester United and Liverpool don't included it. Details like that are more important for technichal articles like these about single matches, not in generic articles like these about the clubs.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Juventus article's weight is near 50 kb. over the limit in en.wiki and this make more difficult the access and read.

Unai Emery

Quick survey, let's get "voting" if you please,

in your opinion, what outline is the more suitable/habitual for a football bio? The current or this one (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unai_Emery&diff=815965378&oldid=815788574)? The latter contains the personal life content in a section in its own right, the former has it all mingled with playing career, so much the confusion that now the title is humungous ("Early life and playing career"). The latter mentions player position in the introduction, the former in the body of article.

The former version contains wikilinks of a competition (i.e. UEFA Champions League) AND seasons of a given competition, the latter is having none of that and removed all instances of the competition, leaving only the given season. The wording of versions X and Y is only a minor aspect i believe, it can and will always be adjusted/corrected.

Attentively, thanks for any input that can be provided --Quite A Character (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure best way about linking the competitions in the article but I agree that the personal information should be taken out and have its own section instead of mixed in with the career. NZFC^(talk) 21:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Put the personal life first in its own section, and put his birthplace in there, not in the playing career. There's no need to link both competition seasons and the comp itself, but it's fine to do so, if the prose supports it. Whatever gets linked, make sure the reader can tell what the link is aiming at without having to interact with it: linking to a random word or phrase just to shoehorn another link into the article does neither the prose nor the reader any favours. See WP:Piped link#Transparency. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think both are okay, but in this current version, where is his playing position? I think it's a good information to add in the intro, otherwise one of the most important things in football is only listed in the infobox. MYS 77 ^✉ 12:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

2009–10 Inverness Caledonian Thistle F.C. Season

Hi, I edit the Inverness CT Season pages, mainly editing out minor errors and updating fixtures etc. But this season page in particular is all over the place, showing incorrect results, for example Inverness 1–0 Celtic would be labeled as a loss to Inverness. And I can't do anything about it, as it is an unfamiliar template, and I have no clue how to change the colour of the box. I am only familiar with "Football Box Collapsible" which most articles are in. So, can someone check it out and fix it please. Thanks, Cheesy McGee (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I've fixed those colours for you (among other things). If I've missed anything, do let me know. – Pee Jay 22:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Two national championships in European football template

Hello all. Apart from a few exceptions, there have been no two national championships within a year in Europe. In Turkey there was the Turkish National Division (from 1937 to 1950) and the Turkish Football Championship (from 1924 to 1951). Thus they existed at the same time for about 14 years and there were two national football champions in those years.

Now my question is how to put that into the European football template of a specific year/season.

For example into this one:

I have added the National Division, but the Turkish Football Championship was also held that year. How would you implement it into the template? Any suggestions are welcome. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Academy player categories

See e.g. Category:Celtic F.C. Under-20s and Academy players. I think these are pointless, particularly if a player has both youth and senior time with a club and will therefore be in two categories...thoughts welcome. Giant Snowman 13:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile. There are lots of players in this category who have not played for the first team, i.e. cluttering the main Category:Celtic F.C. players category with people who never actually played for Celtic. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

But has it not always been the case that the main club category includes players who were on the books even if they never made a first team appearance (e.g. Ryan Bertrand is in the Gillingham players category even though he left when he was 15 and never got anywhere near the first team)? Is this not being applied consistently across all clubs....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm attempting to change. There's no good reason why that should be the case, at least for the clubs who have articles about their youth and academy teams. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue about saying a player shouldn't be in a club category if they haven't made a first team appearance as a youngster is what do to about categorising players who signed for a club as a senior player but never made an appearance (especially in the old days of the proper reserve leagues). Number 5 7 14:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

But we have always categorised players as long as they were signed to a club, not whether they played first-team football...otherwise we will end up with twice as many categories as needed! Giant Snowman 14:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

My preference would be to only categorise players by clubs they have been registered to as a senior / professional player. This would include those who haven't played first team football, but exclude youth signings. I can recognise the thinking of having the separate youth categories, but when someone was only signed to a club as a 12-year old, it doesn't make it a notable categorisation: see WP:COP#N. Jellyman (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Youth players should be excluded. Kante4 (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Who is classed as a youth player though? Some players make their debut at 16, for others it's in their 20s. Is someone who plays in a club's U23 team a youth player? Number 5 7 15:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The club categories should include players who signed a senior contract with the club, even if they haven't played, or youth players who've made a senior appearance, as is the consensus up to now. If someone wants to change bring it here in a proper proposal to get consensus. --SuperJew (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that is the consensus now, though. If it is, it hasn't been made very explicit..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Far as I know, current consensus is players who've "been on the books of" a club. Anything more formal is unsourceable, before the last very few years. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a definite lack of consensus. Similar discussion to this a year or two ago was highly inconclusive. Jellyman (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Another comment I'd make on the separate categories issue – some non-League clubs only have one or two players in the categories, one or both of which may have only been at the club as a junior. This would potentially lead to overcategorisation. And as Struway suggests, how do we know what kind of contract a player has at a club... Number 5 7 15:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

On the books is exactly what we have, and what it should remain - otherwise we end up with incomplete/inaccurate pictures of a player's career. Giant Snowman 16:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

That's what we have now, with these categories including players who were nowhere near the club's first team. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't see why a player, who was playing for e.g. Celtic as a 12-year old but never had a (semi)professional contract with them, should be in the Celtic F.C. players category. He never sniffed at the first team. When you sign a contract with the first team, but never appear, that is another story. Kante4 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

But players don't specifically sign a contract "with the first team", just with the club, and the definition of what constitutes a "youth player" vs a "senior player" can be very blurred indeed (how would you decide whether a 17-year-old player from the 1920s was a youth team player or not, for example?)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, it's not black and white. Imagine a 17 year old player who is on the bench for an entire season, but never gets a minute of play. Or a 22 year old who never makes the bench. We could go on... which of these players goes in which category? Giant Snowman 17:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Then make it a clearer line that a player has to appear in a competitive first team match to count as an "X F.C. player". This would also be consistent with the league categories (e.g. Category:Premier League players), where the player has to appear in that competition to count. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

But that's not the current position, or what we're saying should happen. Because, what happens to players who were not a Youth/Academy player and also did not make the first team? Giant Snowman 11:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I raised this issue a couple of months ago and the consensus was that players should be included if they were with the club at any level (whether they made a senior appearance or not). I don't really see a problem with that, as long as it's clear and there is consistency. GiantSnowman describes the complications of further categorisation quite well. Would it not be better to develop the players list(s), e.g. in line with Manchester United (1–24, 25–99, 100+ appearances) and link to that? Nzd (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I'm proposing. We now have situations where clubs (e.g. Chelsea) buy players, loan them out and never use them for their own first team. Is it realistic to call someone like that a "Chelsea player"? It's more akin to the American baseball system, where teams acquire (sign, draft or trade) players, only use them in their minor league teams and they never progress to the Major League level with that organisation. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's realistic to call then a Chelsea player; they did sign for the club after all. Number 5 7 11:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with N57 - someone who signs for Chelsea and then spends 5 years out on loan was still a Chelsea player. We include the club in the infobox, and we include the player in the club category. Giant Snowman 12:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. If you did not play a competitive first team match for a particular club then I don't see how you can have a category added as "X F.C. player." The fact that you may have signed a registration form with the club when an eight-year-old or a 15-year-old, or as an adult but then loaned to others for X years can be mentioned in the article text, but for category to be added as a club player, then surely you have to actually PLAY for that club !! Some alternative must exist, or be created to better reflect the youth and adult career and life span. Perhaps something like category: X F.C. Youth or Academy squad member ? RossRSmith (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not a footballer has played for the club does not change the fact they are under contract. I don't see the necessity to include club categories from a players' youth career, but this would be better than having a separate category for each club's academy, which is excessive. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

A footballer having a contract with a club does not mean they were a player with that club. I note that cricketers contracted to Cricket Australia do not have a Wiki category Test player if they have not PLAYED in a Test, similar for T20s and 1-Day Internationals. RossRSmith (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a bit of an "apples and oranges" situation, Ross. Let's deal with cricket articles on their own terms and just deal with football articles here. – Pee Jay 16:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Was using it as an example of different standards applied across different projects. I think a person should only have category "club player" shown if they have actually played for club/organisation at the top tier of the sport which has enabled them to reach notability for article creation. I note that Australian Football players who have been drafted into an AFL club's contracted squad list for 2018 have their name shown, but do not yet have an article because they haven't PLAYED a senior game yet. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. RossRSmith (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Leo Fasan was released by Celtic at the age of 23 after spending 21 matches as an unused substitute for the first-team during a three-year professional contract at the club. Yet apparently he is supposed to be in the 'Celtic F.C. Under-20s and Academy players' category and not the 'Celtic F.C. players' category. It makes zero sense.--Echetus Xe 15:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

He never played for Celtic in a competitive match. We don't count players who have been called up to the England squad but didn't actually play as England international footballers. In list of club players ("List of X F.C. players (1-25 appearances)" we don't include players who made 0 appearances. Why include them in the categories? That makes even less sense. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that as an inconsistency. Players are not contracted to the England national team. I also think that including players in the categories that don't appear on the lists is kind of a good thing. Nzd (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Doubts regarding a cricketer whether it relates to football

I am not a part of this WikiProject but I have doubt to clarify this. I recently created an article, Pundarika Prathanmitr a Thai woman cricketer who was born in 13 November 1990 and I also found a source (Eurosport) [https://www.eurosport.com/football/pundarika-prathanmitr_prs281354/person.shtml stating that Pundarika Prathanmitr is a Thai footballer who was also born in 13 November 1990 similar to that of the cricketer. (Probably Eurosport could be an unreliable source) But I didn't find any football article links to prove that there isn't any notable footballers with this similar name. On the other hand, apart from Eurosport I couldn't find any football related sources to verify my doubts. Please help me out here. Abishe (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Club articles

Hi. I want to know whether editors are of the opinion of removing unsourced "managerial statistics", "top scorers" and "highest appearances" in club articles. Also what are your opinion on the notes column present in these tables, which are often filled with information like "youngest manager in the league" and so on. RRD (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR unless cited. the club and club season articles were full of unsourced material or data copied from transfermarkt, which is unreliable. Matthew_hk t c 13:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's unsourced remove it. Giant Snowman 14:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If all the matches are sourced with a match report that contains squad and scorers, isn't the top scorers and highest appearance stuff routine calculation? --SuperJew (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Just people often adding up wrong. for one season only, those total caps, goals should have plenty of external source. But without one, it may qualified as a routine calculation if it did have all the match report cited, but to me, i would still tag for {{refimprove}}. For multi-season sum, it definitively require external citation. Matthew_hk t c 20:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Should it be more obvious that the stats in the infobox are only domestic league stats?

I don't think an asterisk and a note that the stats only relate to the domestic league is user-friendly. It's similar to small print and people understandably don't see it and assume the stats are wrong. Should the heading "Senior career" not be changed to "Senior league career" or "Senior domestic league career" to make things clearer? Stuart1234 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Short answer = no. It's fine as it is. Giant Snowman 20:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with the way the infobox is shown, although I wouldn't say no to some commented guidance (league stats only/update timestamp) to save time cleaning up after those less familiar. On a related note, I assume in Brazil we only count Série A games and not those of the state leagues? Nzd (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Only national-level stats are included in the infobox for Brazilian footballers in the national league era. There's some grey area around the 60s/70s about when the national league actually started. Before that, with the likes of Pelé and Garrincha, infoboxes will contain state league stats. Hack (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't be averse to a change. I don't think it's at all clear as it is, and not too long ago I saw a piece on (I think) The Guardian's website where they explicitly stated that our stats for one player (John Burridge, I think) were wrong because it showed 0 against a club for whom he made one or two cup appearances..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Reformed Clubs vs. Phoenix Clubs

Idea: I think it will be a good idea to create a Wiki guide/rules for merging football club articles

Use: Similar like the guide we have for e.g. WP:FPL.

Reason: Inconsistency.
For example most will agree Rangers F.C. are still the same club when they reformed. A.C.R. Messina have one article but technically legally there were 7 different clubs (many Italian teams like this). Newport County A.F.C. has 1 article. Darlington 1883 was a phoenix club but when the successor changed their name to the same as the historic folded club's, Darlington F.C., the two articles were merged. Etar Veliko Tarnovo have 3 articles but there is a clear continuation in time-line, the crest, strip, and colours, as well as the fans are all the same. Counter productive to have 7 Messina articles and 3 Etar ones.

Proposed rules:
1. Colours, crest, location the same
2. Substantial link in name
3. No split in continuation (i.e. not reformed before club ceased to exist)
4. No surrounding controversy
5. No more than 1 existing successor club

Implementation:
Simple tick and cross for each point to determine whether to merge or not. Examples:
- FCU Craiova & CS Universitatea Craiova: Pass 1,2,3; Fail 4,5, as CSU exists alongside in 4th division; no merge
- VfB Leipzig & Lokomotive Leipzig: Pass 2,3,4,5; Fail 1; split
- BSG Chemie Leipzig (1950) & BSG Chemie Leipzig (1997): Pass 1,2,5; Fail 3; Debate 4; no merge
- CSU Vointa Sibiu & LSS Vointa Sibiu: Pass 1,2,3,4,5; merge
- Juan Aurich (1922–1992) & Aurich–Cañaña & Juan Aurich de Chiclayo & Juan Aurich de La Victoria: Pass 1,2,3 (Deportivo Cañaña unmerged), 4, 5; merge

Please tell me what you think of those proposals.
Abcmaxx (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

In Messina case, the new (recent) owner applied for Article 52 of N.O.I.F., so it is not even a phoenix club, but a change in legal person only. For Rangers, it was rejected as a successor of the place of Premier League, but did all the procedure to acquire the asset and membership as successor , so it still one club. So, i suggest to add the point of view of those football associations. Just like MK Dons, Wimbledon F.C. and AFC Wimbledon. Matthew_hk t c 20:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Wimbledon is a terrible example its saga has its own article just to explain it, safely say it is an anomaly. With Messina what about previous 6 times? Darlington 1883 was considered a new club, so was Newport in 1989, they have 1 article. What about VfB Leipzig? Abcmaxx (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bohemians saga is also worth mentioning. Hack (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

In general, I think if a club has been established to replace one that has folded and see itself as a successor, then we should stick to one article for simplicity and convenience for the reader. If you read up on club histories, many of them folded and reformed a few times in their history, so there's no reason to treat modern interruptions any differently IMO. Number 5 7 11:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Then we would have only one article about NK Olimpija Ljubljana, but in reality we have two.Linhart (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

João Pedro Pereira Silva

Can someone please find a reliable source for his return to Everton on 31 January 2012 (source #7)? ZEROZERO is quite harmless as a link for Portuguese/Portugal-based players (it is spot-on in 99,99999999999999999% of the cases), but not reliable as a source for WP as its content is user-generated.

Oddly enough, i searched the web like crazy, found nothing (reliable, that is). Attentively, thanks in advance for whatever can be provided --Quite A Character (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

put some key word to google, not sure these would work https://www.publico.pt/2012/02/01/desporto/noticia/joao-silva-rescindiu-com-o-v-setubal-e-regressa-ao-everton-1531781 http://www.record.pt/futebol/futebol-nacional/liga-nos/v--setubal/detalhe/joao-silva-regressa-ao-everton-738986.html Matthew_hk t c 00:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Honours

Hi, I'd like to propose a change to the format of honours section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. I don't believe it is necessary to have level three headings to divide club, international and individual honours, and that the bold text headings would be sufficient. I would use level three headings to separate playing and managerial honours, if necessary. Here is an example of what I think would be a better layout. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

That looks good to me! Giant Snowman 08:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I support this proposal and agree it would be a better layout. LTFC 95 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I like that, it does looks nicer. R96Skinner (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

From an accessibility point of view, using level three headings would be best practice. But if that isn't wanted, then please use bold-text markup for the headings, as Mattythewhite's example does, rather than mis-using semicolon markup. See WP:PSEUDOHEAD and the recent discussion at Talk:2014–15 A-League National Youth League#Pseudo-headings for why. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Glad there's a MoS that makes it clear we should use bold text. I've noticed that semicolons mess up how the headings appear on mobile screens.

Going by WP:PSEUDOHEAD, using level three headings then bold-text markup would be the most MoS friendly approach. But I can't help but feel that it looks over-the-top, clunky, and I'm not sure how we would go about it when the subject has managerial honours, a la Millsy. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Imagine the MoS would want level 4s if it could have them, before bold text, but the edit links every couple of lines would be visually difficult. I'm not arguing against your proposal: I think I do honours sections that way round anyway. Added to which, there's no actual structural difference between your proposal and the current suggested layout, is there? isn't it just whether you start from type of honour as at present or job title as proposed? So there shouldn't be any reduction in MoS-compliance.

