Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 107

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

Archive 100

←

Archive 105

Squad lists

Can someone explain to me why articles for American and Canadian clubs use a different squad list template than everyone else? It doesn't make sense that we're not all on the same page, and it makes even less sense that they've chosen to use a template that's considerably worse than the one we're using on the vast majority of articles. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Because there is a certain degree of WP:OWNership when it comes to North American articles... Giant Snowman 21:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Ha, I was going to make a similar comment. Remember when we had the threat of a breakaway American soccer WikiProject? Number 5 7 21:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It's so ridiculous. I hate reading articles about American clubs and having to deal with a vastly worse format. It wastes so much space by listing everything in a single column, fully spells out positions and countries for no reason (the whole point of abbreviations and icons is that it saves spaces and efficiently displays information), and the color theming is so clunky and bad. I don't understand it at all. (end rant) Wicka wicka (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Some Championship clubs use that too. It's weird, we should pick one standard and stick to it Dudek1337 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The alternative, wikitable-based, format is MOS:ACCESS-compliant. The commonly-used template isn't. That's the main reason the alternative is used. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to matter to many of us. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, also I don't know all the flags of Guam, Gabon, Uganda etc. The sorting is also nice. The little space it uses more could be used for a picture or something. -Koppapa (talk)

We're not saying one is better than the other - we're saying only one should be used, and introducing a 'new' template without WikiProject consensus is not good editing. Giant Snowman 08:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Five years ago, when the alternative template was new, and had been discussed at length, it was added to a number of club pages as a trial. The trial didn't lead to consensus for adoption, nor did it lead to consensus for removal. A local consensus can't override site-wide guidelines, which means that this project can't – or shouldn't – enforce the use of a MOS-non-compliant template. Particularly when the aspect of MOS that it violates is one whose introductory paragraphs highlight its relationship to the WMF's non-discrimination policy. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain what part of wiki policy the current template violates? All you've done is link to an enormous article and that doesn't help at all. This is yet another example of Wikipedia's byzantine rules slowly destroying the utility of the site. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

As I understood it, the issue remaining was that the way the standard templates implement two columns doesn't generate correctly structured HTML, which means that screen reader software can't interpret them, which means that users relying on screen readers to view the squad lists are fed garbage. It's a trade-off: making the tables look what some of our normally-sighted readers think is vastly worse, or keeping them unusable for all of our screen-reader users. I'm not a technical person, so I don't know if this is still an issue. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I just installed a screen reader (Window-Eyes) to compare the two and it turns out the squadlist used on American articles is actually much worse. The main issues for the traditional squadlist are that "No." is read as "No" (this could be resolved by replacing it with #, which does read as "Number") and that the positions are read out as letters, i.e. G K, D F etc (this perhaps could be fixed using alt-text?). However, everything else reads out properly - the flags are read out as countries and player names are read out correctly.

When it comes to the second version, the header row doesn't get read out (it just says "Sort ascending"), the squad numbers also don't get read out, position names get read out with the disambiguation included (e.g. Goalkeeper association football), as do player names (e.g. Jordan Morris soccer). All of them also get read out twice (so "Sort ascending, sort ascending"). The only thing that works properly is the country name. Based on this, it appears the newer version is the one that is feeding readers garbage if they're using screenreaders. So, seeing as this was the mean reason for adopting it, and it doesn't appear to be valid anymore, can we get rid of it? Number 5 7 22:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: You are doing God's work. I second that motion. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, maybe we should just go ahead and make the changes you suggest (e.g. changing No. to # and adding alt text for positions)? Wicka wicka (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Not doubting your word, but it does seem odd that the names etc should be read differently. I tried installing Window-eyes to try and reproduce your findings, but it sent my laptop funny so I uninstalled it again :(

I did install the Firefox add-on Fangs, as recommended at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images#Audience, which is a JAWS emulator in text form so you read what the screen-reader user would hear. There appears to be no difference in the way it reads the headings, squad numbers, country names or player names in either version. It reads the position initials GK etc in the traditional one and the written-out positions in the alternative. The significant difference is in the table structure. The alternative, e.g. Seattle Sounders FC#Current roster, is just a simple table:

"Table with four columns and eighteen rows No. Position Player Nation one Link Goalkeeper Link Tyler Miller Link United States two Link Forward Link Clint Dempsey left paren Link DP right paren Link United States"... "Table end".

But the traditional is a large table with two smaller nested tables i.e. the two columns. Using Bolton Wanderers F.C.#Current squad, it outputs

"Table with three columns and twenty-nine rows Table with four columns and fourteen rows No. Position Player two Link Graphic England Link DF Link Lewis Buxton three Link Graphic England Link DF Link Dean Moxey"... then "Table end Table with four columns and fourteen rows No. Position Player", then the contents of the second column, then two "Table end"s.

That makes no difference to us looking at it but isn't desirable logically, per MOS:DTT#Avoiding nested data tables.

Incidentally, and not screen-reader related, I just asked the person next to me to view on their Android phone using the WikiApp. The alternative template came up fine. The traditional one came up as two separate dropdown tables, one for each column (which the person concerned finds irritating) with no flags visible at all even in landscape mode. And I'd forgotten what Koppapa alluded to above, that the traditional template still has flags without even a trigramme to help the ignorant. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess different screenreaders do things in different ways; at least we have some evidence to proceed on, rather than the (now debunked) claim that the newer version is superior (it may be for some screenreaders, but clearly not for others). I also just installed the WikiApp to check what you said and whilst the columns issue is the same for me, the flags appear in both portrait and landscape mode and are clickable to provide the country name.

Perhaps we should seek to address the issues that the original squad list has (I'm sure there's a clever way of coding the table to avoid the nesting issue – perhaps using code that automatically splits a table over two sets of columns (and only when the screen is wide enough) rather than manually doing it with {{fs mid}}). Inserting the trigramme has been suggested before (and I was supportive of it), but I recall it was rejected by editors who did not want to compromise on including the full country name. Number 5 7 19:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem with just using the flag icons. We use flags constantly in The Real World to denote nationality and it works fine. On wiki we have the added tool of alt-text or just clicking on the flag to determine the country, if you don't already know it. Adding text to make everything totally explicit is clunky and bad UX. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Match & goals count for a tournament

What's the general consensus on the cases of abandoned and awarded games? Do they count for the total matches/total goals infobox stats? I can see several scenarios like 1) match played in full and result changed later due to ineligible player or other technicality, 2) match started but abandoned due to some incident and later awarded, 3) match not played at all for whatever reason and the result is awarded to either side. -BlameRuiner (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think in cases like (2) and (3) they don't count except in cases where the game is abandoned late and the result at the time stands. Not sure about (1). Number 5 7 11:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

FPL question

I've raised a question in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Campeonato Gaúcho and Campeonato Carioca - notable enough?. Any thoughts about the subject are very welcome. MYS 77 ^✉ 13:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Quick question about manager notability

Would an assistant manager pass WP:NFOOTY if they took over for a match in a WP:FPL? Was wondering about a situation where an assistant took over for a couple of days and was in charge of a match while the manager was ill. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I once asked an admin about this. If the match is within a FPL then I was told it was OK. However, some reliable sources should be added to help the page to reach at least some notability though WP:GNG (that was the case of Miguel Rivera Mora, a page that I've created about a former Almería manager who acted as a caretaker in both La Liga and Segunda División). MYS 77 ^✉ 15:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If it's a formally appointed caretaker/interim manager, then I'd say he would technically meet NFOOTY. But if it's just an assistant standing in for a few days while the manager's off sick, which is something that happens all the time, then no. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Struway2: That's the main issue, I guess. What should be a "formal" caretaker appointment? For an example: "full-time manager is sacked, the club release an Official Announcement by saying: 'manager is sacked, some other person will act as caretaker/interim'?" MYS 77 ^✉ 16:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That'd be enough for me: if a manager leaves, and the club say that some other person is going to act as caretaker, then it's a formal appointment, albeit temporary acting and almost certainly unpaid. If it only lasted a few days, though, I probably wouldn't create an article that just said he was caretaker of FooFC for one match, against AnotherFC on date ... E.g., Richard Beale was joint caretaker of Birmingham City for two matches in 2014, there probably wasn't enough solid content to make a worthwhile small article for him, so he got his joint-entry in the managers list but that was all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, so if the assistant takes over while the manager is out temporarily, should the match still be statistically (and categorically) attributed to the manager?

I'd say so, but the correct answer is go with whatever the statistical sources do. In 2001/02, when manager of Liverpool, Gérard Houllier had heart surgery and his assistant, Phil Thompson, took the team for several months while Houllier was recovering. Both Soccerbase and LFChistory attribute the entire period to Houllier. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Owain Fôn Williams infobox image

Resolved

A reader has expressed a concern to us through OTRS that the image in the infobox of Owain Fôn Williams is not actually a picture of Fôn Williams. (ticket:2016121310025076) I am not familiar with the subject, but it looks like the right picture by checking it with Google Images, but for avoidance of doubt, could someone please take a look and double-check? Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think it is actually Adam Davies [1], who was also on the bench for that match......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed that now, here are correct captions from Getty.Dudek1337 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for both of your help in getting this resolved!

Mz7 (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Swindon Town F.C.

Two different IPs (I assume it's one person) keeps putting the director of football which is Tim Sherwoods job in the Manager slot in the infobox. And Sherwood isn't the manager / coach at the club. I think the article might need to be monitored by a few more ppl as I won't have much time on here over December / Jan much to keep an eye on the article. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That's because there isn't a manager, there's a Head Coach and a Director of Football, and in this case the duties usually taken by the Manager are being fulfilled by the Director of Football. The Chairman of the club described Sherwood's role as including "transfers, the way that we play, the formations and the picking of the team”[2]. How is this not the same as a manager? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.239.174 (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

a, Luke Williams in head coach, aka manager position [3]
b, Director of football doesn't go in those infobox positions.

So for each time you change it, I will knock it down to vandalism, Govvy (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The infobox position is for manager. According to wikipedia's own description of what a football manager does Tim Sherwood is best described as filling this this role, albeit with a different title. It's not vandalism, it's accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.239.174 (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Luke Williams picks the team and trains the team, hmm, I don't know what you think you're on about. Govvy (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that. The Chairman of the club is on record as saying that Sherwood picks the team. I've given you the link to the article where he is quoted. What is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.239.174 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

If the quality of the source is the problem then here is another from the BBC saying the same thing http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37938448 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.239.174 (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Rhys Weston

It seems the man himself has uploaded a photo of himself with a festive jumper on. I'm not quite sure what to do with it? haha.--Echetus Xe 00:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Funny, based on the file metadata it seems as though he took the pic at his office at "Your Golf Travel" in London. I see nothing wrong with it, although I moved it as to not be above the infobox. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Country vs. Club games at the under-17 level

I was asked to ask this question here about the India national under-17 football team. The team recently played a tournament in Brazil which involved the under-17 teams of Orlando City, Atletico PR, and Uruguay. So two clubs teams and another national under-17 side. Usually I don't add matches India U17 plays against club academy sides cause those are always friendly matches and don't mean much. There are no tournament rules or anything. I added India's matches against all 3 of these teams here though to the fixtures and results section because this is a tournament and it would be weird to only include the Uruguay game in the section and not the other two from the same tournament just because they were club teams. What do you guys think about this? Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't it depend on if FIFA defines it as an 'A' level friendly? --SuperJew (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I would assume so but the India matches against club sides are just simple exhibitions while I am not sure about the ones in this tournament. This is the first time has taken on club sides in an actual tournament... and one which also included another international side. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Robert Walker (black footballer)

Not much is known about this player, who was an early black footballer and a contemporary of the much better known Arthur Wharton and Andrew Watson. Any more info about him would be much appreciated. Giant Snowman 13:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The best person to ask would have been club historian & Scottish Football Museum volunteer Bob Laird, but unfortunately he passed away last month. Maybe somebody has one of his books. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I think a better disambiguator is needed for the article title. In the absence of a DOB, would Robert Walker (1870s footballer) work? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Club categories and season navboxes

If anyone is looking for a little job to do, there's lots of red-linked football clubs needing a look at Wikipedia:Database reports/Categories categorized in red-linked categories - there's over 70 beginning FC/FK (end of page 1 and start of page 2), plus other clubs and a few US college teams scattered through the rest of the list. In general they are red links on players categories - in general if a player category is all there is then the club category should not be created per WP:SMALLCAT and should be removed, but bigger categories are OK. I'd expect some of them will need some housework renaming categories to keep up with club mergers and name changes as well. If anyone is feeling really bored, I created the {{Navseasoncats}} navbox for navigation on categories of the form "2016-17 XXXXX". I put it on all the 2016-17 season categories I could find, but ideally it wants putting on all the older ones as well.Le Deluge (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Canário

Can anyone please spot where is it that i went wrong in display of reference i added to this former footballer's intro? I can't make heads or tails of it...

Attentively, thanks in advance from Portugal --85.242.133.151 (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Kante4 (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK hook for an association footballer

The article on Neil Alexander has recently been promoted to GA and nominated at the DYK project for a main page appearance. A question has arisen as to whether the proposed hook needs changes, and is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 2. Input is requested from editors with familiarity with association football and (hopefully) DYK. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Ballon d'Or recipients

Hi. Can someone, maybe an admin, take a look at Template:Ballon d'Or recipients. There has been quite an edit war. I'm not sure what the best solution is. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally, seems to me that the draft template suggested on the talk page by 186.145.98.162 is the best solution. It has the 4 different namings of the award separate, but at the same time they're all the same award and in the same template. --SuperJew (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I like that format too, but I don't think Ronaldo won the 2016 The Best FIFA Football Awards...he won the reinstated Ballon d'Or. It's a little confusing, but I think the Best FIFA Football Awards is separate from the Ballon d'Or. User:TheBigJagielka tried to fix up the existing template which looks good too. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, i'll try to explain in a easy way, we have:

The Ballon d'Or (1956–2009) presented by France Football magazine
FIFA World Player of the Year (1991–2009) presented by FIFA

The Ballon d'Or (1956–2009) ≠ FIFA World Player of the Year (1991–2009) (just compare the winners, e.g Ballon d'Or 2003 ≠ 2003 FIFA World Player of the Year ). In 2010 France Footbal and FIFA present The Fifa Ballon d'Or a merger between France Football's Ballon d'Or and the FIFA World Player of the Year, so:

The Ballon d'Or (1956–2009) + FIFA World Player of the Year (1991–2009) = FIFA Ballon d'Or (2010–2015)

This year (2016) the partnership between France Football and FIFA had come to an end, so now we have back the "original" Ballon d'Or, and the new Best FIFA Football Awards (technically "heir" of the old FIFA World Player of the Year award).

The Ballon d'Or (1956–2009,2016-) ≠ The Best FIFA Football Awards (2016-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.111.223 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Well at least the edition war was reduced. Since in the previous edition was much confused about these awards... --186.145.98.162 (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Garuda Cup?

I came across the article 2017 Garuda Cup, and I was interested since I hadn't heard a word about it, even not on Twitter, even though my team is allegedly competing in it. I couldn't find anything about it online with Google, and the article itself is unreferenced and contributed to by a single user (FJR1323). Anyone know anything about this? Does it even exist? --SuperJew (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hoax for me. GER to compete = Not true. Kante4 (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Started an AfD here. A youth tournament called the Garuda Cup does exist, so it's not 100% definitely a hoax. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Copa Libertadores and 2017 Copa Libertadores - no talks

Someone moved these articles without any consensus and any criteria. I've added RMs in both pages, and some admin intervention would be appreciated. MYS 77 ^✉ 13:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The page mover @Nicolas.colimil (who seems to fail to understand how the guidelines here work), has removed my RM in Copa Libertadores with the same explanation he gave when he moved those pages - none. Can someone please look at this moves properly? MYS 77 ^✉ 14:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 18:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

My articles for deletion

Recently @Spiderone: has nominated the articles List of current Indian Super League players and List of current Indian Super League players with national team caps for deletion. Recently he also nominated my article for stadiums in the Indian Super League as well deletion and that ended up being a merge with list of football stadiums in India. I don't mind any of this and I believe he makes a perfect reason for deletion so I am willing to speedy delete them both for that reason (or most likely userfy them for myself). Anyway, the reason I made them is because I saw that Major League Soccer had articles like the ones I made like List of current Major League Soccer players and I thought, honestly, I will make an ISL version. I had a source from worldfootball.com and thought I could do it. Obviously I can't and it is not notable but I am just bringing this up cause it seemed the MLS versions have remained up for over 12 years without deletion and I did not know it was not notable. Can we make a clear guideline of what is notable and if not, get them on AfD? Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Consensus/precedent for notability is ultimately created at AFD. Do not feel that this is personal, and be careful that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 19:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman. The MLS articles have been around for yonks but, let's be honest, their notability has never really been questioned. Even if they don't get deleted, I still think it's worthwhile to have that discussion there so that a consensus can be established. If indeed they are deemed to be notable, this might pave the way for more similar articles to be created (e.g. List of current Bundesliga players) so it can work both ways. Spiderone 20:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't think it is personal at all. Like I said, I agree that they should be deleted/merged but would like a common consensus on this. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Al-Ahli Saudi FC

How valid is the article? I did a google search for a better external link that works, but struggled to find one, there are some other links, but I wasn't sure if all the information provided in the article should be kept or not due to little sourcing. Govvy (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be valid, it's a Champions League playing club. Googleing Al Ahli Saudi Arabia gives their English twitter account, which links their official website alahlifc.sa -Koppapa (talk) 08:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Any admins about

... if you have a minute, please could you lift the create-protection at Paul Hutchinson so I can create a three-line stub for this chap ? thanks in advance, Struway2 (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears to have been protected as a result of Wikipedia:Office actions and I'm getting a message saying "do not unprotect it without proper authorization". I think you'll need to request at ANI. BTW, are you not an admin? If not, you should definitely run. Cheers, Number 5 7 19:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, will do (request unprotection at ANI, that is, not the other thing :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Differences between the rules of futsal and association football

Hi all,

Just started an article comparing the rules of futsal and association football, somewhat like Comparison of rugby league and rugby union. The foundation is in place, but I need to put in some more references and images and clean things up style wise. I think I might have missed a few other minor differences. Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated. South Nashua (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of rivalries

There seems to be a group of people (it's the same 3 editors as always tbh) are hell bent on deleting every rivalry article throughout Wikipedia leaving only the few that they consider to be notable, i.e. United-Liverpool and Celtic-Rangers, anything outside the 4-5 leagues. All them were pretty much deleted with the rationale "well there are just two teams playing each other and the derby description mentions a match report therefore it means there definitely no rivalry", despite some of these actually had a good few sources, and no other Wikipedia seems to have this problem. None of the deletion had much input other than the aforementioned few who nominate it and when someone tries to save the article they just get WP:BLUDGEON Abcmaxx (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Any examples of what you are referring to? Koncorde (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Clásico Ceibeño, Clasico de las M's, El Clásico Boricua, Oran derby, El Gilano, Al-Quwa Al-Jawiya–Al-Shorta SC rivalry, Al-Shorta SC–Al-Talaba SC rivalry, Kuwaiti Classico. Bradford derby was kept through a long arduous process, but I suspect only because they were both English clubs and people piped up.Abcmaxx (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What reliable sources were provided for those rivalries / derby status? I can see the Bradford one, which is just common sense prevailing. But some of the others are situational at best. The argument is usually one of notability, and I am not sure a Kuwaiti or Maltese derby is notable. Koncorde (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

So what you're saying is because the two sports teams are Kuwaiti/Honduran/whatever etc. that very fact means the sources given are less reliable than those backing a lesser-known English rivalry between an amateur club and a fairly obscure English professional one? Abcmaxx (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No, what he is saying is that the notability of those rivalries has not been established by WP:GNG and/or WP:NRIVALRY and there was community consensus to delete them as non-notable. Giant Snowman 22:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. For instance there are thousands of games played every year, but wikipedia is not an exhaustive list of all games. Thousands of goals are scored each month, but wikipedia is not an exhaustive list of each goal or event a description of the method. We should only detail the significant and encyclopedic content and this is typically done via some measure of notability.

