Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 140

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 135←Archive 138Archive 139Archive 140Archive 141Archive 142→Archive 145

British Olympic referees

Hello, I was wondering how British referees should be formatted at the Olympic Games. Typically, referees are listed in tournament articles with their name and national association, for example "Néstor Pitana (Argentina)" at the 2018 World Cup. However, at the Olympics the United Kingdom as a whole are represented as Great Britain. Should referees from England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland be listed with "Great Britain" or their respective national association? To add to this, the English Football Association is regarded as the national governing body of football within the British Olympic Association. Here are some possible options, using Scottish referee Hugh Dallas from 1996 as an example:

  • Use "Great Britain" and link to the referee's national FA (though possibly a WP:EGG issue): [[Hugh Dallas]] ([[Scottish Football Association|Great Britain]]) → Hugh Dallas (Great Britain)
  • Use "Great Britain" and link to the English FA, as the British national governing body of football (though they might not truly be representing The FA): [[Hugh Dallas]] ([[The Football Association|Great Britain]]) → Hugh Dallas (Great Britain)
  • Use the referee's national FA as is typically done (ignoring the use of "Great Britain" for Olympic articles): [[Hugh Dallas]] ([[Scottish Football Association|Scotland]]) → Hugh Dallas (Scotland)

Which of these methods should be used? S.A. Julio (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should link to either any of the UK football associations, especially if we pipe it to say Great Britain as that's very misleading. I also don't think we should have it the same as the World Cup/Euros etc as there is technically no Scotland/England/Wales/Northern Ireland when it comes to the Olympics. I'd suggest something like:
In either case I'd add a note, I'm not sure how exactly to word it but explaining he's an SFA/FAW/IFA referee and that the national association isn't affiliated to the BOA or something to that effect. Might be easier for an English referee because of the BOA/FA relationship. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
[[Hugh Dallas]] ([[Scottish Football Association|Great Britain]]) falls foul of WP:SURPRISE in my opinion, as a British football team isn't mentioned there. Link to British Olympic team would be better- although they work for the FA/SFA, they're presumably employed as British referees for the Olympics. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I would agree with Stevie's first option and link it to the British Olympic Association. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Also agree with BOA, relates to the association for that nation in that sporting field. Crowsus (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. GiantSnowman 19:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hernanes, again

If anyone sees more similar edit warring from two IP addresses again, use a tougher protection duration than the 7 days which was the previous duration. Recent edits to the page are nothing but adding/taking away 11 bytes off the page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Truly one of the WP:LAMEest edit wars I have seen. I have warned all IPs involved and protected the page. GiantSnowman 22:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

https://instagram.com/churchillbrothersfcgoa?igshid=18aiagmc6lp0z

Needs updatescto latest version also — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.139.21 (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Churchill Brothers FC Goa already has the updated logo. Nehme1499 22:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Not 100% correct version so i hope someone does it. Since you didnt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.139.21 (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Please explain how this isn't the correct version (also, please try to be respectful, but I'm not counting much on this). Nehme1499 23:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
you saw stars on jersey and social media so i hope some users upload. answer "no stars, add yourself" werent professional remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.139.21 (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
We do not put stars on club logos. See Juventus F.C., A.C. Milan, Inter Milan, FC Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund, etc. Nehme1499 23:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

kuala lumpur united (city) fc

https://www.instagram.com/p/CL_eC6HjI1f/?igshid=s5zvt4zbtbm9 Urgent edits needed 🙏 even users reverting occured — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.139.21 (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have requested page protection. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Reverted to last confirmed good version (by an admin) and page semi-protected for 7 days. No comment on content. GiantSnowman 12:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding I-League 2nd Division under the Professional league bracket

Hi, There was a discussion earlier regarding the deletion of a player wiki profile named Asrar Rehbar who plays in the I-League 2nd Division for Bangalore United. The reason given was that I-League 2nd Division isn't included in the list of Professional Leagues. I would like to argue here that the I-League 2nd Division fulfils all the criteria of a professional league and the winner qualifies for the I-League. Players are on a long term contract earning basic income required in India. On the wiki page of I-League 2nd Division as well it's mentioned that it is a Professional League. It has been confirmed by the All India Football Federation as well. Could verify the same and add the league to the list so that the article doesn’t need to be deleted. Also not forgetting that Sevilla FC from La Liga have an exclusive partnership Tie-Up with Bangalore United who play in the I-League 2nd Division. Attaching the press release from Sevilla FC : [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballbrain01 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Please raise at WT:FPL. GiantSnowman 17:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.sevillafc.es/en/actual/news/agreement-sevillafc-bengaluru-united