Long time since I looked at that layout... it wouldn't hurt to delink club/national team names while you're at it. And add explicit instruction to not put (1)s after every honour, unless the number in the bracket is up to about 6, anyway. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:KARLSRUHER and Ron-Robert Zieler

Can we get some clarification over the status of WP:KARLSRUHER vis-a-vis its application to Ron-Robert Zieler. User:DerDFB seems intent on applying the essay (yes, it's just an essay) rigidly and referring to VfB Stuttgart thus throughout the article, but it doesn't really work from a "good writing" standpoint. I get that including the "VfB" avoids confusion with any other Stuttgart clubs, but the fact is that VfB is the biggest and best-known of the Stuttgart clubs, which makes the inclusion of the VfB unnecessary once you've established which club is being talked about. – Pee Jay 10:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The essay in question actually agrees with you. It says, "Obviously in article prose, a shortened name can be used, once the proper name has been established, to make the text flow more easily". So there's nothing wrong with abbreviating after the first mention. Jellyman (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The Infobox and career stats table should contain the KARLSRUHER name. In the prose, just Hannover or Stuttgart is correct. Kante4 (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll echo what's been said here already. Out of prose (infobox, stats tables, section heads etc.), the "VfB" should be left in unless you're seriously cramped for space. In prose, removing it for ease of reading is fine. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Cool, sorted. – Pee Jay 16:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

just use in the lead and infobox (or the place where the German club was first mentioned) and then pipe everywhere else that follow. Matthew_hk t c 16:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Kepa Arrizabalaga

Could someone consider protection (again) for the above? Reverted four different nonsense IP edits this morning already.Crowsus (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 17:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Yerry Mina, the situation seems to be more serious even: When I discovered vandalism yesterday, I was unable to find a clean revision in the last few weeks. And since my cleanup yesterday there's been lots more vandalism. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 19:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Masoud Shojaei

"Interesting" situation at this footballer's article, several users keep removing the fact the player was banned/suspended by the Iran national team even though it is RELIABLY SOURCED. I am not aware if a pardon has been granted to him and his teammate since the events, but those contents surely must remain, am i correct?

Second reversion was even more serious, as they (obviously Iranian seeing the username) reverted me without one word whatsoever. Suggestions? Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Side note: said second user has already been warned several times by User:Robby.is.on due to disruptive edits. --Quite A Character (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you are right, if it has been reliably sourced then it should stay and just be added too if he has been pardoned or allowed back to play. It was still relevant for that time in his career. NZFC^(talk) 01:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Been reverted again, this time with a summary at least (calling me an uneducated vandal, but still better than nothing). Re-reverted and sent a message to the other party, someone PLEASE assist here. --Quite A Character (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between the Iranian deputy sports minister being quoted by the New York Times as saying on television that they would be banned for life, and the football authorities actually banning them. See ESPN, which says "Iran's football federation 'strongly condemned' the players last week, saying it is reviewing the case and would make a final decision after speaking with both players." Might be wise to do a bit more research... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Might be wise to do a bit more research", aimed at me and I admit the glove fits. But was the other party right in reverting and insulting User:Struway2? If they were, I'll re-revert as soon as I see your reply. If you don't think the content should be totally removed, any suggestions on how to rephrase/source it (I think the previous contents should remain, with additions upon further future developments, do you agree?)? Cheers --Quite A Character (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Read the sources.

A US-based normally reliable source quotes a politician speaking on TV, on which he says: "It is certain that Masoud Shojaei and Ehsan Haji Safi will never be invited to join the national football team".
The writer of that piece interprets that as those two players have been banned for life.
However, the ESPN source I linked above says the football authorities, whose job it is to select the national team, condemned the players' actions but had not made a decision on further action.
Although Mr Shojaei was dropped from the next match, his team-mate wasn't, so it's pretty clear there was no ban and we shouldn't say there was.

That's what I meant by doing a bit more research, so you can write about what did or didn't happen.

And no, no-one should insult another editor in their edit summaries. That's not what they're for. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

If you google "Masoud Shojaei" ban, there are plenty of sources via which you can follow the train of events. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Career stats tables

Hi folks. I've got some questions regarding the career stats tables:

Is "valign="center"" necessary? At least on my computer, removing it doesn't change the display of the table. Any objections to removing it from the template?
Any objections to removing the apostrophes around numbers (for example "rowspan=3" instead of "rowspan="3"" from the template? I find the table code easier to read without them.

Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Neither are necessary in my opinion as they don't change the display of the table. LTFC 95 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, LTFC 95. If there are no objections, I will modify the template accordingly later. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The quotes around the number for colspan, as colspan="3", are needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That is why? Kante4 (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Help:Table#Cells spanning multiple rows or columns would suggest the quotes are not needed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

collapsible stats tables

I am not sure, but I didn't think you were allowed collapsible stats tables, there is one on Alex Pritchard, Govvy (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't: see MOS:COLLAPSE. I've restored it to normal display (someone had already uncollapsified it once before, and it had been reinstated). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Definite no-no. Giant Snowman 12:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

k, need to remember that for next time, thought as much, cheers, Govvy (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy note: AfD of FK Stanišić

Not showing up in your article alerts. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This AfD has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves's list by me. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Dundee Wanderers

Category talk:Dundee Wanderers notes that Category:Dundee Wanderers is within the scope of WikiProject Football. However this category actually relates not to Dundee Wanderers F.C., which is covered by Category:Dundee Wanderers F.C., but to a (field) hockey club of the same name. Dunarc (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Since there is no article for Dundee Wanderers (hockey), seem better move the cat somewhere or deleted it (turn Dundee Wanderers as a redirect to Dundee Wanderers F.C..) Matthew_hk t c 07:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

To be honest I did wonder if the category is needed - it has one article in it (which could easily be taken out of it) and as you say there is no article on the club so a redirect to Category:Dundee Wanderers F.C. might be the way to go. Dunarc (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Naby Keïta

I have seen so many edits from IP addresses on Keïta's article implying that he is the new Liverpool player although his transfer to Liverpool has not been officially confirmed yet (at least until the upcomng summer transfer window). Can you admins please do something about that? DerDFB (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The page has now been semi-protected for a week. Kosack (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2024

Is it necessary to include a table of the Turkish candidate stadiums on UEFA Euro 2024? All of the stadium information is already included on UEFA Euro 2024 bids, but Motuna has restored the table. The user has also added unsourced statements (e.g. "this is due to Turkey losing out to France for UEFA Euro 2016, and Istanbul losing the 2020 Summer Olympics to Tokyo"), along with quotations which do not directly involve the bid ("Turkey is proving that it is one of the world's leaders in its commitment to football infrastructure"). I previously removed the statements and copyedited the paragraph, but Motuna has restored their version. Thoughts? S.A. Julio (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"Turkey is proving" definitely sounds like an editorial rather than something established in fact. Even if it was something sourced by citation, it would still be something in the opinion of the source rather than something absolute. Otherwise you'd need some hard numbers showing investment in football infrastructure or something of the sort. -Gopherbashi (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Egy Maulana

Could do with a bit of advice on this one. The page has previously been deleted via AfD. However, there is now an international appearance, referenced by Soccerway, and the prose states this was against Brunei (the game happened since the last deletion). This is backed up by Sky Sports. It's a bit odd though; the Soccerway profile shows 14 minutes played of a senior game. However, the Brunei game is not shown on his profile. If you look at the Brunei game, it shows it as an under-23 fixture. He was an unused sub for the only senior game it lists on his profile (against Guyana). FIFA does not list the Brunei game on it's senior results page. NFT does not have an entry for him, although I'm not sure how accurate that page is. The PSSI website suggests this was part of the 2017 Aceh World Solidarity Tsunami Cup (an under-23 competition).

The page has been subject to continual vandalism/unsourced additions for the last month. If the cap is indeed valid, it could do with being semi-protected. If it isn't, then it should probably be deleted and salted. Cheers, Nzd (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

He was a late sub in Indonesia's match against Iceland yesterday (14 January) according to Soccerway.[1] I'm not sure if this was a full international though. Hack (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Spain task force/Spanish club names (relating to WP:KARLSRUHER)

Hello,

I would like you to take a look at a draft of this page, created by me - it appears that I am confused about the way certain Spanish teams should be displayed as what I have noticed on the latest difference by User:Quite A Character. The red text is the bit I am not sure on, and the question marks and ('Spanish equilavent of KARSRUHER') should be replaced with the appropriate word. I have noticed inconsistencies with the piping on certain Spanish club names - that causes confusion on my part. Iggy (Swan) 23:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean here. While I don't speak Spanish, as far as I can tell, there is no direct equivalent to the Karlsruher problem in Spanish. The practice of using adjectives/demonyms in club names is far less common, and using just the adjective seems to be an accepted shorthand. For example, among current La Liga clubs, only Deportivo Alavés uses the adjective form of a place name, and shortening it to Alavés is common practice in Spanish. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as i'm concerned, several users pipe ALL clubs in box and storyline. Me, for aesthetic reasons, choose to leave them in full in storyline and, 99,99999999999999999% of the time, encounter no "resistance" whatsoever while doing so.

On a related note, I'll leave you with this situation: there is this article called CD Numancia. "Numancia" is not the name of any city, it being the old Roman name for the city of Soria. Thus, if the article is named with the "CD", why are we forbidden to display it in full in storyline (just remembered now, same goes for CA Osasuna, from the city of Pamplona)? Shouldn't we be worrying more about stuff like sourcing content in storyline and akin? Just saying...

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The question isn't "why are we forbidden?", it's "why should we?". In English prose, which is what we're supposed to be writing in, it's rare to see a football club name written in full, whether the main part refers to a place or anything else. If forms like Getafe CF or CA Osasuna are rarely if ever used in published English prose, we shouldn't use them either. Obviously, if there's more than one club from the same city, like the multiple clubs from various places called Mérida, we should use the full name initially (both in the infobox and the lead section, and at first use in the prose) to establish context, and then use the short name thereafter.

Incidentally, I googled Numancia on marca.com. In running prose, they generally use just Numancia, not CD Numancia, both in their English-language and Spanish-language content. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree that we should pipe Spanish/Portuguese club names at all times. No reason not to. Giant Snowman 15:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Portsmouth F.C.

I am questioning myself on a revert I did, I saw this IP editor has done a fair bit of work on the article, but I questioned weather this statement which I saw added in by the IP (Pompey was also a generic African-American slave name) was that right to add to the article? I really didn't like hearing that so... Did I just revert because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or is there something worse going on, on the article, is it being improved or vandalised? I really don't know if I am confusing myself over it or not!! Govvy (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You correctly reverted that information. Its relevance to the football article was not clarified.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Two national championships in European football template

@Matthew hk: @Nzd: @Koncorde: @Struway2: @GiantSnowman: @Quite A Character: Hello all. Apart from a few exceptions, there have been no two national championships within a year in Europe. In Turkey there was the Turkish National Division (from 1937 to 1950) and the Turkish Football Championship (from 1924 to 1951). Thus they existed at the same time for about 14 years and there were two national football champions in those years.

Now my question is how to put that into the European football template of a specific year/season.

For example into this one:

I have added the National Division, but the Turkish Football Championship was also held that year. How would you implement it into the template? Any suggestions are welcome. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I would go with something similar to the Latvia one so something like:

Turkey National Division 1941 * Football Championship 1941

Hardly perfect, but not ground breaking. Koncorde (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, can't be of any assistance there (i am as dumb as they come concerning charts and templates and akin), but thanks for "calling" me to the discussion). --Quite A Character (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

For Turkey, I'd say the following would work best:

Turkey (National Division '40 '41, Football Championship '40 '41)

Should be clear enough. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Or:

Either way should be fine I would have thought. Nzd (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions guys, I will do it like that. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. This topic can be archived. Akocsg (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

2018 Club Atlético River Plate season

Hi all.

Me and FerchuJenson have had a discussion regarding his creation of the 2018 Club Atlético River Plate season article. Argentina runs a 2017–18 style calendar league season, which already has the equivalent season article. However, FerchuJenson has created the 2018 season article due to the Copa Libertadores/Copa Sudamericana calendar following the January to December format and rumours that the Argentine league may re-adopt the Jan-Dec format for next season (2018, from July/August). Am I correct in stating this would be classed as WP:TOOSOON? R96Skinner (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, FerchuJenson here. Just to make sure my point was clear (since english is not my mother language), Top League in Argentina may -or may not- change the calendar, but CONMEBOL (South American Football Confederation) has been using the Jan-Dec calendar (suitable from southern hemisphere) since January 2017, and the competitions organized by the continental authority have been held that way since the very begining of 2017. So perhaps it's not a matter of "too soon" but a matter of "should we guided by Argentine Football Association or South American Football Confederation?".FerchuJenson (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Helsingin Jalkapalloklubi of Finland used calendar year to follow their domestic league. Seem using domestic league was the style. Matthew_hk t c 02:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Page moves

As I don't have administrative capabilities, the following pages should be moved to their correct articles, thank you:

Category:UAE Arabian Gulf Cup seasons should be moved to Category:UAE League Cup seasons

Template:Arabian Gulf League teamlist should be moved to Template:UAE Pro-League teamlist.--Bijanii (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bijanii: About category move, you can consider WP:CFD; About templete move, you can consider WP:RM. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe WP:RM#TR is useful. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the template. You'll need WP:CfD for the category to be moved. @Bijanii: I see you have moved numerous categories manually – this should not be done. After an RM you should request categories be moved at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy‎, which will be done within two days and then a bot will do the moving (categories of articles that have been moved without an RM are not eligible for a speedy request and have to go to a full CfD discussion). Number 5 7 19:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Didn’t know that, thank you for the informative instructions. I’ve requested the move now.--Bijanii (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Gulf Cup of Nations

User Hashim-afc controversially moved the Gulf Cup of Nations page as well as each respective edition’s article without seeking WP:RM, and was denied the category move request for the same reason. Should the articles be moved back and restored?--Bijanii (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

West Ham questions?

@Egghead06 and Koncorde (or anyone else): Just to note, I have a call scheduled with John Powles on Tuesday. The main focus will be properly citing and correcting inaccuracies in the Thames Ironworks season pages, but if there's anything particular you want me to raise, please let me know. Nzd (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I have Powles book "Iron in the Blood: Thames Ironworks FC, the Club That Became West Ham United", well worth reading. I used it for citations and info for the main History of West Ham United article. @Spyrides: was doing the Thames Ironworks seasons at the time, but they seem to have gone largely inactive since 2015. It surprises me to see it isn't listed as a source. Also, say "Hi" to Powles, he answered a question several years ago regarding West Ham history - but for the life of me I can't remember what it was. Ping me on any pages you have issues with, if I have time I can provide any content from the book. Koncorde (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I actually have Spyrides' copy of the book :) I've gone through and added genrefs to the pages I where I thought it necessary and I've made a start with inline citations. If you've seen any other pages where it's missing, do let me know. Will do.. Nzd (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Very useful hour-and-a-half on the phone with John last week, Notes here. I've made some of the changes and still have more to do, but need to clarify some points before making some of the others. Nzd (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Formose Mendy

After hours browsing the net, found one source for his spell in Egyptian football. However, a major (potential) cockup may be on the rise: the first Egyptian club he has represented is more or less certain (Alassiouty Sport), but regarding the second both SOCCERWAY.com and NFT.com have him playing for Raja CA (and there is this squad sheet http://www.worldfootball.net/teams/el-raja-sporting-club/ and this match sheet from the same website as well http://www.worldfootball.net/report/premiership-2017-2018-el-raja-sporting-club-zamalek/liveticker/), whereas the source I now added has him plying his trade at Tala'ea El-Gaish SC (please see here https://www.kingfut.com/2017/08/23/el-geish-sign-sporting-gijon/), two completely different ballclubs from what I understand, no?

Assistance please, I'm a bit puzzled to say the least (browsed the web with news in French or English - my Arabic is so under the weather it should have its own climate - found nothing else than the aforementioned source), cheers --Quite A Character (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Cairo based newspaper, Al-Ahram had him making a substitute's appearance for Ragaa in December 2017.^[1] Jogurney (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't read Arabic either. Nor can I find any reliable source in latin script that places him at Tala'ea El-Gaish. If I were you, I'd go with the reliable sources that all place him at Raja. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like he was at Raja by late September 2017.^[2] Jogurney (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

References

^ "Match facts: Ragaa v Zamalek (Egyptian Premier League)". Al-Ahram. 2 December 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "تغييرات في الرجاء" [Changes in please] (in Arabic). Al-Ahram. 20 September 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Vandal detected

Please check the contributions of this IP. Thanks!

