Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 135

It's a disagreement that renews when the match schedule is announced every season, and I would like us to agree on adding games gradually or at once. Since we do not know the timing of the matches and the stadium where they will take place until a few days or weeks ago, we should add the matches that are certain to be played. We all know what happened last season when the campaign were disrupted and some of them cancelled altogether, so it's best not to add the entire schedule until those games are confirmed.--Sakiv (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I see no teason to not show them. We have dates for the matches, stadiums and a released fixture list by the specific leagues. Kante4 (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Given that in some leagues e.g. Premier League, fixtures get changed all the time for TV coverage, FA Cup causing fixtures to change, Christmastime fixtures seem ti be changed a lot. Thus fixtures months in the future are not definitely correct or even in the correct order. And that's before COVID-19 destroyed last year's fixture lists. So I would say no, we should only show a couple of games ahead. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That is the case in England mostly i guess. Sakiv mostly edited the spanish season articles, there are fixed dates, like in Germany for example (and more but i do not know for sure). But i guess that England is unique, as they have those replays which are not used often in other leagues if i am correct. Kante4 (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem showing the whole season, when all schedule is announced in advance (might not happen this season, as has been done in the 2020 AFL season which released a few rounds every time). Only issue is I understand some leagues (like the EPL) have a copyright issue on the schedule so we can only show the next match every time and played matches. --SuperJew (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixture schedules are fake news now? Sorry I don't buy it. Fixture lists are released at the start of the season. Some fixtures are changed as circumstances dictate but they are set at a date and time that they are expected to be played at by the governing bodies of the league.--EchetusXe 09:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. Although fixtures can be moved around, they're still given a definite date when they're supposed to be played. Also, since the whole copyright issue regarding English and Scottish fixtures has gone, there's no reason not to add full fixture lists based on the initial scheduled date for matches. – PeeJay 16:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay: Thanks for the clarification about the copyright :) I don't follow those leagues so closely, so my info was dated from discussions here. --SuperJew (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

So, there is no reason not to display the league schedule. Kante4 (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

There are four open merge proposal listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves - the oldest is 4 months old, the youngest is 3 weeks old. If they are still open at the weekend then I will remove them from the listing. GiantSnowman 21:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

If they are football related, why are you removing them from the list? Govvy (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Because they are stale and nobody from the Project is bothered, so it's distracting from other discussions. GiantSnowman 19:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Stale or not, seems more helpful for them to be in the list until they are closed. :/ Govvy (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this source reliable? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Never seen it before, no idea who runs it or where info comes from - so no. GiantSnowman 10:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the guy who runs the site is credited as an RSSSF contributor for the Gulf region. Hack (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Saw Julien Aubert in the new page feed and thought he looked a lot like Gary Neville! heh, thought I share here for a laugh. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Uncanny! GiantSnowman 14:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Will someone please inform Gary about this! :) REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Neville Neville has some explaining to do...--Ortizesp (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I was curious on the notability of this footballing event. Other than being sourced to rsssf, is it really that well known? Govvy (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No. Individual events at regional sports Games aren't generally notable. Not a chance it passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

In the 1930s and 1940s, there was a team in Lebanon which acted as the football club of the railways and port company. In Arabic, the club was called Sikka/Sikke/Sika (Arabic: السكة), whereas in French and English, it was called D.P.H.B. (no idea what the acronym stands for). A couple of questions:

1. Should Sika Club Beirut be moved?
2. If so, to D.P.H.B., or DPHB? The standard for Lebanese clubs is no commas in acronyms (FC not F.C.)

Today, no English or French sources talk about the defunct club. If anything, there are Arabic sources talking about historical clubs in Lebanon, which obviously mention the club as Sika. RSSSF also calls it Sika (probably they got their info from an Arabic source). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't trust me on this but I believe from what I can see of D.P.H.B. the first part is Damascus and the last part is Beirut, it's a bit unclear on P and H part, either the H is for Hamah or not, I am unsure. The P could be back on the article, related to the French provided where it's written Prolongements. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah initially the first source I had found for a name different than Sikka is D.H.P. (image). I also found Damas-Hamah et Prolongements, the name of the railway in Lebanon, so that should be what DHP stands for. However, that's the only source I found that calls it D.H.P. I must have found nearly 10 sources calling it D.P.H.B., including the club's logo. Might be something like "Damas Prolongements Hamah Beirut", though it doesn't really make grammatical sense.

Anyway, going back to the question in hand: should the article's name be changed from Sika Club Beirut to DPHB? We have S.P.A.L., for example, as an acronym-based name, and Sagesse SC (football) is commonly known as Hekmeh in Arabic. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, ye, grammatically sounds strange, but translate to English it's "Damascus Extension to Hama-Beirut" :/ Govvy (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Unless the P is for Province. Govvy (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Any Norwich City fans around that know about this one?? Govvy (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

As with Proud above, the claim that he played in the EFL is false (and I have removed it) because Norwich were not in the EFL in that era. Dweller may have sources that shed light on Dunning's Southern League career with the Canaries...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Well it's Almgerdeu who seems to make some confusing articles that are popping up in the new page feed!! heh. Almgerdeu, Maybe you can clean them up better?? Govvy (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to check his entry in Canary Citizens. Nudge me if I don't get back. If he only played in the Southern League and not in the FA Cup, would he be notable on the basis of his England amateur appearances? He seems to have scored a crazy number of goals for a midfielder in those games. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Someone (I forget who) recently got kept at AfD on the basis of having played in the pre-1920 top division of the Southern League, which was deemed to be a FPL....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

FPL? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Fully professional league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Daft question... If he's playing amateur football for England, surely he's an amateur and therefore by definition not playing in a fully professional league? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this logic. Also it's not listed as an FPL on our extensive FPL list, so we shouldn't be randomly assuming that it is fully professional. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the AFD I was thinking of..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As to FPL, plenty of amateurs played in the Football League in those days, and many clubs as late as the 1930s didn't pay summer wages. Professional football was legally classed as a seasonal occupation in 1931 so unemployed players or those whose clubs didn't pay summer wages couldn't claim benefits (see e.g. ref #17 at Fred Wallbanks). If that were the case in some random national league these days, it wouldn't be accepted as FPL...

As to the creations of Dunning and Proud, England's opponents in those early internationals classed those matches as full senior internationals. So it's not surprising that someone should create articles about the English players in those matches, not unreasonably assuming that they'd be as notable as their French or German opponents. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't that ref fall foul of WP:DAILYMAIL? ;) Spike 'em (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the Hull Daily Mail and other such unfortunately named publications were regularly included in the initial blind removal of that particular work..... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually no, you can class that as historical Daily Mail link which isn't banned. Post 21st century seems to be the deprecated point. However even some admins fail to grasp that! :/ Govvy (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I checked Canary Citizens. He doesn't have an entry, because it's limited to players who played at least one match in the Football League. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this chap is notable. The sources don't look reliable to me. It's a sort of forum with someone called "Zsorzsinju" telling us what Cyril Dunning did in the match. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That particular source probably isn't reliable, but there are certainly reliable sources which confirm Dunning's involvement in these England Amateurs matches -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this has been already discussed, but do we include these transfers?

1. Return from loan to club
2. End of loan (moves back to the club that loaned him)
3. Loan redemption (loaned in prior season, bought definitively this season)

Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we should have all player movements. The exact wording may be a debate, but I most definitely we should have all the movements, as the average fan is interested in all movements of players in and out of the club, regardless on the technical side of how the player moved. Loan redemption, I would put into a section of contract extensions with an appropriate note. --SuperJew (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on how transfers are displayed here? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

At first and second look, not very clear to me what "Ended loans" section means. I figured it out after looking through a few times. But I prefer having two sections - an "in" and an "out" and then have a column with type/fee which can have "loan" or "end of loan" (among others). --SuperJew (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The MOS is here. GiantSnowman 21:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

So, if I were to follow the MOS, would I put the players returning from loan in the "Transfers in" section? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

For me, the way the Italian wiki handles transfers makes the most sense: divide into Purchases and Sales. Those two tables are further divided in half: the top half of each table shows the main transfers (ergo, based on the previous season's squad). "In the upper part of the 'Purchases' table, only the purchased players who were not part of the squad of last season and who were part of the first team quad must be entered; in the 'Transfers' table, again in the upper part, only the players of the previous season's squad who have been transferred should be included". The tables are divided into Role, Name, from/to, mode (so no date, but with a "mode" column). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I would only include the last of those three, but I wouldn't refer to it as a "loan redemption". Re: the first two, all loans have end dates, which is what makes them loans rather than permanent transfers, so the idea that the end of a loan should be included in a list of transfers is fairly preposterous to me. A loaned player remains registered to their parent club throughout the loan period, so there is no transfer of registration back to the parent club at the end of it, the player just stops being registered to the loan club. As for players previously on loan being purchased by the loaned-to club, that should be treated like a normal transfer that just happens to be to the club the player was already playing for; they cease to be registered to the parent club, so there is a true transfer of registration to the new club as opposed to an adoption in the case of a loan. – PeeJay 16:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the A.C. Monza transfers section. What do you think? For me, we should include returns from loan (that make part of the first team squad, at least), such as Dejan Kulusevski who was purchased by Juventus in January 2020, re-sent on loan to Parma, and is now (September 2020) part of the first team squad. While Juventus paid 40m in 2019-20, the "effect" of the Kulusevski transfer is felt in 2020-21. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

But the Kulusevski transfer actually happened in 2019-20. The fact that he was sent back to Parma on loan for the second half of last season is kind of irrelevant. I would also create separate tables for "transfers" and "loans", so that you don't need to say things like "two-year loan"; you could have a separate table for loans with a column for the exact end date. – PeeJay 20:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Many of Monza's loans, for example, are loans with obligations to buy. They are de facto permanent transfers, with Monza just having to pay the next season rather than this. It would seem strange to list these transfers separately from the free transfers and the permanent transfers (Monza, for example, say that they have made 10 deals thus far). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

A loan and a transfer are two different situations, so should be separated into different tables. I really hate it when people put loans in the same table as transfers. All the loan information can be put into one table. I don't know why you need three different tables for loans there. Govvy (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by three different tables? There is only one table for transfers in, and one for transfers out. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I can only assume he's referring to the "Other transfers" bit at the bottom of each table, but I'm not sure where the number three has come from. I'm still not sure "Loan redemption" is the best term for what you're describing, by the way, nor why "loan redemptions" and "returns from loan" would be listed apart from "purchases" when you've included loan signings among purchases. I understand that some loan deals include a cash payment, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. – PeeJay 09:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

At the top of the article Nehme1499 made three points and I assume he is creating three different tables for loans! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: Why do you really hate it when people put loans in the same table as transfers? What's the difference between them? (apart from contract status, which shouldn't matter too much to the average reader) --SuperJew (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It's in my nature I guess, I work in commercial real-estate lettings, sorting out contracts, so understanding the law on tenants, loans, short term contracts, long term contracts. In football, transfers are permanent and loans are not. A player returns from a loan and loans have set lengths. It's two different sets of information and we should treat the tables that way. Having it all-together in one table is messy and lacks the precision that you have in an article where the information is split into a few tables. Govvy (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks messy and too technical to me to have the information split. The average reader wants to see 'movements in' and 'movements out'. The type of movement is explained in a 'type' column. --SuperJew (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

comme ci comme ça, btw, שנה טובה Govvy (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm basing the thoughtline of the average reader on reliable sources, which show ins and outs at beginnings of season and they don't separate transfers and loans. and שנה טובה :) --SuperJew (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

As I've pointed out above, splitting loans out allows you to have different column headings. Loans rarely have publicised fees, so that's not needed, and then you can add a column for the end date of the loan, which obviates the need to include "loan returns" in a future list of transfers in or out. – PeeJay 12:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I see no one has discussed the Italian wiki's way of handling this (as I pointed out above). "In the upper part of the 'Purchases' table, only the purchased players who were not part of the squad of last season and who were part of the first team squad must be entered; in the 'Transfers' table, again in the upper part, only the players of the previous season's squad who have been transferred should be included". See their MOS. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay: So every season you expect the reader to check the loan tables of the previous 1-2 seasons? --SuperJew (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No, what would be the point in that? The fact that a player was on loan during the previous season is irrelevant to the current season. – PeeJay 16:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the average reader would expect to see the loan redemptions returns from loan (Dejan Kulusevski), at least in their first year in the first squad. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

