Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 116

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 114

→

HTML tag errors

I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found several hundred high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject. I've put a list of 74 articles affected by misnested tags below. The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely.

What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed. Taking the first item as an example, the problem is in the infobox (the wikitext for the infobox should be highlighted in the editing window, underneath the preview). I don't see a significant difference in the infoboxes. If you're satisfied with the appearance in the new rendering, then you're done.

If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting. For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter.

There are also a few hundred table errors (see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag); I'll post those separately. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Segunda Liga/LigaPro categories

Should Category:Segunda Liga players and Category:LigaPro players be merged, considering they are both about the Portuguese second tier - Segunda Liga to LigaPro was just a rename, by the looks of it. R96Skinner (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we cover them under a single article, so it makes sense for the categories to be consistent. Jellyman (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Giant Snowman 07:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Spamming regional flag, again

Spain women's national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
66.160.201.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Lagarto-spock (talk · contribs)

Either the same blocked user that edit using ip as block evasion, or other user that decide to add back the flag (but not wish to associate with the edits), those flag was added back by this edit (Special:Diff/827948241) Anyone wanner clean up the flags? Matthew_hk t c 23:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Well cleanup done in the national football team and Primera División (women), let see when it will came back. Matthew_hk t c 14:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

birth date and age template

139.194.203.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and CuteDolphin712 (talk · contribs) seem to think that the {{birth date and age}} template's use of (age 26) instead of (age 26 years) is both problematic and incorrect. The editor has taken correcting that problem in articles. I warned the editor that this behaviour was unconstructive and suggested that a discussion should be started at the template. Any comments or concerns? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If there are felt to be issues, then try and seek consensus to amend the template itself (I know how that discussion will go...) but their edits are entirely disruptive. Giant Snowman 07:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I raised it on the template's talk page and one editor there commented on both user talk pages. I was concerned that the editor might go undercover which is why I mentioned it here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

List of current Iranian expatriate footballers

How comes the references are at the top of the page? And is there a parent list? Govvy (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The article should be deleted. Giant Snowman 07:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Posted to AfD. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to delete it a while back when I noticed the article, but no one on the project replied to that. I always considered this leaning towards WP:Listcraft. Govvy (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Jong AZ

Any reason we don't have an article on this team? They play in the Dutch 2nd Division, separately from the senior team... Giant Snowman 13:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I think just because we are lack of writer on topic outside their interest. There was Jong Ajax article. Unfortunately nl:Jong AZ was a redirect to nl:AZ (voetbalclub) so it need more time to dig out some reliable source to craft an article. Matthew_hk t c 15:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Instead they had nl:AZ Jeugdopleiding, literally AZ Youth Sector. Matthew_hk t c 15:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No reason I can think of for the article not existing other than nobody has taken the time. It would take minimal effort to produce a stub with the content of Jong FC Utrecht. On the subject, I've been confused as to why Feyenoord hasn't pushed for their Jong team to play at the same level? Crowsus (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I've created a very basic stub. Build it and they will come etc. Giant Snowman 18:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

ask for approval

Hi, I wonder if this project wants to add WikiProject Football template to redirects based on what articles that in Category:All WikiProject Football articles for example (the example for WikiProject Medicine).--جار الله (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of tagging redirects? Giant Snowman 16:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Just find something else more constructive to spam AWB for edit count. That template is not that useful, no need to make it a "standard" in every redirect. Matthew_hk t c 11:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: The point is to check is there is any un-wanted redirects and Send them to delete, @Matthew hk: the task by the bot.--جار الله (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Giant Snowman 12:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

ask for approval

Hi, I wonder if this project wants to add WikiProject Football template to redirects based on what articles that in Category:All WikiProject Football articles for example (the example for WikiProject Medicine).--جار الله (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of tagging redirects? Giant Snowman 16:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Just find something else more constructive to spam AWB for edit count. That template is not that useful, no need to make it a "standard" in every redirect. Matthew_hk t c 11:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: The point is to check is there is any un-wanted redirects and Send them to delete, @Matthew hk: the task by the bot.--جار الله (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Giant Snowman 12:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Honours (yes, honours)

Imagine we all agree that the runner-up finishes were to be included in players/teams list of honours (i know we don't, so i'm not even going in that direction, just suppose we do).

Thus, picture the following scenario: a player appears in four FIFA World Cup tournaments, and gets a 1st, a 2nd, a 3rd and a 4th place. If the current version at Álvaro Arbeloa (for example, only saw it in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81lvaro_Arbeloa&diff=next&oldid=839274937) seems to suggest a consensual direction, would we REALLY need (in the case presented in the lines above) FOUR LINES (or THREE, since a fourth place is not an honour) for their World Cup achievements? With all due respect, what on earth is wrong with this version (please see here, also from Mr. Arbeloa https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81lvaro_Arbeloa&diff=839274937&oldid=839274845)?

Inputs please, attentively and continue the good work --Quite A Character (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

What I think you're trying to ask, in not so many words, is whether honours from the same competition should be listed in the same line, even if they are different types (e.g. winner and runner-up). It's not something I feel particularly strongly about, but I'd go for recording them on the same line to make the section a bit more compact. However, what does stand out for me is that whilst "Runner-up" and "Third-place" are identified, "Winner" is not – perhaps that should be added to the layout? Number 5 7 22:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"Yes" to your initial question. Also, good point, I never add it myself (the "winner" mention) as i (wrongly, perhaps?) feel it's implied. --Quite A Character (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

2017–18 Manchester City F.C. season

I was wondering if it's my browser or screen size, but I can't seem to read the squad statistics table, some strange wrapping is going on and the final two rows look out of alignment. Also all the transfers tables don't match up on my screen, even when I changed my res. I was wondering if anyone else has issues looking at Man City season pages. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I work on a mac-book which is set at 1440x900 and the man city season pages seem all the same, squad statistics font is smaller than the rest, table too big for my screen size. Govvy (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

All good for me aswell. Kante44 (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyone else edit from a laptop? Govvy (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I edit from a laptop, but I think the difference is Apple's proprietary software. Have you tried using a different browser? Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I've got google chrome and Safari, google chrome I have to push to 140 magnifications to read the Squad statistics table due to the font size set on it and the own goals row looks odd, and the total rows is out of alignment in both browsers. As for the transfers and loans section, looks a lot better in chrome, however it's very annoying editing that tables are kind of hidden away and I have to scroll horizontally to view it!! Govvy (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

What about 2016–17 Manchester City F.C. season? Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Same problems. Govvy (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Table formatting errors

This list is articles affected by what's called the "deletable table tag" error. This error mostly happens with nested tables. Again, these may or may not display strangely, and the only way to find out is for someone to look at them.

Taking the first item as an example, the table in the ===UEFA club rankings=== section isn't closed properly, which makes it display strangely (i.e., in the ==External links== section and with the Commons category box half merged into the end of the table). It's obviously broken now, and it will actually be slightly less broken with the new parser, but it needs to be fixed.