Someone is using for a long time now, various IP's in order to add to various squad lists the name of a hypothetical player called Bruno Pereira, i.e. like over here. I'm afraid that this person is doing the same thing for a long time!!! Pavlos1988 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pavlos1988: not currently active so we can't block I'm afraid. Giant Snowman 08:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Just on this, have noticed that it keeps happening so did a google advance search and am working my way through all the Bruno Pereira to remove them from articles. Seems to be a common trend of the person not being wikilinked to an actual player, they are either from Portugal, France or Cyprus and they are a defender. You can see my contributions for how many I've removed so far. NZFC^(talk) 22:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

UEFA Nations League

Should we start adding Nations League into competition records sections of European national teams? Since this could be considered major competition (although it is more of a alternative qualification route for Euro) Nightfall87 (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

John Wood

I find info about John Wood (English footballer) (http://www.greensonscreen.co.uk/gosdb-players2.asp?pid=902&scp=1,2,3,4,5,6,7). I would like to expand the article by adding a section called "career", but I was not able to rewrite it so as not to copy and paste. Someone offers to help with that? I am not a native speaker of English. Thanks you. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 09:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

+ http://bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/History/Players/Player.aspx?id=177 --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 10:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Aymeric Laporte

Protection requested for his article until his transfer is resolved one way or another, thanks.Crowsus (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 12:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael Ballack

Can please anyone have look a ChocolateRabbit‎ (talk · contribs) edits in Michael Ballack? He insists on shortening Chemnitzer FC to Chemnitzer which is just plain wrong (see WP:KARLSRUHER for the reasons why this is wrong). I advised him several times to stop it, but he insists on his disruptive behavior. --Jaellee (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

As I've said it is an essay, it is not a rule or guidline and no one has to follow it. It is complete and utter rubbish -- 🐇 ChocolateRabbit 21:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It was a consensuses. Fail to discuss content dispute is a disruptive behavior and could be blocked. Since there is Chemnitzer BC, there is a legit reason not to pipe it as per WP:KARLSRUHER Matthew_hk t c 21:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Nobody in the whole wide world refers to Chemnitzer FC as "Chemnitzer", it's 100% wrong as explained in WP:KARLSRUHER. Plain and simple. If you're having trouble believing this, check the list of articles at the German sports magazine Kicker which refers to the club as "Chemnitz" (for the city), "der Chemnitzer FC", or "der CFC". Robby.is.on (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree that for Chemnitzer FC it should be the full name, and not piped. Giant Snowman 12:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree for the most part, although after it's been established that it's Chemnitzer FC that is being referred to in prose, it should be fine to refer to them simply as "Chemnitz". – Pee Jay 14:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The first appearance of the name and in infobox should not be piped. Matthew_hk t c 13:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Leeds United F.C.

I was wondering if someone could add the archive bot to Leeds United talk page, as I don't know how to do it. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Done (I think). Number 5 7 21:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, hopefully that will help as it was getting a bit much on that talk page. Govvy (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Soccerfacts.co.uk

What do people think of this website? It seems to have rare stats, such as here, for Mark Molesley's 2003–04 season stats in the Isthmian League Premier Division, but the website seems difficult to use.--Echetus Xe 14:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Who's the author? Where has he got the info from? Giant Snowman 14:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Blackfoothosting....seem some die-hard fans self-published source, that failed to upload a proper logo. Matthew_hk t c 14:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Persepolis 3–2 Esteghlal (2012)

Is the article really that noteworthy? Govvy (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Giant Snowman 19:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I decided to PROD it, Govvy (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Barnet F.C. #Stadium

I've done a little work on the article, but I was thinking about the Stadium section, In what order should the stadiums be? Should you have the current stadium first or the old stadium first? Just wanted some idea's on how to maybe rewrite and maybe improve that section. I am not that happy with the way it is at the moment. Govvy (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally I'd always go chronologically and start with the earliest ground. Number 5 7 21:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree - for me this is the only logical approach -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

In general, I agree. It might be worth having a couple of sentences saying "they currently play here, but they used to play there" at the top of the section, but the overall body of the section should run chronologically. – Pee Jay 10:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

PeeJay's approach is suitable - brief summary, then chronological detail. Giant Snowman 10:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that too. Summary, then chronological.RossRSmith (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

k, Well, I've had a start at it, after seeing the use of using {{reflist | refs= }} where you can list the references in the references section with names, I rather like listing my citations for use that way now, so much easier to deal with an article that way around. Govvy (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Fred Nickson

Or Harry Wheeler Nickson exists, I think the article needs a good cleanup not deleting, I don't think the prodd'er did a google search. Govvy (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a good question about whether he passes WP:NFOOTY. Were Liverpool playing in a fully-pro league that season (1945–46), given that many players in the Football League North and South were guests? Number 5 7 15:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

He played in the 1945–46 FA Cup. Assuming that one of those games was against a fully pro team, he would meet WP:NFOOTY. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Not if Liverpool were playing in a semi-pro league. However, I'd say he's notable. Giant Snowman 15:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The guest players in the war leagues were other professional players, who just guested for clubs other than what was notionally their own. I think it would be disingenuous to claim that the war leagues were semi-pro.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

As long as a consistent approach is taken for every player - matches are either included or they are not. The article for Football League North and South ends with "Results and players' contributions do not tend to be included in official statistics." So I assume at the moment this project's take on the matter is that Liverpool (and all other teams in FL N & S) were not in a fully-pro league ? RossRSmith (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

2017–18 Premier League

An edit war is ongoing over at 2017–18 Premier League between @Mkhp1990 and PeeJay2K3 over the inclusion of a season progression table (diff). I personally think it's quite good but other opinions are needed. I've brought it here as inclusion would obviously affect other articles. Nzd (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This is something that has been removed time and time again from various articles over the last few years. Unfortunately, there are far more editors out there running pet projects on various articles than there are of us, and so this sort of thing inevitably becomes the status quo. However, I really don't see the use of such a table. These articles are already overly full of stats and tables; if someone comes to Wikipedia looking for that information, they're looking in the wrong place – they should be looking in a stats almanac. – Pee Jay 11:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Only the league standings and results are necessary, anything more is excessive per WP:NOTSTATS. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see much extra given to the article by including that table, you pretty much have the same data in Results chart because it's colour coordinated. That table is not for me thats for sure. Govvy (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Also agree it should be removed. Number 5 7 21:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I just removed it from the 2017–18 La Liga article. Asturkian (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't find it objectionable, but someone wanting it can easily find the same info and colours for easy counting in many instances) on club season articles.Crowsus (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Having reviewed the proposed league progression chart and the above comments, I don't believe that it violates any of the guidelines at WP:NOTSTATS. The only applicable category is "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics," but the statistics here are straightforward and require no further explanation. Unless I've overlooked it, WP:NOTSTATS says nothing about what particular data should be included in articles about sports leagues. In fact, there are similar charts in direct comparators (see the "Positions by Round" tables at 2017–18_La_Liga), 2017–18_Serie_A, 2017–18_Ligue_1, 2017–18_Primeira_Liga). Therefore, the Premier League (and Bundesliga) pages are in the minority for not containing a round-by-round statistic. I also respectfully disagree with Govvy that the same information appears in the results chart, because capturing the season's incremental progress provides different information than simply a table of results. While such information may indeed be found in an almanac, the same could be said of virtually all information on the page, from the size of stadiums, to team locations, to number of yellow cards. For these reasons, I would vote in favor in reverting the deletion of the chart, or alternatively a "Positions by Round" chart used elsewhere. As a final point, where an editor disagrees with the insertion of a chart that clearly took someone a lot of time to compile, a complete reversion of the edit with an abrupt comment like "no thanks" does not really foster an inclusive community. Civility is key. BenEsq (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, there are editors on here who view certain pages as their own pet projects and run them the way they want without any regard for past consensus or the MOS (general or specific to this WikiProject). Just because such tables exist in the Spanish, Italian, French and Portuguese league articles doesn't mean they should exist anywhere else. You raise good points about other stats that are included in these articles, and I personally agree that we include too many raw stats. We are not a stats almanac; there are stats that are worth including, of course – sport is highly data-driven these days, after all – but some of the ones we include here are ridiculous in comparison to the amount of prose on the page. – Pee Jay 10:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

PeeJay, I would say that editing Wiki pages is to some extent each of our "pet projects." We are all working to try to improve the pages on subjects we ourselves care about. The fact that someone spent significant time developing a chart should not in itself be viewed pejoratively. The question is whether it improves the page and provides information that a significant number of Wikipedians expect and find useful. And the existence of a "Position by Round" chart on the pages of at least 4 other major leagues is evidence that a consensus of many fellow contributors find it helpful and an improvement. At this point there also may be an expectation by users that if such a chart exists on 3 of the 5 "Big 5" leagues (excluding Portugal), it should exist on all 5. So I disagree with your point that the appearance of a Position by Round chart on these other pages is irrelevant. However, I concede that such a chart is not what Mkhp1990 compiled and may be a major strike against its inclusion, even though I happen to like what Mkhp1990 did. And since no one is working on a "Position by Round" chart for 2017-18 Premier League, it's probably a moot point.BenEsq (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

For more technical point of view, Serie A had a fixed schedule that every round have 10 matches and only rare occasion one or two matches had to be rescheduled due to weather and other accident. And It had a good secondary source kicker.de to display the league table round by round, so it would only be a matter of WP:NSTATS or not. However, in Premier League there is often (or in high frequencies) +/- 2 matches between clubs until the very end of the league (which this season / as of round 24 it is consistently zero +/-), which different source had different criteria to report those +/- 2 different, it looks more likely a case of WP:NSTATS, may be WP:OR and Wikipedia:Too much detail. Matthew_hk t c 05:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Consistency for U19 and U17 Euro qualifiers

It's been bugging me for a while that qualifying tournaments for U17 and U19 Euro had two different pages for the seasons 2004 through 2014 (separately for First Round and Elite Round), and only one for every season since 2015 (for both rounds together), despite the format remained the same. How about bringing some consistency here? Either merge all or split all. --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Any thoughts from anyone? --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Another IP adding nonsense

Can an admin please review the edits of User:110.35.10.122 and consider a ban? This is another of these accounts that adds random names to team squads. They have even invented a brother for Ander Iturraspe and Gorka Iturraspe and added them to the player bios as well as the team squad! Still unable to work out the point of this. Quite a lot of effort to go to for vandalism. Anyway, needs to be stopped. I've reverted a few but I'll leave the rest for the time being for you to look at. Cheers. Crowsus (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Crowsus: Reported and IP banned for 6 months. Govvy (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This has been going on since at least 2016. For a year the vandal operated from a fixed IP 49.143.151.98 - they were blocked a few times with escalating blocks, and are currently serving a 1 year block until the end of March. Apparently they've found some other routes in. Gricehead (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Gulf Cup of Nations

Can a moderator please watch Hashim-afc's actions at Gulf Cup of Nations. He moved the articles in December without seeking WP:RM and the category move request was also denied for this reason. The articles should be restored per WP:COMMONNAME as there are also other tournaments with the name "Arabian Gulf Cup", such as the UAE League Cup.--Bijanii (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have proved on the talk page of the Arabian Gulf Cup that not only is it WP:COMMONNAME but also the official name of the tournament. I posted endless English sources including FIFA.com using that name and the tournament's official website and logo just to add to all the common name sources. You are the only one making an issue of the move because you have an agenda against the term Arabian Gulf (almost your entire edit history is reverting Arabian Gulf to Persian Gulf on multiple pages). Hashim-afc (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no point to keep use WP:COMMONNAME argument. Just look at all these sources and this is from a 5 mins Google search:

http://www.fifa.com/live-scores/news/y=2017/m=12/news=fifa-president-impressed-with-gulf-cup-kick-off-2925682.html

http://www.fifa.com/live-scores/photos/galleries/y=2018/m=1/gallery=arabian-gulf-cup-final-2925951.html

http://www.goalzz.com/?c=15220

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-01/06/c_136875249.htm

http://news.kuwaittimes.net/website/oman-win-23rd-arabian-gulf-cup-uae-pay-penalty-%E2%80%A2-fans-hurt-railing-collapses/

http://dubaieye1038.com/uae-beat-iraq-to-reach-finals-of-arabian-gulf-cup/

http://www.dohastadiumplusqatar.com/contentpage.aspx?article=Kuwait-crash-out-of-Arabian-Gulf-Cup

http://iraqi-football.com/trophy-cabinet

https://en.as.com/en/2018/01/05/football/1515147284_248853.html

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/sports/2018/01/03/UAE-to-face-Oman-in-Arabian-Gulf-Cup-final.html

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/aviation/want-to-see-uae-play-at-arabian-gulf-cup-finale-emirates-to-operate-special-flight

http://en.ammonnews.net/article.aspx?articleno=36889#.WmvHjahl_IU

http://www.emirates247.com/news/emirates/emirates-operates-special-flight-for-uae-supporters-for-arabian-gulf-cup-final-2018-01-04-1.663605

http://gulftoday.ae/portal/2204bebb-bc0c-4805-b30b-71e2b3ea65a3.aspx

https://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2681609&language=en

http://www.thebaghdadpost.com/en/story/21187/Iraq-seeks-to-host-24th-Arabian-Gulf-Cup

https://www.sportsjournal.ae/kuwait-knocked-arabian-gulf-cup-nations-oman-defeat/

http://www.arabianindustry.com/aviation/news/2018/jan/3/emirates-to-operate-special-flight-for-uae-supporters-to-arabian-gulf-cup-final-5864807/

https://www.emirates.com/media-centre/emirates-to-operate-special-a380-flight-to-kuwait-for-uae-supporters-to-attend-arabian-gulf-cup-final

http://the18.com/soccer-news/arabian-gulf-cup-final-oman-vs-uae

http://ina.iq/eng/2017/12/27/iraq-wins-over-qatar-in-the-23rd-arabian-gulf-cup/

http://www.arnnewscentre.ae/uae-defeated-by-oman-in-finals-of-arabian-gulf-cup

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/sports/2018/01/03/UAE-to-face-Oman-in-Arabian-Gulf-Cup-final.html

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/aviation/want-to-see-uae-play-at-arabian-gulf-cup-finale-emirates-to-operate-special-flight

And even on top of all that, the official Gulf Cup website,^[1], the official AGCFF Twitter page,^[2], the official logo of the tournament has "Arabian Gulf Cup" written in both Arabic and English.^[3]. There is no discussion at all! Hashim-afc (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Alas I am now seeking WP:RM as there is no other option to correct your disruptive actions fuelled by your pro-Iran agenda. Hashim-afc (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

swanseacity.net

Swansea City have changed their website domain which leaves past URLS as redirects to the home page. I have noticed that a small number of references on Swansea City related articles (players, PL seasons etc.) have the domain swanseacity.net which redirects to the home page, rendering the source unverifiable. The first one I've noticed was on Gerhard Tremmel with the following link http://www.swanseacity.net/news/article/gt-contract-643037.aspx , which I've changed into https://web.archive.org/web/20160221045143/http://www.swanseacity.net/news/article/gt-contract-643037.aspx . The first link when clicked goes to the incorrect location of the home page but the archive URL correctly goes to the correct page. insource:"http://www.swanseacity.net/news/article" will have the complete list of pages potentially affected by the redirect problem.

InternetArchiveBot does not recognise the swanseacity.net links under the format http://www.swanseacity.net/news/article/(name).aspx as dead links so a bot would be helpful to add in the archive urls to the stated format. I have checked this through a few times, all resulting to the Swansea City home page.

Also, other football clubs may have the same problem where past URLS redirects to the wrong pages to their own club websites. It happens that I have noticed that with Swansea City on Gerhard Tremmel's article page first.

Thanks, Iggy (Swan) 13:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If you just change the swanseacity.net to swanseacity.com, that Tremmel url redirects correctly to the live page.