User:Almgerdeu review

Virtually all articles written by User:Almgerdeu do not appear to be notable (and the writing quality does not typically live up to Wikipedia standards). Many articles appear to be about obscure referees (Example 1 Example 2 Example 3). Several of the user's created articles have already been removed. I have limited knowledge on the topic of association football so I would appreciate if someone could review and take appropriate action if necessary. Kstern (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The sample I have looked at from his user page appear to have been FIFA referees, which (according to a discussion here in 2012) offers the presumption of notability. Gricehead (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
In that case said presumption might need to be revisited (like many other, I am afraid, "notability presumptions"...) - I can't find much besides mirrors and databses; disappointing because if there's no coverage about a referee at that level it's probably because they did their job well and didn't get involved in too much controversy, but anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
If the article subjects are notable then what he is doing is fine.--EchetusXe 15:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
They fact is that those presumptions are supposed to be tools to easily indicate whether a proposed article is expected to meet GNG - if the articles supposedly meets one of these criteria but not GNG (i.e. little or no coverage), then the article shouldn't be there. And if there's many such articles, then probably its the guideline that shouldn't be there... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I suppose the question would be where exactly are we looking? International level referees likely have quite a bit of paper based sourcing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the desire for coverage above, I'd have thought Example 1 in the OP is OK as he was a World Cup referee? Others, I'm not so sure. Crowsus (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
That was probably a bad example, but there are many good examples if you check out the articles the user has created. I'm not suggesting all of the user's articles should be WP:PROD'ed. Just saying many don't seem notable. I went back and read the discussion from 2012, but the rules don't seem to reflect the discussion so the discussion is probably out-of-date. In fact WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't appear to mention referees at all. Kstern (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
This topic and user was discussed on this page a few months ago Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_135#Not_sure_if_this_is_the_best_place_for_it_but_need_advice RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
And my view is the same as I said there: we shouldn't be encouraging the creation of 3 line stubs on referees. If they're notable enough, create a decent length article with a good number of sources. And if all this user is doing is creating questionable referee articles, then something needs to be done about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: You can say the same thing about many players who get an article the minute they play one minute in a fully pro league. So what's the difference? --SuperJew (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

A large number of this editor's articles have been deleted as non-notable. GiantSnowman 17:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, he hasn't created a referee article since 2 November. I still haven't checked half of them yet but, out of the ones that I have, I've put some of the more blatant GNG failures up for deletion. I've avoided putting any of the ones that have refereed in a major tournament up for deletion although they're not guaranteed to be notable either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thorsten Tönnies

I've come across Thorsten Tönnies. He played 7 minuets for Werder Bremen's reserve team at 3rd tier level in 2010 and has spent the rest of his career playing in the 4th and 5th tiers of German football so far. Does 7 minuets for a reserve club 10 years ago really make him pass WP:FOOTY? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he would pass NFOOTY. However, it looks like a pretty clear GNG fail to me. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
As MA says, NFOOTY is passed. It's a matter of if he passes GNG or not. Nehme1499 18:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
He seems notable to me. There are plenty of articles about him here: https://www.nwzonline.de/person/tönnies,thorsten. Also, he is a former German U18 and 19 youth international. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
There are loads of articles on Auchinleck Talbot players in the Ayrshire Post and Cumnock Chronicle, does that make all of them notable? I don't think articles at NWZ are enough to pass WP:GNG, I would PROD. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Weser-Kurier? I've never seen an article about a German U19 international deleted and I'm surprised that would be considered. But I don't follow AfD. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Youth internationals are not considered notable per NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to anything written in policy but more appealing to common sense. I'd be surprised if we weren't able to find the necessary significant coverage for a youth international from a football nation of Germany's size and stature. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if youth internationals are particularly notable. Taking Jeriel Dorsett as an example of a current England youth international, I don't see any significant coverage for him with the best I could find being this. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Ich habe auf Deutsch gesucht, and there seems to be a lot of articles where he's discussed or mentioned, such as this, this interview (I know it's an interview), and this list of articles where he's mentioned. There may be more. Can probably get to WP:GNG if you search in German. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Pelé