If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag. Send questions to Wikipedia talk:Linter. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

After some expirmentation I think I now understand the issue and I think I have dealt with the entries for Coupe de France from the above (136 to 183). Gricehead (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Gricehead. Do you want to summarize your advice, so that other editors will be able to help with some of the remaining ones?

Also, you can get a list of errors for any article you want, by using the "Page information" link in the sidebar (example). If you scroll all the way to the end, the next-to-last section is ==Lint errors== (above ==External tools==). If the section is missing, then there are no lint errors left in the article. That page will tell you about medium and low priority errors as well, and it's an easy way to check whether your attempted fix actually worked. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Gender in lede

There is a discussion at Talk:Premier Development League#Men's only about whether the lede should contain "men's only". This was prompted after one of the keepers of the Canada women's national soccer team, Stephanie Labbé, successfully trialled for Calgary Foothills F.C., but the league refused to allow her to sign by stating it was a men's only league. Please offer opinion on the talk pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

AFS Reports/Benny Fenton

Long shot, but does anyone have copies of the AFS Reports from around 2000? When I was working on the Benny Fenton article, I discovered that the obit that was previously on the 11v11 website had disappeared and isn't rescuable. I know that their obits were also published in the Reports, so it might be in one of those. Alternatively, if anyone knows of other sources for the dates of his spell (as a youth) at Colchester Town, and his various non-playing roles at Charlton (which I have since moved to the talk page), that would also be great. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this link what you want: Football Obituaries F? Jts1882 | talk 13:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Er, yeah, that'll be it

Nice work, how did you manage that? (I have just rechecked the previous link to make sure I wasn't not going mad, and it still isn't in Wayback..) Thanks, Nzd (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I went back to an older archive in 2006. Newer ones gave a 301 error. No idea why. Jts1882 | talk 13:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

U23 appearing in player statistics

Per Bojan Krkić is this now a thing that we are listing in season summaries for Career Statistics? I think an over-zealous editor is at work here, but surely reserve team appearances are not an 'appearance'. Koncorde (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

U23 appearances in the EFL Trophy should be added to career stats tables. Please see here for the discussion that took place following the change to the format of the EFL Trophy. LTFC 95 (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Disagree - do not include them. Giant Snowman 13:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Arguably, including them would follow our established standard of only including reserve/under-age teams if they play in a "first-team" competition. Although the English system doesn't include mixed first-team and reserve-team leagues (not at the top end, anyway), that's exactly what they're doing with the EFL Trophy: it's an official, national, first-team cup competition that currently allows U23 teams to enter.

If we're considering reliable sources, Soccerbase does list U23 team apps in the EFL Trophy, but not apps in comps like Premier League 2. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it is allowing Premier League teams to field a squad of players who may or may not be U23 (which is how the Stoke game had £30m of players on the field according to one news source). It seems more like a restricted squad trophy rather than a new team entity. He didn't transfer teams, or technically change registration, or go on loan, he just played in an age restricted competition. Koncorde (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

They are appearances in a first-team, senior competition, so why should they be excluded? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Because we do not include youth statistics, and having only EFL Trophy in a career stats table when someone is playing for Sunderland U23s or whoever is incomplete and misleading. Giant Snowman 19:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The EFL Trophy is not a youth competition, as I am sure you are already aware. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree with including them. As Struway2 alludes to, we include statistics for teams like Bayern Munich II or Barcelona B as they play in their respective league system - which the EFL Trophy also does. R96Skinner (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Need help fixing date errors

An update to {{age}} means that it now checks that dates are valid. A lot of dates used in articles have problems such June 31 or February 29 in a non-leap year. Help cleaning articles from Category:Age error is needed. It would be great if people familiar with football would clean some of the relevant articles in the hidden error tracking category. Search for "Error:" in an article to find the error (or errors). A typical fix is to change the first of the following to the second

{{Age|1989|27|1|2009|07|14}}
{{Age|1989|1|27|2009|07|14}}

because the dates should be |year|month|day. An unknown month or day can be replaced with 0. I try to check the birth date in the article for the player, if its available. Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

There are 133 football articles in Category:Age error because they have an invalid date. Please help fix a few of them! Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Done a few this morning. Will keep doing more each day until to get the outstanding number down a lot.Drawoh46 (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  - Thanks! I noticed the problems were down. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    - I've just done a whole lot as a way to avoid doing my actual job today. Will look to do more later as well. NZFC^(talk) 02:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Naming conventions for reserve academy pages.

I was wondering if those pages should follow the same naming conventions, at the moment I thought there was two different ways we were naming the pages, but Man City is a bit different with EDS, I was wondering if we should be a bit more strict. As you can see below.

Should we stick to one format title? Govvy (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes we should do - I prefer 'Reserves and Academy'. Giant Snowman 09:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Manchester City F.C.

Can someone else please deal with this disruptive editor on Man City article. Thanks. Govvy (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain what the disruption is? It seems more like a content dispute to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Those players haven't played for the first team this season, most of the list was the debuts from 2016 apart from one player and it seems completely irrelevant to the first team as of the current season. Also, it's if you're going to do this, it's going to be completely over populated and it's missing 17 other academy players who have made first team appearances, it hasn't been maintained ... the Academy page covers these players anyway. It's a stupid list and we don't do this on any other club article. Govvy (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why these players shouldn't be listed tbh; if it's not done elsewhere, I think it needs doing. Number 5 7 12:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be better to see some discussion on the talk page to achieve consensus on the rights or wrongs of the list, rater than the current edit warring approach. Gricehead (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

But they haven't made a first team appearance this season!! So they aren't in the first team! Govvy (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: By that definition, do you want to list all the players in an academy in a list on the main club article that have made one or more appearances in the first team? That could range from one player to say 40 players? Players are already separated into First team, reserve, under-23, under-21. You will be breaking MoS if you start doing that. Govvy (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And it's not violating the MOS. I would expect to see Bersant Celina listed in City's player list and don't see any good reason why he should be excluded. Number 5 7 12:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The players are not listed as being in the first team – which is based on the list on the club website. Rather, they are listed separately as having made appearances (one of them this season). This seems like information as relevant to a football club's current squad as the on-loan players. Keen to know who the 17 other academy players who have made first team appearances are; they should certainly be added to the page as well. OZOO (t) (c) 12:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I disagree, I consider this bad content forking, I feel they should be listed either with the main squad or the academy and relevant to the current season and the current list in question is not relevant to this season. Govvy (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Michal Šilhavý

Can I get a read as to whether this subject meets WP:NFOOTBALL. ~Kvng (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

According to his DNES profile, he made 15 appearances for FC Viktoria Plzeň in the fully-pro Gambrinus liga during the 2000–01 season. That's enough to technically satisfy NFOOTY, but the article could use some additional references regarding his play during that season. Jogurney (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have accepted this draft as Michal Šilhavý and added a copy of your comments to the new article's talk page. ~Kvng (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI. New interactive map feature

A new feature for embedding interactive maps has recently been added to Wikipedia. <mapframe> could be useful for some of the football pages (on clubs, leagues or stadia) that currently use {{location map}}. I've drafted out a map for London football stadia (see below).