But if the transfer happened in January 2020, why would it need to be mentioned again later? I think your terminology is pretty confused. Can you please define your terms more accurately so we know what's going on? – PeeJay 17:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, for Kulusevski I was talking about returns from loan. By "loan redemption" I mean when a club buys out the loan. So, for instance, Monza purchased Dany Mota on loan from Juventus in January 2020, with an obligation to buy if Monza were to gain promotion to Serie B (which they did). So, in 2020-21, Monza paid 2.3m to Juventus to buy him. However, in my opinion, a transfer like Kulusevski to Juventus in 2020-21 is much more important than Dany Mota to Monza in 2020-21. Kulusevski was first made part of Juve's first team squad in 2020-21, whereas Mota was already playing for Monza, he was just acquired six months later. I believe we should include both; however, if we were to remove transfers such as Kulusevski's from the 2020-21 season articles, I would also remove transfers such as Mota's. Sure, Monza effectively paid in 2020-21, but the player was actually already playing in 2019-20. Conversely, while Juve paid for Kulusevski in 2019-20, he actually joined the team in 2020-21. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I understand with Kulusevski that Juventus bought him in January, immediately loaned him back to Parma for the remainder of the 2019-20 season, and now he is part of the Juventus first-team squad. To me, that should be listed entirely within the 2019-20 season, as returning from a loan is not a transfer. It may be an alteration to the two teams' squads, but there is no actual transfer of the player's registration when a loan period ends. The situation with Dany Mota is different as Monza were not obligated to buy him until the end of the 2019-20 season. In that case, I think the loan should be mentioned as part of the 2019-20 season and the transfer should be part of the 2020-21 season; however, it should not be referred to as a "loan redemption" or anything like that, it's just a transfer that happened to stem from a loan. The intricacies of the deal can be mentioned in the Dany Mota article, but I don't think we should be misrepresenting when the deals actually happened on here. If you list the deal when it happened, there can be no confusion. – PeeJay 11:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we have different views regarding the scope of the article. I see the "Transfers" section as a list displaying the "alterations to the teams' squad". So, it should list the differences in the first team squad between this year and the previous one. You prefer a more "legal" approach, listing the transfers the season pen was first put on paper. Did Juventus pay in 2019-20 for a player to join in 2020-21? The transfer should be displayed in 2019-20. I believe it should be in both 2019-20 and 2020-21. I would like to know other people's thoughts, this way we can update the MOS. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Nehme1499. As I said above, the average reader wants to know the ins and outs of the squad, not the legal approach based on the technical contract status. --SuperJew (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess the question, then, is what do third-party sources do? I'm not convinced any of us knows what the average reader wants to know, but what I do know is that traditionally, the ends of loans are not recorded as transfers in English-language media. Check this list of all this summer's transfers by The Guardian for an example. – PeeJay 21:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Transfermarkt include both ends of loans and "acquisitions from loan / loan redemptions / Dany Mota case". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay: OTOH see Fox's list for A-League transfers for 2018–19 season which lists Mauk, McGree, and Ikonomidis loans ending, while also listing Glover, Gulum, and Kalik in the outs (though not sure why they don't mark it as an end of loan). --SuperJew (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I started a new requested move for Mohun Bagan A.C. to ATK Mohun Bagan FC. See discussion here. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting one to watch, a load of first team players out for testing positive for covid, if they do play games, be using a lot of reserve and youth players I guess. Unless more of their season is postponed. :/ Govvy (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I am a little confused by this bio article, is there any notability to this? Govvy (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

He certainly did not play in the Football League as claimed; Bishop Auckland have never been a FL team. GiantSnowman 19:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

And what about the England vs Germany international match claim? Govvy (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

For the England amateur team, yes - he was not a full international. GiantSnowman 19:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Page 24 and 25 of this source (which is in our England national amateur football team article) seems to validate the appearance in 1908 against Belgium and Germany. Gricehead (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

aaa, now I see, looks like GS put a speedy down on the article anyway. Govvy (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

There something a bit suspicious here. The article was speedy tagged by @Northern Escapee: as G4 - substantially identical to a deleted version. The deleted version was deleted as created by a banned user - Schami1989 (talk · contribs) - who was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Gricehead (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

O, thought GS put speedy on it, my mistake, hmm. Govvy (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

So are England amateur internationals notable? He doesn't seem to have any other claim to notability..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Not unless they meet GNG! GiantSnowman 18:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on the conversation above I sent the article to AfD. Govvy (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Should that be moved a slightly different name? Govvy (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

My thought would be (football club). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the club's name OKS Stomil Olsztyn? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I support moving it to OKS Stomil Olsztyn RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I created a Rename request to rename to OKS Stomil Olsztyn here RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Umm, maybe I should have posted but I did a request of a speedy-del switch over on OKS Stomil Olsztyn. Govvy (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, the speedy was removed because of the conversation you opened up, maybe if four or five or so of peeps can comment maybe we can sort it out quickly. Govvy (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the speedy you posted RedPatchBoy (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No matter, looks like peeps are posting on the move discussion you posted. Govvy (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I am curious why was it moved, deleted, bit strange considering they are normally standard articles. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Someone created a template in mainspace, moved it to templatespace, and deleted the redirect. You are free to create an actual article there, no actual article was ever deleted so WP:G4 would not apply. Smartyllama (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave it for now. Govvy (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting any editor to review recent reverts at Tehelné pole. Thanks, C679 13:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice to see you back around C679! FWIW I support your edits and have restored them. GiantSnowman 13:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The editor in question (@Penepi:) is now edit warring. Please can somebody else please review? GiantSnowman 13:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Penepi seems to be the only one trying to discuss this at the talk page. How about take the discussion there rather than here? Gricehead (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Would be happy to see any other users head to Talk:Tehelné pole to weigh in. Thanks, C679 20:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I've been as effective as I can be, but without other editors weighing in, Penepi isn't going to give in. – PeeJay 14:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Just checking, but how can it be a professional woman's team? Govvy (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It isn't, so "professional" should be removed from the lede. Though, it should be notable if it is a first-tier league team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I don't edit a lot of football articles but while reading articles on the seasons of certain clubs, I noticed a trend on the "review" part of the season looking a lot like news reports of literally every game or week (e.g. 2019-20 Arsenal F.C. season, 2018-19 Liverpool F.C. season) rather than a summary of the entire season. I checked the manual of style to see if this was the recommended norm and apparently it is not. Should club season articles like that be completely wiped of the current review section and replaced with a more summarized version? Only asking this to make sure this isn't a normal thing or whatever before editing. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 10:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the content should be far more summarised. The Liverpool article contains this gem: "Three days later, on 29 September, the Reds once again played against Chelsea in the Premier League. A goal from Eden Hazard once again gave Chelsea the lead at half-time before Sturridge scored a magnificent late goal to share the points for both sides" There was nothing significant about that game that merits mentioning (and of course the description of the goal as "magnificent" is not NPOV) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I suppose this happens when editors update the prose every week, and that gives each week more weight than if the whole season review was written at the end. --SuperJew (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Half the content on the review sections of pages like this is genuinely hilarious, few examples from 2019-20 Arsenal:

• Arsenal kept up their fine midweek form with a 4–0 hammering of Belgian minnows Standard Liège in the Europa League. Gabriel Martinelli was again on the double, scoring twice in the opening 16 minutes before Joe Willock scored the third after showing good composure to put away Reiss Nelson's rebounded attempt.
• If 2019 had ended badly, Arsenal started 2020 in flying fashion, beating Manchester United 2–0 to secure a vital New Year's Day win. The Gunners took the lead on eight minutes after Nicolas Pepe guided home Sead Kolasinac's deflected cross, before grabbing the second just before half-time, Greek defender Sokratis Papastathopolous hammering in after David de Gea spilled Alexandre Lacazette's header.
• The Gunners grabbed a fourth in the 95th minute, Lacazette getting his first goal in ten games, hammering Pepe's low pass home, wrapping up a thumping, morale boosting 4–0 win.

In all seriousness, I'm assuming most of these articles were written by fans of the club, and as such can't really have a NPOV. They need to be changed to something like a couple paragraphs detailing only the team's general position (e.g. Arsenal's league table position shifted significantly throughout December) or actually important results (e.g. Liverpool won the Champions League after defeating Tottenham Hotspur 2-0 in Madrid.). Trivial information can be spotted really easily in this case GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 13:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

That sounds spot-on to me. The state of these articles can be put down to a combination of breathless over-enthusiasm by fans of the club in question and a tendency to update them every week with that week's happenings rather than at a point when a balanced overview can be obtained -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Where do you guys stand on what's been written at 2020–21 Manchester United F.C. season? – PeeJay 14:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Not as bad as the other two, but does feel a little over detailed. Govvy (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

What level of prose detail is acceptable in season articles? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Well as long as it's cited I don't see a problem really, often season article negate prose and are rather statistic based articles which is not what we really should be doing according to WP:NOSTATS. So we need a good degree of prose on articles. Govvy (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

On the theme of season articles, should we display, for example, 7 first 11 apps and 10 apps from the bench as 7(10), or 17? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Update -- I rewrote the 2019-20 Arsenal F.C. season review section and I think I've cut out most irrelevant or POV-pushing info, I would appreciate any feedback on it so perhaps we can add definitive "review" content guidelines on the MoS and prevent any article abominations similar to this in the future, especially as it's already happening in 2020-21 articles. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 19:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I have been adding prose to 2020–21 Crawley Town F.C. season for which I base my format and tone on GAs for similar articles, such as 2015–16 York City F.C. season. This article uses a similar review section with prose on every match, similar to 2019–20 Arsenal F.C. season, but well sourced and written from a neutral point of view. Even ones written retrospectively, such as 1920–21 Burnley F.C. season, 1980–81 Ipswich Town F.C. season and 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season all have equivalent sections which detail every match played, and I don't see any reason to only have a couple paragraphs as has been suggested above. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I just think that since match results are already detailed below the review section with the score, the date, the venue, the goalscorers and a link to a detailed match report, it seems rather unnecessary. The readers of season articles that'll want to read about the team's form would either: 1) want to read about at how the team did over the whole season, which is pretty hard to do with even short descriptions of every match but slightly more bearable when it's more of a classic summary, or 2) want to view the results of some or all games, which is much easier to do with the match results section of the article. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 20:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but if you look at 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season, the prose does more than just restate what is in the match results section. It covers matches in far more depth than the table does, and is a more encyclopedic way of writing the article. Either way, unsourced and unneutral prose isn't much better than no prose at all. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on (in addition to the overall summary of the season) having written prose only on important games in the season (such as the draw at Tottenham that won Arsenal the league in 03-04)? It's kinda like how it's discouraged to detail plots in movie articles with information that'll really only matter to the die hard fans of that movie (I know that it's a different situation but you can see what I mean), and anyone who wants to read more details into on a less important match can click on the provided ref for it in the match results section. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 06:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

If people are wanting to add content guidelines to the suggested layout for a season article, I'd just say something like aim for the featured article that is 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season. I'd never read it before, and have little interest in Arsenal, but that article is well structured, well sourced, informative, and interesting. It illustrates how the season went and has a decent stab at why the season went how it did, all the time making reference to reliable published sources.

"Abominations" is a harsh word, but they can occur at both ends of the spectrum: miles of fanboy woffle ref'd almost entirely to club-based sources at one extreme, and unsourced uninformative minimalism that adds nothing to the content of the tables at the other. In between is good. As per the notability guideline (with original bolding), Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:S.L. Benfica#Requested move 11 September 2020 SLBedit (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

On the season article for the League Cup I changed it to bye, but is it suppose to be W/O then? Also the result says Postponed, is there another parameter to change it too? (todays Spurs news) Govvy (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say it's a walkover. A bye "refers to organizers scheduling a competitor not to participate in a given round of competition, due to one of several circumstances", while a walkover "is the awarding of a victory to a contestant because there are no other contestants, or because the other contestants have been disqualified, or have forfeited, or have withdrawn from the contest." In this case, the match was scheduled but Tottenham progressed due to Leyton not being able to field a team. --SuperJew (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Have changed it to w/o and linked to walkover. Govvy (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It was initially postponed but today's news seems to say Spurs were awarded a bye (BBC and Guardian). The BBC quotes from an EFL statement: "In accordance with Carabao Cup rules, Tottenham Hotspur have been awarded with a bye and ...". —  Jts1882 | talk  12:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a special COVID rule, #5.1 on this page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