There's a situation at Pelé (discussion here) but I can't make sense of what the other user is trying to say. Any ideas? – PeeJay 12:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I remember reading some controversy about Messi passing some Pelé record except the recordkeeping for Pelé's actual stats meant that Messi had only passed some sort of official record. I'm not sure what's going on here entirely, but I assume it's something like that. SportingFlyer T·C 14:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
It's related to this, which I raised about the List of footballers with 500 or more goals article. Pelé scored something like double his official tally of 757 goals if you include "friendly" games organized by Santos against admittedly strong teams. Personally I don't see how it makes sense to not include Pelé's friendly tournament goals when Erwin Helmchen is top of the list for scoring close to 1,000 goals in regional German leagues in the 1930s. I see too that Josef Bican's tally has gone from 798 goals to 948+ in the last couple of months. With respect to the RSSSF I don't see how it makes sense to have players that have been dead for half a century to manage to keep adding goals to their tally whilst Pelé is stuck on the same number. I'd suggest a solution similar to the List of tallest people, where we have a list widely verified from multiple sources and an unverified list where Pelé's extra goals, Romário's extar goals, Helmchen etc are mentioned.--EchetusXe 14:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Timestamps in infoboxes

Hello. When updating a player timestamp for an appearance that was a couple of days prior, do we put the day of the last match played or simply five tildes? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Per the documentation at {{infobox football biography}}: use five tildes (~~~~~) to generate the current date/time in dmy format, or {{subst:mdytime}} for mdy format.. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie: The timestamp is to show the point at which the infobox was updated; the datestamp above the stats. table (where one exists) typically shows the date of the last game played. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

By date or by round?

In {{Infobox football league season}} there're 4 parameters:

  • |longest wins=
  • |longest unbeaten=
  • |longest winless=
  • |longest losses=

Are these values calculated based on by date or by round? If a game is postponed, it can lead to a different result depending on whether we count by date (actual date) or by round round (original date). --Sb008 (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken it's by number of games. Nehme1499 23:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
By date. By round would be madness. But we should give the length in number of games as Nehme says. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't really make sense to do it by date. A team that is unbeaten for 10 matches played within the first 2 months of the season was unbeaten "longer" than the team that won 5 games in 4 months due to suspension caused by COVID-19 (or international break, or whatever). Nehme1499 00:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I know it's a number, but suppose we have 2 teams (A and B) who after 10 rounds have 10 wins. Now suppose only the match of team A for round 11 is postponed and actually played between round 15 and 16. Team B plays according to the schedule and they win their matches of round 11 and 12, and lose their match of round 13. So, team B has a win run of 12. Team A wins their matches of round 12 to 15. Next they play the game which was originally planned for round 11 and lose it. What's the win run of team A, 10 or 14? Depending on that answer "longest wins" will be 12 or 14. --Sb008 (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
A would be 14. They played 14 consecutive games without defeat. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
By date it would be, by round only 10. --Sb008 (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear: when you guys say "by date" do you mean the amount of days? Or do you mean by number of games following the chronological order? Nehme1499 00:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
By round I mean the number of games according to the initially planned dates (so, where the games are ordered by round), by date I mean the number of games according to the actual dates (so, where the games are ordered by date). --Sb008 (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Ahhh ok sorry. I thought you were saying by date as in "this team is unbeaten for 100 days". Between round order and chronological order I would say chronological order. Nehme1499 01:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