It should also be possible to create a template and module system to simplify the map making, storing the coordinate information for clubs and stadia (or even retrieving them from wikidata) and generating the json data for the markers. The map template would then just need basic map information along with a list of clubs and/or stadia.

London football stadia

Any comments? Jts1882 | talk 13:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice. It would be good in stadiums for World Cups and similar to show all the different locations for instance. Koncorde (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That should be easy enough. You just need the coordinates of the stadium, which are given on the stadium wikipedia pages, and then edit the data in the JSON format as above.

To make things simpler I've drafted a template and module which will allow entry of data in template style without bothing with the JSON format. It looks like it will work but needs a little more development before I show it here. I'm going to create a list of stadia with coordinates so only the name of the stadium needs to be entered. If you want to help you could create a list of world cup stadia names, with the wikipedia page and the coordinates in decimal form.

It looks like most stadia have the coordinates on their Wikidata page, but this will be more complicated to extract. I might have to request help for this step, but there is expertise among people working on biological taxonomy that can be tapped. Jts1882 | talk 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering if you can create a little stadium icon? Govvy (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

There are a limited number of icons avialable (listed here), including sports ones, e.g. with a football, but not a specific stadium one. I've changed the map to show some of them. I don't particularly like the football one (see QPR), but townhall could be suitable (see Chelsea). Jts1882 | talk 09:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Some may say "Place of Worship" is best, and we could use "Farm" for Ipswich. :D Koncorde (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I did select something special for the Emirates. Jts1882 | talk 15:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Update I've put together a template {{football map}} that can create maps with a number of stadia marked. It's very rudimentary with limited error checking at this stage. There are two demos: Template:football map/demo for London stadia and Template:football map/demo2 for the Russia world cup.

Enter the paramters for the mapframe. The template uses the same parameter names as the mapframe tag, except that the description is constructed form text and image parameters.
List the stadia as parameters |stadium1=, |stadium2=, etc. It works either
1. when the stadium is listed in my list of London stadia with coordinates hardwired (e.g. those in the London stadia demo) or
2. when the stadium is the exact name of an English wikipedia article with an apprpriate Wikidata item. Potentially this can pick up the coordinates of any stadium worldwide, but there is no error checking. The world cup demo uses wikidata for the cordinates and seemed to picked up the proper coordinates.

It's crude and a first step. I need to think about how to preceed. Any suggestions are welcome. Jts1882 | talk 15:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

What about that t-shirt icon? Govvy (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A.S. Roma violence

A.S._Roma#Hooliganism

This section on the A.S. Roma page seems to have popped out of nowhere since the stabbing last week. Why is the entire section about English fans getting attacked? Surely there have been conflicts with other fans, but the entire section seems like a sensation piece based on recent events.Danieletorino2 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It's English wikipedia, so the predominate sourcing will be English, and therefore largely skewed towards events that effect the reporting for English clubs. The section in and of itself is fine, although the weight of it is a bit onerous - far outstripping the two sections immediately above it. We don't go into that level of detail in Football hooliganism, Ultras and List of hooligan firms which are probably the right locations for some of this information. Football hooliganism in the United Kingdom appears to be largely focused on British fans.

I might suggest that a comprehensive article on Football hooliganism in Europe is needed which can take some of these details and tie them together into a more coherent series of articles. This would also give a place to redirect overbearing sections like this to as a "see main article" type item. Koncorde (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I read through that whole piece and thought it was poorly written, it’s just listing violent events, it either needs to be rewritten or removed. It also seems very POV and Tabloid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Govvy (talk • contribs) 3 May 2018 15:16 (UTC)

I think it's rubbish and completely bias. Where is the violence sections on all the well-behaved English clubs? I don't know how you could argue that it was written neutrally.Danieletorino2 (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Where there are notable events I am fairly sure it often included (and often duplicated in the Rivalry page). I know it is for West Ham for instance.

The issue isn't even a level of bias, or neutrality, it's hard to argue with a section that is a big list of violent acts committed by Roma fans that are all cited. There is no 'balance' to a list of negatives as there will be almost no articles about Roma fans helping old ladies to cross the road.

The main arguments are (and should be) weight, duplication of content, recentism, and overly detailed list of events rather than a section talking about the events as a whole. Koncorde (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly the section needs to be renamed to Hooliganism, needs a complete rewrite and streamlined. Govvy (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There is clearly disagreement about this section. It was not prompted by a 'stabbing'. The fan seriously injured in Liverpool recently was not stabbed. I disagree that it was very POV and/or tabloid. It certainly was not biased. The bias seems to be in some of the comments here. It was based on reported facts. I also didn't feel it was poorly written, but then again I wouldn't would I?. It was an attempt to highlight the astonishing prolonged history of knife violence upon fans from England when visiting Rome. And to highlight that the attacks are typically from behind - the obvious inference being that they are cowardly. Quite frankly if Wikipedia is to be a valuable and reliable source of information then the detail I added should have been left on. What we now have is sparse sanitised partial information - that is what I would label tabloid and bordering on useless. (Limhey (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC))

It’s been toned down today by User:Ilikeeatingwaffles. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I retitled it, but from what I read, thought it was much better than before. Govvy (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

By toned down you mean hacked to the point of sanitised uselessness. All the important numerical detail of the attacks has gone.

This bizarre wilful sanitising is replicated by the change of heading from Violence to hooliganism. Check out the definitions of both here on Wikipedia. Habitually stabbing people is correctly termed violence. (Limhey (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC))

Violence related to sporting events is classed as Hooliganism! Govvy (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

There are dedicated articles to hooliganism and football violence. The main Roma article is not the place to discuss the vast detailed content that was included when concerns were raised. Koncorde (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Need assistance with Template:2017–18 Eredivisie table

Edit war going back a week over a detail on the table. Enigma^msg 16:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Where is even the guide on the template? Koncorde (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. Can anyone help? Enigma^msg 03:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Flix11 invited me to this discussion. Sb008 and LICA98 have been notified by me in my talk page, hopefully they will come. Also summon Kante4, S.A. Julio, RafaelS1979, who frequently edit Bundesliga and Serie A templates; as well as Frietjes, who currently has the most recent edit on the template documentation. @Sb008: I do not see anything seriously wrong with the way we use footnotes and statuses. To try getting your point, I read your manifesto in Template talk:2017–18 Eredivisie table, and saw some subjective assumptions. Similar the "C" and "Q" status cannot be combined, since it's a final and an intermediate status which can't apply at the same time... Intermediate and final statusses can't be combined, especially if they apply to a different cyclus. An European league season is not a phase of an Eredivisie season...So it's either "C", "R", "O" or "Q" or no status. These statuses are mutually exclusive...A status for the Cup winner is not among the predefined statuses. So it has to be define using the "X" status. None of them appeared in the instruction, as far as I know. You would also like to dedicate a status for domestic cups winners. Sorry, template documentation currently suggests us use a note for that case. Centaur271188 (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Centaur271188, sorry, I don't know what you are asking. do you want to have |status_PSV=C,Q or what? Frietjes (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Yes, while Sb008 does not, he thinks C and Q should not be used together. He also apparently wants to stop using status X (Assured of... but may still...), invent a status for cup winners, etc. And other editors (including me) disagree. Generally, the edit war in Eredivisie template is about that issue. Centaur271188 (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Centaur271188: You say you saw some subjective assumptions, but you don't present any reasons why they are.