(ec) That is not the usual meaning of the word "bye", though. "Bye" has always meant a situation where a team is never scheduled to play in a round but got to go right through to the next one eg if 15 teams enter a cup, one gets awarded a bye into round 2 and the other 14 play in round 1 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Please keep an eye out on any page related to FIFA U-17 World Cup, as well as 2021 UEFA European Under-17 Championship qualification. An IP hopper from Indonesia has been vandalising these articles with false info. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I recall a few months ago there was talk here saying that State Leagues for Brazilian teams could get included in the Infobox and the Stats table (preferably in a separate State League column). I was recently editing a player's page and there were appearances in this competition and I included them in the State League category, assuming it was one of those (mainly because it was called 'Liga' and from the basic page information) and since the stats information came from Soccerway which included it in their League section rather than the Cup section on the player's stats page. However, I just went into the actual competition for one of the seasons it seems to follow more of a "Cup" format, rather than a "League" format, leading me to think I maybe should remove and edit it out. Has there been any discussion on this competition previously and how to record it under the new consensus allowing state leagues? Include/Don't Include Primeira Liga (Brazil)? For reference the player I was editing was Auro Jr. and here is his Soccerway page that lists the PL as League. Thanks RedPatchBoy (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually I just checked other Brazilian State Leagues such as the 2016 Campeonato Paulista and they also follow the group stage and knockout round format. So, I guess this could be considered State League then. I had never looked into their format before now. RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@RedPatchBoy: I think this would qualify as an "Other" competition...it's certainly not a state league, because teams from multiple state leagues take part. Maybe it could be considered a league cup, because only teams from certain leagues take part, but at the least it definitely isn't a state league. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Makes Sense. I moved it to other. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Turned up in the new page feed, what do people think? Notable or not? I don't know for that part of the world. Govvy (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The rivalry seems to be pretty notable. However, I would move the page to Indonesia–Malaysia football rivalry. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the page. The matches section needs sourcing though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: I started adding references. --SuperJew (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Forgot I posted this, thanks for the cleanup/changes. Govvy (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Should this be JJ Hooper or moved to Jonathan Hooper? Govvy (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd say yes. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources refer to him as JJ Hooper, as does the Barnet official site. So should stay at JJ Hooper per WP:COMMONNAME RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep it as it is. Searching for Jonathan Hooper online doesn't even yield any result regarding the player. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Govvy (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed we've got a Football academies in England category and a English reserve football teams category. Given no English team has had separate reserve (or under-23s/B) and academy (or under-18) side articles for a number of years, should we just fold the latter category into the former (as it has the better name and is larger)? I searched for how it's done and can't find the right resource, but can at least establish a consensus here first. Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, they should be merged. GiantSnowman 11:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

CfD discussion to merge them started here for anyone interested. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Can somebody review User:GiantSnowman/Michael O'Connor and give me your thoughts on GNG? I think it might just be met but more eyes welcome... GiantSnowman 18:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I would removed the linked to Burnley bit, and you only really need two citations really for Ross County moved. Considering they gave him the number 10 shirt, he must be making a full-professional debut soon for them and with Vigurs suspended now I bet he will make his debut in the big game against Rangers. Govvy (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone. The topic needs a thorough discussion and your opinions about what you all think about the assessment of League season articles.

Just today I paid attention to the assessment of the country league seasons, like 2019-20 La Liga, 2019-20 EPL, 2019-20 ISL etc. I am rather surprised to see that when all of these seasons are written as lists, basically compilation of datas and statistics, but are assessed as article, like: Start, C etc., which I rather think should be assessed as: Start, list and if improved then FL.

Here, what these league season pages basically inlcude, first a lead, a summary about changes happened, then starts all list compilations, list of clubs and their locations/grounds, coach/captain/sponsors, of managerial changes, league standing and compilation of results, season stats which inlcudes, list of goalscorers, assists, cleansheets, hat-tricks, red cards, yellow cards, of home ground attendances and best players per game or per week.

I don't see why these pages are assessed as article when these are typically list articles (my opinion). And perhaps thats why we don't have any FA/GA of season articles as seems no one knows how to improve them. Season league consists the majority of FOOTY articles perhaps 1000s of articles, but we don't have a single best league season article. I've seen many season article which are in good condition, if assessed as list those can easily get the FL status. But if you consider FA it's far from satisfying, as because there is almost nothing to add as prose for each section. All sections i.e, having a list are self explanatory, that means the lists are having one purpose, showing most, highest, best etc. Consider locations/ground, is there any need of a prose? or top goals scorer? itself showing the top scorer on the top of list or highest attendances. And that's why there is no scope of expanding through prose and thus no GA or FA. Above that the infobox actually gives the summary of each section, top goal scorer, longest winning/loosing streak, biggest win/lose from the result section, highest/lowest attendances etc.

Only thing that these pages don't have is "List of" or "Timeline of" but I think through discussion we can make those exceptions. So it will be good for the project, if you all put your opinions with rationale for how to assess these, as article or list, so that we can improve these pages, otherwise these will forever remain as start or C class. IMO these should be kept as list and will be easier to improve and assess. Drat8sub (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be against assessing them as lists. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Lists articles are generally static data, these season articles are live data over a season and it doesn't become static until the season is finished. Also a list article has a direct subject, the football season pages constitutes a collection of different subset subjects. I still think it would be best to regard the articles not as lists on the face of what they are. :/ Thats my thoughts anyway. Govvy (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

There has been a question (twice) at the Teahouse about the year that Sunderland A.F.C. were founded- latest thread is Wikipedia:Teahouse#Formation date of Sunderland AFC. I have asked them to discuss at Talk:Sunderland A.F.C. about this, but just a heads up in case anyone has anything to contribute about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I just discovered we have a whole series of articles on the history of the Southern Counties East Football League (previously the Kent Football League; see Category:Southern Counties East Football League seasons). I did a bit more digging and apparently we also have them for a whole bunch of other leagues below the National League on the English football league pyramid. Some of these leagues have strong histories, e.g. the Southern League, but when you start getting below Level 7 (Step 3) of the pyramid, aren't we getting a bit FANCRUFTy? Looking at 2013–14 Midland Football Alliance as an example, the article has three sources and the official website of that league was run by Pitchero, which hardly has a high barrier to entry. Would anyone be opposed to a discussion about these articles at AfD? – PeeJay 12:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD would be great for establishing consensus. I, personally, can't see these Midland Football Alliance articles passing the WP:GNG test but would be happy to be proved wrong here Spiderone 12:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You could argue that all the non-league outside of national league tables are local to their regions and wouldn't be classed beyond GNG. Southern League has a lot of history, so does Midland. I would not call them fan-craft, it's all correct information which has been provided on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I mean by fancruft. Check out WP:FANCRUFT and you'll see what I mean. I'm not saying any of it isn't correct (although no sources have been provided to corroborate it), I'm just saying it's of limited encyclopaedic value to the average reader. – PeeJay 13:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

What if the "average reader" of Wikipedia isnt into Sports at all, but Ballet and African Rivers, should we simply delete ALL Sports articles? There is no such thing as an average reader, and I dont think you understand what you mean by encyclopaedic ;the hypothetical average reader does not have to read those articles, and can simply move on to other things that interest her. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

If the leagues are notable, and the clubs are all notable, then surely their seasons are notable. Providing these articles are properly sourced, then they don't need to appeal to the average reader, whoever that is. Most of Wikipedia means little to the "average reader". The season articles are limited to those leagues whose clubs are notable, i.e. down to Step 6. It doesn't go any further down than that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that follows. Just because the leagues themselves and the clubs that play in them are notable doesn't mean their individual seasons are. There is basically no context to many of these articles. Following on with the one I mentioned before, there is nothing in its content to indicate a specific reason why that season of that league is at all notable. It's just too far down the national pyramid to register on most people's radars. – PeeJay 15:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, regarding the article originally linked to by the OP, the 2013–14 Midland Football Alliance, the league stats are sourced, just underneath the tables rather than at the bottom of the page (where they probably should be). The info is all sourced. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanx for reminder - here you can see the previous AfD on topic. Martinklavier (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like User:Martinklavier is on a bit of a creation spree. Perhaps we should ascertain whether these seasons are actually notable before they continue. – PeeJay 15:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I've decided to bite the bullet and create an AfD here. I know this is going to be a debate with a lot of strong opinions but AfD is honestly the perfect place for such a debate. Let's see what consensus is established. Spiderone 21:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) Nearly all of his creations fall within the top ten levels of English football, where club notability lies, and season articles for those levels have existed for a long time, ten years or so. He's basically just created the ones that were missing. I'm not sure about the Yorkshire League, how that fits in, because that operates at a lower level. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Could an Admin please protect Nicolás Otamendi JMHamo (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 3 days -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi folks. I have gone to great lengths to explain our convention of only counting league appearances and goals in the infobox to Temp (talk · contribs) – I even included a screenshot at one point – but I have a feeling I'm wasting my time and it's hard to assume good faith anymore.

I explained at ReaperSox's Talk page and their own Talk page. Still, they are edit-warring at Lorenzo Colombo to include a goal scored in the Europa League. Can an admin please deal with this? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

On it. We include only league games (2 games, 0 goals), although I could see why well meaning people wanted to add all games (4 games, 1 goal). Temp's states of 2 games, 1 goal are therefore, respectfully, absolutely nonsense. GiantSnowman 21:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I know but after all the explaining I've done it's hard to imagine they are not trolling. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked for 48 hours as they continued it after my warning - either they are trolling or they are incompetent. Either way they have been edit warring and vandalising. GiantSnowman 10:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks a lot! Robby.is.on (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on and GiantSnowman: I know that the consensus is to include only domestic league apps+goals in the infobox. Do either of you know what the reasoning of this is? --SuperJew (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

'Complete' stats (ie those including Cup games) are often unknown for many leagues, even historically in England etc., and many resources (both on and offline) only report on league. In addition, what Cup games do we include/exclude? National or regional etc.?

It's not too hard to get league stats for historical players, in England certainly - there are books which cover every player pre-WW2 and books which cover every player since. They only cover league stats, though, so for cup stats you would have to find other sources, which as noted above are hard to come by. So for the purposes of consistency, we only report league stats for everyone...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

That sounds a rather England-biased reasoning. Many leagues outside of England, it's hard to come by league stats easily, even today, so more so historically. Sounds to me weird to base the consensus off one country. Regarding which cup games we include, I would assume that if we include all the stats, then we include all the cups, basically all the official games a player played in. --SuperJew (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I was only using England as an example, as that's where I live, I wasn't suggesting the consensus was based on it. But we really couldn't have a consensus to include league games only from England but all games from other countries. That would result in utter chaos, especially for players who had played in multiple countries...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh for sure, I wasn't suggesting that. My suggestion would be to include all official games that we have information about in a player's career. But I'm not too bothered to actually go ahead and do an RfC/whatever about it. --SuperJew (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

SuperJew, not just for England but for most countries league stats will be the easiest to get. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: Actually many "less football" countries, as well as many women players, it's easier to find stats about appearances in a continental league than in their domestic league. --SuperJew (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps. But including league and continental stats but not cup and others, would that be a sensible solution? I don't think so. Anyway, there should be lots argumentative material in the Talk page archives. Let's not rehash the whole thing here. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree that for many countries, and definitely for most women's football, there are very few sources for cup stats. Whereas league stats tend to generally be available for most countries, men and women. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree to keep things as they are. Even in Lebanon today there is no reliable source for any competition other than the domestic league. No cup, no league cup, no supercup. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't work it out, stupid black bar expands, but I can't see how to strip the colours, looks like some text in that bar completely unreadable to me! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: I've removed the colour. Number 57 11:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, now I can see it. I was wondering does that really need to be collapsed? Govvy (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was one whole table before and got confused there, but it's really two tables! heh, I am going senile! Govvy (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

What should be the league position of teams in season articles game by game? For example, in 2020–21 A.C. Monza season, is Monza 4th on par after 1 game (a draw), or 13th due to alphabetical ordering? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The source has them in 13th, no mention of any such thing as "equal fourth place" according to the Serie B website. If they were equal to any position, I would say 10th since the teams in positions 4-9 have actually scored goals, while the teams in positions 10-17 have scored none, but since the league themselves have placed Monza in 13th, we should reflect that. – PeeJay 13:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the cited source says. It's meaningless this early in the season anyway. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. And what about teams that have one game to play? For example, Inter played their first season game in the second matchday. Should we retroactively "fix" Inter's first matchday position to what it would have been had they played during the first matchday? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

What did sources say at the time? This is why I think league position should be given as whatever it was at the end of that day's play. – PeeJay 15:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Only if you are going to go through and adjust every single other team's notional position taking the same games into account. (short answer: no)Spike 'em (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, follow the source. Show the team's position after all games have been played on the actual date of that team's last game. We're recording what the state of a team's season was, not what it would have been if... No retrofixing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. (I was asking all this because the Italian wiki does things differently from here, just wanted to double-check). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Evening guys. So in the last 24 hours the Ronny Rosenthal article started to see his DOB being updated by a few people one at a time from 11/10/63 to 4/10/63. I reverted these as I couldn't find any source to back it up (in fact, any record I could find indicated the 11th, and even informal stuff such as sticker books, Champ Man databases, carried the 11th). I prompted those that changed it to provide a source, and they did. Both pointed at a podcast that is unfortunately in Hebrew so I am unable to verify (and even if I did I have no idea where this would leave us). Bizarrely, the Daily Mail might be rightdating back a few years, and I have found a book which lists all the Tottenham players including Ronny with the apparent right DOB. So, on that front, just a reminder to all that when editing players to check the DOB just in case it has been wrong in all our usual sources! Koncorde (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Funny that I don't have his article on my watchlist, I can send an email and find out for ya. Govvy (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking up in Hebrew "Ronny Rosenthal born October", I find references to his birthday being 4 October. For example: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] --SuperJew (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason why we are using mdy instead of dmy on that article? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't know why it's like that as Israel is same as England which is DMY. Govvy (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Cheers all for the attention, and thanks SJ for the extra sources. Are any of those reliable? Koncorde (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Apart from American and Canadian articles, the rest should use dmy --SuperJew (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: ynet is a reliable news website (the online outlet of Yedioth Ahronoth). Looking at nostal and it's backers also seems to me well researched and reliable. The rest are more fan-crufty, but the amount gives some credence imo (especially as I didn't find a single reference about 11 October on the first Google page, apart from wiki-mirrors). --SuperJew (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds correct, I lived in Israel for a year, learned a tiny bit of Hebrew, but really, 99% of the time I look at Hebrew and it's gibberish to me! Govvy (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vasil3fonov: Is this edit correct? Usually, when a player continues on loan for another season, even though the previous loan expired before the new loan, we merge the two seasons in the infobox. SLBedit (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's correct. They were technically two separate loans (the same way Dejan Kulusevski's loan spell at Parma were actually two separate spells; albeit from Atalanta and Juventus respectively). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, would definitely merge the 2 loans in the infobox. Spike 'em (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Jack Harrison's article list all his loans as just being one loan, so I would do the same here. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