Try http://www.swanseacity.com/news/article/gt-contract-643037.aspx . cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Struway2: - that makes it much simpler, thanks! Iggy (Swan) 15:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: It worked for the Tremmel ref, but I wouldn't assume they'll all work like that. When clubs change their website structure, they often take the opportunity to ditch some of the content. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I will check the links before submitting. The Andre Ayew page I've checked first has worked. Iggy (Swan) 15:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Slow edit war at New York Red Bulls‎

A revert war over the "honors" section of New York Red Bulls‎ has taken place over the last couple of months. One user saying the awards belong, another saying they don't since they're not official. Could others take a look at this? No discussion is on-going; just the commentary in edit summaries. Since it's not happening with multiple reverts on the same day, I don't feel like it should be fully protected right now, but I'd like to see if people with more knowledge of this WikiProject's standards can help facilitate discussion there. Thanks, only (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Help with image sizing

Hi, I have uploaded an Image for one of my team's players but it is way too small and no tutorials make any sense to me. The page is Collin Seedorf, if anyone could head over there and make the image a decent size that'd be helpful. Cheers! Cheesy McGee (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cheesy McGee: The image that you've uploaded is tiny – that's why it appears so small. You need to upload a bigger one. Number 5 7 12:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest, however, that perhaps you shouldn't upload that image again. It looks to me like it's an official team photo that I doubt you have the right to upload here for copyright reasons. If you can find a free one, I'd upload that instead. – Pee Jay 12:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, he even indicates he took it from ictfc.com in the description! Govvy (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

1991–92 in English football

I added the infobox to the top of the page, I've put down Arsenal and Spurs sharing the charity shield, does that part look okay? I also think this was the last time that happened. I was going to put Colchester as winning the FA Trophy, but it doesn't actually confirm that in the article. It just mentions some American scoring! Govvy (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

St Albans City F.C.‎

Erm, what consensus is Jimbo Online on about for removing flags from players? I don't even understand his usage for removing them! Govvy (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have a feeling he has been removing many flags from squad list stating consensus for a long time which hasn't been discussed here for before, so I am confused by what he states OR, when you can clearly verify player nationalities from the club websites. Govvy (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

In this case, the nationalities can be verified from the individual player profiles in the source provided. Not sure how this constitutes WP:OR and unsourced content. LTFC 95 (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

He has been doing it a lot, you can verify from official website, soccerway, soccerbase, ect, but he he just removing them. I might start reverting him again. Govvy (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Search through the archives and you'll find it. Adding flagicons for players without sources constitutes as WP:OR. Have a little read of WP:CS and WP:R too. Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 18:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Please show me, I never found such consensus, and stating OR, CS, and WP:R, these are general standards which everyone knows and nothing to do with this damage you are doing to the project. Govvy (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo has a point about the lack of referencing, but the way he goes about it can be problematic (I'd say this is being disruptive as both urls were valid). I also find it odd that he's just added a completely unreferenced squadlist to the Grays Athletic article (his crusade against unsourced nationalities seems to go back to not getting his way in a discussion over the format of the squadlist on the Grays article). And now he's blindly reverting it. Number 5 7 20:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jimbo online: - your editing is becoming disruptive and WP:POINT. I suggest you take a step back before you end up blocked. Giant Snowman 20:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest you stop with your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT views. Yes I blindly reverted once, but then you ironically blindly reverted that. --Jimbo^[online] 20:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Edits like this (a repeat of what happened last year) are really quite unbecoming. Number 5 7 20:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Why am I not allowed to use the same template? The WP:FOOTY's passive aggressiveness isn't constructive. --Jimbo^[online] 20:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

List of current Iranian expatriate footballers

Is this list craft? Don't we just stick to cat's for this normally? Govvy (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

PR review

Where do you submit footy articles for Peer review again? I wanted to put forward Tottenham Hotspur F.C.. Govvy (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Same place as any PR. Just follow the instructions at WP:PRG. – Pee Jay 23:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

heh, I added it to the top of the talk page, my same problem as last time I went to WP:PR is I don't see Sport!! Govvy (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Sport comes under Everyday Life. – Pee Jay 00:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've done that, hmm, does it not need adding to the project front page, I assume PR needs to be done to get the article to GA right? Govvy (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You can submit an article straight for a GA review if you wish, although if it's your first attempt at getting an article promoted then a PR will certainly be advisable to iron out any major issues that you may be unfamiliar with. Kosack (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really know the process for GA review, thought you needed a PR first, unless I can skip that and go for a GA review I don't know. Govvy (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You can go straight to GA if you think the article meets all the criteria at WP:WIAGA, but it's frowned upon to simply use the WP:GAN process as a form of WP:PR. As editors, we're supposed to be trusted to be able to judge articles against the criteria ourselves, so before you propose an article for promotion to GA, run your eye over it as though you were reviewing it yourself. If you don't trust yourself to give it a thorough, impartial review, request a peer review; otherwise, put it up at WP:GAN. Featured article reviews should always be preceded by a peer review, however. – Pee Jay 13:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, when some of you have some time, maybe you can go over the PR for me, cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Foreign players table with confederation restrictions

How do we deal foreign players in leagues that mandates a minimum number of player/s from a particular confederation.

Here's an example for the 2018 Philippines Football League.

Club	Player 1	Player 2	Player 3	AFC Player	Former Players
Davao Aguilas	Brad McDonald	Kim Sungmin	Harry Sawyer	Takashi Odawara	Former player Former player

Given that the Philippines Football League requires one of the foreign players to be from a Asian Football Confederation member association How does one determine which is the designated AFC player. Unless one has access to league documents (and we can't say if they do designate a individual as a club's AFC player)

I suggest this approach instead:

Club	Players				Former Players
Davao Aguilas	Brad McDonald	Takashi Odawara*	Kim Sungmin*	Harry Sawyer*	Former player Former player*

(*) AFC player.

I suggest adding some sort of footnote to the table. Also note that Brad McDonald is also a Australian national.

Feedback is appreciated since this doesn't concern the PFL alone.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Soccerbase

Does anyone know why the Soccerbase link in the External links section of the Jack Stephens (footballer) article directs to the "Games played by Jack Stephens in 2016/2017" section on the Scoccerbase website page rather than the current season? 92.24.168.129 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The same issue occurs with Jay Dasilva. The Soccerbase page seems to be at fault rather than the link in the article. LTFC 95 (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Charlie Gilmour (1999 footballer)

Is this Arsenal F.C. youth player notable? As far as I can see, he has never made a first team appearance. If he does pass muster, surely the article title should be Charlie Gilmour (footballer, born 1999), with Charlie Gilmour (footballer) becoming Charlie Gilmour (footballer, born 1942). 92.26.162.135 (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No, he doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY. Should be prodded. Number 5 7 14:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep, he hasn't had any game time what so ever, either prodded or Userfied. Govvy (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Creator has blanked the page after it was prodded, stating 'inapplicable content'; CSD g7 requested. Eagleash (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Football/Club seasons

When I go through club season articles they are all very different, I really don't think we even refer to this template do we? Also, it seems very out of date now, should we be updating it? Or even using it? There does seem to be a lack of structure across the project on season articles. Should there be some standard formatting throughout? Govvy (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

1. FC Saarbrücken (women)

Should it be merged into 1. FC Saarbrücken? Govvy (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

No. By and large, Bundesliga and 2. Bundesliga clubs are independently notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: I don't understand where you're coming from because it's the same club, the womans article I thought could be a section of the main club page. Govvy (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

There is Fiorentina Women's F.C. and other articles about women section of the sports club/football club, since 2. Bundesliga (woman) where Saarbrücken was playing, is notable enough, the article seem need expansion instead of merging. Matthew_hk t c 14:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The article should be expanded, not be merged. Saarbrücken have played 16 seasons in the Frauen-Bundesliga, and all clubs in the top two divisions are notable (WP:FOOTYN). S.A. Julio (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Mailson Lima Duarte Lopes and Ronaldo Lima Duarte Lopes

Aren't these names too large for Wikipedia?8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 10:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Not really. It depends on what they are called by reliable sources, so their common name. E.g. Mailson Lima or Mailson Lima Duarte Lopes. Kante4 (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

On some sites I see only Mailson Lima and on others it's the full name (despite being large).8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 15:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Acharnaikos F.C.

Has this club been wound up or is it just on hiatus or what? Trying to add references to Dimitrios Kalogerakos with the aid of Google translate, I found this source, and looking at the club article to figure out what on earth happened (poor translation, relegation, or what), I find it starts in past tense but provides no coverage of the event. Help, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The club was thrown out of the Greek League in mid-November for what looks like repeated non-payment of wages. This source Google-translates as

"The Board of Directors of the FOOTBALL LEAGUE at its meeting on 14-11-2017, disqualified NEO ACHARNAIKOS FC from the FOOTBALL LEAGUE Championship 2017-2018, in accordance with Article 24 (5) of the Players' Status of Players Act, because he has committed three (3) times in an offense involving penalties imposed on non-payment of any financial compensation to players."

Your source says the players (40 names listed) were all released and could join other clubs after December 31, i.e. once the transfer window opened. Their request to be allowed to join other clubs before the transfer window was turned down. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; my understanding wasn't too far off, then. And now that I look at the page for the league (we were linking to the English league in the club article), I see they're crossed out on the map. I've updated the club article as best I can. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Association football contracts

Three questions, do we need this on a single article? Is there another article this could be merged into? Or should we just delete it? It maybe does sound like a valid search term. Govvy (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It definitely could be made into a good article with a history section and a lot more detail.--Echetus Xe 14:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Not needed. Giant Snowman 15:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The see also section is good, but the rest seem in a niche of over detailed world for lawyer in sports contract. It need major rewrite to show it had WP:GNG that on major media instead of some reference book on such subject. Matthew_hk t c 07:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Women's football head-to-head table

I just started a head-to-head, season-by-season top-tier league record sortable table by decade for Real Sociedad Femenino. So far it's like this:

C	Team	2010–11		2011–12		2012–13		2013–14		2014–15		2015–16		2016–17		2017–18		2018–19		2019–20		Overall
C	Team	P	G	P	G	P	G	P	G	P	G	P	G	P	G	P	G	P	G	P	G	P	%	G
	Albacete											4	+6	4	+1							8	66%	+7
	Athletic Bilbao											0	-6	4	+2							4	33%	-4
	Atlético Madrid											3	0	0	-2							3	25%	-2
	Barcelona											0	-4	0	-5							0	0%	-9
	Betis													0	-3							0	0%	-3
	Collerense											6	+4									6	100%	+4
	Espanyol											4	+2	4	+2							8	66%	+4
	Granadilla											1	–3	4	+1							5	41%	-2
	Levante											3	+3	4	+1							7	66%	+4
	Oiartzun											6	+4	4	+4							10	83%	+8
	Oviedo Moderno											6	+4									6	100%	+4
	Rayo Vallecano											4	+3	6	+5							10	83%	+8
	Santa Teresa											6	+3	0	-2							6	50%	+1
	Sporting Huelva											1	-1	3	0							4	33%	-1
	Tacuense													6	+9							6	100%	+9
	Valencia											3	0	0	-7							3	25%	-7
	Zaragoza											3	-1	3	+4							6	50%	+3

But I realized it's too large and detailed for the main article. But in List of Real Sociedad Femenino seasons it's okay to include it, right? I thought I should ask to make sure it's unlikely it gets deleted before I keep working on it and make more of them. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this really a good idea? It's going to keep getting bigger and bigger every season – which isn't necessarily a problem if the growth is downwards, but as this is across, pretty soon it'll become far too wide for most screens. I would have thought a head-to-head table would just list the overall position (i.e. W-D-L-GF-GA) rather than each individual result, in which case the only growth would be adding new opponents. Number 5 7 14:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

That's why my idea is making one table for each decade. Many teams (this one was created in 2004, for example) and regular championships are rather young so they wouldn't take as much vertical space as with the veteran top-tier male clubs either. The reason why I'd like to make it like this is that it shows the team's progression against each rival throughout time. 14:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this idea. This kind of table is only valuable in terms of the teams' overall head-to-head record, not just across a single decade. I would suggest following Number 57's approach. – Pee Jay 16:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it can also be valuable to show the team's evolution. A simple overall table doesn't show a particularly good or bad run against a certain opponent, how they improved or worsened against them through the years, in what periods they faced each other the most... and I think decades are the most practical measure to compare different periods in the team's history. Even if it's judged that an overall stats table may be necessary, I think this still would be a valuable complement to it. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Number57 and PeeJay here. Kante4 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Template:UEFA Champions League winners

Please check the edit warring at Template:UEFA Champions League winners. SLBedit (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

own goals on scorer tables in season articles

Why do people want to include own goals? What gets me, is adding these negative goals up on a what should only be a positive goal scorers table. I want to push for a consensus that own-goals shouldn't be included in these tables. I would like to see who is for and against this. Govvy (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

If there's a list of all the club's goalscorers in a season, I don't see why it doesn't make sense to include own goals, otherwise there's the potential for confusion over why the totals don't match. Number 5 7 16:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Isn't it usually own goals in favor of the team? It's useful so that the goalscorer total is equal to the goals scored by the club as seen in the league table. --SuperJew (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, it just says own goals, people are adding own goals either for what team scored them, it's not being quantified. This data should surely be seperated from the main scorer tables. Govvy (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

They should be included as it was in favour for the team we are talking about. And it adds up all goals scored, so what Number57 and SuperJew said above. Kante4 (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Then you should have a noting system saying what matches the own goals came from surely? Because just saying own goals could mean what your team has conceded! Because the way it is at the moment is just... annoying! Govvy (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Common sense is that the goalscorer section shows all goals scored for your team, own goals included. Not sure where the problem is... Kante4 (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Common sense, you know what they say about assumption! Govvy (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kante4: Why do you start replying now and not before? I consider it rather rude in the lack of responces to my earlier questions on your talk page and Real season page. Govvy (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Because i think it was clear what the table talks about and no one ever had a problem with it. Now here is a wider discussion possible and ok, as it could affect more editors/articles. Now let's wait for more editors and see what they think. Kante4 (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: this seems to be an issue only for you and 3 users have already told you it's a non-issue. WP:DROPTHESTICK, come up with an actual argument, or wait for more users to comment. --SuperJew (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any confusion/issues, the tables list all goals scored in favour of the club in question, which includes own goals. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess none of you lot have dsylexia, this project is really not helpful to the special needs. I every so often point out issues (problems) that effect those readers with special needs, that bit more information is needed. Clear and precise information, saying COMMONSENSE isn't always helpful. Govvy (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see what dyslexia has to do with this. I would be happy if you could expand on that. --SuperJew (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Because people with learning disabilities will also read it as own goals the club has scored, which are negative goals, that's why it needs some extra clarity for those people. Govvy (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Football clubs

These clubs were part of non-notable tournaments (It is not part of Pakistani domestic set-up). They are:

I was about to take them to AfD but came here to have the final words. Ping me if anyone replies. Thanks.Störm (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Störm: See WP:FOOTYN for more info. I will take it into AfD later. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, go ahead. Störm (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Those clubs are playing in Geo Super Football League which is currently the highest top flight part time league operating in Pakistan due to the fact that Pakistan Premier League is currently suspended. They run as semi-pro, know the money is very limited, I am sure if you have a look on the web you might find enough to pass GNG on some of them. I wouldn't rush to delete them just yet. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Do you have any source that the league is ongoing? More discussion please go to these related AfD, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Russian Women's Football Championship vs. Russian Women's Football Supreme League

The header of the Russian Women's Football Championship article says: The Russian Women's Football Championship (Russian: ЧЕМПИОНАТ РОССИИ ПО ЖЕНСКОМУ ФУТБОЛУ), also known as the Top Division, is the highest professional women's football league in Russia.

The article from the Russian Wikipedia is also titled nearly the same way, while the header simply says The Russian Women's Football Championship has been held since 1992. In 1990 and 1991 the USSR Championship was held. (I translated it though Google). The thing is that each season article, like this one, includes all three categories: the Vysshaya Liga (Supreme/Major League), the Pervaya Liga (First League) and the Vtoraya Liga (Second League). While the Russian Cup has its own articles.

We lack any articles about the second and third tiers. Should they be added to the Russian Women's Football Championship ones, or should we create their own articles and rename the top-tier articles as Russian Women's Football Supreme/Top/Major League/Division? Regardless, I think the header should be changed since the Championship is more than just the Top Division.