Maybe you can answer me some questions:

* What according to you is a status, a phase and a footnote?

* What do succeeding phases make up, a season, 2 seasons?

* Why is champions a status and cup winners not?

* If the statuses C and Q can be combined, should the Q status remain forever? Should it be removed, as some claim, at the end of the season and if so what circumstance changed to cause a change in status indicators? Is, in that case, the team at the end of the season all of a sudden no longer qualified for the next phase? Or should the Q status be changed into an E status as soon as the team gets eliminated from the CL or EL?

* If another league is considered to be a next phase, shouldn't teams which relegate also receive a Q status, as well as teams in lower leagues who get promoted?

* If it's not limited to another league, shouldn't all teams receive a Q status? After all, all teams continue to a next season.

* I defined the C, R and O as final statuses. For the simple reason if you become champion in a particular season, you'll be champions till the end of time for that season. Similar applies for R and O and the not predefined Cup winners status. If the Q status, in your opinion, is not an intermediate status, but a final status, why would there be a reason to ever removing it?

* Are there any other cup winners besides domestic cup winners in national leagues?

* What causes a change of status besides a change in circumstances?

* If a status is not delineated, and can be something like "at least this but maybe that", in essence "either this or that", which definition of status are you using?

* I call "at least ....", "guaranteed ....." analytical conclusions. Why you call it a status?

* Shouldn't we also have, as I call them, pseudo statuses like, "guaranteed not to relegate" or "can no longer qualify for the CL" or a few more like that? Where is the end?

* Because template documentation suggest something, it's supposed to be correct by definition? Or more general, something which is suggested or even stated or even considered to be correct at some time, is true by definition till the end of times? I can think of, in my opinion, more "imperfections" in the template. You can define team names, matches won, statuses, etc etc. All of them are clearly visible in the table in some way. You can also define start points and adjust points. But neither of the 2 can be noticed in the table right away. You can only notice them by checking if the combination of W/D/L matches results in the number of points shown or if footnotes are added.

* etc, etc.

Maybe I only/partly present subjective assumptions. But only stating I do, without any reason or a more valid alternative, is even more subjective.

You can all disagree, but only saying "you disagree", "it's always done like that", "it's nonsense", "it's subjective" doesn't make a strong case.

Yes judge, we don't have any evidence, not even a case to present, but we all think he's guilty, so sentence him for life. --Sb008 (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Enigmaman, Flix11, Koncorde, and LICA98: sorry for pinging again, just in case my first one did not work. @Sb008: another manifesto here? I do not have to tell you what I know or think about footnote, status and phase. Similarly, I think there is no point in looking up their definitions in the dictionary, just to question the way we practically use them here. As far as I know, Wikipedia does not work that way. We have a template documentation, and a consensus on editing tables. If you think that instruction have logical flaws, then please propose a change and discuss it here. Until we agree to make such change, do not start an edit war just because you think your way is better. Centaur271188 (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Positions by round

What’s the view on having these sections in League season articles? Are they notable? I notice that worldfootball.net seems to collate this information. Is it regarded as a reliable source, although even if it is we don’t necessarily want to reproduce all information from stats sites? Eldumpo (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for them in League articles (not team ones). You can see from the La Liga, to the A-League we have position by rounds in the articles. I don't know if there is any policy as such for them but don't believe it would be against WP:NOTSTATS. NZFC^(talk) 21:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the problem where leagues have rigid fixtures, but it wouldn't work for those that don't as clubs can have games in hand for a long part of the season. Number 5 7 21:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That can be solved with appropriate notes. Out of curiosity, which leagues don't have rigid fixtures? --SuperJew (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Most leagues in the UK. For instance, league schedules in England are affected by the FA Cup, and clubs that do well in the competition will often end up playing games on Saturdays that they would normally have had league games on (for instance, on the weekend of 17/18 March this year there were four Premier League matches and four FA Cup ties involving clubs that would otherwise have been playing league games). Also, any country where games are regularly called off due to weather will have irregular schedules. Number 5 7 21:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As SuperJew says, it can be done by notes as per NZ league this year where games were moved because of OFC and World Cup play off, so can work for the odd game changes where positions are out because of games in hand. NZFC^(talk) 21:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A lot of leagues in the United States also don't have fixed schedules. Like right now in the current MLS season you have scattered teams with 7, 8, 9, or 10 games played. Jay eyem (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The worldfootball page for Premier League shows the position at the end of the given round e.g. round 36 shows some teams as having played 35 games. This is more practical than keeping rigidly to the original fixtures, whereby if the first match of the season is postponed the positions by round could not be filled in for some clubs (or at least, clubs not played would by default be shown last?). Notes shouldn’t be added unless they’re sourced. I don’t see why the WF link can’t just be used if this topic is deemed notable. Do any other sites carry this info? Eldumpo (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Club performance summary tables

I've noticed that for many English teams there seems to be a lot of inconsistency regarding a table overview of club performance by season. I looked at the MOS for articles here which doesn't seem to provide much guidance. As an example, I went to Brighton & Hove Albion F.C. hoping to see a table showing the level they have played in by season as with the table I've seen at Salford City F.C.#Seasons (& I swear I've seen it for at least two Championship or other EFL teams) but there was nothing - I remember the ones I'd seen before because they listed all the previous names for the different levels but didn't put the level number by them which as a layperson was confusing). At least Brighton has a graph but upon hearing of the recent promotion/relegations, what I was interested in was seeing at a glance their previous level each season. Is there a reason the articles don't have these? Because it would be too long for some of the older clubs? I feel like I've explained myself terribly here but this is the one thing I was looking for and I'm quite surprised they're not included - I'm looking for something to work on right now & would love to add these in but thought it would be sensible to mention it here first and see if there would be any objection to these being added. ... CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 20:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think they should be included, but they can be minimised quite easily. See, for example, A.F.C. Sudbury#Season-by-season record. There are quite a few non-League clubs with lists like this. Number 5 7 20:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I like that. Again I'd prefer a column giving the level numerically (again I am very much a lay person & that's usually what I'm looking for!) but this seems to be exactly what I'm talking about ... CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 21:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not overly keen on the "level" column for clubs that have spent time in non-League, as there was no formal levels below the Football League until relatively recently. For example, it would be impossible to say what level Ipswich were playing at until their entry into the Football League in the mid-30s. Number 5 7 21:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you know what's silly? this. Featured article, with a table just as I was describing, that does not appear to have been listed anywhere on the Brighton & Hove Albion F.C. page. Still trying to figure the logic of that one out. ... CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 03:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Liga MX Femenil

Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Viramontes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniela Carrandi, there is an ongoing discussion as to whether the Liga MX Femenil is "fully professional" and, more generally, whether citations describing a league as "professional" are sufficient to establish its status as a "fully professional league." Sources [1], [2], and [3] clearly describe the league as "professional" but do not use the phrase "fully professional" at any point. However, it's also worth noting that, outside Wikipedia and mirrors, there are no Google results using the exact phrase "fully professional league" to describe the English Premier League (or more specifically, there are four pages of alleged results, none of which actually do so.) So clearly we don't need a citation using that exact phrase. However, while the EPL is clearly fully professional, some users have raised doubts as to whether this description is really accurate for this league. That being said, an AfD is not the appropriate place to be having this discussion, so I'm bringing it here. Pinging GiantSnowman as he participated in the discussion over there. (On a side note, similar questions regarding Liga MX Femenil's notability were raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lia Morán, but that's a different situation since she hasn't actually played a game in the league yet and as such wouldn't pass NFOOTY regardless.) Smartyllama (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

There was previously a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive_26#Liga MX Femenil. Number 5 7 16:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As I tried to explain, spmething being described as "professional" by the media is not the same as it being "fully-professional" per WP:FPL standards. Consensus is that the Liga MX Femenil is not (due to salary) and therefore playing in it does not make you notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment smartyllama Here are some additional previous discussions to consider with regard to the exclusion of all top women's leagues except the NWSL from this notability essay - mostly repeatedly done by the same handful of editors:

If you're interested in opening up a discussion beyond the same handful of editors who have a recorded history of deleting women's leagues and articles here, I'd suggest incorporating a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to gather a more thorough and up-to-date consensus and notify related projects, not excluding WP:WOSO, WP:WSPORTS, WP:WIR, WP:WOMEN, and the Gender Gap Task Force. There's an edit-a-thon for Women in Sports this month - this notability essay might make for a great and timely discussion - particularly with more than 50,000 in attendance at the Liga MX Femenil final last Friday and over 45,000 at the 2018 FA Women's Cup Final. Totally notable leagues. Handful of editors who keep them removed from this essay as well as any notes indicating status (see archive 2). I have more links to discussions to contribute to a more productive, well-rounded discussion with RFC. Hmlarson (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on my cursory review of online coverage of Liga MX Femenil players, I don't think the majority could satisfy the GNG. There are exceptions for star players (and Mexico national team players), but squad players don't appear to get the same degree of coverage that their colleagues in Liga MX do. I think GNG is the proper notability test for players whose highest level of play is in Liga MX Femenil, but I'm happy to entertain sourcing that suggests otherwise. Jogurney (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Costa Brava Trophy

At the beginning of the season Man City played away in Spain against Girona in this Trophy, but we don't seem to have any information on this friendly tournament on wiki. I was wondering if we should have a page or not? Govvy (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

And the report on the Man City season page is a Daily Mail one and should be changed. I am off to work now! Govvy (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

What evidence of notability? Giant Snowman 07:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Isthmian Division One North Playoffs

Hi, I tried to edit the honours section for my local non-league club Haringey Borough as they won the Isthmian Division One North playoff final 2017-18 last Sunday. Previous winners of the playoff final have it listed in their honours section on their wiki pages. It is a great achievement for a club of Borough’s size, being promoted to the Isthmian Premier is the highest that the club has ever climbed in the football pyramid. My edit was rejected on the grounds that winning the playoff trophy is not an honour. Another user suggested that I posted in the football forum. If the general consensus is that it shouldn’t appear as an honour, fair enough, but I thought that it was worth raising. Many Thanks, Donbenkneetoe (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Donbenkneetoe (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not an honour (it's an achievement) and shouldn't be listed on other club's articles either IMO. Number 5 7 21:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

They certainly are an honour and are on the majority of club's honours sections as far as I can see. Dover Athletic F.C., Gillingham F.C., Ipswich Town F.C., Manchester City F.C., Norwich City F.C., Sunderland A.F.C. and York City F.C. have their play-off honours listed in their honours sections and they are Featured Articles. None of the other club's with FA status have ever won play-offs so that's 100% as far as I can see. Haringey Borough F.C. only have four other honours and this is the greatest accomplishment in the club's history so it should be excluded from the honour's list based on what logic exactly?--Echetus Xe 21:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Because they didn't actually win a competition. A league title or a cup is an honour. Winning a promotion play-off is not. As enjoyable as it was, I don't see Ipswich's play-off win as a club honour. Number 5 7 21:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying a promotion is not a club honour? Smh... Mattythewhite (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying (the York article is the first time I've seen it listed as such). I really can't see how finishing third and getting promoted can be considered an honour. Or even worse, Corinthian-Casuals just got promoted after losing a play-off final because of clubs folding in the divisions above. Number 5 7 22:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Promotion is the objective for the season. Finishing first or third is irrelevant, the goal is promotion. It doesn't make sense that a club can go from League Two to the Premier League without picking up an honour on the way yet we can list a Welsh Cup victory or whatever as an honour. I guess Corinthian-Casuals's promotion could be classed as more of a league restructuring due to other club's resigning rather than an honour or accomplishment but funny things happen that far down the pyramid.--Echetus Xe 22:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