On a related note, I would not be particularly bothered at the existence of a list of rivalries containing those rivalries, and even weak sourcing, but a full article is realistically unlikely to be supported. For instance if we take the Oran Derby as an example, the fr.wikipedia article is clearly quite well put together, but there is only one citation and no reference for the nature of the rivalry since July 2011. Searching for suitable supporting sources pretty much dries up after the first link provided by google - which is the fr.wikipedia page, then a discussion on wikipedia about deleting the page. An equivalent search for "Derby Oranais" brings up a few additional links, but almost nothing to indicate particular notability. Koncorde (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that these days the media try and make up rivalries which don't exist. as a fan of Norwich City the only other club I think of as a rival is Ipswich Town. We've just not played any other 'local' teams enough for a rivalry to build up but that didn't stop the media from classifying matches against Colchester or Southend as 'east anglian derbies' (there's an entire county between the clubs). With a list with weak sourcing all of these false derbies would be included. another issue is where some fans start to dislike fans from other clubs because of some incident or other but after time these memories fade. for example for a decade Norwich fans would sing 'we only hate wolves and ipswich' in response to a particularly nasty tackle made by Kevin Muscat on Craig Bellamy in a match 1997 but it's not sung now.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 12:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I hardly find general consensus to = your + the other editor of a similar nature quick copy paste comment, in case of any opposition quickly railroading anyone who disagrees to delete it Abcmaxx (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

There are many, many genuine rivalries, some long-standing and some fleeting. However, to warrant a Wikipedia article there must be proof of sufficient notability to make an entire article worthwhile. For example, there is a long-standing rivalry between Bury Town F.C. and A.F.C. Sudbury (and their predecessor, Sudbury Town F.C.), often referred to as the West Suffolk Derby. But, because there is not substantial coverage of this (not surprising given that the teams have never got anywhere near the Football League), we do not have sufficient verifiable material to show that this is a rivalry worthy of an article. If it doesn't pass the General Notability Guideline then it can't have an article. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and the GNG gives us that line. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Futsal infobox proposal

Hello, members of WikiProject Football! I have made a proposal to change some of the parameters at the template Infobox national futsal team. Please see the discussion located at Template talk:Infobox national futsal team and provide your input if you don't mind. Thank you, Jith12 (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Taribo West picture demand

Is it possible to ask someone if can download a picture of Taribo West? Is there any place I should go to ask it? He was such a great player and he was so charismatic. Besides his playing quality, he was, and still is, remembered for his unusual look. I think most football followers remember his haircut from the 1994 World Cup. FkpCascais (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If only I'd taken a photo when I met him at Manchester Airport about 15 years ago! Sorry I can't help. – Pee Jay 21:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Fred Osam-Duodo

The above post has reminded me. I was contacted by the family of Fred Osam-Duodu after I updated the article. His daughter wants to provide a photo for his WikiPedia page. Is it as simple as obtaining the photos and uploading them with a note to say they were uploaded with permission from the family? TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no copyright issue in personal photographs. If they are entrusted to you for uploading you would just need to choose the correct license (I.e. that they are free for reproduction for instance). Koncorde (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright in photographs vests with the photographer, not the subject or their family. Giant Snowman 21:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links vs References

Take this case: José Manuel García (footballer). User:GiantSnowman created the article, i immediately took it upon myself to improve the piece. I was extremely careful not to write storyline that could be perceived as POVish ("undisputed starter", or "He scored eight goals in 30 games" without finding a source that said exactly that), and what i wrote is ALL sourced.

I don't know why this user/admin "loathes" external links so much, i am of the opinion they are harmless and of easy consultation in that display, not being mixed with all the other references. Certes, they could be used to source content here and there, but in this case all the wording (i repeat, ALL) is sourced. My technical question: since external links are definitely not forbidden per WP guidelines, what is the issue here? The webpage added to Mr. García's storyline as a ref, in this case, sourced NOTHING ELSE besides of what already was.

P.S. I have been reverted two times without a message, i would have gladly written GS in his talkpage, but it is protected i believe. Happy 2017 everyone, from Portugal --85.242.133.151 (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links being used to verify content in the article should always be in-line, see WP:ELRC. Giant Snowman 18:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hence, from that i infer there should be NO external links! I already knew you were of that mind, hence i was looking for a second opinion (and a third, and so on...). But don't worry, i won't touch that article again, ever (since the gentleman already died, unfortunately no updates will be necessary). --85.242.133.151 (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense - a suitable EL would be e.g. a link to an official website, a Twitter, or a stats database page (that isn't being used to cite content in-line). Giant Snowman 18:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Why the "nonsense", mate? I merely said i was going to leave article alone out of respect, not throwing a tantrum or anything. I told you time and time again i am not very good (to put it mildly) as far as technicalities are concerned. --85.242.133.151 (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think i get what you mean now, links can be used but not those who are being used to source content or who are the basis of the page creation. However, i did try to "double" the BDFUTBOL web as both a ref and link (thus, not violating ELRC), and you did not allow for that either. --85.242.133.151 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

To quote ELRC, my emphasis - "Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section". Giant Snowman 19:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't get it. Twitter is often not considered a WP:RS and yet is still a better external link then a player profile from a well-known and reliable Spanish football website? I think both can stay, as the only quote where you used BDFutbol, GS, is while confirming that he had a 11-year career. Although, if used as an external link, people could access to check out his stats separately. MYS 77 ^✉ 17:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying Twitter should be used as a reliable source; however, it can be included as an external link for additional information, albeit with caveats that the info contained therein may be unreliable or unencyclopaedic. – Pee Jay 19:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Not quite. Neither of these really should be used as external links. BDFutbol should not generally be used because it will almost always be preferable to have it as an inline citation confirming content in the article. Twitter should not be used as an external link per WP:ELNO #10. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:

10. Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists.

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.

2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

This means that if a footballer does not have his own website but has a Twitter/Facebook account covering his football career, it is acceptable to use it as an external link. SLBedit (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Iclandic nationalism?

Please see recent addition of redlinks to the roster at Iceland national football team and removal of "American" from Aron Jóhannsson. I'm stepping away from this editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Does it need to say American? He is indeed a professional soccer player, and he does in fact represent Weder Bremen and the US National team. This otherwise seems very factual. It subsequently goes on to summarise his background and nationality / origin. Is he actually "American" only? Is there a citation for his singular nationality? This is what comes of mixing actual legal nationalities, affiliations, historic nations and sporting representation (for example Andy Murray which has a ridiculous discussion about his actual nationality at the moment...). Koncorde (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The squad is a confusing one, but the one added is indeed correct (some clubs seem wrong though?)- I've found a readable reference to it and am editing it now to reflect that --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

National and official selection-teams not affiliated to FIFA

Just wondering what the general feeling is for adding appearances/goals for Category:European national and official selection-teams not affiliated to FIFA teams to players' infobars. I have been adding a little bit of text and ref to the profiles of some Basque players who have featured recently for their team. In some (but not all) of these cases, their international record has also been updated by other editors with their Basque caps and goals.

The Basque team is definitely one of the most high-profile non-FIFA teams with the best record of procuring top players for their matches, and so the stats are pretty easy to obtain, the sources are reliable and the team page is updated regularly. But this is not the case with some other selections, and as I mentioned above not even all the Basque profiles showed much consistency in what info was being recorded.

In my personal view, it might be better if the non-FIFA selection totals not go in the infobox for the reason of consistency across the teams/players (compare this with even tiny FIFA nations), and the fact that they are not 'national teams' as such (although I know some other totals like League XIs have been added in many players' boxes too). I do think that the non-FIFA teams do deserve a quick mention in player article, but it may place less onus on the editors to keep checking for obscure data every time a match takes place (which can sometimes be very infrequently) and could simply be stated in the player article text that they had been selected for the team (with ref of course) with no numbers involved. Hoping for a few opinions on this?Crowsus (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that the non-official status of such teams make their inclusion in the infobox questionable at best. The difficulty with sourcing info is also a good point, plus there is no criteria for deciding what is or isn't an "international match" for such teams. I definitely agree with removing appearances for League XIs from infoboxes, as these selections just aren't national teams, nor do they purport to be. Jellyman (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we need new paramaters - 'Representative appearances' - for players who play for Catalonia, or Scottish league XI etc. They are not national caps but merit an inclusion in the infobox if they can be reliably sourced. Giant Snowman 20:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirect or Separate article?

A short time ago (about a month) an editor changed the England v Iceland (UEFA Euro 2016) from a full on article to a redirect. In an edit summary the editor cited WP:BOLD and that the article was a prose as reasons for the change. I think I have found enough sources to improve the past article so that it is no longer a prose, but I though it would be far better to discuss it here to reach a consensus first. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The editor's summary actually says it was merged because having a separate article for a single match at that stage of the tournament was unnecessary, which I would agree with. It's just overkill. Yes, it was a surprise result, but no more than that. Other than finals, I don't think we need to start introducing articles for individual matches unless they are of proven genuine long–term significance. Jellyman (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Grammar

I know this is a football-related forum, but since my doubt arose from reading a football article, here it goes: Bruno Varela, the very beginning of storyline: i have seen thousands of examples where we read "Born in X to Y descent", or "Born in W to Z ancestry", but i never saw (until today) the "and" (or "but" in a previous version) to connect both statements (city of origin and descent).

My question is: are both forms correct? Attentively, thank you very much in advance --85.242.133.151 (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The additional "and" is unnecessary. Koncorde (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If they are determined to mash the two facts into one, I would say the origin should be before the birthplace as the ancestry occurred before his birth. But really it should either be “Born in Lisbon of Cape Verdean descent,..." or "He was born in Lisbon, and is of Cape Verdean descent".Crowsus (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Koncorde. Kante4 (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The "and" isn't wrong, but isn't necessary. But whether it's there or not, it'd read better as a separate sentence, as Crowsus suggests, because the second half of the sentence "Varela joined local S.L. Benfica's youth system at the age of 11" isn't related to the first. While we're at it, "local SL Benfica" doesn't work in English: better something like "joined the youth system of Benfica, his local club". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The 'and' would be used when joining a dependent clause, or if being overly dramatic about a particular subject; you used to hear it a lot on Transworld Sport and ESPN where the superfluous 'and' was being used to adjoin an otherwise unrelated topic, or to provide a particular cadence to their delivery. In particular it is a feature of journalistic speakers where they commonly do not start a sentence with the name of the person. For instance in England we would typically say "Argentinian star Sergio Aguero, the top scorer in the premier league, is linked with Juventus". However you sometimes hear / see it presented as "Argentinian star and top scorer in the premier league, Sergio Aguero, is linked with Juventus". You can get away with the second version on TV when you have live footage, banners, info-bars and often a lead into the subject. Outside of that, it can read a little pretentious / journalistic, rather than encyclopedic. Koncorde (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Marco Silva - eyes required

Poor Marco Silva seems to be getting it in the neck for being linked as the next Hull City manager. I have requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP but figured someone watching here might give it quicker attention. Gricehead (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Now semi-protected by User:Ad Orientem and I was beaten to the (hopefully final) cleanup by User:Mattythewhite. Cheers, guys. Gricehead (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Corodinates on club pages?

Again just looking for opinions (or a point to existing instructions if any exist), and sorry if I appear to be hogging the queries. I have been keeping tabs on some minor clubs (Scottish and Spanish) whose grounds are very unlikely to ever require/merit their own article. I have also been adding/improving coordinates to places on my watchlist and these can now be given very accurately. What are the thoughts on adding coordinates to these minor club pages pinpointing the exact location of their ground/stadium? Obviously links to their mapped home towns/districts are on there already, and I realise sometimes they will move home more often than big clubs. But it might be useful to some readers and is something I would be interested in adding - unless it's a complete no-no.Crowsus (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Carry on... Many already have them, either displayed at the top right of the page, as at Abbey Hey, or linked to the ground name in the infobox, as at Boldmere St. Michaels. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Jason Waterfalls - hoax?

Is this article a hoax? It's claimed that he played for Scunthorpe, Charlton and Shrewsbury Town but I can't find any record of him playing in the Football League. Hack (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No record of him on Hugman's site. Looks like a hoax to me. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This certainly seems to be a hoax. The article was originally a redirect to Waterfalls (TLC song) due to the line "Don't go chasing waterfalls" being misheard as "Don't go, Jason Waterfalls," but was replaced with prose in November 2015. The editor who made that change has never made any other edits. I can't find any evidence that this individual ever played for or managed any of the clubs listed. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Have G3'd it, no genuine results for someone who played nearly 200 times for Scunthorpe in the 90s is a hoax. Fenix down (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

He played on the same team as Juan Cornetto and Charles "Chocs" Gateaux, I thought. Koncorde (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, shouldn't the pre-existing redirect have been reinstated rather than the whole thing deleted? Gricehead (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I recreated the redirect. It was stable before, so it should remain stable. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 17:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Koncorde: you never know - I was certain Juan Nilo was hoax (was real but sadly not notable). Hack (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

How much information is too much information?

Pontus Jansson. "On 5 November, Jansson scored his first goal for Leeds against Norwich City with a towering header in a 3-2 thrilling victory for Leeds at Carrow Road.[11] On 7 November, after becoming one of the standout Centre Backs in The Championship and becoming a cult hero at Leeds for his performances and his persona,[12] Jansson revealed he was hoping to turn his move to Leeds into a permanent deal.[13] On 20th November, Jansson picked up a 1 match suspension after picking up his 5th yellow card of the season in a 0-2 defeat against Newcastle United."

Isn't there a rule about including too much irrelevant information or something? Becoming a "standout centre back in The Championship and becoming a cult hero" seems more like an opinion piece, rather than encyclopedic content to me. Then mentioning 1 match suspensions for 5 yellow card accumulations just seems like editors adding information to their favourite players articles for the sake of doing it. Is somebody going to add everytime Chiellini was booked or fouled to his biography? What about every single goal Christiano Ronaldo scored?