We also have {{#invoke:Sports rbr table|function}} which is called rbr (by round) and not rbd (by date). So, the parameters in the infobox and table produced by the module could conflict, if we use by date for the infobox parameters. --Sb008 (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I've lost track of the discussion above, but can I clarify - are some people saying that if a team won its first eight games of the season in August and September 2020, then the next scheduled game is postponed and for some reason not rescheduled for two months during which time they lose all their games, but then they win the rescheduled game in November, we would say "in the 2020-21 season they won nine consecutive games"? Sorry, but that's insane. They won eight consecutive games. The fact that two months later they won one which on paper should have theoretically taken place in September doesn't alter the fact that they won eight consecutive games played....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree with ChrisTheDude, that was always my understanding. I was also under the impression that the results by round table was against WP:NOTSTATS and is also a duplication of information that is already presented and can be easily garnered from the results section within season articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @ChrisTheDude: I get the sense everyone is at cross-purposes here, but I agree with you that that scenario would be ridiculous and the longest winning streak is the largest streak of consecutive wins. Whether anyone is actually advocating for the alternative, I can't quite work out. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. 100% it's by date order. RedPatchBoy (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Are there independent reliable sources providing this information? Eldumpo (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There are countless match reports that mention how many games a team had won/lost in a row. I've never seen one mention a notional "if all games were played in original order" Spike 'em (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@Eldumpo: ESPN list the match streaks. Here's the Scottish Premiership stats for this season https://www.espn.co.uk/football/stats/_/league/SCO.1/view/performance Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the link. To answer the original poster though, we should be following (and directly citing) what sources say, not calculating it ourselves. Eldumpo (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Bravo Award notability issue

Can you please advise on this issue? --Tanonero (msg) 23:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of adding sportspeople by event

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Sportspeople by event to increase the wording of WP:PERFCAT to include sportspeople by event (examples include Category:FIFA World Cup-winning players and Category:Summer Olympics medalists by year). If anyone has an interest in the discussion it can be found at the link above. Rikster2 (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Page protection for List of Scottish football champions

Protection requested please, it should probably be obvious why, but please check the history if in any doubt. There are other pages in the same boat but this seems to be the worst AFAIK. Suggest keeping it beyond the next Old Firm game on 21/03, there's always drunken 'banter' spikes at that point. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Coppa Italia finals

Hi. I would like that this article be a FL. It would be possible if this article have the data about the attendance are present. Unfortunately it is not possible. What can I do? Dr Salvus (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Cyril Dunning

I've been going through some of the 6,000+ unassessed football articles to help clear some of the backlog and I'm not sure if Cyril Dunning is really notable. I've PROD-ed a couple of other articles already but because of this guy's brief amateur international career there might be something there. I wonder though if he falls foul of WP:BLP1E as the most notable thing about him is that he scored a hattrick in Germany's biggest ever defeat. I can't find any evidence that he ever played for Norwich City either but I'd be grateful to anyone with any offline sources that could verify that. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • A quick search of [1] brings up WP:GNG-qualifying results including his professional signing for Norwich (which was a much bigger deal than a routine transactional blurb back in those days from the looks of it.) SportingFlyer T·C 14:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, hopefully that means there's a Norwich City expert out there that can confirm he did play for them and we can start to improve this stub. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Dweller may be able to help there, although it's worth pointing out that Norwich did not play in the Football League at the time, so the question would then arise (as was touched on in a recent AfD, I believe) of whether the Southern League pre-WW1 is considered to have been a FPL......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
It shouldn't matter, honestly - there's probably enough sources out there in a search to get him past WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Dunning played 43 times for the club in the Southern League, scoring 25 goals. He also played 5 times for them in the "United League", which I've never heard of(!), once without scoring in the "N & S League" (ditto) and once, again without scoring, in the FA Cup. These stats in my 1986 edition of Canary Citizens, page 315. I tracked down that FA Cup match, in case it helped you. It's on page 248 of the same book. It was a 1st round tie on 1/5/1909 v Reading, which was played at Stamford Bridge, in front of a crowd of 15,732. Norwich eventually won that tie in a second replay at Villa Park, beat Liverpool in the next round, before being knocked out by Bristol City in the third. The match he played in is actually already mentioned in Wikipedia, though not referenced. It's in our article on The Nest: "An FA Cup tie against Reading later in the year had to be switched to a neutral venue when City's opponents complained that the Nest pitch was not big enough – but the club soon settled into their new home and it was not long before five figure crowds were packing into the compact little ground." I think playing in the first round proper of the FA Cup normally qualifies for our notability criteria, but the citations mentioned above would be far better. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've found reference for that match - page 33 of same book confirms the comment about the ground switch. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
And page 34 has more about Dunning: "Top scorer for City in the Southern League in 1908-09 was Cyril Dunning an England Amateur International. Cyril scored his 15 Southern League goals in only 21 matches and found time to score a hat-trick in an England Amateur International against Germany on Saturday 13 March 1909. In all he won 5 Amateur caps and was a fine player but business prevented him from substantially adding to his City appearances. He was born at Manor Farm, Colby on 20 February 1888 and died at Paston on 18 January 1962."
Dunning's goals helped Norwich finish a magnificent 3rd bottom of the Southern League that year. And I can tell you he always wore the number 8 shirt. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@Dweller: Will you add to the article? Currently, it doesn't even have his dates of birth and death. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Dweller: - the United League (at least at the point when Dunning was playing for Norwich) was a competition for Southern League clubs' reserve teams.[2]. Given the team we are talking about, I would guess that the "N & S League" was most likely the Norfolk & Suffolk League...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that can be right. Citizens doesn't include data on reserve appearances - it definitely treats it as first team, and that matches the actual sides put out, which match those fielded for the Southern League games. You're right about N&S - Dunning squeezed in his appearance in it (aged 17) before Norwich dropped out of the league in 1905, when the club turned professional, ending a shamateurism scancal. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe when that source says a "secondary competition", it means a supplementary league......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
That would make more sense. It's a smaller league, with fewer teams in it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Interestingly, my official Gillingham F.C. centenary history book explicitly refers to the team that won the United League in 1909 as the reserves, but that might just be slightly shoddy research, and there's no UL line-ups listed to shed any light...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