For many clubs the objective is to avoid relegation. I don't think Huddersfield can add this season to their honours list though. Number 5 7 23:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there's two separate questions potentially getting conflated here: 1. Is winning the play-offs an honour (for which, in the EFL at least, the club gets a trophy, plays at Wembley, etc)? 2. Is simply gaining promotion (even if not via the play-offs) an honour? Specifically here we're asking whether winning the play-offs counts as an honour, I think that is a different question from whether we should list every time a club finished second/third/fourth and gained automatic promorion (which in some cases could have occurred a dozen or more times) as an honour on a club article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The play-offs are a tournament within a tournament. Clubs qualify for them, clubs win them, and often get a trophy for doing so. The play-off final is often a special event. Which I think means the answer to your first question is yes. The second question is more difficult. I don't think we should be listing 2nd, 3rd and 4th places as honours just because they gain promotion (or CL qualification). This raises the awkward complication that a club finishing second and gaining automatic promotion won't have it listed as an honour, while a club finishing the league in 6th and winning the play-offs would. I think the justification is that the play-offs can be considered a seperate mini-tournament with a winner. On the other hand, if Manchester United or Liverpool got relegated and then got promotion through the play-offs, it would seem ridiculous to list it as an honour. Jts1882 | talk 10:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Runners-up spots are honours. The style guideline for club honours sections says so, quite explicitly. It's been discussed a number of times, and there's never been anything approaching consensus for excluding them in principle; in practice, we can and do for "clubs with a large number of major trophies". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that an entirely accurate summary of the situation. It's been discussed a number of times, and all the discussions have ended in no consensus on whether runner-up spots are honours or not. Because the MOS was written before there was a serious discussion on the issue, it's been stuck like that by default because there's been no consensus to remove its inclusion. As for the points above, I think they highlight why counting play-off wins as an honour is not a good idea – Wycombe finished third and went up automatically this season – that's a bigger achievement that finishing seventh and winning the play-offs. Number 5 7 11:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It's accurate, just without the backstory ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that league survival isn’t an honour. However, Huddersfield do have last year’s Championship Playoff final listed as an honour. Just looking at the current members of the Premier League, 11 of the teams have previous playoff victories listed as honours on their Wikipedia pages (Bournemouth, Burnley, Crystal Palace, Huddersfield, Leicester, Man City, Stoke, Swansea, Watford, West Brom, West Ham). Many other professional and non-League teams also list playoff success. I agree with you that it is an interesting debate as to whether a playoff victory is an honour or an achievement. Perhaps as you say, no club should list it as an honour. However, as so many clubs do have it listed as an honour, as a compromise I would suggest that at the very least Haringey’s section could be renamed ‘Honours and Achievements’ and that the playoff final victory is included. I am new to editing Wikipedia and respect everyone’s views here. Kind Regards. Donbenkneetoe (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I am looking for precedence and looking at AFC Wimbledon, they won the Isthmian Premier League playoffs and that is listed in their achievements section. Whether that may have any impact on this, I leave it to others to decide. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

And rightly so as winning the play-offs has a place of honour within the club's history. The section is called honours, not trophies or competitions won. Jts1882 | talk 09:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

.........although of course (in the EFL at least, not sure about non-League) they do get a trophy for winning the play-offs ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

On a similar note, should promotions and play-off victories be listed for players as well? Kosack (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Haringey Borough did indeed get a trophy for winning the playoff, I was there to cheer them on :) Donbenkneetoe (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Points

what is the formula for the points in 1936 Soviet Top League? for 1937 Soviet Top League it looks like it's 4*w+1*d+0*l? Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a consistent formula. What works for one club, doesn't for another. Jts1882 | talk 16:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Frietjes: The Russian article seems to say it is "3 for a victory, 2 for a draw, 1 for a loss and 0 for no appearance". Possibly as some teams at the time failed to arrive at matches, this was used? ~~Would be helpful if this was mentioned on the articles.~~ It's actually mentioned in the overview section, might be better to include it in the standings section though. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's 3 for win, 2 for draw, 1 for loss. It seems to add up for the 1937 league, with the numbers from rsssf. I've added the information as a footnote to the standings table in the 1937 Soviet Top League. Jts1882 | talk 16:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Sud Ladies Cup nominated for deletion

The Sud Ladies Cup article has been nominated for deletion. Can members of WP:Footy please come and offer their feedback here. TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Arabic translation needed

Please can an Arabic speaker read this press release image and add any missing details to South West Asian Football Federation article? I've seen some news articles claim that the Iraq and Oman FA are also members of the group but I've not been able to verify it. 22:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Faycal.09 may be able to help. Number 5 7 22:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the translation of the page:

Translation
The Federation of the KSA, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen, Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lankan have established a regional union in Asia, following the coordination meeting which brought together the heads and representatives of these federations in Jeddah. The Federation's intention is to establish the Association of Southwest Asia in order to foster the interests of the member associations in the member states, as well as supporting the administrative competencies represented by the federations that are members of the Southwest Asian Union in continental and international systems. The meeting agreed to assume the President of the Saudi Federation Adel bin Mohammed Ezzat presidency of the Union, while the current president of the South Asian Federation will be Vice-President, and Luai Al-Subaie the functions of the Secretary-General, to conduct the work of the Union until the General Assembly, and decided to choose the city of Jeddah, . It was decided after the meeting to discussing the mechanism of development of the Southwest Asia Association with the concerned parties in order to establish a strong structural, administrative and regulatory system that will regulate the work of the Federation in order to enhance its success and effectiveness during the coming period.

However I saw another link with Iraq and Oman members [4]. However curiously, Qatar is not member !!! --Fayçal.09 (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems a number of other likely nations have been left out: Nepal, Bhutan, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Qatar (source). The source suggests the move is partly because of a dispute over moving the headquarters of the WAFF from Amman to Saudi Arabia. So it looks like WAFF has split in two. Jts1882 | talk 14:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Nepal might also be joining link. Jts1882 | talk 15:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Play-offs

Should appearances in the end of season play-offs (in England) be included in the infobox and/or as League appearances in the "Career statistics" table? 77.130.195.244 (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe play-off stats are not for the infobox, they go in the "other" column in the career stats table. R96Skinner (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - that's what I thought. 77.130.195.244 (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Giant Snowman 16:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Alexis Zárate

Not sure if this is the most ideal place to ask, but: I've just created the Alexis Zárate article due to his professional footballing career, but while researching him there's actually been a big court case regarding rape. here, here and here. Is there a specific way we go about wording legal things, I'm not sure how to. Not helped by the language barrier either, which is making it trickier to understand the full order of events. Could someone who fluently understands Spanish take a look, please? R96Skinner (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I found an English language report. There may be more reports in English, and the Spanish-language press might have more details, but at least this is enough to mention it in the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Not sure how my search missed that! Think The Sun is considered an unreliable source on Wikipedia, but at least it helps understand the situation more to edit. R96Skinner (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Zdravko Karadachki

Will someone please verify that the subject of this draft has played at the fully professional level? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: As far as I can tell, he has not played in a fully professional league. The club mentioned in afc comments only attained that status after his time there. Eagleash (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: done afc commenting and cleanup. Matthew_hk t c 10:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Jlloyd Samuel

Could an Admin please semi-protect Jlloyd Samuel, Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 14:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Macedonia and ČŽŠs

I saw that some articles about Macednoian clubs were recently moved and renamed in the style of replacing Č Ž and Š with CH ZH and SH, for instance most famous FK Rabotnički, but also others like GFK Tikveš etc. Is there any new policy about that considering transliteration macedonian to latin? I believe we should return them to Rabotnički... Linhart (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The naming of club articles should follow what the reliable English-language sources are referring to them as. In the case of the first club linked above it should be named 'Rabotnicki' based on the sources at the article. Eldumpo (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

For Rabotnički, it was requested by Msb73505 in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (Special:Diff/828262173).