In the Krovinović example, it is clearly two separate loans, and is reported as such. In short, when a player returns to the parent club for any length of time after the expiry of a loan (not counting youth players who might still play at U23 level for parent club while also playing senior level for loan club), and then returns to the loan club, those are separate spells. GiantSnowman 16:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I see Krovinovic as two separate loans. Benfica's season had already started, so he could have played for them. If the loan had been renewed before the season began, I'd treat it as a continuation, as with Fran Villalba's second season at Almería. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as the loan ended at a certain point during the summer and he returned to his original club, then the second loan is definitely not a continuation of the first. A good example of a similar situation is Michy Batshuayi's two consecutive loans at Crystal Palace. Vasil3fonov (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Batshuyai had a whole season between loan spells at Crystal Palace, appearing many time for Chelsea in between, so is a completely different situation. Spike 'em (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thomas O'Connor returned to Gillingham on loan yesterday, having spent last season on loan there too. He played one game for Southampton Under-21s in the EFL Trophy last week, so that is indisputably two separate loans IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with merging the loan spells if they are in the same season and there are no matchday squad appearances in between. But with separate seasons they have to be separate in the infobox.--EchetusXe 07:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, I think that Jack Harrison (mentioned above) potentially spending three entire seasons (and maybe even more, who knows?) on loan from one club to the same other club is a bit ridiculous....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Just came across Damjan Trifković while going through unreferenced football BLPs and just thought I'd share this masterpiece. Also can someone more familiar with the Slovenian language confirm that the diacritic in his surname is correct? Hack (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Could be worse: Wayne Brown (footballer, born August 1977). Number 57 18:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Amateurs... Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I always feel a little bit sorry for Shaun MacDonald, that someone chose to immortalise him with that picture Gricehead (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

At one time, the article on John Nutter featured this image: [7] which a) is a terrible picture and b) is actually of Adam Miller. To be fair I noticed within a minute that I had uploaded the wrong photo....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Always been proud to have captured [8] Andy Carroll, going in for the tackle.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have to say that John Nutter guy looks a lot like the electrician that helps me out!! Govvy (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

A few years ago we had a picture of a (I think) Mansfield player that was taken while he was drunk on a night out. Annoyingly I can't remember who it was. I also seem to recall one where the player was topless, on a boat holding a large fish and someone had added the caption "[Footballer] on the left" as the caption. Number 57 17:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I remember a footballer article with a photo of a guy displaying a large caught fish! Govvy (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I also remember the fish picture but for the life of me I can't remember who the player was...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Seen as we're just having a chat here. I just listened a podcast with Anthony Malbon as the guest. He told the story of how he was called up to the England C team game in Bermuda in 2013. Once in a lifetime experience. He sacked it off to go on a lad's holiday to Benidorm. Unbelievable!--EchetusXe 10:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"Try not to laugh challenge"...I propose we vote to reinstate this one as the Paolo Castellini article photo (behold here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paolo_Castellini&diff=462993352&oldid=456846161), can't get much more camera-friendly than this!

Regarding the "fishing doubt", maybe this'll refresh (or refish) your memory (https://www.google.com/search?q=footballer+with+a+fish&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=s-n2iGH6NIYRHM%252C4FfK5KXfjx4BcM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTX8_Iwe684gltUYPQRj6V6xc6KsQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMmvrPnITsAhVMilwKHfiODYoQ9QF6BAgLEEk#imgrc=s-n2iGH6NIYRHM)? --Quite A Character (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I've found him: Mark Bradley (footballer, born 1988). Number 57 11:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

LOL, @Number 57: I hope that didn't keep you awake all night trying to find him!! heh. Govvy (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Category: People with fish. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

What is the problem with diacritic? Ludost Mlačani (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

the issue is whether it meets WP:COMMONNAME in this English Wikipedia. For example, many Australian soccer players of Croatian or Serbian heritage do not use them in Australia, so it is wrong to add them to their articles. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Aha, yes it does, he is commonly known as Trifković. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The Soccerway profile has his name as "Trifkovič". Just wanted to check. Hack (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Football Association of Slovenia and his current club both uses "Trifković", this name is also on his shirt. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Image added today - a classic - Omer Riza.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This reminds me of the time I took File:Todd Cantwell.jpg on 8x zoom on my phone, and that was the image on Todd Cantwell for over a year.... Thankfully someone eventually found another photo. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I've stumbled upon Loughton Orient F.C. and I'm trying to check if this club is notable enough for an article. It looks like they've always been playing in step 7 so they have no presumed notability unless they've played in the FA Vase. Is there any way I could check that online? Spiderone 21:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Even if they've played in the Vase they aren't notable if the only source for their existence is their own website (btw, the answer is "probably only through Google" - I tried and could not confirm). Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just checked in my copies of the Non-League Club Directory 2006 and Non-League Club Directory 2008, but could not find them listed in the FA Vase & Trophy index. I'm not sure if this means they have not played in the FA Vase, though. LTFC 95 (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The FCHD is usually the best source for stuff like this. Based on their page there, they didn't play in the Vase or at a notable level. Number 57 22:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on the link Number57 provided, they played in the 11th tier of the English football league system. That has to be hardly notable. RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The article was created in 2006 by a long-departed editor who as I recall (yes, I have been around that long) was very keen on pushing the idea that club "inherent notability" be extended from level 10 to level 11 of English football on the grounds that......well, actually I don't remember what their argument was, although I do remember countering it on a talk page and pointing out that a match in the same division that this team played in in the most recent season had had a paid attendance of TWO (!). Presumably the article was created in the hope that inherent notability for level 11 would be accepted, but it clearly never has been, and I can't see any reason for the article to be kept (although the club does score some points for having decided that a good name for a team based in Loughton would be Loughton Orient :-) ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

With regret, I've created an AfD. It's a shame as the club's 'ground' is a stone's throw from where I grew up. Spiderone 08:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010), the USL version of the current MLS franchise, states that the club began using the name Whitecaps FC in 2003. No source was provided but all post-2003 season articles refer to the club as “Vancouver Whitecaps FC,” with the exception of 2009 Vancouver Whitecaps season. I did some searching and the official Whitecaps site has a history section (https://www.whitecapsfc.com/history) that discusses the name. "On February 24, 2003, the Whitecaps men and Breakers women were brought under a new club structure called Whitecaps Football Club (FC), with the set-up to include an extensive youth development program." Does anyone have any insight/sources on which naming convention should be used post-2003? B1GLAX2 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Generally, a season article name reflects the trading name of the club used in a given year. For 2003, that seems to be Whitecaps FC. Hack (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I want to alter the displayed text in a part of a bracket, based on Template:8TeamBracket-2Leg-with third-NoSeeds, such that the default text for the Third place match is selectable and doens't just display as Third place. I want to fix one of the brackets for the 2020 Chinese Super League, where the last match is actually a playoff for 11th and 12th. If this isn't the forum for these sort of formatting questions, can you redirect to somewhere more appropriate? Or for those that are clever, just make the necessary alterations? Cheers. Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Try adding |Consol=Text to replace third place. No idea why it is called that. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Done. ... and thanks. Presumably Consol means Consolation. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. Port keeps reverting my cleanup work at Idrissa Niang (see dif), putting "Idrissa Niang" as his full name (even though it's exactly the same as the article name), putting his national years as "2013–" when he has only played one international game—in 2013—and removes the stub template even though the article is very clearly a stub. On my talk page, he has called my activity "sabotage" and "provocations", and has justified his edits saying "too many pages prove the information in this way and there is no harm in that". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree the full name probably isn't necessary, but if he's still an active player and hasn't retired from international football, I don't see any reason to close his international years off. – PeeJay 08:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I never understood why the fullname is displayed when it is exactly the same as his article name. Kante4 (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A sourced fullname field confirms what the player's full name is, whether it's the same as the title of the article or not. I'm pretty sure the readers can't tell the difference between a blank space that means the player's full name is the same as that of the article, and a blank space that means we don't know what their full name is. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Struway2, if the full name is the same as the article name, then it can be included in the relevant field as long as it is sourced - that is what we have done for a long time, GiantSnowman 09:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"2013–" implies he has played since. If he only played in 2013 it is both unnecessary and misleading. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

99% of players don't officially announce their retirement from international football, and sometimes we just have to use some common sense. I don't know about this player's circumstances, but the example I always like to cite is Matt Jarvis. Still playing professionally and never officially announced his retirement from international football, but he's clearly never going to get picked for England again, so leaving his international years "open" would be ludicrous...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This. What is the point? It has been 7 years and he only has 1 cap for Senegal still. Should be common sense right now. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with some users above who say that, with the right source, if the full name = article name, we can still display it in the infobox. I'm indifferent in displaying or not displaying it. Regarding 2013 or 2013–, it's ludicrous to state that the player is still actively a national team player, when he has only played 90 minutes of international football in 2013. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that if a player has not played or been called up for a few years (5?) then you can 'close off' the international career. GiantSnowman 18:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm "closing" it off after the 1-year mark (the same timeframe we use to remove "Recent call-ups" from national team pages). It may be a bit premature, but at least it guarantees that only players listed in the national team articles (Current team section + Recent call-ups section) are active. Otherwise, I wouldn't know how to find the players who haven't played in more than 1 to 5(?) years. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure the consensus is the opposite, or there is no consensus. In this case he's 28, not unlikely that he could be called up again. 'Active' is subjective, and removing the dash to infer they're no longer in consideration for selection after one year is a ridiculously low threshold and I do not agree that it should be any kind of standard, if that means a formal discussion is required then fine. Crowsus (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought that the consensus was always that if a player hasn't played (or at least been called up) to the national team in one full year, then the dash is removed. In my opinion, that is how it should be. There are so many pages out there and players barely ever announce their retirement from international football. What, are you telling me that this player could be playing in 2025 at the age of 33 and still just the 1 cap from Senegal and we would still keep the dash? It just sounds completely ridiculous. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Closing it off after one year is far too soon. GiantSnowman 07:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Closing it off after one year is certainly too soon, but I think leaving it open seven years after the player's only cap looks a bit daft. I would struggle to think of any player who has ever been called up again seven years after their most recent cap....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I think there has been an incredibly long debate and many controversies about my article, Idrissa Niang, and I do not think that the participants follow the articles similar to my article as they did with it. If we go back to articles about international and well-known players, we will find that I did not differ in writing the article about it. I discussed Nehme1499 and ArsenalFan700 and came up with examples that prove that I did not violate the rules of writing in Wikipedia, but it appears that there is a special racism that made them insist on spoiling the article while they do not dare to spoil articles written in the same way about well-known players (as of the Arsenal players). The rules either apply to everyone, or they are clearly racist against specific people. I think that there are those who think that they have the right of veto and the right to guardianship over the work of others, while the achievements of others must be respected and not to carry out sabotage activity in an arrogant manner under the pretext that he is smarter than others. I hope everyone will leave racism. Mr. Port (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is clear racism with you, and although I made clear the reasons for keeping the article as it is, these people, strangely, insisted on sabotaging the article. I hope in Wikipedia we find a high committee that holds them accountable severely. Moody2019 (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. Port: it is not YOUR article, see WP:OWNERSHIP. Your accusations of racism (reiterated by @Moody2019: are inappropriate and unfounded and should be retracted. GiantSnowman 07:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Racism is here, so why turn a blind eye to it? Either the rules apply to everyone or we admit that there is clear racism. Mr. Port (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