The other one that bothers me is the comparisons to legendary players in every single players "style of play" section. Juan Manuel Iturbe 'was compared to Lionel Messi earlier in his career', so-and-so is reminiscent of Andrea Pirlo.. It sounds really silly when you read it on every players bio.Danieletorino2 (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The other thing is the hyperbole used in this example which I also see a lot. "Towering", "thrilling", this is not encyclopedic language. I understand if it was an opinion piece on a journal, but not a biography.Danieletorino2 (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning a one-match suspension is definitely way too much info. He could play for another 10-15 years - will anyone care in 2030 that he was suspended for one game in 2016? No. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

We are encyclpedia - not a sports almanac. Mention, in basic language, first game/first goal, as well as any other significant event covered in-depth by reliable sources. We do not need a blow-by-blow of his entire career. Giant Snowman 09:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Referencing matchday programmes

Is this acceptable? If so, what is the appropriate referencing method? OGLV (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes - use {{cite book}}? Giant Snowman 09:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

{{cite magazine}} may also be useful. Hack (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

And also {{cite journal}}...take your pick! Giant Snowman 09:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a verifiable feast. Hack (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Lists of expatriate association football players

Are the articles in this category really notable lists worthy of articles? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

For the "list of foreign players in League X"-type articles, probably not. These might have been interesting in, say, the 1980s, when most leagues had comparatively few imports, but these days they're widespread. Which also means that the lists will grow to unmanageable proportions in the future. Jellyman (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, these lists will probably not be sustainable in the future with the number of foreign continuing to increase. Some of these articles seem to be excessively long already. And it seems unnecessary that Ligue 1 has 23 articles dedicated to specific letters (most not updated since 2013)... Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

OK - I'm tempted to list a selection of (say) five of the "list of foreign players in League X" for deletion and see what happens... --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Alieu Darbo

How to improve the article? Seem this player fake his career professionally (not only employ editor to edit wikipedia but fake email to get contract http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/fotboll/a/4wnMa/sportbladet-avslojar-svenske-24-aringen-pekas-ut-som-bedragare) I doubt Levante and loan to lower division is really not true (reference to lower division is a blog that less reliable, but sometimes died hard fans may have some information). Matthew_hk t c 22:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems he hasn't played in any professional leagues and hasn't been capped for his senior national team. I'd say nominate it for deletion. --SuperJew (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

He did have one cap for Inter Turku and in Egypt, technically he is professional player, just after recent invasion of hoax by socks or some people employed by the player, the news report made a great counter attack on him. Matthew_hk t c 09:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Assists statistics

@Besteirense: Are goal assists notable for inclusion in club season articles? If so, shouldn't we remove unsourced statistics? I did exactly that and was reverted because somehow I have to "respect" a user's contribution, even it's unsourced. Go figure. SLBedit (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

SLBedit, yes, please remove any unsourced content. Removed content may not be returned unless a reliable source is presented (WP:BURDEN) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:P3DRO disrupting articles I edit

First, P3DRO (talk · contribs) removed content from Luisão because I removed his recent unsourced addition. Now, after being warned about being WP:POINTY, he removed content I added to Mário Wilson because he finds it irrelevant. Some time ago, he removed the nickname I added to Jonas Gonçalves Oliveira for the same reason. (IPs constantly add his nickname to the article for some reason...) This guy clear has issues. SLBedit (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Now, it was Pizzi (Portuguese footballer). SLBedit (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

As I've said in P3dro's talk page, you can also be blocked due to WP:HOUND. If his additions are indeed disruptive and incorrect, you can revert it correctly. If not, if they're just incomplete, improve it instead. Cheers, MYS 77 ^✉ 22:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I've warned @P3DRO: for removing sourced content at Mário Wilson and clearly being WP:POINTy, but @SLBedit: not all of his edits are disruptive and you re-adding unsourced BLP content that has been validly challenged and removed equally as bad, so I've warned you as well. Unless you both sort yourselves out you'll both end up blocked very shortly... Giant Snowman 22:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: P3DRO is removing sourced content from Jonas, again, with the reason "vandalism". SLBedit (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: That information was deleted some time ago and this user is constantly adding it over and over. Jonas' nickname is something people call him on the social media or blogs. It's irrelevant. I warned slbEdit and he stopped for a while but now he is starting a edit war again. I told him, if he wants to add that info to discuss it on the talk page. He does not care. P3DRO (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sourced nicknames are often mentioned such as Sebastian Giovinco and Paul Pogba. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

His nickname is pretty notable. If you want to remove it, discuss it first. The content was there before you started removing it. It works the other way around. SLBedit (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Same for Luisão. SLBedit (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked @P3DRO: for disruptive editing i.e. removing the sourced content without discussion and after my final warning. @SLBedit: please note that you are also very close to a block for edit warring. In future do not repeatedly revert, report. Giant Snowman 07:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: I've removed Jonas' nickname again. I think the nicknames are notable when well known around the world. Atomic ant is often used for Giovinco, and Pogboom was a thing for Pogba especially during his Juventus goals. However, nicknames like pistolas to Jonas aren't that relevant as CR7 or the previous ones, the crowd doesn't even call him by that. Even Ricardo Oliveira's nickname at Santos (Pastor) is more relevant, as some reliable sources call him by that. I didn't see any of those reliable sources to back up the addition of this nickname. MYS 77 ^✉ 17:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not me who calls him "Pistolas". It's the Portuguese media. SLBedit (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Club spells

Let's take this as an example: Martín Demichelis. He was released by his last club, RCD Espanyol, on 11 January 2017, and his last match was played in October of the previous year. The way I see it, it's not because of the latter that his infobox should read "2016" regarding his spell there, because he was under contract until the date mentioned in the first place; thus, Mr. Demichelis was a player of Espanyol from 2016-17.

A no-brainer in my humble opinion, am I missing something please? --193.137.135.2 (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

For me it should read 2016–2017. He was released in 2017 and trained with them. Even if not, he was a member until the named date. Kante4 (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Correct. As per the infobox documentation, which defines |yearsn= as "years that the player has been contracted at each club" (my highlighting). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Loan periods in the info box

Just a question, if a player is on loan at a club, and the club he is at loan at purchases DURING the current season, is the standard to have to separate entries for the club in his info box? See Iago Falque who was just redeemed by Torino from Roma a couple days ago, seems kinda redundant to restart there appearance/goal count.Danieletorino2 (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because it is a distinct period of the player's career. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

How about few other cases?

1. Loan with obligation to buy (or a "condition" that almost never fail, such as Inter ranked 17th or above for Jovetic , buy if making the first appearance (same Iago case of Roma move)) As i remember Zlatan Ibrahimović's deal to Milan was later reported as obligation or verbal obligation, and Marco Borriello was hard written as obligation in the press release.

2. Loan with option to buy, buy in end of last season but sold in same summer. Group the first two entry (indicate the first is loan or not?) or leaving a middle entry as 0 (0). (case of Kévin Constant and Ervin Zukanović)

I am leaving the crazy co-ownership in case to case basis as sometimes it look like a special loan that bought back after 1 season and then sold again in co-ownership and then finally recalled as a first team player.

One more in my mind, buy if winning the championship. Cut off date is the team mathematically won the champ or end of season (last round), it differ from two case above, but rather when to decide the cut off date? (Juan Cuadrado case)

I hope someone made clear point on these in order to avoid edit war on constant change in infobox by adding to much transfer detail to split all the deal, or prefer clearer infobox. (here is a short list of deal grouped: Alessandro Matri, Fabio Quagliarella, Marco Motta (would got mad by ungrouping the co-ownership that he was registered for 3 clubs in same summer window) )Matthew_hk t c 18:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

If a player is on loan and then signs permanently then he should have 2 entries in the infobox/career stats table. Giant Snowman 20:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

it look nightmare for Zukanović, double entry for Chievo and Roma, and possibly Atalanta. Matthew_hk t c 20:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it looks like - as long as it's accurate. Giant Snowman 20:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

How about loan with unconditional obligation to buy at end of season/on next 1 July? Sometimes it was a last minute deal (on 31 August) that may be paperwork (bank backing) was not ready for a direct definitive deal, sometimes it just a financial trick. It look introduce too much transfer detail to the infobox (for very actuate infobox, Thiago Silva and Juan Jesus joined Milan and Inter via a club which acted as a proxy for the agent and/or investor, or many Italian clubs signed a player and then sold them in co-ownership deal, included these non-playing clubs?) Matthew_hk t c 20:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

'Loan with option to buy' or 'loan done because they couldn't complete the permanent transfer in time' should still be 2 separate entries, see e.g. Nahki Wells at Huddersfield. Giant Snowman 20:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Done unmerging:

(Miranda kept grouped as it is obligation, just the date was pushed forward)

Matthew_hk t c 22:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

may i have clear yes or no for unconditional obligation to buy? Many deal of Inter involved, don't want to edit war

Matthew_hk t c 14:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Again - if the initial transfer is a loan, it should be a separate entry even if he signs permanently for the club at a later date. Giant Snowman 14:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Referees

WP:NFOOTY only mentions players and managers. Should referees that officiated in FPLs or Tier 1 International matches be considered notable enough per WP:NFOOTY? Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say for referees it should be GNG and GNG alone. Giant Snowman 09:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Template overkill

As seen in Álvaro Brachi or Eduardo Berizzo (i warned an admin back in the day about the latter case, but nothing was done whatsoever), are these templates not overkill? A template for the team of the first half of the season (found in Mr. Brachi)?!

Attentively --85.242.133.151 (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Kante4 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Definitely, especially given that neither of those awards have their own WP article, it's hard to see how that is a useful aid to navigation or workable if a player is regularly included in such teams. I'd take to TfD. Fenix down (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There's about 15 related templates, I TfDed them all. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh and are this, this and this needed either? I'd go for no. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. Kante4 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There is long-standing consensus at TFD that youth tournament templates are non-notable. Please can somebody take to TFD? Giant Snowman 08:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

TfDed them. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - in future I'd suggest bundling them rather than doing 15 separate identical entries...! Giant Snowman 09:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User talk:6ii9

I am not sure about his category changes and he has done a lot to the football articles. Maybe someone can take a second look at his contributions. Govvy (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Luke Williams

On this page there is three Luke Williams related too football, one which I just added, but for the title names of the articles? (Soccer), (English footballer) and (football manager)? Should those three not be renamed to year of birth? Govvy (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

One is already at Luke Williams (footballer, born 1993); Luke Williams (football manager) should be moved to Luke Williams (footballer, born 1981); Luke Williams (soccer) is fine where it is. Giant Snowman 13:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

k, thought I could move pages, guess I can't. Don't seem to have an option in Twinkle. Govvy (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving the page per GS's suggestion. Eagleash (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Players and national teams

I was just looking at Andrea Pirlo's article and it still says he plays for the Italian national team despite not making an appearance since 2015. When is it okay to remove this from their intro and close the year brackets in their infobox? Is their a specific time period? For example, Fabio Quagliarella hasn't played for Italy in many years but is still active in Serie A. Alessio Cerci hasn't been capped since 2014 and it excludes Italy from his intro. What is the standard, because I don't think Pirlo will ever cap for Italy again.Danieletorino2 (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

He hasn't made an official announcement of retirement from the national team. Who are we to say he won't play again per WP:CRYSTAL. It's the same with Balotelli. Roberto Baggio for example didn't play on the national team for a few years but then came back, so who knows. Whenever someone changes Pirlo's page to 2002-2015, I revert due to this. I would even say Quagliarella's page shouldn't say 2007-2010 since he's received call ups since then so by stating this date range it looks that he's been completely inactive with the national team and not being considered at all, when that isn't the case. Only until they've retired from football or made an announcement specifically to retire from the national team should the date be closed off. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I always close the period after 1 year since latest call-up (when the player is removed from Call-Ups section at NT page). It's not like it indicates any final verdict on player's career, does it? Just the bare fact that he has played between XXXX any YYYY. The next time he's called again, the period is reopened. -BlameRuiner (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't feel right to me to do that since it would seem by closing off the date range that they are completely inactive with the national team, for example in the case Quagliarella, even though he was not. Again per CRYSTAL I don't see how we should dictate when they are "off" the national team or not. If there's no rule already as part of the FOOTY project, there should be one made as right now it would be left up to the editor to decide which can forfeit consistency and lead to edit wars. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It would probably make more sense to leave it open-ended to a possible (if unlikely) return unless they have publicly retired from national teams or retired altogether?Crowsus (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

True. Only add the last year when he has retired (from the national team or, if not, overall). Kante4 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

And even when they do announce retirement from the national team, it's not always final ;) --SuperJew (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Very true, same with Andrea Barzagli after Euro 2016. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah the list of those who have retired early then changed their minds is probably almost as long as for those who have stuck with the decision!Crowsus (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

By that logic Sergio Pellissier should say he plays for the Italy national team. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Then you have to add it to Amauri, Alberto Gilardino and any former-Italy international still playing in the 4th or 5th division that hasn't specifically stated they have retired from international competition.Danieletorino2 (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This is one of those where Pirlo's profile says Italy Olympic only 2000 to 2004, but there's nothing to stop them calling him up as one of the over-age players for the team (a la Ryan Giggs in 2012) so it does not indicate retirement from the Olympics. In the end, the "open" date for Internationals doesn't really signify anything (nor does the closed date). The closed date would indicate only that the appearances listed occurred between those two years, inferring that their career was over at that point would be up to the reader. Players such as Chris Kirkland, Ryan Shawcross, Joey Barton, Steven Caulker and David Nugent all have 1 cap, and however infeasible there is no reason for them to have an end year...but because the appearance was in a single year, it only lists the one. However Aaron Cresswell has an open date, as does Ryan Mason and Danny Ings. Jon Flanagan, Jay Rodriguez, John Ruddy, Jake Livermore, Martin Kelly, Carl Jenkinson and Fraizer Campbell have a mixture. This is far from consistent. Koncorde (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe it should be within the last call-ups, or at least within the last one to two years. By this logic, 37 year old Sergio Pellissier, who played for Italy once back in 2009, "plays for Chievo and the Italy national team." That's really silly and I think a bit of common sense needs to be applied.Danieletorino2 (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Fabio Quagliarella hasn't played a competitive game for Italy since 2010! Same as Christian Molinaro. Saying they currently play for Italy is false. They played for Italy, not play (currently). There has to be some sort of criteria, the simplest would be: are they in the most current squad, or an arbitrary time frame. Honestly, if articles such as List of one-club men can have a made-up 10 year time frame selection criteria, then being considered part of the national team should too.Danieletorino2 (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of inconsistencies so I would be open to add some sort of policy. I would personally feel that an end date is not needed if the player hasn't official stated retirement from the national team or if they are still playing PROFESSIONAL football. So they may not have played amongst the team in a few years, but what if they've received call ups during that time or even sat on the bench like Quagliarella has...not right to have an end date because it infers his consideration and time with the national team by all means has ceased, when in such cases it has not. There would be far too much updating to do if for every call up we put an end date for everyone who wasn't called up again. It makes more sense to just leave it open ended in case anything were to happen. User:Tanonero who usually updates the List of Italy international footballers has left all of these players open ended as long as they still play professional football, which I find appropriate. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I would generally agree with Vaseline. In a real encyclopedia it is very unlikely that you would ever describe someone with such WP:RECENT terms as "current international" or "plays for X and the Italy international team". Wikipedia is just convenient for some people to edit in that fashion (but not convenient enough to do so for every editor on every player). For someone like Sergio Pellissier the correct thing to do would be to say "plays for Chievo and has represented the Italy national team". The problem word is clearly the use of "plays", rather than a more neutral "has represented" or "was selected for x at the y competition" if a particular tournament (such as Giggs for Great Britain) Koncorde (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I like that proposal. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

So I think we have a consensus to leave it open ended until an official announcement of retirement is made from the national team or retirement from football altogether? This will allow for more consistency and less updating of date ranges when players go up and down from the national team. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Emmanuel Mendy

Can an admin restore the Emmanuel Mendy article please? He made his international debut in March so now meets the criteria for an article.TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 18:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox assistance

I don't understand what's happened, but the bottom Wikilinks within the infobox on the 2012–13 W-League and 2013–14 W-League pages are somehow completely fucked. Past the point of the Highest Scoring fixtures, the rest of the Wikilinks are unclickable, even though they are blue. This ruins the user's ability to view each season by season. If anyone can fix this, I'd be most appreciative! - J man708 (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not the infobox, but the Template:W-League 2012- map that made the problems. I moved the map a bit lower. That fixes it. Someone should fix the div's in the template though. -Koppapa (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Cheers boss! - J man708 (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

List of career achievements by Cristiano Ronaldo

Is this article really necessary? Why can't this info be included in Ronaldo's page? – Pee Jay 10:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Same reason as that given for a lot of "competition" information under Honours. It keeps the main article condensed to only what is considered a major achievement. Most of what is in that list is crufty for a bio, bit valid for a list. Koncorde (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with @PeeJay2K3: - this needs trimming down and moving back into the main article. Giant Snowman 17:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Dean Shiels at BLP Noticeboard

The Northern Ireland footballer is being discussed at the BLP Noticeboard here. Hack (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Full list

This list is now empty and hasn't been updated for 2 years. In trying to save time and effort for everyone, rather than going through a full deletion process, what are people's thoughts about deleting? Notifying @Rettetast: as the list creator. Giant Snowman 09:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

According to this report, there are over 300 unreferenced football BLPs - some, but not all, incorrectly tagged. Hack (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Prehistory of association football

Just found that strange article. Unreferenced for 11 years now. -Koppapa (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Article is misnamed for one. It lists incidents regarding the general evolution of various football codes not just association football. Perhaps it should be merged into Football. Djln Djln (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
More likely is a merge into Medieval football. Which is also poorly named. The 17th century is definitely not "medieval". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ross Stephens at Shrewsbury Town

Am I correct to assume that the appearances Ross Stephens made for Shrewsbury Town were not first team matches per this source? Hack (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Soccerbase shows 1 sub appearance on 11 November 2013, in the FL Conference so not necessarily notable anyway. Possibly the other two were in cups that season? Gricehead (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit to add: this thread suggests he played in the Trophy game on 10 January 2004, so that's another one. Gricehead (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There's certainly no evidence that he played in the Football League, therefore he fails WP:FOOTYN -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Finally, this gives a second FA Trophy appearance on 14 February 2004. Gricehead (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

16,000 BLPs moving out of mainspace

Hi. Some of you will be aware of an ongoing issue of BLP articles created by Sander.v.Ginkel. The background at ANI can be found here. The discussion on the cleanup can be found here. In short, 16,000 BLP articles are being moved out of the mainspace to draftspace. This has already started following a Bot Approval. This should be complete in the next 48hrs or so. Articles will remain in draft for 90 days. In that time, they can be checked, and if OK, moved back to the mainspace. Anything not checked after 90 days will be deleted automatically.