The club name in Macedonian is ФК Работнички, which in the past used to be translated/transcripted as FK Rabotnički but the transcription rules have changed over 10 years ago and letters like ч or ш are no more translated as č/š (that were used in Yugoslavia) but they are now replaced with ch/sh instead

— Matthew_hk t c 09:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I know that, i know macedonian. But this is like Kyiv, it is irrelevant, we should follow reliable sources. And most of them uses Rabotnički or Rabotnicki, not Rabotnichki. Even club's official page in english uses Rabotnicki. Linhart (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It seem yet another endless argument on name. Official transliteration (ISO? government standard?) vs common name (but what if English news article was not available or even article in latin script?). The tennis player was referred as Djokovic as common name in media, instead of proper transliteration Đoković ; Ibrahimović the "ć" was retained as even only half or less English article use ć (more use c), but "ć" seem appears in his shirt. Matthew_hk t c 12:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, well either is fine for me, č or c, I just think that ch seems a bit off, only wiki uses that.Linhart (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

There is not much English secondary source, but may be sufficient to as a citation for a proposed move to FK Rabotnicki (FIFA.com 2018, BBC 2010, 90min 2018), but yet it would be tug of war on move discussion between Rabotnicki or Rabotnički , but definitely not Rabotnichki. Matthew_hk t c 11:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

1933–34 Lebanese Premier League

If you look at the template on the page there are a huge amount of stub season articles, from the 1930s onwards and I am not sure if they even pass WP:NSEASONS. Should they be AfD'ed or not? Govvy (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

If the only source available is just showing the champion we don’t need a season article as the facts can be covered in a 'List of Lebanese Champions' article. Eldumpo (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I don't know how to do group AfDs, but ye a List article might work, I only came across them because they haven't been assessed. Govvy (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, for technical reason it may better turn the stub to redirect. Certainly someone had ability to add more Arabic source (such as newspaper article at that time) would be better, but the current state the stub only had routine information. Matthew_hk t c 11:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That seems like a simpler solution than AfDs, that could very well result in a "redirect" decision anyway. Jack N. Stock (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Redirect all of the articles which are just one-sentence sub-stubs to Lebanese Premier League#Previous winners -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

k, took me a little while but I went through all the stub articles and redirected them. Govvy (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

NSEASONS isn't relevant to league seasons – it concerns club seasons. Number 5 7 11:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Then what do league seasons come under? Just GNG? Govvy (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes! Only WP:GNG. Hhkohh (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Players' honours section

Hi. What is the consensus regarding including honours for players who weren't in the squad for a cup final? For example, Mikel Arteta was an Arsenal player when they won the 2014–15 FA Cup, and he was actually the first player who lifted the cup on the podium at Wembley. Also, Arsenal.com says:^[1] "Former captain Mikel spent five years at Arsenal, and led the Gunners to consecutive FA Cups in 2014 and 2015" and "After winning the FA Cup twice with the Gunners, Mikel left the club at the end of the 2015/16 season". ~~He played in earlier rounds of the competition but~~ he was not in the squad for the cup final (I'm not sure whether he received a medal or not). Does this mean the 2014–15 FA Cup should be included in his honours section? I ask this because it was recently removed. Hashim-afc (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit: After further research I don't think Arteta actually played any games in the tournament. However the question still stands as there are many players for which this case applies such as Laurent Koscielny who missed the 2017 FA Cup Final, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain who missed the 2014 FA Cup Final, Thierry Henry who missed the 2005 FA Cup Final, Patrick Vieira who missed the 2003 FA Cup Final etc etc but who played earlier games in the cup. Hashim-afc (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What do reliable sources - do they explicitly say he won the honour? We cannot assume that players have won an honour just because their team won the trophy. Giant Snowman 11:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I put the link to Arsenal.com saying Arteta won two FA Cups above, is that a reliable source? Arsenal.com also says Henry won 3 FA Cups (thus including 2005).^[2] Hashim-afc (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

According to the FA Cup#Medals article, which cites the FA rule book, each club gets 40 winners or runners-up medals and it is up to the club who gets one. Usually at finals the whole squad go up to receive a medal and that includes unused subs on the bench. There are photos of Wojciech Szczesny with his FA cup winners medal and he didn't play a second. If Arteta lifted the cup it suggests he was one of the players who went up to get a medal. Unfortunately, I don't think these observations help determine who won an honour, but it seems likely Arteta has one of the medals. Jts1882 | talk 14:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Yeah, so anyone who was in the starting eleven or on the bench for the final will obviously have the honour. For those who aren't there on the day you'd have to have a source to say they got given a medal anyway, which would be very unusual if someone who didn't feature in the tournament at all got such a medal.--Echetus Xe 19:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, there's no "obviously" here. It's up to the club how they give out their medals. We cannot assume, even though it is highly likely, that a player has one. Giant Snowman 19:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

So are you going to remove honours where a report to the final is cited? Good luck with that. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you remember how long it took England 1966 squad members to get a medal (originally only the starting XI got one)...we cannot assume that p;ayers will get a medal just because they are on the bench of the final, or even play for that matter! Giant Snowman 20:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

May transfers

Should I put them on the end of this season club pages or the coming season? Govvy (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's in the following, since these players will make their unnofficial debuts for their new clubs in the pre-season and their official ones in August. MYS 77 ^✉ 19:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of players won't sign until the start of the new season (1 July) so they should be part of the new season. Giant Snowman 20:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

k, cheers. Govvy (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability of interim managers

I have a doubt about interim managers: should they have the same consideration as players, using WP:FPL as a parameter? I mean, some managers are suspended and generally their assistants are in charge of the team during the match.

This very same assistant is notable enough to have an article? And
This should be considered in a different approach than the regular one (which some team does not have a manager, and some assistant or youth team manager acts as an interim for a match or two until the appointment of a new manager)?