No, there is no racism. You are making unfounded accusations. GiantSnowman 07:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Why do you have the right to deny the existence of racism, and I do not have the right to prove its existence, even though I have evidence. Mr. Port (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You have no evidence and you are embarrassing yourself with your continued, inappropriate and unfounded accusations. GiantSnowman 07:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Strange thing, embarrass myself with whom? I just express my opinion as you express your opinion, so why give yourself the right and not give the right to others, who are you? Mr. Port (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Port, your accusation of racism with zero evidence is way out of line. Also, as GS has pointed out, there is no such thing as "your" article: WP:OWN. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Robby, I know that the article is not mine, but it is an effort, and I should discuss those who try to sabotage it. I mentioned previously the evidence of racism that proved its existence, so discuss the evidence first before rejecting the accusation.Mr. Port (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You have no "evidence" of racism and are just talking rubbish -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Bingo. Show us the "evidence" (Spoiler: There is none as there is no racism right here). Kante4 (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Port, again, "sabotage" is out of line. A central Wikipedia tenet is to assume good faith. What I'm seeing here is disagreement over certain issues. I can't spot any evidence of racism or bad-faith editing. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, there seems to be a racist group present here, Generally, Robby, when I show you the evidence, will you do something or will you be with this group? Mr. Port (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless you provide evidence it's shameful to keep calling others "racist". Present evidence – now or never. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Port, do not bother yourself . It is clear from the tone of speech that he will not present anything. It is strange that you explained everything in your first chat, but they do not read.Moody2019 (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Can a level 18 league like Bournemouth Saturday League be notable as per WP:FOOTYN? What are your thoughts? How strict are we about criteria in cases like this? Spiderone 11:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Such questions in the past have just tended to result in people saying "it is notable because it is part of the English football league system", although as the system is only actually officially defined down to level 11 that's debatable anyway......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't see a way for it to meet the FOOTYN criteria so I would say no. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we need to be a bit more definitive in determining notability for leagues and actually putting some that don't meet it up for AfD. In the case of a league like the Bournemouth League, we are talking about literal park football, and it's hard to see how it could be considered notable....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

If the pyramid only goes down to level 11, then anything below that is non-notable surely? GiantSnowman 07:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I've put it up for AfD. Given that the article is almost as old as Wikipedia itself, I've figured there must be some reason for keeping it but I'm struggling to see what that is. Spiderone 08:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, as I recall, back in the early days, when people thought less about notability than they do now, there was something of a drive to produce articles on every single men's Saturday league in England, driven largely by an editor who also maintained a website wherein he attempted to define the "full and definitive" English football league system incorporating literally every single such league (and which was then used as a source for the articles on WP). This article would have been created way back then and just sat here relatively unnoticed ever since...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess the mission back then was to make the encyclopaedia as big as possible. Now that it's massive, there seems to be a wealth of articles with unsourced info that's almost entirely original research and impossible to find sources to back up and that's just from the football articles. Spiderone 10:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just come across the Bristol and Avon Association Football League, surely that should go to? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That article was actually kept at AfD, although that was quite a few years ago and obviously consensus may change..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I find it kinda odd that Chris Smalling sale is £13.6 [9] and Alex Telles being brought is also £13.6 [10] There isn't some mixup the BBC have done is there? Govvy (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I can see other sources which quote the figure of 15m Euro for each player, which would suggest it's just a coincidence..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

hmm, so £13.6 might be more generic like £15 or £20 million when converting over from Euros? Govvy (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It's 15m Euro converted into GBP...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's nothing too complicated. – PeeJay 18:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The article on "gypsical" American soccer player Dale Mulholland could do with some work if someone is up for a challenge. Hack (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I was very surprised when I confirmed that he actually played in the Soviet First League with Lokomotiv. I'm sure there are some decent offline sources, but it might be tough finding much online. Jogurney (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the early history and the image upload data, I'd say the article has either been created by Mulholland or someone close to him. There's a bit of coverage in regional media in the US but there's a lot of reliance on his word, which seems a little unreliable. Hack (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Well the article was created by Nicojkt, whose userpage now redirects to the Dale Mulholland. So seems likely it was him/his family/COI editing on his behalf. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirect - the Mulholland article needs to be stripped to a stub and re-built. GiantSnowman 09:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The licensing of the images in the article looks a bit iffy too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I started Files for Discussions discussion about images here. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. Apologies in advance if this isn't exactly the right place for this question, but it is football-related.

So HeyGuysItsMe added a release of a player which he sourced with a press release from the club which includes text and a 15-minute long video. I didn't have time to watch the full video, but didn't see the player mentioned in the text and therefore reverted. Then HeyGuysItsMe restored the edit pointing me to the minute it is said in the video. Now, obviously I agree this is true and appears. My questions are 1) do we source by video? (seems to me like it should be a possibility, but what is the format?) 2) when we do source by video, is there a way to point to a specific time? (like for text we have the "quote" parameter) It's not fair on the reader to make them see a 15-minute video for one sentence, and the difference from text is for text one can scan and/or use the "ctrl+F" function.

Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The template {{Cite AV media}} is the template to use here, it has a time parameter that you can use to say how far into the video the relevant information can be found. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 07:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Gasheadsteve! --SuperJew (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I made a request to implement assessment code for the Finland task force and Norway task force on the WP Football template, but apparently that was controversial. Then came User:PeeJay and suggested that all the Nordic nations get a common task force. I understand the benefit from getting more manpower, but I'm not convinced it's a good idea to merge. But that depends largely on what the people it concerns think. I believe that if Nordic people are willing to come together and commit to neighboring leagues it will be good, but if not, then it's probably better to have them separate. Implementing the assessment tools for those task forces lacking it, and with that getting exposure on the talk pages of concerned articles, might attract as much interest as a merging.
I personally would prefer to have them separate and just have the assessment code/tools implemented for Finland and Norway, but I'm not against a merging. To read the previous discussion and my full argumentation, go here: Template talk:WikiProject Football: Links to Finland and Norway task forces
What do you think? --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the Finland and Norway task forces have existed for several years now. I didn't realise this when I first raised my objections, but given their long-term existence under the aegis of this Project, we should probably have added them to the Project template ages ago. That said, the Finland, Norway and Sweden task forces have only a few members, and some may have long since retired from Wikipedia. For that reason, I suggested creating a Nordic football task force to cover Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. It might take some effort to repurpose categories and whatnot, but the creation of a new task force might spur some activity in that area. – PeeJay 22:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure a Nordic task force would do any good, compared to the work needed to set it up. I for one have no interest or knowledge whatsoever about non-Swedish football (or rather, my interest and knowledge about Norwegian, Finnish, Danish and Icelandic football is about as big as my interest and knowledge about German football), I imagine most potential participants would feel the same. Why not just keep them? If there is a good reason for reducing the number of task forces, let's start with task forces about individual clubs. – Elisson • T • C • 11:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

There would be nothing about a Nordic task force that would force anyone to contribute to any area they didn't want to contribute to - if your focus is Swedish football, that could be your speciality within a Nordic task force. Agreed about the clubs though. Some clubs like Man Utd and Liverpool it makes sense, but the individual MLS clubs are a bit much if you ask me. But that said, I'm not looking at reducing any task forces, it was merely a suggestion based on the numbers of participants each one had. As I said, it would probably make sense to add the functionality for the Finland and Norway TFs to Template:WikiProject Football regardless, but it was just an idea. – PeeJay 12:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand, though my point (which I did not state very clearly ...) was more about there being very little overlap in discussions in such a task force (and if there were, the discussion would equally as likely concern more countries than only the Nordics), thus not creating much added value. – Elisson • T • C • 18:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

After searching through the archives it seems these matters have already been discussed, even by PeeJay, and pretty much concluded:

• The proposed formation of a Finland task force (with discussion on a Nordic)
• Unsupported parameters in Template:WikiProject Football

Response was more enthusiastic there, but matter-of-factly the same as now, so I would say there is support for implementing the parameters in the template. If some feel strongly for a merging we can do that anytime, that question is still open. I believe the assessment tools will be a good indicator of whether a merging can be overall better or not. I'm thinking this can attract more people to those task forces, but if not, then merging might be the way forward. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I just posted a draft for the template, hopefully it will be implemented soon.
I've been thinking about this. If a Nordic task force was formed, would it be possible to still have separate assessment tools for every country? If so, then I would be positive to a merging. But I still think we should take one step at a time and see if this template effort have an effect first, for at least a year in my opinion.
Btw @PeeJay: there's come up a Greece task force recently ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 Template:River Plate (Uruguay) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 71.208.32.185 (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Farmers League (football) notable enough to have an article? What are other people's opinion. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Is that the right link? It's red..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't find any article title similar to it, either. Farmers' League and Farmers' League (Sweden) are both about political parties..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing he means the colloquial term "Farmers' League", referring to a league perceived to be not as competitive as others. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, he was asking if an article could/should be created, not querying one that already existed. What can I say, it's been a long day :-) I have to say, personally I have never ever heard that term, but maybe that's just me........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: What do you know about the Farmers League? I must say that I haven't heard of it either and some info about it would help decide weather it is notable or not. Also have a look at WP:FOOTYN for the notability criteria for leagues. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: - per Nehme's comment above, it isn't an actual league, rather it's a slang term used to refer to a league perceived to be not as competitive as others -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems to mostly be applied to the French Ligue 1 per this...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: ooooooh, thanks, I guess I'm not the only one with a tired brain this afternoon. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I meant is the football insult Farmers League notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Having done some Googling I would probably say no, but it would be suitable for an entry on Glossary of association football terms -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Also agreed! GiantSnowman 15:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Also agree, it's a glossary term that needs no more than a sentence or two. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added it to the glossary. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

There is also already farm team which cover some of the aspects. – Elisson • T • C • 17:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No sorry those are entirely different terms - but I would add that 'farm team' should be included in the terminology article, albeit the phrase and the tactic are not used in football as commonly as in other sports. Crowsus (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually i see 'feeder team' is already there, directing to the Farm team article, but it could do with a bit of a tidy up. Crowsus (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, in Swedish the prefix farmar- (farmer) is used for both league and team and means basically some kind of feeder league or club (either official or perceived), which may have confused me. – Elisson • T • C • 18:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Is calling the standard of football akin to a “farmers league” similar to calling it “Sunday league”? – PeeJay 21:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is. Have you been on Facebook recently? Any other social media? That's how many people refer to it. It's common there. Maxim.il89 (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I was just reading the article and at the beginning it says the club was founded on 1892 then goes on to say it adapted it's name to Olympique de Marseille in 1899, but in the info box it says the club was founded in 1899, should that not be 1892 also?? Govvy (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I did I quick search on google. The clubs website says it was founded in 1899. Then on this website FootballHistory it says the sports club was founded in 1892,but the football team was only created in 1899. Since the article is about the football team 1899 seems to be the right date RedPatchBoy (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Then I think that first paragraph on history might need a slight rewrite to make it a bit clearer. Govvy (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've created a proposal for the articles on Faroe Islands' two wins over Greece in Euro 2016 qualifying, currently on two separate articles, to be merged into one. Please have a look and comment if interested, thanks. Crowsus (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why in club and national team articles we're suggesting current squad or current roster as headings. If there is no other, why do we need the unnecessary word? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't we also have a section for "recent call ups"? Probably why. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. A lot of player articles say that players are "currently" playing for X club. Superfluous word.--EchetusXe 09:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it not to differentiate from players in the junior ranks who might be in a future squad? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"Current roster" is used on team articles in many sports, not just football/soccer. See examples from Basketball, Hockey, American football, Baseball, Lacrosse. Seems to be more of a wider WikiProject:Sports custom. When I looked at various team articles in some of those sports, some just used "Roster" and others "Current Roster". Doesn't appear to be a specific hard or fast rule in them. I have no preference to either use, just wanted to point out the use (and inconsistency) in other sports with regards to the same heading use. RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Because there are also lists/articles on former players... GiantSnowman 07:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

But in the article, roster or squad is all that is needed. If there is a need to link to historical lists, we can do so appropriately. We cannot fix the other projects, but we can fix ours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Where is it suggested for clubs? You changed the heading in the Club MoS like 5 months ago, without discussion :). Disregarding that, the de facto usage had likely already changed at that point. Looking at our featured articles on clubs that have a section for current players, the section headings used (first level / second level) are:

• 9 use "Players / First-team squad" (or without the hyphen)
• 8 use "Players / Current squad"
• 1 use "Players / Squad"
• 1 use "Players and staff / Current roster"
• 1 use "Current squad"

I do see a point however in not just using "Squad", as GiantSnowman also points out, as the article may also contain lists or information on former squads, etc. – Elisson • T • C • 18:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did. I was concerned about the national team template. Not many club or national team articles do contain specific season former rosters, and it would make sense to list that under {season} roster, wouldn't it. It would not be confused with the current one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking more about all-time squads, etc. Also thinking about that it may be obvious for us (since we know what kinds of articles exist), but may not be obvious to the casual reader. – Elisson • T • C • 07:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

We should avoid "Current" and replace it with a year or season indication, so not "Current Squad" but "2020-21 Squad" or so. "Currently" is included in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. This avoids issues like a "Current Squad" from 2013, 2014, 2015 (but undated), 2018, Unknown, 2014?, 2018, ... Fram (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That concept does not really exist in English football, it's not a USA roster system. Players who were part of the squad at the start of the season might leave halfway through - but a section called '[CURRENT PLAYING YEAR] squad' would have to include them even though they have left... GiantSnowman 09:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Then eschew temporality altogether and just have squad or roster. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

An anon editor seems convinced that winning a penalty shootout, after a draw at full time, should be counted as a win. Clarke’s Soccerbase stats [11] say otherwise. Do we not count these events as draws? If so, maybe someone could engage with this editor?--Egghead06 (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This is absolutely the case. When a match is drawn, the result is a draw. I would have to check, but I am pretty sure the Laws of the Game specifically state this. The shootout determines which team goes through to the next round but doesn't alter the result of the game itsef..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep - consensus on Wikipedia is to count penalty shootouts as draws. --SuperJew (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

More at Talk:Steve Clarke#How to count a penalty shootout..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

IP is still reverting, and flatly refusing to engage in talk page discussion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

IP reverted, warned, and page protected (given they seem to be hopping). GiantSnowman 19:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Africa task force § Casablanca derby. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I am currently reviewing List of international goals scored by Ali Daei for Featured list status, and I am unsure as to whether national-football-teams.com should be considered a reliable source. It does not at first glance look to meet our criteria; there is no evidence of significant peer-reviewing or expert credentials. The nominator has suggested that "Benjamin Strack-Zimmermann the writer of the site is famous writer in this area", can anyone back that up or refute it? Any assistance in demonstrating that this is or is not a reliable source would be greatly appreciated. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think NFT is RS, myself. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 108#International caps of three years ago for why, but my reasoning hasn't changed. It's long established, well known and well used (including by me, in cases where I believe NFT to be accurate and I can't find a better alternative), and Mr Strack-Zimmermann and his site have had media coverage e.g. this piece in the Hamburg edition of Die Welt (Google translate does a decent job, if you don't read German), but it's still a personal website. The major problem I have with it, as mentioned at the thread linked above, is that he has his own ideas about what count as official matches, whch can impact on player notability as per WP:NFOOTY.