So how can you help? The BLPs are broken down by occupational area. If an one of these interests you, please help. Even if it is checking one article. Check the article that has been moved to draft that a) it meets the notability requirement of the occupational area in question and b) that the facts in the article are supported by the sources. This includes, but is not limited to, the dates of birth, who they represented, when they were active, etc. If there are elements that can not be supported by the sources, they must be removed. If you are happy with the article, then move it back into the mainspace. DO NOT move anything until you have checked the sources, or supplied other reliable sources to support information in the article that may not already be cited. More information can be found here.

This is not going to be an easy task. I don't think there's too much support to check 16,000+ articles and I suspect that most of them will be gone after 90 days. If you have any questions, please raise them here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 11:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Futsal from 1983

I have been working on updating articles related to futsal recently. I noticed that in both the Republic of Ireland national futsal team and England national futsal team infoboxs their first matches listed are from a series of games in Rome in July 1983. Other participants included Belgium, Scotland and Italy. Can't find any online sources (in English at least) mentioning these games. Anybody here know any sources. Djln Djln (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Djln: Hi! You could try looking at http://www.rsssf.com. They have lots of match archives for soccer and futsal. If you can't find what you're looking for, you could email one of the RSSF Members. There is a list of them on the page I mentioned earlier. They are very knowledgeable about their soccer and futsal history. Regards, Jith12 (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jith12: Cheers for your help. I managed to find a reference here at Futsal Planet confirming the games [4] Djln Djln (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Football at the Military World Games

Hi. I add a request in the deletion review page about the Football at the 2011 Military World Games – Men's tournament. Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Cup Season Article Consensus

I have looked for, and have been unable to find any consistency in the format of results for cup season articles. Some have tables using One Leg Start and Two Leg Start. Others use football boxes. Some even use both. It seems like the results should look similar across the project. Thoughts? Equineducklings (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Any chance you can give examples of each type so we're all on the same page? I seem to recall a similar conversation about order of information for two-legged draws (all first legs followed by all second legs, or each two-legged matchup together) - not sure if this is the same thing you have in mind, but I think it became more of a discussion about what people personally use rather than an attempt to find consensus. -Gopherbashi (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The 2016–17 Swiss Cup is a good example of using tables. The 2016–17 FA Cup is an example of using football boxes. The 2016–17 Copa del Rey uses both. I don't know if consistency is desired by enough editors or if it's possible, but that was my question. Hope that helps. Equineducklings (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Typically, a football box or {{OneLegResult}} is used for a single match, but both should not be used. A football box requires more effort (and relevant information) in adding goalscorers, city/stadium, date, time, etc. So when editors don't have the time/necessary information to add football boxes, OneLegResult is used due to the simplicity. As for two-legged ties, ideally both {{TwoLegResult}} and football boxes are used, as TwoLegResult gives a helpful summary of the aggregate score. So it is not as much a matter of consistency, but rather effort needed or information required to add all the relevant match information. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

So, football boxes are preferred when the information is available. That's what I needed to know. Thanks for your help. Equineducklings (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Match report link

In club season articles, should we add report links for every single upcoming match or just for the ones already played? Or, like I was doing, add a link only for the upcoming match? SLBedit (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think that for regular season matches there isn't a need for every upcoming match as all the fixture can be found in a centralised place. However, if you want to add reports in advance which will be valid (like is done often in international competitions) it can just save time later. On the other hand, for pre-season matches I think it is important to add a link to source when added to pages, since people often add unconfirmed rumours to those parts. --SuperJew (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. However, there is no consensus in the season article I edited. SLBedit (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Doubt

Situation "created" in the Javier Patiño article: in his international goals chart, an IP address (I am 100% sure it is banned User:Banana Fingers, only user who has had a problem with this in the past) keeps changing from "qualification" to "qualifier".

Since the former form ("qualification") is the terminology used in EVERY article we have here for the several qualifying tournaments around the world, why should the hidden format read "qualifier"? Just curious, but I have given up in that aspect, don't want to aggravate a person who has a history of wiki-abuse in general and towards me on many occasions (don't know how many of you remember, but their userpage read for several years "This is my userpage so piss off". Self-explanatory...).

Attentively, thanks in advance --193.137.135.2 (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Toulon Tournament

Hey, should winning the tournament count as an honour? For me it is an invitational friendly youth tournament. See Cristiano Ronaldo where User:Aavelarx added it (he did not start a discussion so i will). Just to be sure what is correct, thanks in advance. Kante4 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It's listed in Sebastian Giovinco and Claudio Marchisio's under Italy U-21 honours since the 2008 Toulon Tournament was the U-21 national team. I don't know the situation with Ronaldo's Portugal in 2003, but the tournament is usually played by U-21/U-20 national teams. It probably doesn't hurt to list it under that notion. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

'Tournament' and 'friendly' are opposites - something can't really be both. I'd say that Toulon Tournament is a famous youth tournament and that including it as an honour is fine as long as it is reliably sourced. Giant Snowman 13:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

UEFA Youth League should be included in a player's career statistics box?

And if so, should they be added to "Europe" or "Others" section?8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Should not be included as this is part of the "youth" career which is not part of the table, rightfully so. Kante4 (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 14:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

yes, we do not include youth stats. 15:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:overlink in international goal tables.

Ages ago we discussed this as you didn't really need to repeat the same link under each other. So I changed Harry Kane on that rule to only link Friendly once and UEFA Euro 2016 qualification to link once. But Mattythewhite reverted me, are we changing the rule back then? Because there is a couple of hundred player articles that overlink has been applied to on these tables. Govvy (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted based on MOS:DUPLINK, as stated in my edit summary, which states "...but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables..." (my bold). I wouldn't endorse overlinking in tables ordinarily, but I would for sortable tables, which the Kane table is, for aided usability. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sortable or not, it will always have a link in the table for that competition, it may just move 3 or 5 places in a different direction. Govvy (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Unofficial national team games / goals

Are goals in an unofficial national games notable to include in the list of goals scored on player's article? Because someone is keep adding those goals at Piyapong Pue-on, official FIFA record is 100 caps/70 goals, all 70 goals are already in the first table per RSSSF source, while surely those games in the second table against army teams, Liverpool Reserves, club teams etc. are not notable neither are sourced ? Snowflake91 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

'B' team lists should not be included, especially if they are unreferenced. However you two should not edit war over this. Giant Snowman 14:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Piyapong Pue-on played in 1980s and 1990s in Asia. At that time, Asian countries don't have many opportunities full international matches. So Asian countries had international B match with foreign club and foreign league XI.

King's Cup, Merdeka Tournament is notable tournament in Asia countries. Obviously, Below matches are not full international match. But At that time, These matches were regard as full international matches. Especially, In Kings Cup and Merdeca Cup Although, These matches are not full international matches,They were very notable in Asian countries.

There are source from South Korean Newspaper at that time. - Thai national team vs Sangmu FC, Thai national team vs Korea Semi–professional Select Although B matches, The results are announced in South Korean Newspaper. [5] [6]

Below records are good resources to understand his performance. Not hamrful and useless information. Please don't judge by current European football view. Please consider time difference and footabll cultural difference.

Date	Venue	Opponent	Score	Result	Competition
November 20, 1981	Bangkok	Polonia Warszawa	2 goals	2–0	1981 King's Cup
May 6, 1982	Bangkok	August 1 (army team)	1 goal	1–1	1982 King's Cup
July 15, 1983	Beijing	August 1 (army team)	1 goal	2–1	1983 Great Wall Cup
July 23, 1983	Beijing	Poland U–21	2 goals	3–2	1983 Great Wall Cup
December 27, 1983	Bangkok	Medan	1 goal	2–0	1983 King's Cup
January 3, 1984	Bangkok	Liverpool Amateur	3 goals	4–3	1984 King's Cup
July 28, 1986	Kuala Lumpur	Sangmu FC (military team)	1 goal	1–1	1986 Merdeka Tournament
January 25, 1988	Bangkok	SC Rotor Volgograd	1 goal	4–2	1988 King's Cup
February 10, 1989	Bangkok	SC Rotor Volgograd	2 goals	3–1	1989 King's Cup
February 8, 1993	Bangkok	Malaysia B	2 goals	3–1	1993 King's Cup
February 12, 1993	Bangkok	Indonesia B	2 goals	2–0	1993 King's Cup
February 14, 1993	Bangkok	Korea Semi–professional Select	1 goal	1–0	1993 King's Cup
February 13, 1997	Bangkok	Romania Select	1 goal	1–0	1997 King's Cup

Footwiks (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Only goals against "official" national teams shoud count. No B-teams, XI's or so... Kante4 (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There is offcical records table. This is another table for just information.Footwiks (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No, we do not include 'unofficial' stats - only official FIFA data. Giant Snowman 16:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there consensus in English Wikipedia? Where is it? This is another table. Not include at official records table.Footwiks (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the consensus - clear and unequivocal opposition to your edits from multiple editors. Giant Snowman 16:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean conventionary consensus like [[7]]. Multiple? Deletion support 3 persons. And I didn't create this table. This table have been since 2010. I just want to keep this table. For more 6 years, This table have been exist.Footwiks (talk)

Then the table should have been removed 6 years ago... Kante4 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Make conventionary consensus about unoffcial match records.Footwiks (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have guidelines/policies on something as specific as that, if that is what you mean by "conventionary consensus". Discussion at the relevant WikiProject is more than sufficient. Giant Snowman 17:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I got it! You mean current consensus just by 3 users. One day, If more users want to keep unofficial matches records table for information. We can change consensus right now.Footwiks (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is reached, no need for a change. Only official goals should appear in this table, not B-sides or whatever. MYS 77 ^✉ 19:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong! There were two tables in Piyapong Pue-on. One table is about FIFA recognized by offcial stat. Another table is about B match stats for just reference. Stats are not in aggregate. What do you think of List of international goals scored by Robert Lewandowski?. His goal table included FIFA not recognized unoffcial match stats. 7 October 2011, South Korea vs Poland. This match was unoffcial match by FIFA. Table include this match and his goal and agrregated. Not 85 matches-42 Goals - 84 matches-41 Goals is accurate. Therefore, Do we delete this unoffcial stat line at table and recaluate his stat by current consensus - only official goals, B-SIDES or whatever?Footwiks (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Current consensus on English Wikipedia is to include only official statistics in articles. See WP:NOTSTATS. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. I have a question. Is right to delete unoffcial stats line and recalculate his stat in List of international goals scored by Robert Lewandowski?Footwiks (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that list should probably be deleted. Current consensus is that we only keep stand-alone lists of international goals for footballers who are or at some point were the top scorer for their nation. As Lewandowski is still active and is only the third-highest scorer for Poland, I don't believe the article is presently appropriate. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I made a mistake before, I misuderstood that there is line for just for reference. But Lewandowski total match and goal stats include unofficial match stats. Not 85 matches-42 Goals, 84 matches-41 Goals is accurate. We have to correct them including related articles.

Unofficial match information - South Korea 2 vs 2 Poland (7 October 2011, Seoul)

Goalscorers
South Korea:
Park Chu-young: 2 Goals / 1 match are already Excluded since that time - So currenct stats - 68 matches 24 goals is accurate
Poland:
Robert Lewandowski: 1 Goal / 1 match is Included - Not 85 matches-42 Goals, 84 matches-41 Goals is accurate
Jakub Błaszczykowski: 1 Goal / 1 match is Included - - Not 89 matches-18 Goals, 88 matches-17 Goals is accurate

South korean international related articles are accurate. So we need not to change. But We have to correct many polish international related articlesFootwiks (talk)

Question

Hello guys, I'm quite new so I've got a question: Are there any things I've to keep an eye on when I'm working with Austrian soccer-articles? I would like to expand the subject a little bit. Best wishes --XaviYuahanda (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

KLISF.info

There are many football articles (mostly biographical) referenced with only one source to klisf.info (a Russian website), which now is gone (?) I posted a request at BOTREQ to tag all links to klisf.info as dead links. But maybe you have other ideas (e.g. complete removal), hence I notify participants of this WikiProject. XXN, 20:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

-As an editor that linked to KLISF.info many times, I am hopeful that we can convert many of the links to internet archive captures of the site's pages. It was a reliable source for Soviet-era footballers, and I'm not sure if there are comparable online English-language sources. Jogurney (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure the site was built by whom (probably football fans), it was a good database. hope it could be rescued some link from web archive. Matthew_hk t c 22:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

ratings

I mean, not really important, but is the Madagascar women's national football team really a good article? There are quite a lot of sources but it's mostly unimportant stuff as the only have started playing 8 games after 2015. Edit: There are quite a few more Women's national teams in Africa classed as good articles, some like Burundi, Gambia or Cambodia have yet to play a FIFA match. Also should biggest win/loss in infobox include non-fifa games (which it does for non-fifa teams) or even both? -Koppapa (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not for me. The review also looks a bit suspect... Kante4 (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The multiple references to "Botsvana" are a bit of a red flag. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I know very little about GAN, but this certainly seems suspect. I have tagged it for WP:GAR. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Portuguese second-highest division name problem

The 2nd tier of Portuguese Football System it is called Segunda Liga. However, due to sponsor reasons, it's wikipedia page it is called LigaPro.

This does not apply to the other portuguese competitions: Primeira Liga it's not Liga NOS, Taça da Liga it's not Taça CTT, Taça de Portugal it's not Taça de Portugal Placard.

In other countries we have Serie B not Serie B ConTe.it, La Liga not La Liga Santander, FA Cup, not The Emirates FA Cup, and so on.

I think the second-highest division of Portuguese football should be named Segunda Liga, as it was before the sponsor deal, due to coherence. P3DRO (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, we do not use sponsored names for leagues or stadiums. Giant Snowman 17:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Is that true? At the very least DW Stadium isn't the actual name of the "Robins Park" or whatever it is in the official books. I am sure I have seen a few others too. Koncorde (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It's one of the longest established consensus we have! Giant Snowman 18:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

New stadiums can be sponsor names because that's just what they are known as. Like the Bet365 Stadium, formerly the Britannia Stadium, which was also a sponsors name.--Echetus Xe 21:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

What is the Stadiums name when it isn't "sponsored". It must still have a legal entity presumably. Minor thing, but definitely something that is more common e.g. The Olympic Stadium. Koncorde (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Avram Grant, Israeli or Polish-Israeli?

See rfc on the above topic at Talk:Avram Grant. Cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at the article, Grant is born in Israel and is of Polish dissent. He was given Polish citizenship which I see. The lead paragraph on the page is back to front. If he is born in Israel that should be his primary and not Polish. Govvy (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Just my two cents but there are multiple players with multiple citizenship and nationalities, for example Alfredo Morales qualifies for Germany, USA, and Peru and Fikayo Tomori has Canadian, Nigerian, and English citizenship. It would be inconvientiant to list every nationality of people in the lead section (German-American-Peruvian for Morales for example). Since Avram Grant has very little connection with Poland besides ancestry, just Israeli should be kept in the lead section. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't get the obsession with nationality in the opening paragraphs, but that's me vs wiki on that one.
I'd personally go with "Avram Grant is an Israeli football manager (ie. he managed in Israel) of dual Israeli and Polish citizenship." Makes it clear that he's on Wikipedia for managing teams in Israel, while also referencing (and separating from his reason for fame) his citizenship. -Gopherbashi (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

FA Cup notability?

I'm trying to move Draft:Axel Tuanzebe to the proper article which has been deleted. Axel Tuanzebe made his debut in the FA cup today, he passes WP:NFOOTY right? Inter&anthro (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Kante4 (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This admin still isn't convinced, should WP:NFOOTY be amended or something or am I the one that's wrong? Inter&anthro (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The admin is wrong, if the player has played in first round proper or above that player passes WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I've moved it into article space. @Vanjagenije: the guideline is almost always interpreted to allow players who have played for a club in a fully-professional league an article if they have played for said club in a cup competition. Cheers, Number 5 7 23:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTY should be changed - the consensus is pretty clear. Hack (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: I thought both clubs had to be fully professional for the match to count, not only the one the player plays for. Anyway, this player is notable. Qed237 (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy to be corrected if that's the case, but I recall some players who played a European match against semi-pro teams for English clubs being kept at AfD on this basis. Number 5 7 12:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If those teams got passed the qualifying rounds and the players play a first round proper of any European competition then they qualify. I would have to say the Lincoln City manager qualifies for an article now. He hasn't got one yet know due to Lincoln City winning in the FA cup. Govvy (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Federico Chiesa

User:Kő Cloch is consistently reverting Federico Chiesa's positions to Forward / Winger / Attacking midfielder. Now, from what I understand Lionel Messi has played as all three of these positions in his career for Barcelona, yet his infobox simply states "Forward". Mario Götze has played in every forward position yet he's an attacking midfielder. Francesco Totti states attacking midfielder, forward, yet he played as a winger under Zeman. What is the proper consensus? Danieletorino2 (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Danieletorino2:

Okay, here is an excerpt from the page Midfielder;

"In modern football, the terms winger or wide player refer to a non-defender who plays on the left or right sides of the pitch. These terms can apply to left or right midfielders, left or right attacking midfielders, or left or right forwards. Left or right-sided defenders such as wing-backs or full-backs are generally not called wingers".

Now here's another excerpt from the page Forward;

"A winger is an attacking player who is stationed in a wide position near the touchlines. They can be classified as forwards, considering their origin as the old "outside-forward" position, and continue to be termed as such in most parts of the world, especially in Latin and Dutch footballing cultures. However, in the British game (in which the 4–4–2 formation and its variants are most commonly used) they are usually counted as part of the midfield. First of all my apologies for assuming that a winger cannot be considered both a forward and midfielder. "However, in the British game (in which the 4–4–2 formation and its variants are most commonly used) they are usually counted as part of the midfield".