<-Robby.is.on I'd rather not do any more if you guys think the article should be deleted. What's the consensus? I can't see the other references SportingFlyer mentioned. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

He played cricket in the Minor Counties Championship for Norfolk for several years, according to his CricketArchive profile, which also gives a list of other football clubs he played for. It's a paywalled site, but if you hit Escape quickly enough when the page starts to load and before the subscribe banner covers it up again, it will remain visible. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added the cricket stats, the source also had his dob and middle name listed. It's definitely same person, as the cricket source mentions he also played football for Norwich City (and many other Norfolk local clubs). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Dweller: I wasn't sure of his notability which is why I brought it up here but I'm leaning more towards him being notable after reading everything above. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Any other views? I'd like consensus. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd be a firm keep after this research. SportingFlyer T·C 20:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I've updated his article. Struway, Joseph2302, we have a discrepancy in sources over the exact date of death. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!

His probate entry says he was resident at Heath Cottage Paston at the time of his death, which took place in St Michaels Hospital Aylsham on the 18th. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice collaborative work, everyone. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! The article is so much better than it was when this discussion began. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Kifuta Kiala

Does he pass WP:FOOTY? Having had a look at where he's played, I cant see any evidence of him having played in a WP:FPL, but I thought I'd check it here before starting an AfD. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't seem to find too much online. Most pages are just the bog-standard database-like listings. Googling the full name, "Kifuta Kiala Makangu", yields some results from what looks like either local or niche sources (most of them seem to be in German, so if this player has even some form of notability it likely doesn't reach very far out), but they seem to be mostly run-of-the-mill transfer and game coverage, probably loads of trivial mentions - I doubt you would find much more than that in print sources: The Regionalliga is the lowest tier of the national German structure (there are lower, but only at the levels of the Länder) and so any coverage would likely be limited. It isn't listed as a FPL so that, along with the so lack of SIGCOV, is pretty much the nail on the coffin. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, none of his appearances in Portugal seem to be above the third tier either and thus failing NFOOTY. I'll start an AfD. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I found three major kicker articles about him, I've posted them at at the deletion discussion. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Evergreen FC

In a move discussion, Evergreen FC has been proposed for merging into Northern Virginia Royals. If interested, please participate in the related move discussion. Thank you. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 12:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyone want to chime in on this? Essentially, the background is there was a club named Northern Virginia Royals who in 2015 became Evergreen FC. Instead of renaming the article, a new one was created. In 2021, the club became Northern Virginia FC. The two articles contain the same information, so they should be merged. The Rename is being held up by an editor who voted oppose because he wanted a secondary source sources, but when I provided more sources, he said he didn't want to look at them.RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