If it's only being used for matches that 11v11 haven't got full details of, I'm guessing RSSSF will have at least some, if the nominator looks hard enough. For instance, goal #58, currently sourced to NFT and an RSSSF ref, is fully covered on this RSSSF page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I had a similar conversation on Talk:Gregory Richardson#Goals regarding the difference between how NFT and RSSSF categorise caps and how the statistics are shown on Wikipedia. It is especially prevalent for North American players as several nations that compete within CONCACAF do not have FIFA membership leading to the discrepancies. Felixsv7 (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I would say that NFT is arguably the most comprehensive database for international football. Is it good enough for a FL/FA? No. I think it should only be used in the absence of better sources (RSSSF pops to mind), for non-featured content. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It is by no means perfect, but it's one of the better resources out there. Their separation of FIFA and non-FIFA games is, however, sub-optimal... GiantSnowman 17:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

see this article References or my search showed his name existed in 5241 articles of wiki when we speak about WP:RS in wiki, it means that we can use the source or not in the articles and there is no different for Fl's candidate or non-featured content. with replacement of User talk:Struway2's link it(NTF) has been used in 7 of 94 refs (because of absence of better sources). we can be flexible for matches that 11v11 haven't got full details of them. I just spoke about my article here. --Mojtaba2361 (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

they are used as aid links.the main is RSSSF for those rows and now there are no separate refs for NTF for above article.Thanks.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

What's this with that threaten and removing my source at Per Mertesacker. I gave 2 sources. Mattythewhite (talk) removed one of them and now saying my first source is "not an independant source" ? The second source is from ZDF, a German channel, whom Mertesacker currently working for as a football analyst and expert. Almost every company conducts a pre employment medical health check for their own employee. So there's no better source for now than that from ZDF.

Also, my first source is used and accepted a while ago by German wikipedian : https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_Mertesacker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undergroundmall (talk • contribs) 06:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Undergroundmall: Please continue the discussion you have begun at User talk:Mattythewhite but with a more moderated tone. Please see WP:BRD for information on how to resolve disagreements. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the thread from my talk page given the user's tone. My issue is regarding the quality of the sourcing used for player heights. Mattythewhite (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest this is taken to the article talk page. GiantSnowman 09:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Macclesfield are being relaunched [12] as "Macclesfield FC". I believe the new team should be covered in a new article, as per Chester F.C. & Chester City F.C., Accrington Stanley F.C., Accrington Stanley F.C. (1891) & Accrington F.C.. What are other people's views? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a new club, the old one has been dissolved - see also Bury F.C. and Bury A.F.C. for a more contemporary example akin to the Macclesfield situation. As such, the new one should be at Macclesfield F.C. or whatever the final name ends up being. GiantSnowman 13:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Do we wait for the new phoenix club to be extensively covered by reliable sources, or is today's coverage sufficient to start a new article? Paul W (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

According to the Independent the new club will become Macclesfield F.C. so I don't think we need to worry about moving articles around, we can just put hatnotes on the old club article instead. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree there is no need for a page move - we'll have to wait and see if the new club is allowed to play and whether that is at a notable enough level. Being a phoenix club is not sufficient on its own. GiantSnowman 16:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This may take time. It was six months after Bury F.C.'s EFL expulsion before Bury A.F.C.'s application to join the NWCFL was approved. Paul W (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you just have to fall back on WP:GNG if you want to create the page today if it doesn't fulfill FOOTYN. To me I think there isn't much shortage of reliable 3rd party sources around. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that coverage of an announcement of on the day of that announcement gets close to GNG. Not an announcement of somebody planning to set up a football club, anyway, even if one of the people involved does have a high media profile. Pretty much the whole of public knowledge on the subject is already on the MTFC page, and it takes up 3 lines. GNG ought to require rather more significant and substantive content than would be got trying to refactor those three lines into a stand-alone article just by claiming that multiple RS had covered it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Common sense would dictate this wouldn't be a one-off event and that WP:GNG will be easily met in the future if it's not already, but I would recommend creating the article in draft space just in case. SportingFlyer T·C 18:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SportingFlyer that starting a Draft now could be beneficial. I agree that this likely won't be a one-off event, but starting a Draft has the benefit of it popping up if someone tries to create an article without having seen this discussion through clicking a redlink. Currently Macclesfield FC redirects to Macclesfield Town though I believe. That re-direct would probably need to be removed first. RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As you may be aware, we are getting quite a lot of referee stubs, at the moment, sourced only to football database websites and, in almost every case, a BEFORE search yields next to nothing. My understanding is that referees are not covered under WP:NFOOTY so refereeing in a fully professional fixture doesn't automatically qualify them for a stand-alone article. If consensus has changed, then maybe I'm not aware of it. Some of the stubs include (and are not limited to) Hubert Istace, Albert Meerum-Terwogt, Emil Kroner and Franjo Bažant. It appears that the creator is looking to create an article for every referee that has ever officiated a match involving Germany. They have had comments on their talk page from a number of other editors; all addressing similar concerns regarding lack of sourcing, articles being rushed into mainspace too quickly, creating articles on people that might not be notable. I've commented a couple of times (even suggesting they use the draftspace) but feel it's falling on deaf ears as he/she will go away and create another article on a referee with the same issues as the others.

I don't think this is the best place but I was wondering if we could consider:

• Making referees inherently notable having officiated an international
• If someone high up could have a gentle word with said user to maybe see if they will slow it down a bit and try to make sure articles comply with GNG at least a bit Spiderone 13:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I've left him a message. GiantSnowman 13:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like his response to you is fairly similar to the way he's responded to others. Looking at his sandbox, I think he's only got about 15 or so more to create so, hopefully, after those, he starts taking a bit more time and not rushing articles through as he's been doing. Spiderone 14:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The response seems to be WP:NOTLISTENING. For poorly sourced BLPs, moving them back to draftspace is often a preferred method rather than deleting. But I agree that one or two line articles on referees do not demonstrate that they pass WP:GNG. And my 2p is that we shouldn't try and make a SNG for them unless most referees do also meet GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes yes I want no red link left about referees who officiated germany matches. I want expand articles about German football. I know wikipedia's have more rules about creating but i think this article type (as you said or as you shown) include only my edited articles. please pleaseAlmgerdeu (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Saying WP:ILIKEIT does not mean the topic is notable. GiantSnowman 16:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I have a suspicion that this user is a sock of the blocked user Schami1989 / Ekspertiza, who also did a lot of editing regarding the German national team. I recall you deleted a number of articles created by this user per WP:G5, would you be able to check any of the deleted pages for evidence/similarities? If I'm not mistake, they've recreated about 14 articles you had deleted. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: which deleted articles have been re-created? GiantSnowman 20:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Sorry, I meant to say Schami1989 / Ekspertiza. Here's a list. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've taken a quick look - at Alexander Lemus for example the exact same source is used to verify very similar wording about the sending off. Could be a coincidence, but more likely DUCK. I'd like a second view from another admin - @Number 57, ChrisTheDude, Mattythewhite, and Fenix down: are you able to review please? GiantSnowman 20:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure. It's true that the deleted article said "in this match he sent off in the 44 th minute with repeated foul play after second yellow card" and the new one says "In this match he was sent off in the 44th minute after getting a second yellow card", citing the same source, however the quality of the English in the new article is much better and "Colombia" is actually spelt correctly (in the deleted article it was spelt "Columbia"). I suppose it's possible he took some more English classes since last year....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

On a similar note, is John Blackwell (referee) notable? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that he isn't on the basis that he only appears to be notable because of 1940 Mandatory Palestine v Lebanon football match. If there are any secondary sources covering him as an individual rather than just saying that he was the referee of that fixture, then I might change my view. Spiderone 07:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that most referees, even ones who officiated international matches, probably aren't notable. When was the last time you saw SIGCOV of a ref who wasn't Pierluigi Collina? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello there,

do you think this disambiguation page will still be needed with only one item? I elaborate: we are informed there that Juan Carlos (footballer, born 1956) has that nickname, but he hasn't, only Juan Carlos (footballer, born 1990) is known like that.

Maybe the confusion stems from this reference, found in the 1956 article (please see here https://www.marca.com/futbol/malaga/2016/01/07/568ec4af268e3edc488b45d1.html)? Sure, the title is "Juankar, surgery for muscular injury", but what happens is that the 1956 "version", working as a doctor for Málaga CF, performed surgery on the 1990 "version".

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like there was a requested move concerning the older player, but it used a bunch of references about the younger to support the older player having the nickname. I would also say that there is no need for a DAB, as no other evidence that the older had the same nickname. Spike 'em (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

be bold. Matthew hk (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Real Madrid task force/layout/assessment. As it is empty, and hasn't been edited since 2011. The discussion is here if anyone is interested. Thanks. Terasail^[Talk] 14:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Terasail: Looking at it, I think this whole task force can be deleted. Firstly, doesn't seem active at all. Secondly, why do we need a task force for one club? --SuperJew (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew:, Personally I have nothing to do with WikiProject Football and only noticed the blank page when an ip vandalised it. Due to the lack of content I nominated that page for deletion. If the taskforce is inactive then deletion proposals should be put to a discussion for the active members of this WikiProject. Terasail^[Talk] 16:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I see disagreement in source number 12 when League One team Lincoln played Bolton back in January 2020. The source credits the Bolton player Josh Emmanuel with the own goal but the text from an anonymous reporter says the goalkeeper Remi Matthews was the unfortunate player to touch the ball last before it went into the net after Aristote Nsiala attempted to clear it. Therefore something is incorrect with what the report says about this own goal. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Own goals are not always credited to a keeper if they touch it. For example, all the goals where they try to save a shot, get a hand to it but it still goes in are not credited as own goals. Even deflections off a defender's leg often get credited as regular goals, not own goals. Own goals typically are credited when a player makes an intentional play on the ball (a header, clearance, etc) and that play is what caused it to go in the net. I haven't seen this goal, but if the defender was the last one to make a play on the ball and it touched the keeper while he was trying to save it that would still be an own goal to the defender. RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Iggy is saying that the keeper should be credited with the OG, but is pointing out that the "result line" at the top (for want of a better term) gives it to Emmanuel, but the actual match report below says "when the ball was hacked off the line by Aristote Nsiala it hit his keeper and bounced into the net". So if Nsiala hoofed it, it hit the keeper and ricocheted in, where does Emmanuel fit in in order to get the credit.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You're right. Bad reading on my part - I didn't take in that there were three different players mentioned. I was thinking Emmanuel hit it off the line and didn't even take in the mention to Nsiala after. Yes, something is clearly off there. Here's the goal. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Re the YouTube video, the player who cleared the ball was number 2 who was Emmanuel at the time. Nsiala had nothing to do with play at this point in that video. We will go with what the Lincoln section currently says after I'd noticed a change in ref title. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like very poor article writing in the reference. He mentions everyone except the player who actually kicked the ball into his own net, although interestingly in the score at the top of the reference it is correctly referred to as Emanuel's own goal. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Gabriel Fernando Almeida is not a player for stretford paddock. He has never been on a contract with the club. It was just a jokey thing between the owner and Gabriel to interact with the fans on social media. Gabriel has left Tupynambas Fc. And has not been on contract with no club since. So if we could someone help me to take this off if possible. Gabriel is just training with them for fitness nothing else. Gabrielfernando10 (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a primary source. Ideally, we would want a reliable secondary source reporting on the transfer. Spiderone 16:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Additional context/discussion can be found on Gabrielfernando10's talk page, here. I'm happy for it to be removed if that is what's decided here. RPSwp (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought I would bring this up here because I have seen a variety of different understandings for what team seasons are presumed notable for inclusion. My understanding was that teams that played in leagues listed under WP:FPL were considered to have presumed notability; that would generally disqualify teams from (for an American perspective) USL League Two, the U.S. fourth division. But there is also another notability guideline, WP:NSEASONS which determines that "top professional leagues" can generally be created. This creates some ambiguity for team seasons for teams that play in the top level (e.g. Puerto Rico, German women's league, etc.), but are not listed as "fully-professional" at FPL. What is the consensus for these types of seasons? Jay eyem (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