This also applies to the Soviet women's football championship, which also had three levels. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Soccerway has the top division down as the "Supreme Division" and the second down as 1. Division Women. I'd say for the moment to combine them into a single article titled Russian Women's Football Championship (with redirect as appropriate) Once the article gets too large then it could be split into one for each division. I think we should definitely have combined season articles (e.g. under the title 2017 Russian Women's Football Championship – no idea why it's currently at 2017 Russian Championship (women's football), as it doesn't match the parent article). I don't think separating the season articles would be of any benefit and I think many of the existing ones where we've got season articles for each division (e.g. 2017–18 EFL Championship, 2017–18 EFL League One, 2017–18 EFL League Two) should be merged along the lines of 2017–18 FA WSL. Number 5 7 16:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

User TPTB is messing up Steaua Bucuresti articles

He replaced links to FC Steaua București from 1985–86 European Cup with links to 2017-founded fourth league club CSA Steaua București (football), despite UEFA [2] and Romanian Football Federation stating that FC Steaua Bucuresti (actual name is FCSB) is the owner of the records. Also CSA Steaua is a copied article from FCSB. Currently CSA Steaua sued FCSB for the trophies but the result will be known in 2019 the earliest.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 09:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The guy lies through his teeth :)) It's amazing. Steaua did not sue FC Fcsb for the trophies. FC Fcsb does not even own the real, physical trophies. Steaua does. It did go to court, not to sue FC Fcsb, but to get an acknowledgement from the judges, an official statement that says that Steaua is the only owner of the Steaua records and trophies. These types of lawsuits don't take too long. The paper will be out in a few weeks or months, depending on the system. But it will be out this year. With it, Steaua will force the Romanian Football Federation and the UEFA to remove all Steaua records from FC Fcsb. At that point, I hope you will allow 8Dodo8 the honour of editing FC Fcsb's page with the correct information. - TPTB (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no consensus for these changes, TPTB. You shouldn't be making unilateral changes like this. – Pee Jay 12:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with PeeJay, we need to wait til there's a definite consensus on what should be attributed to CSA Steaua and when the start date for that should be, so there is a uniform approach between editors on changing the stuff (which could be quite a lot). Until then it should stay pointing to the original article, which as you know refers to both 'historical' Steaua and the FCSB entity currently. Crowsus (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Everything to do with Steaua is a total mess at the moment. So much confusion and lack of consensus. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Arabic surnames

Hi everyone, I'm a member of the Italian Wiki. I have just a minor question: how should we write the Arabic surnames with the "Al" and "El" prefix? For example: Mohamed Al-Deayea, Mahmoud El-Gohary and so on. Should we use the -? Should we write the A and the E in capital letters? Thanks, VAN ZANT (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe that for "Al", it is usually done in the format al-Deayea. However, this may be specific to the region I am familiar with (Israel/Palestinian territories). Not sure with "El" - might be worth asking at WP:EGYPT as I think it's more common there? Number 5 7 21:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

No hyphen in Stephan El Shaarawy in most reliable source, despite he was born and raised in Italy. There is hyphen in Al-Ittihad Club (Jeddah) but not in some source (such as this primary source from the AFC), it rather a naming convention problem. Matthew_hk t c 22:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Not the sure the rule drafted in transliteration section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic, applies or not, but it use Al (capitalize and space) in human name in some case. (Send from mobile) Matthew_hk t c 22:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Queens Park Rangers F.C.

Esport squad list? I removed it once, I don't see how they are notable and relivent to the football article. Maybe someone else can remove it so I don't get into some stupid edit war. Govvy (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe worthy of a line on the article saying that they have an eSports department (even then, hmmm...) but a squad list? Silly. Lots of clubs (not many in Britain) have separate sections which don't need their own article and are barely mentioned if at all. The first team and reserves squad for FIFA, hahaha. Crowsus (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

A mention won't hurt. But the problem with the squad list meant for traditional football squads is that there is no such thing United Kingdom FIFA nationality.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, can certainly be mentioned in the article, but the squad list is completely unnecessary, it doesn't even have the players' real names! Jellyman (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Masoud Shojaei

Getting really really tiresome... both IP addresses and user accounts keep changing his departure from Panionios F.C. in 2018 - in the box, that is - in spite of the reference #22 stating he was released on 26 DECEMBER 2017. Do the guidelines not state we must adhere to year of start/end rather than season?

Attentively (P.S. I messaged the account mentioned above regarding the subject) --Quite A Character (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Using timelines in women's football team articles

For women's football team articles that have a List of seasons article as well as a season-by-season vertical table in its main article, wouldn't it be better to change the latter for timelines like those you find in some articles about Russian male teams along with a link, since you have a expanded version of that table in the LoS article? Like...

instead of the current table in Levante UD Femenino? And maybe the UEFA Competition Record section could be summarized too or linked upon the third timeline since it's also covered in two linked articles? Then the Titles section could be checked along with the season-to-season timeline without having to scroll down the page. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

As a test I added League and Cup timelines to ZFK CSKA Moscow, which I created a couple hours ago. I noticed that while italics or bold doesn't work wikilinks can be used. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Since I see no objections, can I assume it's okay to change them? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change them. The timelines look incredibly complicated to add, and the information contained in them isn't immediately obvious. I agree there isn't a need for a season-by-season table in the club's main article, however, especially since there's already a list article that serves that function. – Pee Jay 13:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

They're surprisingly easy to use. You just need to copypaste the model, input the overall date margin in the top, then each season and position in the middle like in the tables, and lastly the colors (BL1 for tier 1, BL2 for tier 2, RS for tier 3, RN for tier 4...) with the corresponding date margin at the bottom. Knowing this it can be easily done in few minutes. I think the information is just as obvious: it's basically the same thing but horizontally, thus taking less space; and even it there's a detailed season-by-seaosn table in a separate article I think it's important a summed-up graphic in the main page, the team's progression through time is a basic piece of information. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This could be another way to do it:

Pakhtakorienne (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If they are to be used (and I'm not convince of their purpose when there is a separate list), would it not be simpler to use a Wikitable, which would also be more customisable – e.g. being able to add links to individual seasons (see below). Number 5 7 14:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Summary of the last ten seasons
Season	2008–09	2009–10	2010–11	2011–12	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15	2015–16	2016–17	2017–18
Division	Primera División
Position	1st	2nd	8th	9th	5th	4th	5th	5th	4th	4th
Copa de la Reina	QF	QF	R16		SF	SF	QF	SF	QF
UEFA Women's Cup	R16	DNQ	DNQ	DNQ	DNQ	DNQ	DNQ	DNQ	DNQ	DNQ

That seems even better actually. The thing is that it takes more space but the size could be adjusted and I think there's no need for the 20's since it's obvious and it takes space unnecessarily. Gold/silver codes could be added too, and I'd use a colspan for the DNQs. I think this would be great for a main article. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Summary of the last ten seasons
Season	08–09	09–10	10–11	11–12	12–13	13–14	14–15	15–16	16–17	17–18
Division	Primera División
Position	1st	2nd	8th	9th	5th	4th	5th	5th	4th	4th
Copa de la Reina	QF	QF	R16		SF	SF	QF	SF	QF
UEFA Women's Cup	R16	DNQ

Regarding its purpose in the main article, I'd say that while knowing a certain season/s's results, goal average, top scorers, statistics... is more detailed information, the club's historic evolution is general information like the palmares or squad, and a chart taking little space like this is perfect for a quick casual search on it. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think, like PeeJay, it is unnecessary to change the current season-by-season tables to your purposals. As it is currently is just OK. Asturkian (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

But it takes a lot of space. It's out of proportion for an article that doesn't have much text, and it forces you to scroll up and down unnecessarily to check the squad or the palmares. Actually I think I was the first one to make these tables nearly a decade ago by expanding the ones found in Spanish male teams' main articles with UEFA competition, top scorers and medal/promotion colour codes, as well as those detailed UEFA competition record tables below. I think keeping the vertical format back then was a mistake, and while it has been used this far I think its flaws are evident and these tables could be radically improved like this. It doesn't need to be with those timelines, I think the table proposed by Number 57 is actually better! Pakhtakorienne (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, it uses the same color code for the tiers and the results, which is somewhat confusing. Just like using the "bronze medal" one for semifinals as well as third positions. Honestly, it was a flawed design. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the problem of "bronzing" both semifinalists and third positions. The two SF'ists are technically tied in the third position. Asturkian (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You may be right. That regardless, I think changing the season-by-season table's format and summarising or supressing the UEFA competition record would be a big improvement in presentation and navigation. Like now you just have a worse version of what you can find in the list of seasons taking just as much space, while in horizontal format it works as an adequate summary. Having two result tables taking nearly half the length or a club's main article is out of proportion. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 UPSL season

Hi, can I get some community input on this particular AfD discussion? I feel like additional input from WP:FOOTY would be helpful for this discussion. Thanks! Jay eyem (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Bruno Pereira and IP Edits

Is there anyway to block a range of IPs that cover ones starting with 2A02 maybe? There is a person who uses IPs that begin with that [3] [4] and [5] that makes disruptive edits to articles to add this fake player as well as other annoying edits. I've even done a google advance search and clean up old articles where the player was added in the past. I'm not sure if anything can be done but would be good if others know of a way? NZFC^(talk) 22:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

you can post to ANI to show the range 2A02:587:3101:XXX..., 2A02:587:3101,XXX... and 2A02:587:311B:XXX...had long term abuse problem in order to range block, but unless the range was infamously used as vandalism , they seldom block a range as it consist many ip, for just 2A02:587, the number is enormous. Matthew_hk t c 18:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Giovani dos Santos

Since when do you add assists in stats tables? Didn't think we are suppose to do that? Govvy (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

We definitely don't, I think you can delete that without any problem. Jay eyem (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

heh, I had a few go's at trying to remove those columns on preview but kept messing it up. Govvy (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed it for ya :) --SuperJew (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

And on a side note, OMG those stats tables are so annoying to edit, can someone template them? --SuperJew (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Please, let's not template them. Git gud, n00b ;-) – Pee Jay 18:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

There was a template but deleted, making deleting an assist column a pain.....Matthew_hk t c 18:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Cheers guys, much appreciated. Govvy (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Football club notability

Can I just check, does the national cup eligibility criterion at WP:FOOTYN include preliminary/qualification rounds? Ta, Nzd (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep Number 5 7 23:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. One reason I ask is because there is an AfD for an Australian team that has competed in FFA Cup preliminary rounds. Those rounds are state-based. Does that make a difference? Nzd (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It hasn't in the past – I believe we have had a couple of AfDs on Australian clubs that have ended up being kept due to playing in the qualifying rounds. Number 5 7 23:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't the reference to playing in the national cup only refer to teams that have only played in what is considered the cup; In the FA Cup's case, the final 32? Including any team that has attempted to qualify would mean notability is assumed for teams with virtually no coverage in reliable sources. Subject specific guidelines provide that certain subjects are assumed to be notable based on certain factors, but this assumption is grounded in the assumption that because they meet those factors that subject will likely have sufficient coverage in sources. Users at AfD treat this unofficial notability guideline/essay like it is a hard and fast rule. A notability guideline without broader community support should not so widely provide for assumed notability. Kb.au (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Using WP:FOOTYN to justify inclusion of an article is not appropriate for Australian clubs. Clubs below the top National Premier Leagues level do not consistently receive coverage. An effort should be made to prove that clubs meet WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

A WikiProject notability advice page should not be so prescriptive without more than a local consensus. I'd suggest changing the wording to "likely to be notable" and including a sentence on the necessity of more than incidental coverage in reliable independent sources. An informal notability guideline should not stray as far away from the guidelines that have broad consensus as this one does; in the case of teams, WP:NCORP would typically apply. Kb.au (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

FA Cup entry works pretty well as an indicator of notability in English football but every FFA-recognised football club is eligible to enter the FFA Cup in the preliminary stages. If there is to be a line, I would suggest entry to the round of 32 would be a better indicator of notability. Hack (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

There sure needs to be a lot more French club articles if every club that enters the Coupe de France is notable ;) Gricehead (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

What's usually the cut-off for French clubs? Hack (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Olivier Giroud

Is the article getting an overhaul or screwed over? Harambe Walks has removed a load of BBC refs and even added a Daily Mail one!! :/ Govvy (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Govvy please tag me, or any other editor, when you open a discussion on them. Right of reply. Anyway [6] I did not add a Daily Mail reference, so no need to put two exclamation marks and a concerned emoticon. Merging two paragraphs made it appear that I did so, but anyway an article about "a goal described by Arsène Wenger as the greatest he had seen at the Emirates Stadium" is hardly the kind of stuff that Stop Funding Hate criticise the Mail for. I did remove BBC refs, but they were about "Giroud netted his sixteenth goal for Arsenal on 30 March 2013, scoring Arsenal's third in the 4–1 home victory against Reading" and "Giroud also provided an assist for Kieran Gibbs in the FA Cup third-round tie at Swansea, a match which ended 2–2". For a striker, especially one with over 100 goals for Arsenal, how is this encyclopedic or notable? Please provide full context and not half-truths when accusing another volunteer editor of "screwing over" a page. Harambe Walks (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Which version

I suspect this edit is vandalism, can someone from the Wikiproject please comment either way? Andrewa (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

1919–20 Football League and Arsenal's promotion

There is clearly controversy around Arsenal's promotion to the First Division almost a century ago. User:TonyAttwood, presumably the writer for The History of Arsenal blog ([7]) has tried to introduce an opposing viewpoint on these events into the Wikipedia article 1919–20 Football League, citing his own blog. Although I outlined on his talk page why I thought that his edit introduced more problems than it solved, there could nevertheless be value in what he is trying to do. If anyone has sufficient knowledge of this era of football or access to relevant source materials, it may be worth taking a look at this. However, if such a viewpoint is worthy of inclusion then it needs to be added more seamlessly, rather than as a critique of the article's existing content. --Jameboy (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes there is some confusion about why this 'promotion' happened. I'll see if I can dig out some sources, but a blog would not normally be regarded as a reliable source. Eldumpo (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Terminology for David Wagner (soccer)

I have re-moved the page back to "soccer" per the discussion on the talk page and also since I was unable to find another discussion that overturned that consensus. I am wondering if, since he is a manager for a Premier League club and played his entire club career in Germany, whether or not the page should use the term "football" rather than "soccer," or if these terms should be changed accordingly. Cheers. Jay eyem (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Born in Germany, entire playing career in Germany. Coaching career in Germany and England. Clear win for "football" IMO. Number 5 7 21:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The only thing that would lean towards using soccer is because he played for the US internationally, and he wasn't remarkably notable for doing so (grand total of 8 caps, never appearing in a major tournament). Jay eyem (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

He did also play for Germany's youth teams internationally. Number 5 7 23:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Football is considered more universal than Soccer! Govvy (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not a question of universality but of national ties, and Number 57 has the right reasoning here. We wouldn't write Carl Cort in Guyanese English because an Englishman who played in England made a few footnote appearances for Guyana in his 30s. Harambe Walks (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

So it would be safe to say that the page should be moved back to "footballer/football manager" as opposed to "soccer", yes? Jay eyem (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

List of foreign La Liga players

Is this list overkill and listcraft? We have categories for this type of thing! Govvy (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There's several lists like that. I also don't quite understand their purpose as stand-alone articles. I could, on the other hand, understand a "Foreign La Liga players" article that focuses on the notable foreigners (top scorers, major game changers, etc). I think all of these list articles should be deleted and/or changed to a notability-focused format.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 02:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

But the criteria makes it vast, because of that it seems impractical. We have categories for expacts, this list is just being that, do we really need these vast lists? Govvy (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There is List of foreign Serie A players, and those list contain more information than cat (nationality, club and year), i would say those X expatriate footballers in Y country cats are inappropriate, but a list is sufficient to keep. Matthew_hk t c 09:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

But one player can be in multiple categories and you can run searches via the categories, it's easy to see duplicates with categories with it's auto-sorting. Lists... well lists can be poorly managed.. You can easily duplicate a player, I really don't see the point of these lists. Govvy (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Govvy, please search the archive of this page, there was a consensus somewhere, but i don't remember and don't wish to locate it myself. Matthew_hk t c 09:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

heh, don't know, seems like redundant information to me, if someone is going to look up a footballer they are going to search by name, how many people actually look up these lists? How about a list articles of categories related by country? Govvy (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

All cats "X country expatriate footballers in Y country" are deleted, so it was not possible to have a list of those cats. Matthew_hk t c 10:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Although it's a different type of list, we !voted to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Costa Rican expatriate footballers in the past. I didn't agree with the outcome, and I suspect elements of the foreign player lists get significant coverage in reliable sources. I have worked on the Liga MX list in the past (which is now a bit unmanageable due to the number of references) and the Mexican press certainly focuses on the number of foreign players each club employs and publishes lists of this nature on a fairly regular basis. I think these should be kept, but the inclusion criteria may need to be tightened (maybe change the list to only cover players with a threshold of competitive appearances or goals?). Jogurney (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

for Italy, media are more concerned on Extracomunitario (non-EU), but i don't think source of players' nationality is a major problem of those list, but rather season to season additional of content. Matthew_hk t c 17:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Articles created by User:Durneydiaz

As some may be aware, blocked user User:Durneydiaz had created a series of articles that were moved to WP:Draftspace in the middle of last year. Some of these may be notable however deletions under CSD criterion G13 have begun. List is this way. Hack (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Football Association of Selangor

Would someone from FOOTY mind taking a look at Talk:Football Association of Selangor? I'm not sure why it's redirecting to Talk:Selangor FA, unless the article is also supposed to be a redirect. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Football Association of Selangor and Selangor FA are both articles about the same team. And so one should be merged into the other. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the former article is about the governing body for football in Selangor, the latter is about the professional team they run in the national league. Unlike most countries, professional football in Malaysia is largely based around representative teams from the various states rather than privately-owned clubs. There may be a case for merging the articles, as the one on the association is poorly sourced, but they don't cover the same subject matter. As for the talk page redirect, that looks to have come about as a result of past page moves, no doubt caused by confusion over the two intertwining topics. Jellyman (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Move the article regarding the football club to Selangor FA (football club) or something like that. Matthew_hk t c 08:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The team article should be at FA Selangor from what I can see. Hack (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Medhi Benatia moved to Mehdi Benatia

Medhi Benatia was moved to Mehdi Benatia. The correct spelling of his name was always disputed in the past, so I think that this should not be done without discussing the move first. Where should I start this move discussion? Here? On the article talk page? --Jaellee (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Article talk page is standard, using WP:RM. Giant Snowman 08:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

reverted as uncontroversial move. secondary source support Medhi as well as primary source. It did have secondary source use Mehdi , but seem more rare. Matthew_hk t c 10:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Notify a deletion review on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 14

There is a football-related deletion review on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 14, you can go there and have your own comment about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 UPSL season, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Agustin Gómez

Hello all.