Since Chiesa isn't English, we should stick with winger meaning forward, no matter whether winger and forward link to the same page Forward, as a winger is still a sub-position of the forward role. --Kő Cloch (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Can I suggest a bit of calmness guys. In Britain, a winger is generally ascribed to anyone who plays an attacking role on the flanks ahead of a fullback - however it is fluid, and so there is routinely a judgement call made depending on the style of the player. So a player who dribbles or tries to beat a man with pace is (someone like Ryan Giggs) is a winger, whereas someone who largely just plays in that wide position and utilises other skills (i.e. David Beckham) is considered a midfielder. However there is no hard and fast logic to it, and many media sources will use their own terminology.

For simplicity, it's always best to defer to the simplest terms for the position. Particularly for someone who plays a wide variety of similar positions. Koncorde (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The template documentation, at Template:Infobox football biography/doc, says we should use "The player's most common position or positions. If a player is known for playing in multiple roles then explain the point more fully within the article." (bolding original) The lead section of the Federico Chiesa page says "He primarily plays as a forward". If that's accurate, then that's what it should say in the infobox. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency in names of non-FIFA teams

There are a variety of name types in Category:European national and official selection-teams not affiliated to FIFA: national team, official team, representative team, or just plain "team." My intent is to not force a single term for all of them—for example, "national" makes sense for Basque Country in a way it doesn't for Shetland—but to figure out some sort of standard. Based on the terms most commonly used, I'd suggest we use "national team" if whatever criteria are met, and "official team" if not. (If the team can't be called either national or official, I'd question its notability.) Fool's errand, or worth hashing something out? --BDD (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The term 'national' is used for countries such as Spain and England, it shouldn't be used for regions (however autonomous) such as Catalonia and Yorkshire. I think we need consensus on a single name, either 'official' or 'representative', I'm not fussed about which but inclined to the latter. Giant Snowman 21:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The word national is definitely overused on here. I daresay that almost non of the non-FIFA members should have the word national in their pages title (Monaco, Kiribati and Greenland are clearly a lot more deserving than say South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus or Quebec). I'd be in favour of us creating some loose criteria for "national" and renaming the others "official" or "representative", per GiantSnowman's response. - J man708 (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There should be a simple set of rules to follow eg: The "national" team refers to teams that either represent associations that are members of FIFA and/or are the national association for an independent country otherwise "official" should be used, or something along those lines. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't seek to apply this to any of the UK nations. All FIFA teams should have "national", and probably do, yes? Nation ≠ sovereign state, but I know there's the implication. So here's my stab at a simple set of standards, assuming "national" for all FIFA teams:

Use "national" for sovereign states (There are nine sovereign states without a FIFA team. Seven have articles with "national", the Nauru team doesn't have a standalone article, and the Marshall Islands may never have had a team?)
Use "official" (or "representative"?) for others

Could it be that simple? And just to clarify, on #2, the intent is that we'd pick one or the other, not that we'd say "Use 'official' or 'representative'." --BDD (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

BDD, I'm 100% behind that duality proposal, makes perfect sense. As I said I'm more inclined to 'representative' but easy. Giant Snowman 16:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It just a naming MoS for national team of FIFA-member, as Hong Kong national football team never call themselves national football team but representative team, due to sensitive nature of postcolonial China "sovereignty". For non-FIFA team, i think just use common name rather a rule. Catalonia and Basque Country notable to keep them as "national team", it rather common that the football is a tool to show the sub-nation nature of that area. However, for other team, such as Padania national football team, not sure it should be called "national team" as Lega Nord movement was rather one of the political party, rather than province-wide identity. But "XYZ representative football team" sound ok to me. Matthew_hk t c 11:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

comment above. England is a country and it is ok to use "national". Matthew_hk t c 16:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Greenland? - J man708 (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Greenland is not part of EU, it had a special status. As i said, keep using "national" for FIFA member is ok; for non-FIFA team, prefer to use their own common name than a MoS (or "representative team" is ok). Matthew_hk t c 15:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Greenland has the same status (home rule) within the Danish Realm as the Faroe Islands, which do have FIFA membership, though, which makes it tricky. - J man708 (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

And I don't know why Matthew has brought up the EU, but Greenland was a part of the EU. Giant Snowman 16:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No idea about that EU comment myself! Maybe he meant the UN? What do you reckon @GiantSnowman:? Greenland, national team or not? - J man708 (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think Greenland should be a 'national' team. Giant Snowman 16:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Greenland had a special status in EU. (Special member state territories and the European Union) not green for Greenland on File:Global_European_Union.svg. Most of the FIFA member should kept to use "national", although nationalist Chinese would argue for Hong Kong and Macau, as well as Kosovo, Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, although not widely recognize as sovereign state, at least they have self-rule recognize worldwide. Just how to deal with states such as Abkhazia national football team. (as i said case by case, Greenland although non-member of FIFA, national should be used) Matthew_hk t c 09:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

My opinion would be that the terms are used ona football basis, i.e FIFA recognised 'nations' like Wales, Faroe Islands, Hong Kong are national teams and all others like Catalonia, Abkhazia and Greenland are representative - that would also get my vote as the term to be used. Their fixtures don't count as official internationals and caps so it helps to make it clear to the unfamiliar which are FIFA teams and which aren't. If and when they are accepted to FIFA, they can be changed to national. Places like Guadeloupe are a bit awkward due to the Gold Cup, but I had a look at their page there and it mentioned that the clubs had refused to release their players, which makes it pretty clear they are of a lesser standing than fully-ratified national teams. Crowsus (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we have something close to consensus here, and I'd like to finalize something before the discussion is archived. I don't know if we need to necessarily codify this if we just rename relevant articles so there's a clear pattern we can point to in the future. Do we have consensus to move "official team" and "national team" for non-sovereign states to "representative team"? Should we also rename Category:National and official selection-teams not affiliated to FIFA and its subcats to something like "National and representative teams not affiliated with FIFA"? (Side note: Is "affiliated to" British? It sounds wrong to me, as opposed to "affiliated with".) Any cases that need individual discussion? --BDD (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the grammar, but how I see it is that 'affiliated to' makes sense when the 'to' is bigger, i.e the teams affiliate to the parent organisation (or not in this case!) and there is a hierarchy involved. 'Affiliated with' would be more of a peer to peer relationship like two clubs (even if one is big and one is small). That's just my own take on it, might be wrong! Crowsus (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass changes to links in infoboxes

I don't really edit in this area much, so I would appreciate it if someone could review the recent edits made by Josepolivares (talk · contribs). In the "Youth career" section of Infobox football biography, the user is removing piped links to football clubs' youth teams and replacing them with links to the club itself – e.g. here. This strikes me as counterproductive (if we have articles on the youth team we should be linking to them), but it's possible there has been some consensus reached elsewhere and the user is completely justified in doing so. Thanks, IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree. Should be linked if possible. Kante4 (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"Juvenil" is not a young system, but only a category within the young system, so it is wrong to list. Josepolivares (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Young system in Spain are: Prebenjamín, Banjamín, Alevín, Infantil, Cadete and Juvenil. Josepolivares (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If we have an article for the youth team that is where the link should point to. Qed237 (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have already explained: "Real Sociedad Juvenil", for example, is only a team within the youth system and not the youth system itself. There is "Real Sociedad Cadete", etc... So it is not correct to insert "Juvenil" into the entire youth system. Josepolivares (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

So if you take for example Juan Ugarte, did he not play for the Juvenil team? Qed237 (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

He appeared with the teams "Cadete" and "Juvenil" Josepolivares (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

So, it should be linked to it. Kante4 (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Then I guess we should have both "Real Sociedad Cadete" (without wikilink as not notable team) as well as "Real Sociedad Juvenil"? There is no need to remove link to juvenil team as he has played for them. Qed237 (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

One entry is enough, but i say that if there is an article about the youth team (or one of them), that shoud be linked. Kante4 (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It was myself who added most of the youth links in question having created the articles. I do feel Josepolivares has a point with regard to the Juvenil team being just one section within the youth setups, and in many cases the players were connected to the club for many years prior to playing for the Juvenil' 'teams. This is particularly pertinent to FC Barcelona Juvenil A as that article was created (not by me) with that name so it clearly is intended to relate primarily to that individual year group.

However, since it has been brought to discussion, and as I have 'debated' with JoseP, I would point out that he has also reverted my attempted youth-team linking edits to players such as Isaac Cuenca (who played for only the Juvenil A team between joining Barcelona and turning professional, therefore the link to that year group team is valid - I was ordered to find a reliable source for this, did so and it was still reverted), and Gabri García who is coach of Juvenil A, but for some reason is not being allowed to have a link in the infobox on his article pointing to that exact team. After a few attempts I decided to back away from an edit war.

@JoseP, It's also a bit tiresome that you have gone on to a mission to revert all the Basque links, I accept that you see yourself as a guardian of the Catalan stuff so it's your call to change that, but I presume there are other editors who monitor the Basque teams and none of them appear to have had any problems with the youth team links. The contributors to this discussion seem to be more in support of my viewpoint, although since the reverting began I have not made any new infobox links to the latest articles I have created on Betis and Espanyol as I was not sure I would have been correct to do so.

It was perhaps an error on my part to name the articles Juvenil when I wanted to refer to the system as a whole, and that is just one of several levels within it. But I think the Sevilla FC (youth) etc article names are a bit untidy, and I also didn't really fancy using Academy since that term isn't really used often in Spain as far as I know, instead it's all cantera which may be confusing for some readers, or locals refer to the academy by its location which is usually the club training ground. In the case of La Masia and La Fábrica, separate academy articles exist, but otherwise we have Lezama Facilities, Zubieta Facilities etc referring to the technical aspects of the training ground, and I definitely don't think the infobox link should be to there.

So should Barcelona and Real Madrid youth graduates have youth career links to the academies? I have a feeling Josepolivares and possibly others may have an issue with that, so it should at least be debated. And for the other clubs, should the youth articles be renamed to describe the systems in more general terms (as with the 'Reserves and Academy' articles for English and Scottish clubs)? And if so, what should the names be? Crowsus (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand where Josepolivares is coming from and agree with him. In Italy, the players pass from the pulcini, esordienti, giovanissimi, allievi and primavera. If Fabio Quagliarella went through the entire Torino youth system, it would be wrong to link to the Torino F.C. Primavera article as the Primavera does not equal the entire Torino youth. You would have to have seperate articles for the Torino F.C. esordienti, giovanissimi etc. The Primavera is the last step before the first team, and players only represent the Primavera for 1 or 2 years. Quagliarella spent something like 10 years in the Torino youth, not counting the academy before the age of 10 which comes before the Pulcini.Danieletorino2 (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

OK I understand and respect that, but then surely the best thing to do is to have the 'youth' articles renamed so they relate to the whole academy system? I don't know what the Torino academy is called but if that article had that name, it would be correct to have links to that article for all graduates, whether the player spent one year there or eight (the years in the infobox would make that clear, as well as story in most cases). It would also still be legitimate for youth competitions to link to the academy articles, because the team representing the club uses players from the academy. So more applicable links =more useful article.

Personally I would be quite happy to rename and rephrase the Spanish articles I created so they refer to the whole academy 'Real Sociedad cantera' or something), and that would be the same structure as the English and Scottish reserves and academy articles and the German youth sector articles (only 2 of those at present!). But of course I would have no right to change anything about the other articles from clubs in Spain, Italy and Portugal that specifically mention the Under-19 team. So unfortunately there would be a lack of consistency between the youth articles, but to solve that problem we would need a consensus on the community about what the articles should contain, and I don't know if many people are interested enough in the issue to give a firm opinion. Crowsus (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

a side note, I mentioned Portugal above having glanced at the S.L. Benfica Juniors which is for the u-19 team, so I assumed that they all were. But Sporting C.P. Youth and Academy describes the whole academy! It just highlights the inconsistency in this area when these two teams don't even match. I also noted that Sporting graduates like C. Ronaldo and Figo do not have infobox links to the Sporting academy in their youth career, even though the link would be logical and the majority opinion above was that this should be the case. And in fact those players don't have academy links in their story either! I might fix that just now because it would certainly be justified. Anyway, sorry for dragging this on. Crowsus (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox, again

Did we had a consensus that treat co-ownership as definitive deal not loan, as some player were sent out as co-ownership deal, then loan out again, the infobox would be very confusing (such as NO arrow and (co-ownership) beside Parma for Lorenzo Crisetig). Just please someone explain to new user User:Kő Cloch for Italian footballer for this unconstructive edit on Simone Zaza? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew hk (talk • contribs) 17:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kő Cloch: is not a new editor and they make a decent case, so descriving the edit as "unconstrictive" is not fair; however my understanding of co-ownership is that two clubs own the rights but the player can only play for one. This is not the same as a loan. In cases where the player plays for the new club, I say treat it like a permanent transfer i.e. separate entry in infobox with no arrow. Giant Snowman 18:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

i feel silly that many of the Italian footballer was created by me (until i retired myself from constantly create article of Italian footballer) and someone made an ironic edit summary and error that pointing an arrow indicate Zaza was sold in co-ownership from Sampdoria Matthew_hk t c 18:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW what should look like splitting loan and their subsequent activation of buying clause , treat co-ownership as permanent deal, on Andrea Cocco Matthew_hk t c 00:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

-

Are you saying two clubs can own one football player? Isn't that illegal? Govvy (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

See Co-ownership (football), though this mostly deals with the former Italian system. Hack (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The ruling in Italian court saying it is more likely a concept of bought back rights. and FIFA allow "ownership" by another football clubs (such as 15% future transfer fee), but not third parties (agent, investors) Matthew_hk t c 02:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Jorge Paixão

Hi, just looking for some input re a situation at Jorge Paixão. An editor claiming to be the subject (Masso65 (talk · contribs)) is unhappy about certain content he perceives to be unduly negative. I'd like to get a few more opinions on how to proceed. See User talk:Masso65#January 2017 for the discussion. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like well founded grievance. The existing writing went out of its way to highlight foibles, provide editorial commentary not in the sources, and emphasise nonsense claims to maximise what appeared to be somewhat obvious grudge. The anon IP editors reverting would suggest that someone has a more vested interested in ensuring he is at the very least highlighted for his Braga career (a rather temporary part season) over his 15 year career elsewhere including. The links for most of the content are also dead (5 out of 8 sources are dead links) which makes it hard to verify some of the claims.

Seems somewhat obvious the content is poorly referenced for the editorial claims being made. Koncorde (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, the wikipedia Portugal article is better sourced and written in a more neutral tone, with web-archive versions of most sourced material. Koncorde (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing the editors involved, IP 85.242.133.151 has some very exuberant edit summaries across the board and appears a passionate contributer to Portuguese articles. Perhaps a little too passionate. IP 193.137.135.2 very similar in many ways. Both appear constructive, and often contribute reasonable content and fixes to pages, but obviously antagonistic. Koncorde (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe it's the same person (work and home IPs I think). Vast numbers of contributions/reviews and generally wants things perfect, but sometimes this manifests as ranting a bit in the summaries about mistakes etc. And in this case I would agree the tone was unnecessarily negative, a Braga fan perhaps? Crowsus (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

YES, i am both of the IPs mentioned here (home and work, indeed). NO i am not a Braga fan, i do not support any club, at all. YES i'll get to work on article tomorrow again, thanks for all your help. My summaries? No excuse whatsoever, but before it became obvious that Jorge Paixão was editing his own article, this seemed like a blatant case of vandalism, with portions of storyline being removed even when the sources were not dead.

PS: as I pointed out to User:Mattythewhite in his talkpage, I did not write ANY of the previous content (especially the highly contentious - so it seems - "worst finish in 11 years"), but merely composed it. Last but not least, I had zero intention of harming Mr. Paixão's reputation or belittling his achievements, I can assure the community of this. Attentively, sorry for any inconvenience. --85.242.133.151 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been just rearranging the wording in storyline and the display of refs, no highly contentious storyline has been reinstated. However, I just read one of User:Koncorde's edit summaries, which reads "Never higher than "third level", but coached Farense in the second tier, and S.C Braga in the Primeira Liga?": no mixup from me there my kind fellow user, yes he worked in the Primeira Liga and the Segunda Liga, but from 2001 to 2011 he worked exclusively - with those abroad spells in between - in the Portuguese Second Division, that is what I was trying to convey.

Attentively --193.137.135.2 (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Torino F.C.

@Danieletorino2: keep the article updated. It was a good thing. But just want to ask question that is that really confuse people on subtitle "Decline and bankruptcy"? The bankruptcy of "Torino Calcio" was 2005, and the current team "Torino F.C." (founded as "Società Civile Campo Torino") founded in the same year, and from 2005 to 2016, the team faced recovery that promoted back to Serie A from B, and even played in Europa League. Any suggestion to improve the sub-title wording? Matthew_hk t c 03:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"Rebirth after bankruptcy" would be a more appropriate title in my view. The real decline started in the mid-90s.Danieletorino2 (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

If the subtitle was meant to be a conclusion of the whole 20 years, then the bankruptcy was a one off event. Would it appropriate to add the word "...And the birth of Torino F.C." more suitable as a summary of the whole decade? Matthew_hk t c 16:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Controversy regarding first time two non-league clubs have reached last 16 in FA Cup

I've noticed a few edits to the 2016–17 FA Cup article, disputing whether or not this is the first time that two non-league clubs have reached the last 16 in the FA Cup.

The reference which has been added to support this claim actually states that it is the first time that two have reached the 5th round – it doesn't say last 16.

Indeed, it did not take long to find a year in which two did reach the last 16, though in that season it was the 2nd round. In 1900, Southampton, Bristol City and Tottenham Hotspur, all of which at that time were still non league clubs, competed in the last 32, and both Southampton and Bristol City proceeded to the last 16. See 1899–1900 FA Cup for details. Drawoh46 (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

During the TV broadcast of the Sutton v Leeds game (when this statistic became a possibility), the commentator referred to this statistic being true of the period since the FA Cup adopted this format in 1920-something. I guess the qualification is mainly because pre-1920 you had several big clubs in the Southern Football League, who often reached the latter stages (e.g. Spurs won the FA Cup as a Southern League club). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox for 2016–17 FA Cup

(I put this question in the article's own talk page, but perhaps nobody's seen it there.)