NSEASONS is written for application to all sports and doesn't really take into account the fully-professional/semi-professional distinction in many of them (although I suspect it may well have been written with the former in mind). However, consensus is clear from AfDs down the years that we take it to mean fully-professional when applying it to football. Almost all top divisions in men's football are at least semi-professional, and I doubt we would want to allow season articles on (e.g.) Faroese clubs. Number 57 18:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

A team in a fully professional league will more likely than not get sustained, non-trivial independent coverage. It's a useful test for inclusion but not necessarily for exclusion - we should be using WP:GNG to judge whether a borderline season article should exist. Hack (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It is clear, it is for all sports and TOP professional leagues, nothing to do with FPL. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeatedly saying this doesn't make it true. Consensus from AfDs is clear that FPL is considered relevant for application of NSEASONS to football articles. Number 57 13:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeatedly saying this doesn't make it true. Maybe you use it, but there is no consensus about it and the policy certainly does not state that. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

There is clear consensus from numerous AfDs down the years. Number 57 13:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Those AfDs frequently either ignore GNG or classify all season coverage as "routine" while accepting similar coverage for FPL leagues. We deleted the 2017–18 Leyton Orient season article, which had substantially better sourcing than 2017–18 Morecambe F.C. season. SportingFlyer T·C 13:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

NSEASONS doesn't specifically exclude anything and using FPL as the sole determinant is very flawed. It just says that top professional teams will generally be notable if sourced prose can be created. In some college AfDs on seasons, the test seems to be whether sourced prose can be created based on WP:GNG. I've also argued a season passes WP:GNG when the season has been consistently significantly covered by secondary media. For instance, the Icelandic newspapers significantly cover their premier league even though it's not a FPL - someone who wanted to create a season article for a top Icelandic team could pass WP:GNG very easily. The bigger problem is many of these articles are poorly created and fail WP:NOTSTATS, even articles which clearly pass the FPL standard. SportingFlyer T·C 13:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This means there is a great resource for articles like 2020 Úrvalsdeild. Would additional articles on each of the 12 clubs for that season really add much to Wikipedia? Personally I suspect not. Number 57 14:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: What can the articles about the 2019-20 seasons of Crystal Palace, Luton Town, Burton Albion, Crawley Town, Bologna, Levante, Union Berlin or Montpellier add to Wikipedia that articles on the individual seasons of the 12 clubs in the 2020 Úrvalsdeild can't? (Important note: I'm not arguing to either direction rn, but I'm trying to understand what in your eyes is the difference between having season article about this club or about that club, with regards to their professionalism level). --SuperJew (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The seasons of these clubs have a higher inherent notability due to the status of leagues the clubs are playing in. The professional status is a reflection of the level of interest in the leagues, and hence the notability of related articles like these season ones. It's exactly the same argument as for players – we don't consider players playing for these 12 clubs notable enough for articles, but we do for the other clubs you mention. Basically we have to have a cut-off somewhere. Number 57 16:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I think there is also a wider issue here, which is that a large number of editors outside this project believe Wikipedia has too many articles on football (both players and things like seasons), and that our notability criteria for the sport is too generous. I'm concerned that the desire by some editors to push the boundary beyond this and allow (as standard) articles on players and club seasons from semi-pro leagues will be received extremely poorly by the wider community, and could lead to a backlash that would see the existing criteria restricted further. This needs to be borne in mind by editors trying to expand the scope of what we consider acceptable for articles. Number 57 14:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Even as someone who is involved in the project, I think the guidelines are already too generous. I can understand giving women's football more leeway than we do now for possible WP:SYSTEMIC issues, but sources for these kinds of seasons are rarely in-depth beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage for a sports seasons i.e. lacking in-depth analysis of the season as a whole. Part of that is probably due to a lack of English sources, so we can't really tell for sure. But what Number 57 has said is fairly in line with the consensus I have seen at AfD and here in the past. Jay eyem (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYSTEMIC is not only for gender, it is for all biases, so I see no reason why only women's football should get more leeway for systemic issues. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't actually agree this would be an expansion. There are plenty of fully professional teams who may fail a WP:GNG analysis of their season, just as there are teams in non-FPLs which will clearly pass WP:GNG. I also don't agree that there needs to be analysis of the "season as a whole," as apart from the occasional yearbook, previews, or year in reviews, those sources don't really naturally exist. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The "season as a whole" coverage wouldn't be an issue if the articles were classified as lists per WP:LISTN. Hack (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone had a look at this article? I want to say that it's a notable topic but I'm struggling to find proof. Even the references included in the article give it just a passing mention. More appropriate for Wiktionary? Spiderone 09:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't see enough sources for it to have a separate article- there are 4 sources there, 1 of which (NY Post) is questionable. And not a lot of other coverage either. Maybe better to just add into Glossary of association football terms or move to Wiktionary (which is a dictionary)? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I am also not convinced that it merits a separate article. Maybe it should be merged into ball (association football) (and also mentioned on the glossary)......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge to ball. Koncorde (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I think just throwing it into the glossary. Similar to that kicking of a soda can or other item as a makeshift ball. I remember doing that as a kid. Turning a piece of garbage into a ball, even if it wasn't round. RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The difference here is the informal ball is being made into a more formal shape. It's like "jumpers for goalposts". Everyone round the world has thrown something down in the past to create a marker. But if someone crafted a goalpost out of razorwire and defused landmines because it's all they had, and it was a common solution spoken about formally or universally understood, then it might become intrinsically notable. Koncorde (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

There's lots of coverage of players from impoverished backgrounds, particularly in Africa and South America, learning to play with balls made from rags or socks or whatever. One made from cans sounds particularly grim. But just because an item exists and is given a name, doesn't mean there has to be a separate Wikipedia article on it. As per ChrisTheDude, redirecting to ball and an entry on the glossary article is sufficient, especially for such an obvious term - what else would a garbage ball be expect a ball made from garbage (and everyone knows what those two things are). Crowsus (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Well even just looking at page links there is only one actual article that links to that page and there was an AFD for it back in 2008 where it was deleted, then it appears to have been re-created a decade later (maybe it was a completely different garbage ball). I say given this, add to glossary and delete the page and just delink it from the "one article" that links it. RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

For info, the article deleted via AfD was about something totally different (it began "Garbage Ball is a backyard game consisting of two two-man teams who throw two tennis ball from behind the orange bucket and green can into the green garbage can or orange bucket on the opposing team's side.") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Who hasn't played a bit of the old "throw two tennis balls from behind an orange bucket to the opposing green garbage can"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Since it seems fairly uncontroversial, I've decided to be bold and just go with creating a redirect for garbage ball and creating an entry in the glossary. Thanks all Spiderone 16:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect it to the glossary entry rather than to ball ? RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the original article creator reversed Spideron's move, but they set up a deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_October_15#Garbage_ball RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's gone to DRV straight away. If the user wishes to dispute the decision to merge and redirect then maybe an AfD should be started to establish consensus. Spiderone 08:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as this proposal now seems to have come to absolutely nothing, does it merit an article? Should it be merged somewhere (Premier League–Football League gulf?) or just binned entirely as something that was briefly talked about, rejected, and (most likely) completely forgotten about by next week.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

That was pretty much the thrust of why I prodded the article last week. I'm on board with deleting it. – PeeJay 08:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd say redirect to Premier League–Football League gulf and have a paragraph there about it. --SuperJew (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree no long term longevity. If reforms are made, then at that time an overall article should be created, which can mention this proposal. But a failed proposal will likely be forgotten about very soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Concur with all of the above. Crowsus (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree. That's a good location for it to be mentioned, or 2020–21 in English football (or both). Does not need a separate article. GiantSnowman 10:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have merged it to Premier League–Football League gulf. Feel free to trim the content I have merged if you feel it is appropriate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Given that the RfC has been archived, can we reach a conclusion on what we should do? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to restore the conversation from the archive and post a request to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, but I'm not sure there is ever going to be a consensus on this. Spike 'em (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

An RfC with seven options is never going to reach a consensus. If anyone really wants to continue to push for a resolution, I would suggest reviewing what the most popular choices were in that RfC and putting two of them to a new discussion. Number 57 08:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You need to settle on a proposal, and then say 'should it be the status quo (of not having overlapping years) or this' - or, alternatively, just drop it. At this rate this will be a WP:PERENNIAL that will never get resolved, and we all have better things to be doing. GiantSnowman 10:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Can't we just WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on? Kante4 (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#RfC on youth career in infobox. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Rosguill closed the original recommending that if we continue this to limit it to options 1(status quo), 3(overlap), and 7(omit youth). Keeping it to 3 options could provide an outcome, with all the options and suboptions (I think there were like 10 or 11 in total) from before it was never going to go anywhere. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

If we were to do a re-vote, I would suggest providing 1 option and opposing another. Someone voting for 1 and opposing 7 isn't the same as someone voting 1 and opposing 3. I know some people would prefer to oppose 2 options, but we should try to "order" the three options (one is the "best" solution, one is the "worst", leaving the third as a "compromise"). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I like that idea of ranking and/or support/neutral/oppose RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

There is a player database at http://footballfacts.ru

It currently is the basis for Template:FootballFacts.ru and also a WikiData item "FootballFacts.ru player ID" (Property P3660). Unfortunately, they completely rebuilt and moved their database to a new back-office, so it's still up and running, but all the numerical player IDs have changed. For example, the page for Oleg Shatov used to be at https://footballfacts.ru/person/30844-shatov-oleg-aleksandrovich

Now that link puts you at a completely different player and Shatov's page is now at https://footballfacts.ru/person/18980-shatovolegaleksandrovich

The old database is for now at http://old.footballfacts.ru/ so http://old.footballfacts.ru/players/30844-shatov-oleg-aleksandrovich still works.

It is a pretty widely used template (4303+ pages used it), I don't know how many WikiData items have the ID populated, but probably also a lot.

What should be done here? Seems like way too much to fix up manually, but I don't know whether some existing bot can even be used to fix it up or a new one potentially written? Would be a shame to lose the links altogether, but it's better than linking some completely unrelated players.

Thanks,

Geregen2 (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A short-term fix would be to amend the template to link to http://old.footballfacts.ru instead of http://footballfacts.ru Spike 'em (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good idea, I edited the template so the links lead to correct pages for now, it's a bit of a Band-Aid. Geregen2 (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparently opening the link footballfacts.ru/players/<old player ID> (footballfacts.ru/players/30844 for Shatov) will give you a correct redirect to footballfacts.ru/person/<new player ID>. I guess a bot can handle replacing all the links this way to a new format? --BlameRuiner (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Might need some extra eyes on that article after the game earlier. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Someone ping Gary Southgate.--EchetusXe 07:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Has our "pest" returned (e.g. here)? I have some talk pages on my watchlist which is how I noticed and unfortunately remembered the types of editing made. As before, thankfully people from your project spots and reverts them before I do. I never thought we would never see of these edits again after months out (quite close to a Venus year in fact). Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely the same person - check out the gleeful edit summary -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Major clue from the edit summary I linked there. I'm not sure if any of us would catch the LTA out of Wikipedia as the troll could be anywhere in the world. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

His IP address is from South Wales. So if anybody happens to be around there.... REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The IP is fascinating. I must have reverted him a good half dozen to a dozen times last yea. Koncorde (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems there is already an article Luke Brennan who is an Australian rules footballer I was wondering if that article should be changed to a disambiguation page or not. Govvy (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

While I don't know much about Aussie Rules, it doesn't seem the subject of the original article is likely to be significantly more notable than the footballer, so a move to a disambiguated title and a new DAB page is probably a good idea. Number 57 21:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

They should likely be moved to Luke Brennan (Australian footballer) and Luke Brennan (English footballer) per this similar recent move request outcome regarding an Aussie rules and association footballer with the same name here RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I was going to do it, but I was thinking it might be better for an admin or someone with move rights to do, :/ Govvy (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe just do a request for rename instead? RedPatchBoy (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi all

I've been working on and off on History of Coventry City F.C. for the past year or so, and it's getting close to completion now, with just a couple of the periods remaining which need sourcing and rewriting, and an updated lead. I've gone into quite a bit of detail, with generally a few lines of text written for every season in the club's history, divided into broad sections of between 5 and 15 years. The question I'm now wondering about is whether this article needs to be split up. At 90 kB of prose, with a bit more to come, it is approaching the boundary between "probably" and "almost certainly" should be divided per WP:TOOLONG. It seems a bit inconsistent as to how we do this, though. History of Manchester United F.C. gives four periods, each under 20kb of prose, which seems a bit excessive in terms of division. History of Liverpool F.C. has three periods, each of which is an FA (and probably with slightly less detail overall than in my text), so I assume that's the kind of thing to go for, but wanted to get some second opinions here before starting the split. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest requesting Peer Review before splitting. Other users may be able to suggest some changes that might materially affect the article. I have to also say I am not a big fan of this splitting of history as it leads to the usual abandonment of earlier history for more dense present day minutiae. At a glance, it has similar issues to a lot of history articles (including the West Ham one I created) being less a "history" and more a summary of seasons the closer it gets to the present. At some point I need to heed my own mental advice and fix History of West Ham United F.C. which is plagued with similar issues. Koncorde (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm that is an interesting point... Perhaps you're suggesting that there isn't really a place for a history article at this level of detail? Season specific stuff could be hived off into individual articles, and the overall history reduced to a more readable size. The main issue with the recent seasons is that I had to start cobbling together the material myself, there being no published books with suitable summaries, as with previous years. It would also be fair to say that the last 10 years have been some of the most eventful off the field, for Coventry. That stuff really is "history". 🤔 Anyway, maybe I'll initiate a peer review as you suggest.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not that there isn't a place it's just getting the balance right between what should be in the individual seasons articles (which get neglected) and a readable amount in an overarching history article which should focus on outcomes, rather than day to day operations.