User:Fenix down has nominated the Agustin Gómez article for deletion, given their reasons it seems to be the correct call but I'd like further clarification. I, not sure why given the current notability guideline, always thought playing in a cup competition for a professional league club was enough for notability no matter the opponent, but Fenix down has shown the guideline actually states it must be between two professional league clubs. In the Agustin Gómez case, he played for AIK (Allsvenskan, professional) against Värmbols (Swedish Football Division 2, not professional). I thought that was enough, as if a player for (e.g.) Manchester United or Tottenham Hotspur did the same they'd be notable without passing GNG. Is that not the case? As I said, it seems Fenix down is correct but I've came here for a bit of clarification. Thanks. R96Skinner (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@R96Skinner: Not quite. The relevant guideline here is WP:NFOOTY. It says: Players who have played...a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. So for a cup match to satisfy this guideline, both clubs involved must play at the fully professional level. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, got it! Thanks. Deletion required then, my bad! Would it be possible to place it as a draft or something in case of notability in the future? R96Skinner (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Cheers! R96Skinner (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE

Not quite sure, but maybe an issue here? At Dinis Almeida, i reverted User:Fodbold-fan and was reverted (OK, maybe i again should not have used rollback), as they used what i perceive to be an unreliable source for the subject's new team and also did not write in the proper section (club career, in this case) but (as always) in the introduction.

I was hysterically reverted (yes, who am I to point out the hysterics in anyone, I know), being told to "look at the source", which reads "SC Braga contrata central Dinis Almeida, que na última época esteve no Belenenses.", translated "SC Braga hire central defender Dinis Almeida, who was with Belenenses last season.". Is that a LOAN how, if you don't mind me asking?

The competence issue may also stem from the fact this user does not reply to anyone (they did sporadically in the past, as here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fodbold-fan&diff=757831463&oldid=757830835#January_2017), but i have notified them of this discussion (additionally, i also browsed both the French and the Portuguese webs for reliable sources, found nothing amazingly). Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

His Instagram account says he is still owned by Monaco (https://www.instagram.com/dinisalmeida95/), thank you very much to User:MYS77 for his assistance! --Quite A Character (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Braga added Dinis Almeida to their squad list. FkpCascais (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that input, but what's the relevance for the matter at hand? We are trying to find a reliable source for his loan (supposing his Instagram is telling the truth, that is), it is 100% sure he is working with Braga. --Quite A Character (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

In fact, there are no sources to his transfer/loan to Braga. In the other hand, I would still question @Fodbold-fan's competence, mainly in his edits when it comes to player transfers. He did not update any template of almost all pages that he updated, neither included the proper category, nor updated the club's template and squad list. Fixing this takes a lot of time and effort to keep a page on standards.

I think this is slightly similar to @Royroydeb, who was banned from creating pages for a period of time to learn the guidelines properly. And even though the kid is still young (a teenager, according to his profile), he needs to learn how to edit correctly here. MYS 77 ^✉ 02:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

My two cents: The first revert of Fodbold-fan's changes was done without any explanation and following edit summaries from both of you were confrontational, if not inflammatory. All of that is not helpful. And yes, Fodbold-fan usually only updates the lede and not the club career section. They don't update the squad template and don't add the category. I regularly find myself cleaning up after them. But I'd rather see incomplate/lazy updates to a player's page than none at all. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Squad sections in under-23/academy articles

Hi there. I've been thinking for a while about how we display squad sections in under-23/academy sections. Apologies for the lengthy treatise that follows. So, the theory: Users aren't served well by the squad template that's found on the main club page. My instinct is that users will be visiting the under-23/academy article pages principally to see how their side's development players are progressing (I'm working on the assumption that only clubs of relative size who have quite distinct first-team/development side set-ups will have these articles). How old they are, how many players they have in a certain position, are they internationally capped, a professional yet etc. They won't be looking to click around numerous articles with little information in them - and indeed a lot of these players won't have articles. This sort of summary can frequently be found in season articles for first-team players, but development players don't tend to be included. And we have these nice articles waiting...

So my suggestion would be to provide a single sortable table including all academy scholars (as these players will frequently be in the under-23 side pretty quickly) and a selection of any players the club has who are under the age of 23 (more on this in a sec). Columns for name, nationality, birthday/age, position would be fairly standard, other possibilities might be professional status (scholar, scholar with professional deal, professional - an alternative might be a yes/no column), contract expiry, place of birth, highest international representation, place of birth, first-team appearances (and goals?), out on loan (I'd suggest including players that are out in the main table, because users will still want to see them in relation to their peers), joined date (and from?), a general notes column if you wanted to consolidate some of these. Sourcing some of this information might be a challenge, but most of these clubs are big enough that the information is there for the majority of players.

The closest existing examples of what I'm talking about that I'm aware of are Leeds United F.C. Reserves and Youth Team and Everton F.C. Reserves and Academy. With the latter, I had a play with adding some of the stuff I've been talking about above/below (some of it has been changed since, hence the URL link).

The next question is who to include...

Show every academy scholar and any professional under the age of 23. Means no judgement calls, but does mean that you're potentially including players who've graduated to the first-team or who've been signed from other clubs for the first-team, potentially for millions of pounds. You could potentially mitigate for this by including a first-team appearances column, or adding notes for any player that's signed for a transfer fee. A benefit of this approach is that, even if you're showing a few players who have for the most part moved on, you're still showing how many academy players have made it to the current first-team.
Show every academy scholar any professional player under the age of 23 who doesn't meet a certain criteria. The most obvious would be some sort of appearance for the first-team - if you were doing this I'd suggest league starts as a brief sub appearance/a start in a cup might not be representative. But even then, you could make a few appearances under one manager then disappear back into the development sides, make a start in the final game of the season. A less extreme way of separating these players out might be to list them in prose above the table (as I did as a quick one in the example above) or place them in a separate table alongside the main one. But I'd be concerned about this approach being rather original research-y.
Show every academy academy scholar or professional player listed in the relevant sections on the official website. The problem with this one is... official websites are often terrible and/or infrequently updated. The Everton one, for example, includes some first-team players in the under-23 section but not others, a few are duplicated. It also includes at least one player who isn't with them anymore. You get the sense these sections are updated once in pre-season and then left for a year. So I'd be reticent using them as a definitive source.

So that's it, really. To summarise, I think this proposal would provide an improved selection of information for the users. My inclination would be go with including loan players and go with all under-23 players, with a combination of table information/prose that marks out players who may have progressed beyond this stage for the most part. It'd be good to reach some sort of consensus on this idea, not because I think these sorts of articles are ever going to be completely standardised, but just so whether we agree it's something to work towards. Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Egyptian clubs - El / Al

Al Fanar SC was recently moved (in good faith) to El Fanar SC by @Egyptian Premier League. I have asked via the user's talk page for references to corroborate this, but the references provided relate to the word, rather than the club itself. Google searches overwhelmingly indicate the club is known as Al Fanar in English-speaking sources, so while this might not be technically correct per this user's reasoning (which I have no reason to doubt), I don't think the current page name satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. If anyone has any particular knowledge of this area, or can point to any precident for this kind of thing, that'd be great. If not, I'll probably WP:RM it for additional consensus. Nzd (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Seem a classic example of standard Egyptian transliteration of Arabic (El) v. common name case (not sure primary source point to which side), seem it is safe to revert to original first and ask for consensus in talk page. Matthew_hk t c 07:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Question: Would Al Ahly SC have to be changed to El Ahly if proper transliteration rules are applied? FkpCascais (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Al Ahly is the name used in primary source (on the crest) and in secondary reliable source. Just no to "proper transliteration" if they were not popular. Matthew_hk t c 10:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Soccerbase as an External Link

Hello all, should an article include an External link to {{soccerbase}} if it's been used already as a citation within the article? Seems to be standard practice on hundreds of existing articles, but GiantSnowman doesn't think it should be included on Moses Makasi here. Seems to be a case of WP:OWNERSHIP on an article created by GiantSnowman. Thoughts? JMHamo (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is somehow a wrong practice usually found on thousands of stub articles to find a list of exernal liks and none or scarse list of references. What we really need here is referencing. External sources entered as a bug in a fashion following, for instance, historical articles, where after references one can find a list of external links which will usually have a list of books on the subject which doesnt source anything in particular, but just provide usefull reading on the matter. Similarly, here on WP:FOOTY, many editors ended up adding a list of external sources where they would list a few player profiles from the main football-related websites, but it is a wrong practice. Referencing is fine, but the external links list besides unecessary, it also brings on many questions such as favouring one sites over others and so... Being added in the references section is what is necessary, while repeating sources in a external links section is unecessary. So, I understand your point of view, but GS is actually not wrong at all here. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The relevant content guideline is at WP:ELDUP. Hack (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep, as I've told JMHamo numerous times, sources which are used as in-line citations should not be repeated as external links. A bit disappointing to see your attitude and unfounded accusations of OWNERSHIP to be honest. Giant Snowman 08:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you think it's worth requesting a Bot to remove all {{soccerbase}} External Links? FYI @Struway2: & @Mattythewhite: as I know you've been adding this External Link to any articles you've created. Thanks. JMHamo (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No. The link is absolutely permissible and to be encouraged in articles about players of British football of the past 20-ish years that don't have stats tables referencing it.

GS is correct that where a page/site is used as a citation, it shouldn't be repeated as an EL. However, there's a qualitative difference between, say, an article with a stats table row-referenced entirely to Soccerbase, in which case it would be completely pointless repeating it as an EL, and a large article with just one citation to a Soccerbase page buried somewhere in the body, in which case disallowing it as an EL would do a disservice to the reader.

What's more of a problem are those many, many articles where the only sources for player appearances are listed as ELs. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree it should be removed from all article, and indeed I've never said that. As Struway points out, as an EL it can (and does) serve a purpose. I'll add a stats table tonight if I have time. Giant Snowman 16:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is pointless to have soccerbase in the external links if there is a referenced stats table in the article.--Echetus Xe 18:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Currency symbols

Are they suppose to be linked up in certain formats or not, didn't really say on WP:£ when to link or when not too. Govvy (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Btw, this is in regards to Spurs Season page, on the player transfers it's link to pounds sterling. Govvy (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think unambiguous currency symbols need linking. Number 5 7 23:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

k, going to delink them then, cheers. Govvy (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Requesting consensus on notability for match articles

I'm hoping that the members of WP:FOOTBALL can help me establish a case for whether a match article I have recently published is notable or not as I am presently struggling to rack my head around how exactly Wikipedia defines notability for matches not related to cup finals. I recently published this article and attempted to put it through DYK. I was successful in the review, as can be seen, but when the article was put into the DYK queue it was pulled at the last stage, originally on grounds of tone (now fixed) before ultimately being kicked out of the process entirely because the article had previously been deleted. This is indeed the case, but the deletion in question (which I would argue was a close-run thing between Keep and Delete in the first place) was seven and a half years ago now and I feel that the increase in articles made about individual matches in the meantime begs the question whether a re-evaluation of notability is warranted for this article.

If the consensus here is that the match is notable then I will of course use this to make up my mind on whether to reattempt the DYK process. If the consensus is that it is not notable then I will accept it and will abandon the article to its fate, AfD or no, but I would however like to follow it up by questioning what exactly WP:FOOTBALL's policy is on match notability and whether it is time that one be written, because I don't believe that it has ever actually been put down in writing here. I would however like to add that my personal take is that the article I have made is substantially less notable in the long term than, say, Battle of Old Trafford, Liverpool F.C. 4–3 Newcastle United F.C. (1996) or Manchester United F.C. 3–5 West Bromwich Albion F.C. (1978), and I favour the opinion that if any match is notable enough to continue to receive references or praise in the national press some time after the original game took place (i.e. after most matches would have been forgotten about by the majority of fans, especially of other clubs) then it should be considered worthy of an article.

If anyone has any questions about my opinions and my motives for creating my article I will answer them but otherwise I would prefer to watch this discussion from the sidelines rather than attempt to influence this discussion further. Falastur2 ^Talk 20:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Of all the matches you've mentioned, the only one that I think is vaguely notable is the Liverpool–Newcastle one, mainly because it's probably the most cited example of Newcastle's style of play under Keegan, but I'm still not sure it's article worthy. The Man Utd–West Brom one isn't notable, it's just been mentioned a few times in the news recently because of Cyril Regis' death (which appears to be why it was created). If that is, where do we stop? Why not Ipswich Town 6 Manchester United 0? Ultimately I'm not really sure whether any individual matches are really notable enough for their own article unless they were perhaps the first match of their kind or involved some kind of record (Arbroath v Bon Accord) and that we should just try and merge the content into competition or club season articles where possible (I don't really understand why we have individual articles for cup final matches either). Number 5 7 21:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Damián Ísmodes

Quite the conundrum... I think it was i who wrote most of his storyline (years ago), which includes the international career of course; not sure where i based myself on to say he appeared TWICE at the 2007 Copa América, but quite probably on NFT.com (Soccerway.com also has him featuring in two group phase matches. Last but not least, that edition of the tournament seems to be the first without any RSSSF link, at least one that can be found in Wikipedia).

After "years of laziness" (if you will) i decided to add more refs to the piece, which leads to the following: ALL the newspaper/akin sources say it was Ysrael Zúñiga who came for Claudio Pizarro and not Ísmodes (examples here https://noticias.uol.com.br/ultnot/afp/2007/06/30/ult34u184766.jhtm, here http://www.abc.es/hemeroteca/historico-01-07-2007/abc/Deportes/venezuela-gana-a-peru-(2-0)-y-entra-en-la-historia_1634020392434.html, here http://www.espn.cl/futbol/partido?juegoId=214663 or here https://www.eluniverso.com/2007/07/01/0001/15/23044F20BB704D8391C11E4E5314A3D1.html). What shall we do with the evidence presented, please?

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The CONMEBOL match sheet also shows Ísmodes as the one who played (https://web.archive.org/web/20070929100105/http://www.conmebol.com/competiciones_evento_reporte.jsp?evento=1055&ano=2007&dv=1&flt=A&id=8&slangab=E). However, in this YouTube video (please see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n2sCXGyqPs), around the 3:58 mark, we see #11 to the left after Paolo Guerrero's shot that goes way over the bar. According to WP, #11 was Zúñiga; whatever, i'll edit Ísmodes' storyline now, sorry to bother you. --Quite A Character (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What do Zuniga's article/stats elsewhere say? Do they count appearances in the matches concerned? Which source do you feel is the most reliable? I'm sure it would be fine to choose one you think is most likely then add a note regarding the discrepancy? Crowsus (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I am only taking into consideration the fact that only SOCCERWAY/NFT/CONMEBOL give that cap to Ísmodes, all the newspaper articles (plus the YTube video) say it was Zúñiga. The latter's NFT.com entry does not give him that cap, like i said they give it to Ísmodes.