There's an inconsistency in the scope of the items in the infobox for 2016–17 FA Cup. (The problem also applies to the article for the previous season.)

For example: The Dates and Teams parameters cover all fourteen rounds, from Extra Preliminary Round to Final, whereas the Matches played and Goals scored parameters cover the last eight rounds only, i.e. rounds from 1st round proper onwards.

Which is correct? Drawoh46 (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I think looking at other articles is a good idea, so I looked at 2016–17 UEFA Champions League. In my mind the solution there is good, you separate dates for qualification and competition proper, and you do the same for number of teams. The matches and goals should always be for main tournament, the article is about main tournament, not the qualification to it. Qed237 (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @Qed237:. Looks like a sensible approach, and one which could be followed here. Drawoh46 (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

ASEAN football article - WP:NOTSTATS and also Not a Flagfest

This article - ASEAN Football Federation - has got completely out of hand over the past 2 months, and is now an over-the-top STATSFEST, and with +900 flagicons, also a FLAGFEST (especially if you like the Thailand flag). Can someone have a look at the best way forward to morph it into something more alike other similar articles ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hah, certainly is a flag Fest. The first point I would make is, some of the competitions have their own article, so surely it's reasonable to just have the link to it without clogging up a very stats-rich page further with the medal tables? And for the stuff that doesn't have an article, is it notable? Personally I dont think it's a great idea to have men's, women's, youth, women's youth, futsal and beach soccer stats all on one article, it's just too much info, too confusing and also too repetitive in this instance with a relatively small number of entrants and the same countries appearing again and again in bewildering combinations. However I realise organisations such as ASEAN are responsible for all varieties of football so their article shouldn't concentrate solely on the men's game. Crowsus (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I'd cut all competition results. And all rankings beside FIFA men and women. The statistics are quite hard to the eye too with the dark borders. Also everthing is also covered in the overall AFC article too. -Koppapa (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the competition results section should go (links to the competitions are in the title holders section which looks OK as a summary) and also the competition statistics section, as the nations have progress tables on their own pages and the competition pages have comparison tables. Crowsus (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I cut it out. Minus 250 kb. Was really laggy to edit. And there are only like 20 sentences of text. I think some referenced prose about best world cup results etc would be better to re-add than any tables. -Koppapa (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks FAR better, thanks. Is it that appropriate in such an article to have the ELO rankings as well as the official FIFA ones ? The 'parent' Asian Football Confederation\AFC article only has FIFA. I suggest you consider culling that as well. Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

How to add players/articles to soccerproject ?

I have been working on many Iraqi players and i have noticed some articles when going to their talk page shows that they are part of the wikiproject, how do i add that to them ? Furthermore is there an Iraqi football taskforce ? if not ,h how do I create one ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitheboss55 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Add {{WikiProject Football}} to the talk page. Giant Snowman 20:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

B team for friendlies

Hi, I just saw this and it needs to be discussed. Even if it is a friendly it is still national team. To me it is not a "B team" and should not be listed as such. That is not how it is done for other national teams when they play friendlies during their leagues winter break. Qed237 (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. Friendlies are official FIFA "A" matches, and count the same as tournaments. No need to split tournament squad and friendly squad. The fact that the coach selected mostly plays from the Serbian league is his own choice, not a FIFA ruling. --SuperJew (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Technically, it's not his choice, since clubs may refuse to release players for international matches that take place outside of the designated dates in the FIFA International Match Calendar. Which is exactly why the managers have to field some sort of "B team" when this kind of games are actually played. Now, while I do agree with you guys that the match itself is still a full International for all intents and purposes, I also think we should at least insert a note somewhere explaining that the match was played outside the FIFA calendar and not all players might have been available to be called up. I say this because, from an encyclopedic point of view, we should always bear in mind that readers may be unfamiliar with the topic and having a de facto B team listed as the "current squad" is misleading, in my opinion. Luxic (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It says Squad called up for the friendly match against United States, on 29 January 2017, so specifically mentions what game it was for. I'm wondering if adding a note about it being outside the FIFA calendar doesn't open a window for more stuff which will be redundant, like "star player so-and-so wasn't called up because he was sick" or similar. I think the best way is to have a reference to an article talking about the squad announcement, which would have those kind of ammendments (outside the FIFA calendar, star players unavailable, etc.). --SuperJew (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm fine with leaving things as-is, if that's the consensus. However, I don't think injuries are a good comparison. Injuries are part of the sport (actually, of any sports) and it's common knowledge even to the most casual reader that they can happen. The "recent call-ups" section is there exactly to account for injuries, suspensions and manager's choices. The FIFA calendar, instead, is a rather obscure concept that eludes even a fair share of football fans. A lot of them will probably be left wondering why none of the regualar guys were called up, if we don't explain to them that 29 January is outside the designated dates in the FIFA calendar. All it would take is a sentence with a wikilink. And now that I'm thinking about it, we might as well encode it as a hatnote in the {{Nat fs g start}} template, just like the {{fs start}} template has a hatnote explaining FIFA eligibility rules. Luxic (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the "B Team" division is unnecessary.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 20:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, it should be deleted. Kante4 (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Even if it is legitimately a B team, ie not a Tier 1 international, it shouldn't be in the national team article. Hack (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Soccer player

I am not sure if this has been discussed before, but I noticed certain Major League Soccer and A-League player intros state "soccer player" instead of "football player". Is this up to the editor? Sebastian Giovinco's article states he "is an Italian professional footballer", yet his teammates Molham Babouli and Jay Chapman state "soccer player". Should they be changed or left as is?Danieletorino2 (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This is because Giovinco comes from a European country where "football" is used. This is why we also use the European date format, that is day/month/year. Chapman is from North America, so his page use "soccer" and the North American date format, that is month/day/year. I don't know how it is in the Middle East for Babouli, but I assume it is the same sort of thing. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 04:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The soccer vs football debate in Australia led to the creation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Hack (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Australian and American players should be referred to as "soccer" players to differentiate from their local football. --SuperJew (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

What about Trent Sainsbury? "..is an Australian international football (soccer) player who plays as a centre back for Serie A side Inter Milan (on loan from Jiangsu Suning) and the Australia national team." What a convoluted intro!Danieletorino2 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

They rightfully use "soccer player" instead of "football player" in his article in my opinion as he is Australian and I understand using "soccer" is more common in Australia. It doesn't matter that he plays in Italy as noted by SuperJew and I, but where the player is from. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

But we don't even use "football player" - it's "footballer". Giant Snowman 08:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

What's your point GiantSnowman? In Australia footballer refers to someone like Scott Pendlebury or Daniel Wells who play footy. Sorry the language hasn't developed as of yet a term like "soccerer". --SuperJew (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

My point, @SuperJew: is that players of association football are either 'footballers' or 'soccer players' depending on where in the world they are - never 'football players'. I was not making a comment either way on the peculiarities of Australian sport. Giant Snowman 18:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I meant "footballer", I guess I was just in that mindset when saying "soccer player". Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Confederations Cup football article - really stretching the limit of WP:NOTSTATS

This article - FIFA Confederations Cup records - has also got out of hand with respect to the detail of all the records show, and some clearly cant be justified under WP:NOTSTATS.

27 separate statistics relating to penalty kicks - FIFA Confederations Cup records#Penalty shootouts - including Most kicks missed, team, all-time and Most saves in a single tournament.
A separate section relating to gaps between appearances - FIFA Confederations Cup records#Gaps - including Longest gap between successive appearances in the top four. Come on !!
13 separate statistics relating to goals by team - FIFA Confederations Cup records#Team - including Most goals scored in extra time by both teams
25 separate statistics relating to goals by players- FIFA Confederations Cup records#Individual - including my personal favourite : Latest goal from kickoff, with no goals scored in between
Most number of championships by a single coach - it's only one by the way !

Can someone have a look at the best way forward to cull into something more alike other similar articles ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I will also add that it appears as the exact same format used for the equivalent article for the World Cup - List of FIFA World Cup records; Even the References section has its own footnotes of further trivial statistics and even more flagicons. I would expect any culling of any of this trivia to face opposition. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll add in that none of it is referenced. --SuperJew (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I have obliterated it - WP:BEBOLD! Giant Snowman 08:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

THANKS !!! How ballsy are you do to a similar thing on List of FIFA World Cup records and follow-up ? Good luck. Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 18:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you removed fastest goal by a red-headed left-footed centre-back on a Thursday after a rain delay. Kinda wanted that one kept. Thank You. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Ban Bueng United F.C.

Would someone mind taking a look at Ban Bueng United F.C.? Someone redirected it to Banbueng F.C., but did not blank the article. The article is using a non-free image in the infobox, and I'm not sure if that should be being used in target article instead. I'm also not sure if the redirect should be made or if both the source and target articles are notable per WP:FOOTYN since neither article is supported by any citations to reliable sources and neither team appears to be in the top league of Thailand. For reference, many of the teams in Thai League 2, Thai League 3, Thai League 4 and Thai Football Amateur Tournament seem to have similar articles whose only external link/source is a social media page. Thanks in advance. --Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach

This list is now at featured list candidates and a considerable amount of work has been done by a number of editors to create it and align it to the current accepted style for such lists. If anyone has any comments on this article, input would be appreciated at the assessment page. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Footballers by city or town

Is that overcategorization ? Was it deleted before? Matthew_hk t c 03:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fine as a metacategory, but it shouldn't have any pages in it (only categories) ----SuperJew (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Are either [8] or [9] reliable sources? My gut instinct would be that they're user generated, but I'm not 100% sure. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The second source seems to be a duplicate of Soccerway, so you can use soccerway instead of that one.--Echetus Xe 00:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No evidence for soccerpunter.com being reliable: their data comes from "SoccerPunter's vast network of experts who are in close contact with local sources like journalists, coaches, soccer federations etc", which could mean anything. Scoresway is as reliable as it gets: it's a sister site of Soccerway, a Perform Group brand whose data is supplied by Opta (as it says at the bottom of the page you linked to). Although Soccerway might be the better option purely because it's football-specific. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually find Scoresway more useful sometimes as it has detailed rules for different leagues which soccerway doesn't. Fenix down (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Scoresway will also give you a cross-group top scorer table, whilst Soccerway will only give you top scorer table for each individual group. Useful for multi-group competitions like CFA and CFA2 in France. Gricehead (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Soccerway is reliable (the official match report was better). Unless guy like me that dig the Brazilian CBF and state leagues and cups match report and e-mail to them to correct their error. They respond e-mail BTW. Matthew_hk t c 13:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Franco Vázquez

What is the footy agreement on nationality? Can the page be protected for ongoing removal of cat and changing the topic sentence. Matthew_hk t c 14:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have fully protected the page for a week to allow a consensus to emerge. Number 5 7 14:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As the first nationality is his playing nationality, then it should say Italian. Then you can mention his birth etc (which it currently ahoe-horns in twice in the intro alone). Koncorde (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There was a discussion in footy and had a conclusion. But Franco Vázquez is a trick case: he declared that he want to play for Argentina after playing Italy, so ongoing edit war on just saying he is an Italian footballer, or Argentine footballer, or Argentina-born Italian footballer. Matthew_hk t c 04:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There have been umpteen discussions on this sort of thing. I thought standard practice where nationality was ambiguous is to omit any nationality-related adjective from the opening sentence, and then explain the situation elsewhere in the lead. As at Diego Costa, James McCarthy, Alpaslan Öztürk, Alex Bruce, Semih Aydilek..... The explaining bit is already present, so shouldn't we just do the standard workround and remove the nationality(ies) from the opening sentence? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

In that case "Franco is a professional footballer that plays X for X Franco has represented Italy, but in X declared his intention to change allegiance to Argentina." Koncorde (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to call Diego Costa, Alfredo Di Stéfano by all their nationality they presented, but currently no nationality was even mentioned in the first sentence. so, on Vázquez, should it be "Vázquez is a professional footballer who plays for as a midfielder for Sevilla FC." and then start to describe the nationality in the second sentence? Matthew_hk t c 17:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

If it's not as simple as declaring a "nationality", then it's clearer to deal with the subject in more detail. In the end, the fact we use "footballing" nationality and most articles on wikipedia use their legal nationality (i.e. their passport) is always going to leave disputes such as this open. So where "A is a B for C and D" doesn't work appropriately, it is much clearer to distinguish between their nationality, and their representative nationality such as "A is a B for C and represents D" or "represented D before switching to E" or "represents E. Previously he played for D before declaring his intent to...".

Alfredo Di Stefano is a very complex case where his actual legal nationality, representative nationality etc is tied to the country he played in (back in those days you could play for the country in the league you competed). It is not critical to his notability and can be dealt with immediately in the following sentence with actual content and context to support. Koncorde (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Founding date kerfuffle

What's the best date for a club or franchise's "founding"? This has arisen in connection with some of the original Major League Soccer teams. There are several candidates for dates - 1996 (the year in which league play began); 1995 (the year in which these teams acquired coaches, logos, colors, venues, their first players and investors); or the date in 1994 in which the nascent MLS indicated that there would be teams in several named cities. Reliable sources tend to go with 1995 or 1996 as the "founding" date of the club (in this case, DC United). None (that I have found) takes it as far back as 1994, but - well maybe the argument's best for that date nevertheless. There is a discussion at Talk:D.C._United#DC_United_founding with a bit more background and links to some sources. Input from you all would be appreciated. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

a lot of good points (along with some animosity!) on the club talk page. Personally my opinion would be that the team is founded when they begin acquiring staff, which sounds like 95. Many of the leading old world clubs were begun in a conceptual sense some time before they played a meaningful game and that has become the symbolic founding date. Of course there are still disputes about this especially when the related accounts are obscure and sometimes second-hand reports, from the 19th century. In my view the idea of the MLS franchises in 94 was too vague and prone to change/cancellation to be considered a firm start date, as we have seen with other potential franchises that didn't come into being. But if there's reliable sources of meaningful activity relating to the entity DC United before the MLS officially began play, I think it would be fair to state that they were founded on or before whatever date that was. Totally just my personal viewpoint by the way, not basing it on any existing guidelines (nor conflicting with them hopefully?!) Crowsus (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That's helpful, and I tend to agree. (Indeed as you note, one of the teams announced in 1994 - a NY team on Long Island - never came into being.) I would really appreciate the views of any other editors, ideally expressed at (expressed at Talk:D.C._United#DC_United_founding). It's a small point but it does affect 10 or so articles about MLS teams and it'd be nice to develop consensus on this, or at least a clear statement of what policy has been in the past. Thanks again. JohnInDC (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The US sporting franchise system has different concept of "founding" versus the generally more spontaneous English football sense. For instance AFC Wimbledon has a very specific founding date long before any actual paperwork was signed, ground found, players acquired etc. In the end, you go by the reliable source - i.e. the club itself, or other third party. If the MLS celebrated a 20 year anniversary in 2016 then obviously the "founding" answer is in 1996 for MLS. If DC United celebrated their 20 year anniversary in 2015 a year earlier, then that's their choice also. For instance this source gives both dates. Koncorde (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't speak to the specifics of the American situations, but Celtic F.C. treat their founding year as being 1887 (their first club meeting was in November 1887), even though they did not play a game until May 1888. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Players from Non-FIFA Associations

Many footballer articles have been proposed for deletion because they do not meet notability requirements (NFOOTY) as they are currently written. However, I and other editors that I have encountered feel that players who have represented national teams that are members of regional confederations (i.e. CONCACAF or the OFC) but not FIFA should be considered notable as long as they are competing against the "A" team of another association that is also a confederation and/or FIFA member. It does not make sense that some players competing in a given tournament (oftentimes the Caribbean Cup, for example) would meet notability requirements but not others. Also, the current notability requirements place small footballing nations at a disadvantage and make it a strong possibility that multiple nations in multiple confederations will likely never have a player that can be considered notable. Great examples are Martinique and French Guiana. They have qualified for the 2017 CONCACAF Gold Cup but even if they win the competition, their players will not be notable because they are not FIFA members (unless, of course, they are notable for another reason). I am proposing that the notability requirements be extended to players that appear in a senior international "A" match while playing for an association who is a member of one FIFA's official confederations or FIFA itself. I think that it is time that we come to an absolute position on the topic as the notability requirements are enforced inconsistently. For example, when Gibraltar became UEFA members, there was no discussion even before they were admitted to FIFA but there are multiple discussions regarding other areas. What are everyone's thoughts on the inclusion?--Gri3720 (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The previous consensus didn't say that any player who appeared in an international "A" match is notable enough to pass NFOOTY? I remember reading something like that. MYS 77 ^✉ 19:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It said that they had to be two FIFA members in an "A" match--Gri3720 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that a change to allow players who have made appearances for countries affiliated to the continental association in matches against other countries that are also affiliates would seem to make sense. Number 5 7 22:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to Gri3720, I personally feel that NFOOTY should be revisited and adjusted to include non-FIFA nations that participate in continental competitions. I am not sure why a player in one match of a given continental competition is deemed inherently notable as a result of playing in that competition, but a player in a different match in the same competition is not. I would like to see an addition to the notability guideline something along the lines of: In addition to players who have participated in Tier 1 international matches, all players who have appeared for the senior team of sovereign nations in a top-level continental competition in which all matches involving two FIFA members are deemed "Tier 1" are also considered notable by reason of having competed at an equal level to FIFA member nations. In this way the spirit of NFOOTY, namely the recognition that players who have played at the highest level are inherently notable, is being applied on an equal basis. Fenix down (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fenix down: - Reminds me quite a lot of the 2017 Desert T20 Challenge cricket tournament, wherein every match had T20 International status, bar any matches involving Namibia. The notability standards suck at the moment. We've got it where a pre-prepared article with tons of sources can be deleted because a player hasn't played in the Top Flight of his country, but a player who played one match for Luxembourg 50 years ago is worthy of an article. Soemthing's gotta give, surely? - J man708 (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fenix down: I agree with you completely other than I would not use the term "sovereign nation" as that is debatable in itself. Many of the teams in question are from "constituent countries", "overseas territories", etc.--Gri3720 (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

CONCACAF is definitely a tricky one. While the NFOOTY rules have been on the site much longer than me, I think it would be wise to consider a revision to include the 6 territories involved as exceptions when the match concerned is an official tournament i.e the Gold Cup and the Caribbean Cup (not sure about qualifying games for the latter?) but not friendlies Crowsus (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be left the way it is. Changing it would likely lead to a great deal of confusing relating to which games and in which tournament are notable. Making a list of notable national competitions might be worth thinking about similar to the fully pro league list. The way it is now, its very clear. If it's changed than one could suggest that notability at club level should also be changed for semi-pro players who play in top level cup where such player plays in a match against a fully pro team. Simione001 (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Simione001: if the requirements were simply "confederated team vs. confederated team" there would be no confusion, especially since you must be members of the confederation to compete. The requirements could be expanded and still be clear.--Gri3720 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

→ Furthermore, I guess I'd like to see consistency across national and club level. I'm thinking something like this may work:

All matches in any continental national tournament consisting of at least one FIFA member nation are considered notable.