In my opinion, the second one is notable enough to earn a page, but I have doubts about the first one. MYS 77 ^✉ 19:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The way I look at it is this, if a coach is signed on to be the head coach but for some reason only lasts 1 game before he is sacked, he would still get a page right? He wasn't the interim, he was the main head coach. Why would that be different for a guy who came in to coach once because a coach is suspended? If the match report has that "temp" coach as the coach for the game, he is notable, at least in my eyes. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Managers who manage in a fully-professional league are notable per WP:NFOOTBALL - doesn't matter if they are permanent or interim. Giant Snowman 19:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@ArsenalFan700:, @GiantSnowman: A clear example of my doubts is occurring right now: CD Tenerife is playing against Sporting de Gijón, and Sporting's manager Rubén Baraja is serving a four-match ban. During this period his assistant José Ramón Rodríguez Sánchez is taking charge of the team in those matches on his place. Is he notable enough to have an article? MYS 77 ^✉ 20:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd say yes, especially when there are also good in-depth sources about him like this. Giant Snowman 20:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Giantsnowman, that is what I am saying. MYS77, I would consider him notable. He is in charge of the team for those matches, setting up the team, making the changes in a professional game, subbing players etc. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Deletion archive

Currently, this list is only served for archived AfD discussion, but due to name title, I think other deletion nomination which listed in TfD, CfD, MfD, FfD and RfD (expect PROD) should be also archived, What is your idea? Pinging GiantSnowman and other's people comments are welcome, thank you! Hhkohh (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: If no one replys, I will archive those from next month, thanks! Hhkohh (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No harm in this really, but I don't see what purpose it has - the AFD list was created (if I remember correctly) to check if articles were being re-created, something you simply don't get with TFD/CFD etc. Giant Snowman 10:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Think that when someone nominated a page deletion, they can easily find and refer to previous similar deletion discussion. Hhkohh (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That's what we have (the underused) Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus is for, is it not? Giant Snowman 12:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I still think using both is better than a single. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to "modernize" some presentation

Hi everyone, I write this post in order to do proposals about different templates in presentation of past games. I think that we could adapt the "score templates". I propose to begin only with the "World Cup Finals tournament games". Friends, we are talking about "old games" that a lot of readers haven't seen. Than it will be much interesting to adapt with a "chronological presentation of goals" using added "br/ code and giving the "score evolution". "Dry" Final scores are not always reflected a game. With my proposal new readers-younger readers will receive a better information. That also gives "energy" to the presentation. Eventual missing penalty kick could find a place in those small lists, it was often turning point of a game. "Encyclopedia is also to inform and not only simply publish". My proposal targets also to add information because it's nearly impossible to write a "fiable" summary of each game. I think it's also better to insert the First name initial letter of goalscorers. I also propose to use Flags icons for referees. And also with flags, to insert flags above the line-ups BUT, follow my advice, "50px" size is enough for games with kits templates illustrations. LAST, I will be glad to receive lessons to be able to create "football kits templates". Per example, shirts with "federal logo" makes all the difference. To give you ideas of my proposals, I use it when creating/updating "1974 FIFA World Cup Groups pages" (see 1974 Group B, Poland vs West Germany to see a example with missing penalty). Many thanks to waste time to read me, and to answer me. Shanon11 (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2018 (CET)

Penalty misses should NOT be in the football box. Flags should also not be used per WP:MOS. Overall, per your talk page what @S.A. Julio: said... Was fine as it was. Kante4 (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

And there is no way the score should be presented next to the goal and scores in bold. (here)... Kante4 (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It does seem a shame that missed penalties aren't to be included, after all it's a verifiable incident in terms of time and taker, as Shanon11 has said, is often a pivotal moment in a match which is not signified at present, and we already have an icon for it (I realise it's intended for penalty shootouts). In club season articles, every yellow card including the time seems to be recorded, but not a missed penalty, seems a bit back to front to me. Crowsus (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to including missed penalties, though it should not be included in the football box, but rather the table below. Flags should not be included next to referees (this violates WP:ICONDECORATION), a link to their national FA suffices. The chronological presentation of goalscorers is unnecessary and excessive, and goes against the formatting used on the rest of Wikipedia. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Golden Shoe awards

I wonder why players from 1991 to 1996 are even on the European Golden Shoe article, when the award was not even given during those years? and under the section 'multiple winners' Ally McCoist are shown with 2 awards, even when he didn't even get one, as it didn't exist during that time. I looked up some information on my own, and indeed no award was given to any of those players, so why should they be there? Isn't it best to just remove them and simply write that no award was given from 1991 to 1996? The award was given first in 1967-68 season, as an example, this would be the equivalent of me adding top scorers to this article before 1967, as no award were given there too. This is an article for an actual award, not an article for european top scorers in general. Could someone please help me out with this? SteamingStars (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

After reading rsssf I'm in favor of deleting those years. Also McCoist didn't even lead the unofficial ranking. -Koppapa (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

ESM, the current organizers of the award, list winners for those years, which match up what is in the article. That seems to me to be a reliable source for this article. OZOO (t) (c) 13:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

RSSSF lists the top scorers in those "missing" seasons here. BTW, McCoist was definitely presented with a golden boot award in 1992 (there are images of him being presented with it on google). This BBC article from when Henrik Larsson won the award says that the 1992 award was official, but 1993 was not. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see, great research there, Jmorrison! I just wondered why it was there since the article itself says it wasn't awarded, but I guess it was then? SteamingStars (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

My thinking is that Adidas, who sponsored Rangers' kit at the time, may have custom made a golden boot for McCoist(?). The golden boot he was presented with clearly has their branding. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

An article in The Independent from September 1992 describes the 1991/92 award as the "Adidas Golden Boot". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Shoot! magazine gave an "Adidas Golden Boot" award - that may be what McCoist was receiving. See this photo of Teddy Sheringham receiving it, and it looks like the same trophy. However, back when I used to read Shoot! (early to mid-80s), I distinctly recall that it was for the top scorer in the top division of the Football League, not all of Europe (Sheringham was never European top scorer)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Amos Nasha notability

Would Amos Nasha pass WP:FOOTYN? Made an appearance (and sitting on the bench a few times) for West Ham United in the early rounds of the Europa League in 2015. Only problem is that the team (FC Lusitanos) he played against probably aren't professional. JSWHU (Talk page) 23:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe so, based on WP:NFOOTBALL anyway. He'd need to play in a fixture in an FPL-listed league between two clubs from an FPL-listed league. R96Skinner (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The game he appeared in was against FC Lusitanos of the Andorran Primera Divisió. This isn't listed on the FPL list, although it is described as professional on the league article. Nzd (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Not notable. Giant Snowman 17:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

NFooty question

Do players not pass NFooty when playing in the FA Cup proper rounds anymore? Govvy (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Both teams have to be "fully professional" I believe.. Nzd (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Both have to be from fully-professional leagues (as otherwise players could qualify from matches played between fully-pro clubs in non-League). Number 5 7 08:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay because Blaine Hudson which is currently prodded has played for fully-pro club against other fully pro clubs in FA Trophy and FA Cup according to Soccerway. Govvy (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The prod is correct – he wouldn't pass NFOOTY. Number 5 7 11:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No probs, thought I'd double check because for a bit there I thought he qualified to pass NFooty. Saw he played Champions League qualifiers also, not many get to do that. Govvy (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The Welsh league in general is a bit of a anomaly. With TNS being a professional team, but the league not being professional; and being able to play against other professional teams in England and the CL. It's a bit of a weird one, but I'd argue that he does have at least some press coverage, such as BBC Sport, The Leader Magazine, quite a few mentions in the daily post, Shropshire Star, plus more. You could make a point for WP:GNG, which could potentially trump WP:NFOOTY, in this manor. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I did think about that but thought it was a little routine to pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Need assistance with Template:2017–18 Eredivisie table (continued)