As far as i am concerned, article stays the way it is, if anyone has a better idea... --Quite A Character (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Soccerway.com

I have had a minor talk with @Jon Kolbert: about the possibility of formatting the sub-domains of Soccerway.com from e.g. 'https:uk.soccerway.com' to 'https:int.soccerway.com', the 'int' is the most common sub-domain of Soccerway as that avoids different language reading. Soccerway might disable all the subdomains except for the https:int.soccerway.com domain but there's no reason for that to happen yet. Iggy (Swan) 18:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this up for discussion? Because it seems to be happening already by KolbertBot. --SuperJew (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@SuperJew: HTTP links are being modified to the more stable subdomain, but existing HTTPS links have not been touched. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks for clarifying. I don't mind either way, just didn't understand :) --SuperJew (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jon Kolbert: BTW, if you correct a typo like in the last correction, you have to re-sign your post with "~~~~" to send a notification to pinged user. --SuperJew (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to use {{Soccerway}}? Hack (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Some link are citation of individual match report, not sure the template supported it or not. Matthew_hk t c 03:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Danny Barbir

Soccerway and other sources in the article say that he played for the U21 and U23 (Premier League 2) teams of WBA and Stoke City. One article also mentions that he signed his first professional contract with WBA in 2015.

So, I'm not sure about his infobox and club career stats. Should WBA and Stoke appear as senior clubs or as youth clubs? He didn't make any Premier League apps for them.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 10:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The infobox dates are for clubs contracted to, so if he signed a professional contract with West Brom in 2015, it's a senior club from that date, regardless of whether he played first-team football for them or not. His stats should be zeroes, because Premier League 2 is purely a reserve-team league, and not part of the English football league system; in countries where the reserve team(s) play in an open league, like in Spain and France, player stats would be counted for those leagues.

Not sure he ever was contracted to Stoke: the U23 appearances might well have been as part of a trial. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help! 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 12:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Dispute with Crowsus

[content copied from Talk:2017–18 UEFA Europa League knockout phase for wider discussion]

@Chanheigeorge, S.A. Julio, Skyblueshaun, and Kante4: Good evening. I am having a dispute with @Crowsus: as he is questioning UEFA.com source about two own goals scored in benefit of Athletic Bilbao and flooding it with other sources stating that they weren't own goals, some of them obviously not neutral. In fact, Crowsus is not neutral too, as he identifies himself as being an Athletic fan. One of the own goals was on last match on Thursday against Spartak Moscow and the other one was at a 2012–13 match against HJK. He also presents YouTube videos trying to prove his points, with no success, as on Spartak's case it's an obvious own goal (UEFA.com's right) and on HJK's case it's next to impossible to prove UEFA.com is wrong. On the other hand, if we approve this without much discussion, it can be a bad precedent on which several UEFA.com reports may be questioned without consistent basis. I would like to remind the case involving the 2016–17 Vojvodina vs Dinamo Minsk match, on which UEFA.com version was obviously wrong (attributing Dinamo's goal to Bykov instead of Budnik). It was discussed at length before a final decision to go against UEFA source. Some time later, UEFA.com corrected the report. I am not interested in an edit war, so I would like to invite you to intervene. Anyway, I thank you all for the attention. The Replicator (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@80.117.47.5: This IP also disagreed with Crowsus, so he might be interested too in participating on this discussion. The Replicator (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Only simply follow as UEFA pdf report document show. It is a o.g.--80.117.47.5 (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I notice that you haven't actually ever made an edit to an article (under that IP at least) so although your point is valid, I'm going to seek other opinions. Were you aware that I had changed the format of the edit to a note? Crowsus (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll just repeat everything I have put in the summaries.

1. These came to my attention due to being goals for the club I support, no argument there. But the point is equally valid regardless of what club is involved.

2. This (Spartak) is not an 'obvious own goal'. The shot was 100% going into the goal before the defender's pathetic attempt to clear. The overall direction of the ball did not change, it was already going in and it still went in. If a goalkeeper made a similarly awful attempt to save, it would be the attacker's goal. Same rule applies. No idea why UEFA have opted for this stance when the attacker would always want to be credited with the goal and the defender wouldn't.

Compare this to many, many goals awarded to the attacker when a key part of the incident is a deflection off a defender. Off the top of my head, one example is from 1998 FIFA World Cup Group C where France's 2nd goal was correctly given as an OG as the attempted block flicked it over the goalkeeper, but the 3rd awarded to Henry even though the (same) South Africa defender stops it on the line with one foot and knocks it in with the other. Footage. Another is Figo's much-lauded goal at Euro 2000 when the shot hit Adams which caused it to spin the way it did (Footage), it's still Figo's goal but has always amused me that it got the praise it did when it wasn't a clean strike. There will be countless other examples of goals being given to the attacker despite a defender's involvement. In every football culture I'm aware of, unless it's a blatant OG which this certainly is not, then the credit should be given to the attacker. He hit the shot, it was going in, it still went in after the defender touched it once, surely it's his goal to all reasonable observers. Here is the footage for review.

3. The Toquero goal claim is weaker, certainly, however the only camera angle available is not conclusive at all, both players are moving in the same direction towards the ball. Again, it seems baffling to me that when faced with such ambiguous evidence, UEFA would opt for awarding the goal to the defender who doesn't want the credit rather than the attacker who does. I should also add that while some of the sources I provided (SportsMole, RTVE) are match reports from the time, others (from different newspapers to the match reports - El Desmarque, El Mundo, Deia) are from years later reviewing Toquero's career, and they specifically mention him scoring this goal, so it would seem there's been no later attempt to rectify any error identified in awarding the goal to him initially (another conclusion being that nobody really cares either way?).

4. In both cases, this isn't just some claim I've invented having watched the match with no evidence to back it up, or some random blog entry on a crusade wanting to right wrongs. I provided several sources ((Vestnik Kavkaza, Marca; AS and Sport state the same) mostly Spanish newspapers, but that is to be expected as they are the ones with more than just a passing interest in the events) who have stated that Rico was the scorer of the third goal v Spartak, and Toquero was the scorer of the second v HJK. Athletic's (very detailed) site has been provided as well, (Toquero, Rico) obviously that is biased but it does show that there is some dispute over the identity of the goalscorer, I'm sure nobody would suggest that they would just attribute every own goal to the nearest attacker for the sake of it? It's a goal regardless of who they award it to, and in fact they probably paid their players a goal bonus so it would possibly be better for them to declare both of them as OGs! So, point is, there are verified sources for this assertion and I have provided them. Was even moaned at for overkill (and 'flooding' above) by The Replicator (why do you have two accounts, by the way?) for trying to provide a decent number of these to support that it wasn't just one rogue website giving the wrong scorer.

5. The edits were being added as a side note, not disrupting the main information presented. I did initally make an attempt to have the Spartak scorer changed in the main text using the sources provided but this was reverted, and it was never going to be accepted over the UEFA version, so I apologise for wasting time with that wrong approach. However, UEFA is not some kind of god that cannot be questioned. It also does not own the Wikipedia articles on its competitions. So when an incident of this nature occurs and disputed information appears in several independent publications, I see no good reason why that should not also be included in the article as long as the information is verified by decent sources (yes), adheres to NPOV (yes, all I stated was that Rico/Toquero hit the shot and some media reported it as his goal, that statement is true regardless of the ownership of the goal itself) and does not disrupt the article (yes, it's a ref point beside the scorer's name which translates to a note at the bottom of the page, can't see why anyone would object to that, would anyone even spot it?).

I haven't said that UEFA is wrong, merely that other sources have provided different information, and since the UEFA report still has precedence, why should this other information not also be included in a small way rather than ignored entirely as is being proposed by the reverts? To do otherwise is censorship, to be honest, and there's no need for it to happen. I have focused on Athletic Bilbao goals as they are my club but I'm sure there's many more examples of incorrect attribution in this way (although I had a look at Oyarzabal's OG from the same night out of curiosity as to what form it took, no dispute there, it's comically bad, have a look). UEFA stats should be respected of course, but not unquestioningly when there's credible evidence to the contrary.

PS I'm going to copy this to the wider WP:FOOTY page, as there might be other valid points of view there. Crowsus (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

[discussions match up to this point. 00:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)]

Independently, clearly not an own goal, just a failed clearance. UEFA are arbiters on such things for their own records, but there is precedent for disputed goals to be awarded by teams for their own records and reflecting such a thing with a note is of no harm, and is in fact an enhancement. So long as the claim is maintained by reliable sources referencing it is not some great conspiracy requiring an edit war. Koncorde (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Crowsus: About the two-account issue, it's easy to explain. My accounts are The Replicator and Anotherwikipedianuser, and they are used for totally different, non-colluding purposes, as you can check on both edit histories. What happened today was a mistake of mine, detected almost immediately and it would be stupid to not acknowledge that, so I apologised undid the revert as Anotherwikipedianuser and then made the revert as The Replicator. In fact, the account Anotherwikipedianuser was previously involved in a false claim of it being related to the account Lavrense. Actually, it is related to The Replicator, but not for disruptive purposes, so I was cleared out. Anyone interested can check that here. As you discovered the connection, I have no reason to deny it. The Replicator (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Replicator: OK thanks, wasn't suggesting any inproper action on your part, entirely agree you corrected yourself, just seems a bit unusual that you have two but maybe easier to keep track of things in different topics, it would probably confuse me even more but I'm not that smart! Crowsus (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Crowsus: Basically, I thought that the topics were too unrelated to mix them up, so I separated them. Anyway, The Replicator is much more active than the other one. The Replicator (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

We should stick with what UEFA decided, clearly they deemed it to be an own goal, and as the governing body their decision should generally take precedence. As for including a note, I don't exactly see the necessity. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"Necessity" isn't the defining factor for inclusion. There are often notes attached to specific incidents in order to provide more comprehensive coverage or context. Koncorde (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Replicator, S.A. Julio, and Koncorde: Hi folks, well there hasn't really been enough input to establish consensus either way, I'm not really into arguments (despite how it appears from those edits) so I'll back out from the UEFA pages, however I have added the same notes (not changing the existing display itself) to the club season articles which I hope will be acceptable, particularly since the stats for the seasons are primarily sourced from the Athletic Bilbao website, which has a different stat to the organisers of the tournament in question. For the Toquero goal, it actually showed it as his, so the note was switched around to mention the UEFA side of things! Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Help needed at Red Star Belgrade

There is a user who is edit-warring by insering a 5 column list at former players section without understanding that the names of the players are being broken into 2 lines then making it very unesthetic. Also, we are dealing with an imature newbye who leaves this sort of edit-summaries: FK Partizan is ugly as fuck! or Keep watching your small club and don't worry about European and World champions. In order not to break the 3RR rule I would appeciate very much if someone could assist me and explain to that user why 3 columns are prefered over the ridiculous 5 which brake names of players in 2 lines. FkpCascais (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is the list even there in the first place? Number 5 7 16:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Case seems solved by now. Editor in question has stoped reverting. About the list, I didnt created it, however I did create the List of Red Star Belgrade footballers, however, it is a list that includes all players that played at least one official game. About the list at the article, I did insist the list to have a clear inclusion criteirium, so once it has, I am not willing to open the pandora box by deleting it. While it has a clear inclusion criterium, for me its fine. FkpCascais (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Doubt

Just created a proper storyline for Ricardo Moura. In view of the presented contents (or part of them), a question: since the exploit was achieved during his YOUTH career, does he get the "Association football goalkeepers who have scored" category or not?

Attentively, thanks in advance --Quite A Character (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Bengaluru FC

I was trying to compose/clean the last (unref'd) additions to manager Albert Roca and i think i managed more or less, but this leads to the question as i cannot read it anywhere here: how did the team promote to the Indian Super League if they were not in such a position last year in the I-League? I'm baffled...

Attentively, thank you very much in advance --Quite A Character (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

They didn't qualify or get promoted, they were added to the league for expansion according to this article 1. Govvy (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marcos Tiago Bernard Rodriguez

The article Marcos Tiago Bernard Rodriguez has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. No significant coverage, and does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL as he had no appearances in professional matches. I checked with editors on ja.wiki to see if there were any Japanese sources which could establish notability (as the only citation is in Japanese), but they could only find one guide book with a cursory mention with his vital stats, which are the only details in this article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --ElfLady64 (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The article had moved to Marcos Thiago Bernal Rodrigues, which is the correct spelling that CBF and Sambafoot used. However, neither one generate good reliable google search result, that could support his notability. Matthew_hk t c 14:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Fiorentina–Juventus rivalry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ACF_Fiorentina_-_Juventus_F.C._rivalry#Fiorentina%E2%80%93Juventus_rivalry

Have created this article. How do we move it from draft to regular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.154.60 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears that you have already submitted it for review. As indicated in the review notice, there could be some delay as the system is backlogged. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Eagleash (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a very nice article overall, a topic which I noticed previously was missing from the well known rivalries list. Crowsus (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe put the 'Players who have played for both clubs' into a table, but yeah looks good.--Echetus Xe 20:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That version is biased (pro Fiorentina) mostly about to the 1981-82 serie A: at that time the regulation favored the goalkeeper and defenders before the doubt (not since 1990 that favors the forwards) and the contact of viola's player with the goalkeeper exists. Regarding the penalty of Brady, the ball touched the arm of the Avellino player in the goal line as anyone can see in web video. In addition, that and this source (blog and this source says that Brady's penalty was evident) are supporters websites, both are not certainly a reliable sources. The draft is also and wrong: among others, in 1990 UEFA Cup 2nd leg final, Fiorentina has not played in Franchi Stadium because the stadium was banned due to riots of viola ultrà in the semi-final match against Werder Bremen according UEFA.com.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You can edit the draft to that effect while it is still in this stage.

Supporter blogs are not ideal sources of course, but sometimes they do provide valuable information which is difficult to find elsewhere. If you're challenging the information provided from them (and it is sounds like you have a good basis for doing so), it would be helpful if you you could find your own sources with evidence to the contrary.Crowsus (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

In principle, clarify if an article like that is encyclopedic for en.wiki taking into account that most of the fans of Fiorentina is in Florence (Juventus supporters are throughout Italy so the consideration of the "rival" depends on the geographical area), so that the young fans who consider it a rival are a minority (the one who lives in Lucca or Siena, for example). On the scale of rivalry, this is a "regional" rivalry as with Rome and Napoli, lower than the one against the two Milanese sides and Torino FC.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

P.D. If some information is difficult to find does not imply putting the first website that indicates it.

Yes I believe it is notable, as reliable sources have been provided stating that a rivalry exists between the two teams. I'm sure there are more to be found. The article is not perfect and you have highlighted some possible bias in the wording of the events and weakness in the reliability of some sources so that will need to be addressed, but it is a decent starting point for the topic.Crowsus (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dantetheperuvian: Stadio Artemio Franchi was not banned, because the semifinal was not in that stadium in the first place. Look: http://www.calcio.com/cronaca_partita/europa-league-1989-1990-halbfinale-acf-fiorentina-werder-bremen/ https://www.ilpost.it/2014/03/20/storie-juventus-fiorentina/ the match was in Perugia which was banned. Second link will also show you that Stadio Artemio Franchi was under reconstruction for the World Cup I see that you read Italian. The goal for Fiorentina is a clear goal to me, but obviously not everyone will agree on this account. About the penalty to Juventus, I agree but people in Firenze were still how do you say annoyed with the goal. Also, in that time, there was no video review, which has only come in serie A this year so what people saw is what they thought. I will try to make this clearer in the article however. In your link you posted, storie di calcio, for the fiorentina-cagliari match, look on the video around 6m 15s. That is a clear penalty to Catanzaro, but not awarded. No one is saying this is the biggest rivalry in Italy, or even close to Milano derby or Roma derby. but it is a big rivalry for Fiorentina, one of the big teams of Serie A. For Juve, not so much... It is not a regional rivalry like Fiorentina - Empoli or Fiorentina - Siena because it was not borne out of the same region as the main point. If the 1982 title had not happened, the 1990 final, and the transfer of Baggio right after the final, nobody would care to this day.

some decent sources are needed for the 1990 final to confirm the stadium situation and other incidents surrounding it . Crowsus (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

About Franchi Stadium, you are right, but Renato Curi Stadium was banned and in semi-final phase it was his "home" ground. Even if that alleged penalty in favour to Catanzaro was sanctioned, there is no certainty that it was a goal. Here the controversy was the goal annulled Fiorentina, not the penalty converted by Brady. Finally, I have never written that the Fiorentina-Juventus "were irrelevant", I have written that it is a rivalry based in campanilismo as against Napoli and AS Roma, not precisely based "on bitterness and 'thievery'" as written by IP in draft.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the 'home stadium' was banned in Perugia I did mention that earlier, but it wasn't Stadio Artemio Franchi - we both agree here (and the article can be edited to make this clearer). There is no certainty, but it is a penalty. A penalty has a very high chance of being converted so it is obvious that people will be annoyed with this decision. Also, if there was Internazionale or Milano or Roma or Nazio or any other team and the exact same thing happened in the history, it would still be a rivalry in the eyes of Fiorentina fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.154.34 (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You said it! It's a chance, not is a gol. Presunt penalty in favour Catanzaro remains that, Brady's goal is a fact and that penalty was clear, not like written in draft. Repeat, this rivalry is based in campanilism: the core Fiorentina's fan base is in Florence and regards the Viola the "region's team". Juventus is 1st or 2nd by number of supporters and fan clubs in Tuscany, mostly located in towns who regards Firenze the enemy and denied Fiorentina as Toscany's team as Lucca. You can search about campanilism and Italian football for more information.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Juventus F.C.