All matches in any continental club tournament consisting of at least one full pro club side are considered notable. Simione001 (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

→:@Simione001: I think we need to focus on just the international players at this time for the sake of reaching a conclusion and not overly complicating the discussion. However, I think that your ideas on non-professionals on a club level would make a good discussion thread.

I whole support Gri3720's idea. The Caribean cup is a prime example of non-FIFA teams playing FIFA teams in competitive and recognized matches. If someone from say Jamaica scores against Sint Maarten, FIFA would recognized that match as a valid stat and count that Jamaican players goal. Gri3720 likewise brings up the case of Gibraltar in UEFA where this wasn't even a topic here. Internationally recognized competitive matches are just that, and thus they should satisfy WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- No idea why club tournaments have suddenly appeared in this conversation – I would be very strongly opposed to any player gaining notability through their club's participation in a continental cup if their domestic league doesn't give it to them. Number 57 15:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  - I don't know if Number 57's comment was directed at me but it wasn't suppose to be about cup competitions, I was talking about international competitions such as the Caribbean Cup where FIFA and non-FIFA members compete. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    - No, don't worry, it was aimed at Simione001's suggestion. Number 5 7 16:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Simione001:, @Fenix down:, @Crowsus:, @Inter&anthro:, @Number 57: so it seems that we have a vast majority of users in agreement that the addition should be made to the current notability guidelines. What is our next step to making it happen?--Gri3720 (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

We could agree on some wording here, then make a bold change to the WP:NFOOTY guideline. If this is reverted, have an RfC on the guideline's talk page. Number 5 7 15:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I proposed the following wording above: In addition to players who have participated in Tier 1 international matches, all players who have appeared for the senior team of sovereign nations in a top-level continental competition in which all matches involving two FIFA members are deemed "Tier 1" are also considered notable by reason of having competed at an equal level to FIFA member nations. Not sure whether we need the word sovereign as this might exclude some contacts members? What do people think? I also like Simeone's suggestion of a list of competitions participation in which confers Notability in the same sense as WP:FPL and would propose that this list consist of all competitions organised by continental confederations for senior mens and womens teams. Fenix down (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see it as succinct as possible so I suggest something like, "Any player who has made an appearance for a senior "A" national team that is a member of one of FIFA's regional confederations against another senior "A" national team that is also a member of a FIFA regional confederation, regardless of whether one or more of the participating teams was also a member of FIFA itself, is considered notable." or we could just amend the current wording of 4) Have played FIFA recognised senior international football, including senior international matches between members of FIFA's regional confederations even if one or more of the association is a member of FIFA itself, or football at the Olympic games--Gri3720 (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Unless anyone has any significant objections I'm happy for this wording to be added to NFOOTY. I think it would also be useful to draw up a list of international competitions playing in which would satisfy this criterion and a list of those which would not so we can be completely clear on this. Fenix down (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to be tighter with the non-FIFA nations, and exclude friendly games. I'd suggest the following: "Players who have played, or managers who have managed, in a senior Tier 1 international match as defined by FIFA [ref]; in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA; or the Olympic Games". While we're here, #2 also needs to be changed to "Players who have played, or managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues", to reflect the long-standing consensus we have on playing in Cups. Giant Snowman 08:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. Number 5 7 12:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I think that wording is good. I personally believe friendlies should count to avoid the inevitable discussion about what qualifies as competitive. For instance, what are our feelings on "friendly tournaments"? CONCACAF has many of them including the ABCS Tournament, Leeward Islands Tournament, and Windward Islands Tournament. Also, I go back to the Gibraltar argument that the team's first 5 odd matches were friendlies and there was no discussion. I just personally feel that confederated football and FIFA football should be essentially equal in standing in terms of notability. However, I would concede the point if it is the consensus. It feels like the discussion is coming to an end so we need to decide whether to make the changes to the guidelines as Giant Snowman has drafted now or if we should include friendlies first. So what are our thoughts?@Simione001:, @Fenix down:, @Crowsus:, @Inter&anthro:, @Number 57:

I agree with GS's wording. Personally, I am not sure why friendly matches between to teams who are members of regional confederations should not be included, but to be honest, someone who plays for a non-FIFA team only in one or two friendly matches and has not played in a fully professional league is at the lowest end of notability anyway. I think the best course of action is to be bold and make the change to ensure we have a level playing field for competitive matches, see whether that change causes any issues with the wider community and perhaps look to expanding it in the near future. There's been no dissent at a project level for at least a tweak per GS, so see no reason not to change. I will make the changes to the guidelines and also include the tweak he suggested re managing as that simply clarifies long standing consensus at AfD. Fenix down (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to add my agreement with the changes proposed, at least for competitive matches. I wouldn't be comfortable with extending a presumption of notability to friendlies. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fenix down: Thank you for making the changes. I think the way you suggested is a good way to proceed. I think that we do need to revisit whether or not to include friendlies because it raises a number of complications if we don't. Such as: is a player notable if his only match is for a FIFA team in a friendly against a non-FIFA team? Why are the goals against non-FIFA teams counted but the caps for the match may not be enough to consider someone notable? Do "friendly tournaments" count as competitive? If not all, then which ones? We're going to run into several scenarios in which things just won't quite add up or will be confusing.--Gri3720 (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

What friendly tournaments? Giant Snowman 19:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

CONCACAF seems to have quite a lot, such as the ABCS Tournament, Leeward Islands Tournament, and Windward Islands Tournament.--Gri3720 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

They're so ridiculously minor - so no, I'd say playing at them is not notable. Giant Snowman 20:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrei Kanchelskis

Hello, I come from it.wiki and my native language is Italian. I've added a paragraph about Kanchelskis's stint at Fiorentina. Can some native English speaker have a look at it to see if it's ok? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 15:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Blackcat: Done. I'm not a native speaker, but I fixed some minor tweaks here and there. MYS 77 ^✉ 16:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It could do with a bit more tweaking, so I'll give that a go later. – Pee Jay 17:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to both! -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 21:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Runners up and honour source

Can someone please take a look at edits like this and let me know what they think?

From what I remember we decided runners-up was not an honour?

Also the source added for U20 only mentions the squad announcement, which is not enough for being a reference for honour (they could have withdrawn before tournament due to injury or something)?

I would do it myself but I will be away for a while now, so if someone else would want to take a look that would be great. Thanks. Qed237 (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Runner up for a cup is fine, but not for a league. Yes we need explicit sourcing for honours, it's one of our weakest elements. Giant Snowman 20:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There have been umpteen discussions on runners-up honours, and not one of them has ever reached a consensus for exclusion or for inclusion, in leagues or cups. That is, I can't remember one that did, and haven't been able to find one by searching :-) They do need to be sourced, though. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This keeps happening. People keep saying "it was decided runners up was not an honour". Not it was not. Remove honours if they're unsourced but don't be removing sourced promotions and cup runners-up medals please.--Echetus Xe 00:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Featured Article Review

I have nominated 2015–16 Bengaluru FC season for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Coderzombie (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Coderzombie:, if you are aiming for that article to get to Featured Article status then you have listed it in the wrong place. It should be at Featured Article Candidates. Featured Article Review is where existing FAs are reviewed to see if they still meet the standards..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

US University soccer teams.

Are they suppose to have pages? Because I noticed this, Furman Paladins men's soccer which was linked to Clint Dempsey youth career. Govvy (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong for me. Kante4 (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, don't see why not. They are clearly notable in the States -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how big a scale it is next to College Football, but College Soccer? And the fact that the page has no citation from any outside sources? I see a few red flags. Govvy (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Only because the page needs improvement, it doesn't mean it should be deleted. I'd say it is notable in the States, but not anywhere else in the world. Still, this is not a reason to delete it. MYS 77 ^✉ 16:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably should be part of the main Paladins page I would have thought if it was notable. Koncorde (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail as a Reliable Source

In case you didn't see this, it has been decided that the Daily Mail should not be used as a Reliable Source, so no more citations to their site. JMHamo (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Reported in The Guardian -- here as well. JMHamo (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

While amusing, the Daily Mail has some value as a source of "opinion" for significant events, or lists. While I agree its BLP value is limited (and indeed risky in the case of controversial subjects) it is rarely the single source for most content. Where it is the sole source, unless there is reason to question its validity then I am not inclined to remove it (per the comments when then closed the discussion). This is not a complete ban. This is a situational evaluation. Koncorde (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. I recently sourced several new articles on Charity Shield finals to Daily Mail articles (1936, 1935, 1924 and 1923) for example - it has a good history of relatively extensive football reporting that I couldn't find in some of the other archives that I had access to. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree post 1995 that Daily Mail standards have gone down hill, older archived articles on their website should be okay know. Funny the Guardian picked up on this. But I have removed gossip from player articles in the past as well as the DM citations saying that they are unreliable. Govvy (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Club seasons articles

I think this page Club seasons articles is in need of a major overhaul, as it would be great to have a proper, de facto format for all season articles to follow. Currently if you look at the top clubs season articles, they are all over the place, with very little consistency between them. Ideally this template page should be complete as much as possible, with filled in and up to date templates so they can easily be re-purposed by the clubs. I also feel it would also be useful to get consensus on what to include or not, getting opinions across the board, rather than just a select few. Thoughts? Thanks! Edsloan (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I am all for this. Some have coloured headings, assist statistics and the transfer boxes all vary.Danieletorino2 (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Some even have youth teams or complete lineups for every game... Kante4 (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If you see assists go ahead and delete them. I've already lost count of the amount of time it's been discussed and concluded they're not verifiable and recorded differently by different places (nay, even different recorders in the same place). --SuperJew (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I've seen in some english articles {{Fb cap header}} used which displays which player was capain for how many games? Is this really needed? For me it is trivia (and not sourced aswell)... Kante4 (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Same with penalties for/against, youth/under 23s squad lists, results. For me, all of that is not notable or trivial info and should not be included in a season's article. Kante4 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

All of it is WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 15:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I was reverted by a user or two who want to have the youth/development or U23 team in there. Sometimes with results and stuff. Some more input would be nice. Kante4 (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The information on captains is well sourced, at least for the clubs that I am aware of. I don't know where you draw the line between useful information and "trivia". As far as I can see it is just your opinion versus somebody else's. The same goes for penalties taken during a season - this is universally sourced and does no harm to feature on the club's season page. We are trying to provide a thorough, comprehensive and well-sourced season summary for the readers of our articles. Wikipedia is created by the people for the people. Let's not split hairs over small details. This is how I see it. Pick different fights or convince me that this fight is in any way significant. Thanks. Officially Mr X (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

See above, WP:NOTSTATS. That list(s) you suggest are in fact just trivia information. Kante4 (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You have an incorrect understanding of the article you are referencing. I quote: "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability" - the statistics on these seasons pages have very clear context and explanation; they are also tabulated to improve readability, as is recommended. The seasons articles are very clear, structured and readable, as is desired by the Wikipedia guidelines. Officially Mr X (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

How about this? That's just too much like penalties and captains... would like to have more input from other editors. Kante4 (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Merged the sections. Kante4 (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think using the football box to record the results of matches works better than a table. You can see at a quick glance all the main info (when, where, who was playing and the result) and if you want to know more about an individual match then you can click on it and get goalscorers, attendance, referee etc. Having the full starting XI and subs for every match seems a bit overkill to me and surely falls under WP:NOTSTATS. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that using the {{footballbox}} template is any better than a table, and if anything takes up way more space for the addition of only a little more information. Unless a game is played at a neutral venue, you don't need anything more than "H" or "A" to indicate where the game was played, and in club season articles, the identities of the opposition goalscorers is pretty irrelevant too, and can be mentioned in prose. People always seem to assume that these tables are taking the place of text, but they really should be in conjunction with text. The referee is also pretty irrelevant for the most part (unless he had a shocker, in which case you can mention that in a prose account of the game), and the kickoff time only matters for TV purposes. I think that's pretty much all the bases covered, right? – Pee Jay 10:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I will respectfully disagree with the venue assessment. Many teams have more than one home venue (Melbourne Victory and Melbourne City both play at AAMI Park and Docklands Stadium home matches, Sydney FC use both Allianz Stadium and ANZ Stadium, Western Sydney Wanderers use both ANZ Stadium and Spotless Stadium, Central Coast Mariners hosted a few at GIO Stadium this season as well as their regular Central Coast Stadium, Wellington Phoenix use a multitude of stadiums over New Zealand, and I'm less familiar with other leagues, but I'm sure there are examples there too).

I agree that the referee is pretty irrelevant, unless there is a special case (like in the A-League they had a couple of J League ref a couple of games).

I think the kickoff is actually very important for viewers of the page, as they want to know when they'll watch the match. --SuperJew (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Also the location of away venues is important. For example for one of a Melbourne's teams, an "away" game to another Melbourne team is not the same as an away game to Sydney/Newcastle/Central Coast which is completely different from an away game to Perth. --SuperJew (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: away venues: maybe so, but you would be able to tell where the away venue was from the identity of the opposition and the fact that the game was being played away from home. The specific stadium where the game is played is largely irrelevant, all you need to know is whether the game was played in front of a home crowd or an away crowd, with perhaps a link to the specific stadium to explain any discrepancies in the attendance figure. – Pee Jay 17:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay here. The {{footballbox}} template when used several times in one article slows down the page loading time, whereas using tables such as this, or this does not and cuts out all the irrelevant information such as kick off times, opposition goalscorers and names of referees etc. "H" or "A" suffices in terms of the venue where the match took place and "A" should direct people to the article for the opposition club's stadium. Total bookings and red cards can be included in an appearances and goals table, with reliable sources. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with removing information. I don't understand why you are trying to slim down articles - and please don't refer me to your interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines because the relevancy isn't strong and the quality of the articles is far more important than whatever agenda you are trying to push here. Officially Mr X (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I find it laughable that you think there's any kind of agenda-based politicking going on here. Articles should be about their subjects and not contain any extraneous and/or unencyclopaedic information. Opposition goalscorers are not relevant in an article about a specific club, at least not in the summary table; as I pointed out above, any particularly relevant info should be mentioned in prose, so if that is done properly, you won't be losing any information (assuming that anything not included in prose probably wasn't worth including in the first place). Let me be clear, Wikipedia is not your own personal stats archive for your favourite club, so you shouldn't treat it as such. If you want to create a Wiki for your club, go ahead, but Wikipedia's policies aren't going to change just so you can potter about, using it as your own personal sandbox. – Pee Jay 00:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The point is that your interpretation of Wikipedia's policies is very suspect. How are you deciding what is relevant and what is not? It is a completely subjective act to decide where that line is, what is trivial for one person may be relevant and useful for another. It is not your own opinion which dictates the will of all others. Officially Mr X (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Correct, that's why we operate on a consensus-based system here, and there is absolutely no consensus for most of the info you want to be included in the Coventry season article. If consensus changes, I'll respect that, but until then, you have to respect the existing status quo. – Pee Jay 08:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not down to me to reduce the quality of the articles of clubs that I edit, it is up to other people to improve the quality and thoroughness of articles for other clubs. Leeds, Newcastle and Sheffield Wednesday are examples of other clubs who have good quality articles. Articles need to be consistently good - asking for them to be consistently underwritten is just a lazy answer because you aren't willing to improve other articles. Officially Mr X (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not your changes could be considered improvements is entirely subjective, and so far we have a majority of editors claiming they're not. Any more arguments you'd like shot down? – Pee Jay 19:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You have not shot down any arguments; you have just stated your opinion. I suggest you retarget your efforts towards real issues on Wikipedia i.e. false information and deficient articles. Officially Mr X (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

And you stated your opinion, while several users disagree with you. Kante4 (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with the principle of pushing other less competent articles to improve - turning articles from encyclopedic entries to omnibus of statistical records is right at the other end of the spectrum, particularly if the statistics are minutiae that can be found by reading the linked match report. Appearances, goals scored, transfers and season summary are legit. Stuff like line-ups per game are of no value, or obscure statistics. They are not encyclopedic, they are the kind of records you would only expect to see replicated by the source. Koncorde (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are planning on reforming the season MOS I'd recommend updating {{footballbox}} and {{footballbox collapsible}} so that the 'report' links are actual references because at the moment they are just embedded links which are prone to becoming dead links. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 09:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I had no plans myself to update the article as I'm quite new to all of this, but I was ideally hoping for a collaborative effort, where things can be added then discussed and agreed, so atleast all future articles can follow the same format. I would also suggest about disregarding the footballbox (in an ideal world...) as I don't know if anyone has tried to used it on a mobile device (app/site), but it seems to be very cumbersome and for instance each round seems to have its own show/hide and there's very little to view before clicking each individual round. Edsloan (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

One user keeps adding back lineups for each and every game. See here. That is just not right, or...? Kante4 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Lionel Messi's goals

There's a consensus-seeking discussion at Talk:Lionel Messi#Free Kick Goals Record on whether or not the details of two individual goals he scored should be included in the article. The disputed addition is this. There is a lack of participation in the discussion after 7 days, so if anyone here wishes to offer an opinion, it might help to settle things. Thanks for any help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Any one willing to participate in discussion is advised to go through the current discussion first on the article talk page. After that if you have any concerns then let me know, I will reply as soon as possible.Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments added. Crowsus (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Antonio Valencia - lack of consistency regarding international debut

In the introduction, infobox and 'Ecuador senior team' sections of the article it says he made his international debut in 2005. However, the source used for this in the 'Ecuador senior team' section does not actually say whether this appearance was his debut.