From my perspective there is a habit to summarise and editorialise individual matches, runs of form, and political board incidents, transfer policy and managerial decisions etc (among other things) the closer we get to the present. It not that it isn't a history of events, it's just that the readability shifts from capturing the historical essence of a period and instead becomes more of a dense unreadable/less readable fact file.

I am not trying to dog pile Coventry article by the way. It's super common and I am guilty myself because it's much easier to summarise recent events due to the more common RS available. Koncorde (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Botola no longer professional? I was considering putting all of these to AfD, but I really wasn't sure. 2020–21 IR Tanger season, 2019–20 IR Tanger season, 2019–20 IR Tanger season, 2018–19 IR Tanger season, 2017–18 IR Tanger season, 2016–17 IR Tanger season, 2015–16 IR Tanger season. I am off for the night now, peace. Govvy (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Botola is a FPL, and those look like they would be perfectly fine articles if they had prose and sources, and sources should be available. 2017–18 specifically probably needs sources from an additional website but would pass now. SportingFlyer T·C 22:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think I miss read, I thought the Botola was only pro for one season, never-mind. Govvy (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I ran into an issue a couple of months ago. As a Man City fan, I noticed that Qnet were sponsors of both the mens and womens team. I therefore added a short paragraph to the Qnet page, which can be viewed here at the end of the history section. It seems that the page is quite controversial and an editor quickly reverted my edit. I don't want to add to the page's problems by starting an edit war, so thought it was best to ask some seasoned sports editors.

The edit came after seeing corporations regularly linked to sport having dedicated sports sponsorship sections, for example Emirates_(airline)#Sponsorship, Etihad_Airways#Corporate_sponsorship and Barclays#Sponsorships. I am correct in thinking that the paragraph I added was incorrectly removed? Or is there a larger problem on Wiki that needs addressing regarding sponsorship-related content?PeteHaskie (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the article is about a pyramid scheme style business and that the article is mostly negative reports about employees being arrested. Anyway it is out of the remit of this project as it is not a football article. There is a line on the sponsorship: "In 2014, Qnet started a three-year partnership with Manchester City football club to become the club's official direct selling partner.[29][30]"--EchetusXe 15:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes it’s a strange article. As it was a football-based edit, I thought this Wikiproject could have helped, but thanks for the quick response. Any other feedback from other editors is welcome, I’ll ask elsewhere for feedback.PeteHaskie (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. There seems to be some confusion about Tveita's date of birth. This is possibly original research, but he gives 22 October 1992 as his birth date on his own Facebook page. Which is also the date given on Brann's official site: [14]. Many other sites across the Internet, both Norwegian and international, lists his birth date as 27 January 1992 for some unknown reason. --77.222.192.118 (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering if this is really that notable, I was considering PRODDING the article, maybe someone else can have a look. Govvy (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, PRODded it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

How do we display youth players who were called up to a senior game in the club season article? Should they be listed in the squad list? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't know if that's a common solution, but I like the one implemented on IFK Göteborg, i.e. having a separate "Youth players with first-team experience" section below the first team squad list. – Elisson • T • C • 16:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I also do. I'm talking specifically about season articles though, like 2020–21 A.C. Monza season. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

If a player has a first-team squad number and has been in a first team squad during the season, they should be listed with the rest. Having a 'Youth players with first-team experience' section is confusing - at this club, at another club? This season or last season? Have they played or just on bench? Have they just trained with first team etc. GiantSnowman 17:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It's confusing having in the squad section youth players who played 5 minutes in for the senior team when there were no other options, who also often the number they are given is temporary and might be given to another youth player later in the season. --SuperJew (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Squad numbers do not change in the English season, or any other that I am aware of (other than Australia?)... GiantSnowman 18:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I recall a few cases that a couple of youth players held the same number at different times in the season when making their cameo senior squad appearance. Don't think I'd be able to find the sources now though --SuperJew (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Given the section is called "Current Roster/Squad" maybe it's best to go with what is listed on the team's website? Usually that's the most up to date "Current roster" - at least for the team pages. For season articles, I agree they deserve to be mentioned - I'm not opposed to either situation (a separate youth players section or within the main squad). Maybe include a "note" if they're included in the main squad saying they were a youth call up? Or maybe they get included in the main squad unless there's more than a certain amount, so it's not ridiculously long. For example 2019–20 FC Rostov season - I feel a separate section would be beneficial since that 'squad' is a bit much since it was a one-off. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

When a player is issued a number in PL or EFL that's the number he has for the remainder of the season as far as I am aware. For the other issue, each club issue what they class as their first-team on their website and we should match that on the main article. For youth players with first team apps that are still listed on respect youth squads, that should be matched as well. That's my view. Govvy (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

But the PL/EFL is not the whole world, and for e.g. Swedish football I can provide examples of multiple youth players using the same number in (different) competitive matches of the same season. And not all clubs on Wikipedia have articles covering youth squads, so covering players which actually from time to time play with the first team without being part of the first-team squad should in some way be covered in the main article IMHO. – Elisson • T • C • 17:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Came across this guy while going through unreferenced BLPs. Can someone have a look at the Turkish and Albanian external links and work out if he's somehow notable? Hack (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The articles for Segunda División B and Tercera División both claim to be the third division of Spanish football. Which is correct? Hack (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Segunda Division B is the current third tier. Tercera is the fourth tier (Tercera infobox shows this now). However after this season, Spain is creating a new tier 3 division called Primera RFEF so Segunda B will become Tier 4 (to be renamed Segunda RFEF) and Tercera will become Tier 5 (to be renamed Tercera RFEF). RedPatchBoy (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Turns out the article for Tercera Division was correctly identified as the 4th tier, until just before your post. There is an editor who keeps changing it to 3rd - likely due to the name. I have reverted their and left a message on their explaining how it is actually the fourth tier, despite the name. RedPatchBoy (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"England have competed in numerous competitions, and all players who have been capped while playing for Football League clubs, either as a member of the starting eleven or as a substitute, are listed below." - clearly not true, as it doesn't list all the hundreds of players who were capped between 1888 and 1992 while playing in the old First Division. Clearly the scope is meant to be players who weren't playing in the top division, so what should it be re-named to? List of England international footballers capped while playing below the top level of English football......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that title opens it up to players playing in top divisions abroad. Maybe something like List of England international footballers capped while playing for a non-top division club would work? Number 57 19:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

List of England international footballers capped while playing for a lower division club a tad snappier....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree it is badly worded. I've amended the England NT template pipe to 'Capped while at lower division club'. Crowsus (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this page actually notable? --SuperJew (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Definitely debatable, but whenever a player of this type is capped, it gets mentioned in the media quite a bit, so to me that makes it worth a list. Crowsus (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd argue this is just LISTCRUFT. But at the very least, only England caps that were players from the premier League (92-present) or those playing abroad don't meet the criteria. If nothing else happens, the article title is very poor "Football League" is very ambigious. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It's kinda interesting, there is some degree of list craft but I would be more inclined to merge the content into England national football team records and statistics and kill the title, that's so long winded. Govvy (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I'd agree with that, it's not a very long list and there's a lot of other related but even more obscure stuff in that stats article already. Crowsus (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick additional chuckle, the stats article already mentions lower division players, specifically Jack Butland, Johnny Haynes and Gill Merrick, none of whom are in the list article. Crowsus (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources mention "lower league" clubs, so I would support a rename to reflect that terminology. SportingFlyer T·C 20:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

That England stats article is saturated, it really needs addressing and badly, Govvy (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I have boldly moved the article to List of England international footballers capped while playing for a lower division club. If people think a merge would be better, go for it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a bad title. Better that I can come up with.--EchetusXe 14:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I wondering if anyone can help to confirm if Tomás Iwasaki is deceased? Recent IP edits have cited transfermarkt as their source. I have limited knowledge of this project, but I believe that it is not a reliable source. He's deceased on other WP projects, but only transfermarkt seems to list his death details. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Had a quick look and cannot see a reliable source (i.e. not Transfermarkt) for death date. French Wikipedia is using an Instagram post as a source, which is also not reliable, and other wikis have no sources at all for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata also has a load of links to profiles about him, and they all have no death date either. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

His former club Club Universitario de Deportes announced it on their Twitter. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

A verified account on Instagram or Twitter can be used in place of a more verifiable source if it is the only source. --SuperJew (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added it to the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, was there a consensus made in the summer (or in between seasons) to link to away grounds in the "Results by round" or "Results by matchday" portion of the competition section of club season articles? I see a proliferation of articles doing that for the 2020–21 season and have never seen it before. Seems a bit overkill and overlinking to me as the away ground is already linked to in the "Matches" section. But if there was a consensus to do this, then I will start including. A good example is here: 2020–21_Peterborough_United_F.C._season#Results_by_matchday. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I have always thought these links are completely pointless. Without knowing exactly which match it refers to, it is a WP:SURPRISE to see where the link takes you. Spike 'em (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(My other pet peeve with the results sections is the linking of one of 2 timezones on 40-odd occasions) Spike 'em (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: Why is linking the timezone not good? Not every reader necessarily knows all the timezones in the world just from their acronyms. Also linking it only in the first instant in the results section doesn't help since it is viewable after opening the matchbox and a user doesn't usually open all the matches when reading, but rather would be interested in a specific match. --SuperJew (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Didn't we agree to use tables instead of the collapsible template? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure there have been previous discussions about this but results by matchday is a breach of WP:NOTSTATS. All that information is in the results section anyway so you don't need to duplicate it. Also, linking to timezones every time they appear in an article is against WP:DUPLINK. Generally, you should only link to each article once but it's fine to double up on links if it's the first mention in a table or in the infobox. DUPLNK is something the footy project needs to take more not of, we don't need to link to FC Bayern Munich 42 times on a single page. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

And yes Nehme, the consensus is to use a table. It fits with WP:ACCESS, MOS:LIST and MOS:Club season. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The table position is not duplicated anywhere and I think is very useful information. I don't see the point of mentioning time zone though. Surely it is obvious it will be the timezone of the location of the club?--EchetusXe 19:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The 2020–21 season article for Porto is probably the most extensive one I've seen doing this now. Someone has even linked the home ground of the Estádio do Dragão in the results by matchday section too so the stadium is linked at least 40 times in the article. Plus the city of Porto is linked upwards of 20. I will fix but not sure how we got to this point! Also, I must have missed the discussion before, but I am reading the above correctly that the "results by matchday' sub-section should not be included in the competition section when giving an overview of the league season? Thanks all! Rupert1904 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that's right. All the info in the results by matchday section should be included in the results section so it's unnecessary. If you look at the results section at 2020–21 Kilmarnock F.C. season for example, it's all there. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: I don't we can look at these kinds of articles the same way as a regular article about say a person, since the average reader processes them differently. The average reader when reading a person's article will read a section straight through, relevant to what they're looking for. Therefore there, if a word (for example Porto) is linked he'll see it at the beginning and then it is indeed redundant and overlink to link Porto after the first appearance (but in the next section we will link the first appearance). OTOH, when looking at a club season article, the average reader will be looking at a specific match or range of matches according to a time period, and therefore won't see the linking of Porto in the first match of the season when he's looking at the last three matches at the backend of the season. Therefore the ideas of OVERLINKNIG and DUPLINKING aren't relevant here and per WP:COMMONSENSE we should WP:IAR and link them. --SuperJew (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are we suddenly talking about overlinking? We don't need a "Results by matchday" section, not because of overlinking, but because that information can easily be included in a table such as the one that Stevie fae Scotland and I have always advocated for. – PeeJay 00:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)