A few editors giving views at Talk:Juventus F.C. would be very welcome. They cannot seem to agree. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Men's national football team?

Why are articles about men’s national football teams consistently (except for the USA) named “National football team”, instead of “Men’s national football team? Articles on women’s national football teams are named “Women’s national football team”. Most nations have two national football teams, a men’s national football team and a women’s national football team. Both are national football teams. Therefore, it seems odd to me that articles about men’s national football teams are named “National football team”. This seems to be phenomena in football. See articles about national ice hockey teams:

Kindest regards /EriFr (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's because the men's teams have historically had a greater prominence in football. The women's world cup only started in the 1990s, whereas the men's has been around since 1930. It also continues to receive far greater coverage. The United States is an unusual exception to that. Their women's team has been more successful and therefore the coverage has been more evenly balanced. You even see it in the way the governing bodies themselves describe the teams: the US Federation will talk about their "men's national team" ("hashtag USMNT"), but most (if not all) European or South American countries would not use that disambiguation. In ice hockey, the main competition in recent times has been the Olympics (at least until the NHL stopped players going to Korea this time), which has basically an even split of coverage between the two genders. The world championship of ice hockey isn't highly regarded and many of the top players are absent, because it coincides with the Stanley Cup playoffs. Therefore the coverage and history of international ice hockey is more evenly balanced between the two genders, as in tennis or athletics. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You are probably right, and I have been reminded of WP:COMMONNAME. (I started a discussion here in 2015, which I continued today, but just realized it was probably not the right place). I found this interesting discussion: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 53#Gender and national sports teams. I agree with the views put forward (or the question raised) in that discussion. /EriFr (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Mohamed Salah

I was wondering if we should have a more permanent protection on his article, it does seem to be vandalised a lot. Govvy (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Statistic tables again

I've noticed on some pages that some editors are combining cells together into one cell. I am taking Goals table again as my example on 2017–18 Real Madrid C.F. season. But for mathematical tables, I don't think you should be combining these cells together at all. In WP:Manual of Style/Tables when cells are combined that is text data, thats okay. But all mathematical data examples don't combine cells together at all. The First of a column could be treated as text, but in numbers this is different, so back to the table for goals on Real Madrids season page. I am pretty sure we shouldn't be combining numerical data into an end cell representing the out come for multiple rows in one cell. I also believe this shouldn't be done on WP:ACCESS grounds for those with learning disabilities, so a row of numerical data should be clear for all that read it.

So can we agree to look into this issue. Thanks. Govvy (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The WikiProject MOS at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics does have merged cells for career stats. Whatever we decide, we need to ensure the MOS is 'correct'. Giant Snowman 13:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but other than cells for no data I don't see one numerical data cell merged there. Govvy (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure where i read it, but the merged column / row cause sorting error when |class=sortable was added to parameter, however in some real case i don't see that problem (e.g. ~~Thiago Alcântara's table merged all entry of La Liga~~), need to dig out which MoS i saw that bad example to tell people not to merge column/row . Matthew_hk t c 14:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Just tested. It did cause problem when sortable was enabled in Thiago Alcântara's table, but in Matteo Brighi there is no problem. May be due to rowspan and colspan was enabled for one giant merged cell in Thiago's case? Matthew_hk t c 14:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Goals

As of 21 February 2018

Rank	Player	Position	La Liga	Copa del Rey	UEFA CL	Other¹	Total
1	Cristiano Ronaldo	FW	12	0	11	3	26
2	Marco Asensio	MF	6	2	0	2	10
3	Gareth Bale	FW	6	1	1	1	9
4	Karim Benzema	FW	3	1	2	1	7
	Isco	MF	5	1	0	1
	Lucas Vázquez	FW	3	3	1	0
7	Casemiro	MF	4	0	0	1	5
7	Borja Mayoral	FW	1	3	1	0	5
9	Toni Kroos	MF	4	0	0	0	4
	Nacho	DF	3	0	1	0
	Sergio Ramos	DF	3	0	1	0
12	Marcelo	DF	2	0	1	0	3
13	Dani Ceballos	MF	2	0	0	0	2
13	Luka Modrić	MF	1	0	1	0	2
15	Achraf Hakimi	DF	1	0	0	0	1
Own goals			2	0	0	1	3
Total			58	11	20	10	99

This is what I am talking about, merging cell numerical numbers like the final column, I don't think we should be doing that on any table. Govvy (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, not a good idea. COuld imply a total over three year. -Koppapa (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely don't do that, it looks awful -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I tried to change on Real Madrids season page a little while back but @Kante4: didn't like the change I did for some reason, I still think it's shouldn't be the way it is at the moment under WP:ACCESS, I really don't like those combined cells on that final column. I was hoping some peeps would agree with me so we can improve the article, cheers, Govvy (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not getting much response for this, I would like to change that table final column. :/ Govvy (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Win or Draw?

Hello to all footie wikipedians,

I needed your opinion on something: right now there is a debate going on Persian wikipedia about the matches that end up in a draw after the extra time and are decided on penalty shootouts and that how they are concluded? A win for the side that won the penalty shootouts or a draw? I ask this because here I can see almost all the matches that ended in a draw after the extra times are considered draw for both sides, including 1994 world cup final here in Brazil Italy rivalry, 2006 world cup final here on France Italy rivalry and numerous matches between Milan and Juventus here on Milan Juventus rivalry where they had matches that were decided on penalty shootouts. On Persian wikipedia on the other hand they are saying that the side that won the penalty shootouts is also the winner of the match itself and to my surprise against all these examples and the rules and the regulations they keep on insisting about it. Now I would like to ask your experienced opinion about it, is it a win or a draw?

Thanks to all, cheers--Vathlu (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Obviously there is a victor, but shootout wins are considered draws statistically. Even the 2016 Euro Germany "win" over Italy in shootout, still considered a draw statistically. This is why the scoreline is 1-1 (6-5 on penalties), not 2-1, it is technically a draw still. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

+1 to what Vaseline said. Number 5 7 17:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely a draw. The shoot-out is solely to determine who gets the place in the next round (or the trophy) after the match failed to produce a winner -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As it says in the article you linked, penalty shootouts are considered draws for statistical purposes. --SuperJew (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I knew but it is surprising for me that such a simple thing which is a fact in world of football world has caused such a huge debate, obviously you can not read it, but here you can see that it is still going on. So right now for Tehran derby there are two different versions, one the international version which says Persepolis has 21 victory then the Iranian version which says they have 22 victories. Cheers--Vathlu (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

2019 Africa U-20 Cup of Nations qualification

Can someone move/approve Draft:2019 Africa U-20 Cup of Nations qualification to 2019 Africa U-20 Cup of Nations qualification? The draw has now been made. TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Couldn't you've done that? 🤔 --SuperJew (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

European association football club records

84.238.244.221 (talk · contribs) has been placing Cristiano Ronaldo over Lionel Messi again and again in Most Ballon d'Or (1956–2009, 2016–) + FIFA Ballon d'Or (2010–2015), despite the fact that Messi was the first to be awarded five times. SLBedit (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Der Klassiker

Is an article for Der Klassiker necessary? The article is misleading, the match is not a "classic" as the name implies, as there is hardly a historical rivalry between the two teams. The term only started being used recently by non-German media and is not WP:SUSTAINED. Would be better suited as a redirect to the section in Football rivalries in Germany. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I can definitely see your point, and there are refs in the article disputing its status. The fact that it is has a somewhat embarrassing media nicknamed doesn't help, there is definitely a rivalry between the clubs over the last 25 years to some extent, but the name can imply that it is THE big German match, which is not true. It would be more appropriate to be titled with just the names of the clubs, but I suppose the Klassiker name does already exist so it's quite logical to use it as the title, even if it's not really a Classic!

However, the Football Rivalries in Germany article is little more than a list, not sure it would work relegating it to there. I believe there is justification for keeping it, but I interested editors really should make more effort to add some more detail and refs for the actual rivalry aspect, at present there is a brief mention of players arguing but mostly just some background of their successes and a long list of results, which could be said of any two big clubs in any league without there being a hostiles relationship (although a large number of those relationships eg Spain, England and Italy do have an article).

PS I have seen other issues of concern, such as a Bavarian rivalries article featuring Augsburg, an Augsburg/1860 article and an Augsburg derby article! Overkill perhaps...? Crowsus (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

At the very least it needs re-formatting and improving. It definitely does not have sustained coverage, but I agree with Crowsus, I don't think a redirect to Football rivalries in Germany would be a helpful alternative. Jay eyem (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I see you have removed the link to the article from the Bayern and Dortmund templates S.A. Julio, which seems like a sneaky move to me. Even if you don't respect the topic, the article has existed for three years and is undeniably related to the two clubs, so is valid to be there unless there came a point where it was deleted altogether. Crowsus (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed the links 8 months ago following being WP:BOLD and redirecting the article, hardly "sneaky". The links can be added again since the article has been restored. As for Football rivalries in Germany, I originally added a summary on the match (since removed and merged), and I plan on further developing the article with prose, not sure if that would be more suitable for redirecting. Either way, the article on Der Klassiker is currently poor, and while there may be enough sources to claim notability, a dedicated article may not be necessary. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah OK sorry then, I only saw it was one of the most recent edits and wrongly assumed it was related to this current discussion, my mistake. I have added a few hatnotes to encourage improvement of the article as it stands. As I have said on the article talk, I would definitely be in favour of renaming to something like "Borussia Dortmund–FC Bayern Munich rivalry" possibly with a redirect at Der Klassiker. The name is a recent invention of the media to sell more advertising and TV subscription for the fixture by overplaying its importance, so we shouldn't encourage it really. Crowsus (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the article needs cleanup but i think it warrants its own article. Kante4 (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Boro player of the year award

Is there any real need for this article to exist? The list for the official award is incomplete, and there's plenty of other minor awards that have no reason to be there, as well as the North East award which has players who didn't play for the club. I'm not against club awards in general, but this one is a complete mess. APM (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I also see no particular evidence that the award itself is notable. – Pee Jay 12:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to Middlesbrough F.C.#Player of the Year and trim the content, a la Bradford City A.F.C.#Player of the Year. Giant Snowman 13:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

EFL Cup proposed move

Someone has proposed that EFL Cup be moved back to Football League Cup because the competition is apparently still referred to colloquially as the "League Cup". The discussion can be found at Talk:EFL Cup#Requested move 27 February 2018. – Pee Jay 15:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Overdue discussions

Can an uninvolved admin please review and close this August 2017 merge discussion and this October 2017 merge discussion? Giant Snowman 16:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Done Number 5 7 16:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Footy at AfC

Articles for Creation has a significant number of football articles waiting for review. I was doing some that meet SNG, but the ones that do not meet SNG I have left alone for now. A couple that I checked have played in second tier leagues, and have articles on other wikis, so they could be included if we wanted. I did not want to accept a bunch of articles to only have them all be immediately AfD'ed.

Anyways I use this tool to sort by WikiProject, so you can filter and find the footy ones easily. If you want to get into AfC reviewing, please view the project. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 23:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I will have a look some time. Nice to have filter/sorting tool. Matthew_hk t c 01:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

They're mostly all 3-6 line stubs created by one User who is banned from creating articles in article space. And the tone of the ones I've looked at has been unencyclopedic in places. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, it would be great if you would have the time to reject them (perhaps leaving a note at the contributors talk page), otherwise I will try to make some time at some point. Thank you both for the initial look at least! I like sorting by projects because you can sort some of the trash out before it makes it to main space. Thanks again! Kees08 (Talk) 22:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Northumberland Development Project

User:SportsFan007 Moved it without consultation can we move it back, I feel it requires discussion before any possible move. Govvy (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: I thought because the rest of the titles on the page say Tottenham Hotspur Stadium that the page should be renamed. SportsFan007 (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

There is this thing called a talk page! It helps to confer with others, do you see Man United's ground say Man United stadium? Or Arsenal's called Arsenal Stadium? Nope, Spurs might get a sponsor, or call it White Hart Lane, where it is built just like Wembley stadium. The page you moved it from is all about the project of building the stadium, it didn't need to be moved or renamed in my opinion, might start a new article from scratch for the completed new stadium anyway. Govvy (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we just merge it into White Hart Lane? It's basically a rebuild on the same site. Number 5 7 22:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't do, It's either Northumberland page renamed to White Hart Lane after that's been renamed to White Hart Lane (1899), that's the way I see it. Govvy (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Didn't the Spurs ownership come out and say it won't be called White Hart Lane? – Pee Jay 23:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That's also part of the problem, so can we revert the move that SportsFan done? Tottenham Hotspur Stadium really?? Govvy (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: thank you for bringing up this issue, I have moved Tottenham Hotspur Stadium back to Northumberland Development Project and White Hart Lane to White Hart Lane (1899) SportsFan007 (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

As has already been reverted, please don't move White Hart Lane unless it becomes clear that the new stadium will also use this name, which seems unlikely (even if it's 'The New Lane' or similar, a disambig hatnote on each article would do the job). Crowsus (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@SportsFan007: Multiple issues can arise when moving pages, I never suggested to go ahead and move any pages right now, I was just discussing possible outcomes. I don't mean to be rude, but you should really should consult the project or talk pages in future before doing actions like this. Govvy (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Gabriel Batistuta

There is a thread in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MigenMemelli and 3RR on adding trivia to article regarding user and ip keep on adding trivial award / recognition "Heia fotball Glory Hall " by Norwegian radio program to Gabriel Batistuta article. Thank you. Matthew_hk t c 13:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

[1] "Match facts: Ragaa v Zamalek (Egyptian Premier League)". Al-Ahram. 2 December 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[2] "تغييرات في الرجاء" [Changes in please] (in Arabic). Al-Ahram. 20 September 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[3] GulfCup.com

[4] AGCFF Twitter

[5] Official Logo

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

v t e 1940–41 in European football
« 1939–40 1941–42 »
Domestic leagues	Bohemia and Moravia Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Denmark Finland '40 '41 Germany (Finals) Greece Hungary Iceland '40 '41 Italy Latvia Netherlands Portugal Republic of Ireland Romania Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Soviet Union '40 '41 Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey (National Division '40 '41, Football Championship '40 '41)
Domestic cups	Bulgaria '40 '41 Cyprus France Germany '40 '41 Greece Hungary Italy Malta Northern Ireland Norway '40 Portugal Republic of Ireland Romania Spain '40 '41 Switzerland Sweden '41

v t e 1940–41 in European football
« 1939–40 1941–42 »
Domestic leagues	Bohemia and Moravia Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Denmark Finland '40 '41 Germany (Finals) Greece Hungary Iceland '40 '41 Italy Latvia Netherlands Portugal Republic of Ireland Romania Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Soviet Union '40 '41 Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey (National Division '40 '41, Football Championship '40 '41)
Domestic cups	Bulgaria '40 '41 Cyprus France Germany '40 '41 Greece Hungary Italy Malta Northern Ireland Norway '40 Portugal Republic of Ireland Romania Spain '40 '41 Switzerland Sweden '41

v t e 1940–41 in European football
« 1939–40 1941–42 »
Domestic leagues	Austria Bohemia and Moravia Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Denmark Estonia Finland '40 '41 Germany (Finals) Greece Hungary Iceland '40 '41 Italy Latvia '40–'41 '41 Lithuania Netherlands Portugal Republic of Ireland Romania Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Soviet Union '40 '41 Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey '40 '41 (ND) '40 '41 (FC)
Domestic cups	Bulgaria '40 '41 Cyprus France Germany '40 '41 Greece Hungary Italy Malta Northern Ireland Norway '40 Portugal Republic of Ireland Romania Spain '40 '41 Switzerland Sweden '41