The NationalFootballTeams.com source, which is used for his international stats, claims he played two games in 2004. But there is no actual match info on the NFT.com website to say which matches he played in in 2004.

Not sure what is correct here but clearly it needs changed. Does anyone know where to find lineups from Ecuador games in 2004 to prove whether Valencia played for them in 2004?

--Stuart1234 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It's 2004. Giant Snowman 18:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

That often found in African countries, NFT.com claimed that he had caps that year but difficult to dig out the match report. With transfermarkt, Soccerway, worldfootball , ESPN that have actual lineup, I found nft.com more and more inferior. May be try to find the match schedule including friendly in FIFA.com , and then try to dig out any Spanish news article that was still live since 2004? Matthew_hk t c 19:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Except, of course, that Transfermarkt has been deemed non-reliable and should never be used. Giant Snowman 19:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

as a community source and quick check it is ok. I just want to point out nft.com was less reliable when more website emerged in the last 10 years. Matthew_hk t c 10:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Spelling of players names in other languages

Chris Ikonomidis is an Australian footballer, yet has his name spelt in both Greek and Italian. The Greek I sort of understand as he's of Greek descent, but why in Italian?Danieletorino2 (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I can only think it's because it's because he played for Italian teams. But in my opinion it is unneccesary and should be removed, if Italian-language Wikipedians want it on their article that is their own argument.Crowsus (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed - he is Australian - the fact he is of Greek descent does not matter for his name. Giant Snowman 08:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this like we have Mesut Özil in German and Turkish? --SuperJew (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Most Serbian footballer had Cyrillic name. The interesting case in Ikonomidis was, he is Australian but had different name on his shirt in Italy, which apparently a translation of his Greek name, that may differ from his passport, then which one is his common name? Same case on Mark Bresciano. As i remember he said he used Marco/Mark in Italy/Australia and vice versa; and then Valeri Bojinov, he is known for Italian romanization of his Cyrillic name, instead of standard Bulgarian romanization. Not sure wikipedia policy on it, but for me, as some foreigner take a Chinese name that have entire different vowel and pronunciation, i would add that to the article as alternative name. However, for Ikonomidis, it seem just a different romanization . Matthew_hk t c 10:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a valid point, but there's no evidence that Ikonomidis has ever spelled his name using the Greek alphabet, nor that he has a Greek passport. – Pee Jay 10:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Matthew_hk point about Bresh, he has Italian pronunciation too, which I would guess is from when he played in Italy. Regarding Iko's Greekness, he def has Greek heritage and was approached by the Greek federation to play for them. I'm not sure how his technical possession of a passport or not is relevant. --SuperJew (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

as i remember Bresciano used Mark in Italy and Marco in Australia, he said in an interview. But hard to me to dig out the link. For Ikonomidis, may be stick to his common name in Australian newspaper and stated somewhere other than topic sentence on his Italian common name. As he did not played in Greece, not sure about adding Greek name. However, some American born Chinese had often adding Chinese name by wikipedian (for excample Jeremy Lin, as he did have English name plus Chinese given name, but for me i would certain remove the Chinese name from Brian Ching, as "Bàirén" certainly not a Chinese name but a translation of Brian, as well as no credibility as a common name. He never played in China nor often appeared in Chinese media, unlike Lin who declared his Taiwan heritage. Matthew_hk t c 11:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Source for league positions historically

Hi. In trying to update this graph, the source originally used is now dead. Anyone know of a RS that's up to date with the historical league positions achieved by English clubs? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Statto.com has it but not ideally formatted... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Statto's up again, is it? it's been down for weeks. I'd use FCHD. Even when Statto is up, there's nothing to prove it's RS. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Ace. Do we have any sources for how many teams were in each division for each season? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Err... think that where FCHD lists 19/20, the 19 is the finishing position and the 20 the number of teams? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what it is -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Or did you mean in "all" divisions? In which case, perhaps league tables linked from http://fchd.info/lghist/fl.htm for Football League and http://fchd.info/lghist/fa.htm for Prem. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "each division for each season". So I can recreate the graph that Dweller is talking about. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This is really helpful, guys, thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Just created the College Soccer task force!

You all can see it at WP:CSOC! I'm wondering how I can get my parameter in the Wikiproject Football template to show? Cobyan02069 (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

...and where was the discussion here that such a task force was needed? Giant Snowman 08:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Good question. It seems like this task force only has one member right now. Perhaps you should have gauged interest in such an effort before taking on this project. – Pee Jay 08:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Why can't college soccer come under Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/United States and Canada task force? Giant Snowman 08:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It can, however, seeing how much effort and individuals put in previous college soccer articles, I felt its own standalone force was fine. Cobyan02069 (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. A discussion would have helped determine the level of interest for such a task force. Also, isn't it mostly an American/Canadian practice? I also agree with GS about it best having been under the US/Can. task force.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that Philippine football especially in the UAAP also receives coverage in the college-level. Perhaps this is a US-legacy? This is the same for other team sports (basketball and volleyball).Hariboneagle927 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Request move for a rebranded club that is no longer notable

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Sigla F.C.#Requested move 5 February 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Hariboneagle927 (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Any user here can help with the discussion? I thought of making a requested move discussion instead of moving Sigla FC back to Team Soccerroo. For a quick background, they were a team at the United Football League they adopted the current name for the 2016 season but ultimately did not participate. They still exist, maintain a youth program and a squad that plays in open tournaments but no significant coverage of their activities as Sigla FC.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Help sought at Phoenix club (sports)

An IP keeps removing Wimbledon F.C. from Phoenix club (sports) without presenting any sources explaining why, on the basis that it's the same club/business. As has been established previously, it is the same set of footballing assets and the same league place, but not the same legal entity, so I'm not so sure. The fact remains that reliable sources refer to a phoenix club in this case. Cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The same IP presents the frankly offensive argument that "if 'the fans' had shown sufficient interest in 2002 the club would not have relocated", which quite honestly makes my blood boil. — Cliftonian (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted and semi-protected the article for a week. I wonder if it's the same person who was doing this in March 2016 (from a different IP). Number 5 7 11:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with AFC Wimbledon being called a phoenix club of the old Wimbledon FC, and I know there's a source for the following, but I don't understand how MK Dons can be considered a phoenix club. A phoenix club is one established to replace one that went under and often playing at the same ground, i.e. rising from the ashes of the old club; MK Dons simply took the assets of the old Wimbledon FC, moved them to Milton Keynes and then had Wimbledon's history taken away from them (rightfully). Not a phoenix club at all. – Pee Jay 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the Daily Record, cited for the description of the Milton Keynes football team as a 'phoenix club', is a reliable source. — Cliftonian (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I find it weird that the lead mentions Wellington Phoenix as a phoenix club of NZ Knights but then the club is not in the list of clubs following it. Surely it should either in both or in neither? --SuperJew (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

By what it says in the article I don't think Wellington Phoenix should be mentioned. The Knights folded, a new franchise was created with a different name in a different city, so they have an emotional link as NZs club but nothing more. If MK Dons are the continuation of Wimbledon FC at least in some respect (i.e their leagues place) then by the definition of the article they aren't a phoenix so should not be on the list. AFC Wimbledon certainly should be! Also not sure about Airdrieonians F.C. as they bought out Clydebank when Airdrieonians F.C. (1878) went bust, and a new separate Junior grade club formed by their fans, so that for me those should be the clubs on the list (albeit there is only one article for both at present, please look at the discussion on that). And in Spain, there are complicated situations with Burgos (1) (2) (3) and Logroño (1) (2) (3) whose entities competed in La Liga at one stage so are worth a look for the phoenix list.Crowsus (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

European/international competition record in main club article?

How do we feel about edits like this? User:Pakhtakorienne has added a list of the competition records to the Juventus main article, but in a different style than Juventus F.C. in European football, which is the page I pointed him to, after reverting, where this info can be found. He told me since it's in a "summary" style format, different to the X in European football article, so should belong on the main page. Personally, I don't see a need for it, and find it rather unattractive and difficult to follow. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I just made a long one for Valencia CF as an example. My point is, the other sub-articles are summarised in the main article, while Valencia CF in European football was linked in Honours along with Valencia CF honours, when it doesn't have much to do with that, and since it's an important aspect of the topic it should its own section in the main article. For a small team qualifying for an European competition may be a honour by itself, but for one that plays them regularly the honours are just their few best performances in them, their season-by-season European record is like the their List of seasons, which has the same table both in the main article and the sub-article.

This chart I made actually complements the tables in the sub-article, it's focused on the progression while the others are more about the insight. In the main chart you can see in one look the club's progression at the European stage, when they faced and how they fared against teams from specific countries... throughout its history, and to know the results in each edition you go to the sub-article. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Too long for main article in Juventus case. I quite like it for smaller clubs, as in FCR_2001_Duisburg#UEFA_competition_record. Or AC_Sparta_Praha_(women)#European_Record, which replaced a list of all matches. On the other hand for Sparta, a own article AC Sparta Praha (women) in European football seems to detailed. -Koppapa (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I made that article because I thought it would be wrong to just delete the table and replace it with the chart. Anyway while Sparta hasn't been as successful as Duisburg in the UWC/UWCL it was played it in much more occasions, so I think both are significant teams in the competition.

Anyway, though I'd wish it stays on display, for male clubs with a lengthy European history like Juventus and Valencia it could be hidden like the club's list of seasons leaving it as optional info for users. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I have reposted the chart in Juventus F.C. within a vertical scrolling table, like in Dynamo Moscow's season by season record. Is it better like this? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I was always led to believe (for reflists initially, but for all tables generally) that information shouldn't be embedded in a scrollable table as this creates accessibility issues. I believe User:Struway2 is our resident accessibility expert, so I'll defer to his expertise, but that's what I was always told. – Pee Jay 15:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about "resident expert": I did try to understand it once, but technology and implementation thereof have changed in recent times. The relevant bit of MoS for hidden content is at MOS:DONTHIDE. The table itself, whether hidden or visible, isn't well structured: the colspans, unexplained colours, unidentified flags, and internal headings to separate the various competitions all run counter to MOS:DTT, the table accessibility MoS.

My personal opinion would be that it's far too much detailed information for the main club article, and as such should be split off to its own article, which I believe already exists, and replaced with a brief summary. Why would the reader of the club overview need a bright patchwork naming every opponent the club has faced in the later stages of every European competition? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I find it interesting in itself, and I think detailing an opponent per round is important for a chart about a team's historic progression in a competition since the opponents' level in each season is an important factor. As for the formatting, I thought it was the best way to do it to keep it easy to read and edit it, though I may be wrong. The colours are intuitive so I thought adding a legend would be redundant, and the flags are well-known. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I do find such detailed lists interesting, but if I was looking for one I would be surprised to find it in the main article for a big club when there was a separate article on the subject. I think a prominent for a full list, see... on the main article and the content itself in the European article would be the most logical way to go. Maybe finals could go in the main article if you feel the display needs livening up a bit? Crowsus (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Too much for the main article. Fine for the sub ones. Kante4 (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This list doesn't seem to be on either article now? From reading above, I think that some (though certainly not all) felt it would be OK to feature in the In European football article? Seems a waste considering the work gone into it. Crowsus (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the need for it even in the "in European football article" as the list of results are already there, this would be overkill. I also think that this kind of table may be somewhat hard to follow or interpret, especially for the "preliminary stage" heading, which I myself can't quite follow as there seems to be inconsistencies with the format. We're better off just sticking to listing the matches with the scores; provides the same info, just more detailed and clear. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I totally agree with all that, it was interesting to see a new style of format (for me anyway) but not ideal for its purpose. Really I was just surprised that the creator gave up on it so easily! Crowsus (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, he tried to convey his points, and I commend him for that, but with most people on the other side of the argument, it's hard to have any leverage. I know he probably put a lot of work into it, but what I would do from now on, is create "X in European football" articles and put the work into listing the matches like we do currently (if the club is big enough). For example, he recently removed the same style table from S.S.C. Napoli's article. He could use that to make S.S.C. Napoli in European football, as it is a big enough club, if he'd like for example. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin to close AfD

Can an uninvolved admin close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Columbus Crew season please? There is an overwhelming consensus to keep, and has been open for over 5 days now. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Vaselineeeeeeee It's minimum 7 days for AfDs in general. Either that or someone (not necessarily an admin, but someone uninvolved) can close it as a snow keep. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Understood, but this is a case of Speedy Keep as it passes all the guidelines/requirements put forth on the deletion page. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988–89 Juventus F.C. season. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH Nfitz (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Any admins about

User:Kő Cloch has recently boldly moved Category:Association football fullbacks to Category:Association football full-backs with a hyphen. I don't seem to be able to move it back, so please could someone with special powers do so. thanks in advance, Struway2 (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Struway2:

Done Giant Snowman 20:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Can you take care of this and then move Category talk:Association football full-backs back to Category talk:Association football fullbacks as well? ^Avic _ennasis @ 23:37, 21 Shevat 5777 / 23:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Avicennasis:

Done - no idea why the talk page didn't move with the main page. Giant Snowman 09:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Article name for matches

I just came across Norwich City 0–1 Luton Town (2013) and Yeovil Town 2–1 Sunderland (1949) and started thinking about the name of the articles. Should we really have the year in parenthesis? Also should we have the scoreline in the article title? I always thought we named the articles like "Norwich City v Luton Town (football match)" or something. Qed237 (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

But for some, if not all of these, the scoreline is the defining element and what the game is notable for. I feel people are more likely to search for Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. than Manchester United F.C. vs Ipswich Town F.C. (4 March 1995). – Pee Jay 11:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Or Australia 31–0 American Samoa or Brazil 1-7 Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup) (which speaking of, I'm not sure why the scoreline isn't in the header) to name a couple more. --SuperJew (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, should the club's full name be used in the title? There seems to be a lack of consistency in article titles (i.e. Leicester City 6–6 Arsenal (21 April 1930) versus Liverpool F.C. 0–2 Arsenal F.C. (26 May 1989)). S.A. Julio (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Danny Cowley

Is there no article for the Lincoln City manager? Govvy (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

He doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL, but considering the level of coverage he has received with Lincoln's exploits this season I'd be surprised if he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought it would pass NFooty considering where he got the team too in the FA Cup and yes he has received a fair amount of coverage, he obviously doesn't have an article on wiki yet, must be why I failed to find him. Govvy (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sean Raggett

Sean Raggett was created for scoring the winning goal in the FA Cup today, knocking out Premier League team Burnley. Does this pass GNG or should it be nominated for deletion? JMHamo (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say probably not passing WP:GNG. I was considering creating article for Lincoln's manager, but he doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG either. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Related question: Do people think that a 2016–17 Lincoln F.C. season article could pass WP:GNG? Usually we only do them for teams in fully professional leagues, but this could include their exceptional cup run, and their possible promotion back to League Two. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't 2016–17 FA Cup be the right place to detail the cup run? Number 5 7 22:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I created that article. I'd argue it is notable in that his goal created a piece of history as taking Lincoln into the quarter-finals, the first non-league club to do so in 103 years. For me that is worthy of an exception to the usual notability criteria for a player. Either way, Lincoln are currently set to be promoted into League 2, a fully professional league in the next three months. If that were to happen, and Raggett were not to be sold, it likely he would reach the notability criteria regardless of the goal. Considering that it may make sense to be patient with any immediate concerns regarding deletion.Veryirregularuser (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

That's an impressive crystal ball you have there, also doesn't this article fail under WP:ONEEVENT. JMHamo (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Not a crystal ball, just a practical suggestion. I am not against a nomination for deletion. It is worth the conversation. But, in one day the article gets over 3,000 views, and Lincoln gets 80,000 views, more views in one day than teams arsenal and tottenham have achieved in the last two years. Reggett and Lincoln's victory has created a world wide interest. With articles written about Lincoln and Reggett widely quoted internationally.I don't think it fails to cover one event, because firstly, the event is barely covered on wikipedia, secondly Reggett literally just misses the criteria as it is, being a player who is professional and has played more matches against bigger teams than most league 2 players. If one is not to cover the event through essentially increasing the content on what is now much larger public interest on Lincoln, then an article on the run is definitely necessary. Veryirregularuser (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

London derbies

I just thought I throw this one out there, but I thought the article was very poor and could use a lot of help to improve it. So please if there are any editors out there who want to have a go, please do. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion re Suggested change to Notability - Association Football

Folks.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Suggested change to Association Football

Aoziwe (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)