College team seasons

Hi all, sorry to open another can of worms about seasons. Are articles like 2020 Chicago State Cougars men's soccer team within the seasons criteria? I'm aware that WP:NSEASONS says A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable. but my concern is that these seasons don't get enough independent and significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. What's people's opinions on this? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with SportingFlyer. The key word is "generally" so the policy presumes that there will be significant coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of a particular team's season. That presumption has to be established and it won't be met in every case. More often than not, it will probably be championship seasons which reach the threshold for an article but there will be exceptions. After a quick Google search, I don't think this is one of them. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I would say no to college soccer team seasons. I think there are articles for other college sports such as American football, though college American football attracts much more fans and media attention than college soccer. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree these types of articles are not notable. GiantSnowman 17:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Smartyllama:, @Quidster4040:, @Ajax.amsterdam.fan: do you have access to any independent, reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of 2020 Chicago State Cougars men's soccer team of the standard that would pass WP:GNG? Thanks. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I disagree with the notion suggested by several users above that college soccer teams never get enough coverage, but in the case of an obscure school like Chicago State, I find it hard to believe they do. Top teams like Maryland and Georgetown would pass GNG (examples include [3], [4], [5], [6], and countless others), but I don't think all Division I college soccer seasons are notable. I'd need to do a more in-depth search on any specific school, but I don't see Chicago State having that coverage. Smartyllama (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I would agree. Each season for each club should be treated as a separate case. The Terrapins definitely get SIGCOV. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
My comment maybe wasn't clear. What I meant is we shouldn't be saying that generally all college soccer team season articles are notable. I'm sure there's some big teams where they will be notable, but also lots were they won't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus in the past on these types of team season articles is that they are given a presumption of notability if they qualify for the NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Tournament, because those teams tend to gain a higher level of coverage for qualifying for the national tournament, especially if they reach the College Cup. Sometimes articles get created prematurely. I think Chicago State is probably one of those articles. Jay eyem (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Also re:WP:NSEASONS, it mentions weighing the season and the sport, and that post-season appearances at the top collegiate level are often notable. Of course every season is ostensibly evaluated on WP:GNG, but I don't see an issue with the presumption of notability for those teams qualifying for the NCAA tournament. There actually is usually a decent amount of coverage for college soccer if you know where to look, but it's usually behind a paywall. Certainly nothing compared to American football or basketball, but it's there. Jay eyem (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Consensus is if a team either qualifies for the NCAA Tournament or wins the regular season, it is notable. Articles for conference seasons and tournaments are typically considered notable. I think that is too conservative, and generally the basis for deleting college team season articles is usually rooted in WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than WP:GNG arguments. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • In the separate WP:NSEASONS discussion below, I've proposed that a season needs to be continuously covered by secondary sources in order to be notable under WP:GNG, in order to circle the square with the conflict between a bad League Two article being kept and a good National League article being deleted. Although it's just a proposal, I'm not sure how many college seasons would be kept under this guideline, since most teams would only have significant coverage of their tournament game. SportingFlyer T·C 16:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah that's kind of a grey area for me. I don't think synthesizing match reports and transfers is sufficient basis for an article, but it is a team season we are talking about. I personally don't think asking for a season review in retrospect is too much to ask to qualify as WP:SIGCOV, but I know that's a bit contentious. Jay eyem (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

NSEASONS - discussion needed

Hi all,

I think we need to have some discussion around NSEASONS, given the current differences of opinion at AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008–09 Cambridge United F.C. season. As far as I can see it, the situation is that some editors' view is broadly that seasons in fully pro leagues are notable and seasons in non-fully pro leagues are not "per NSEASONS". Note that NSEASONS just says "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements", which could be taken to imply that seasons in non-fully pro leagues can also be created if they meet "the notability requirements" (unspecified, but would presumably be GNG). So the question is - what type of coverage is needed for a season to get over that line? Some of the articles currently up for debate have dozens of refs to BBC Sport, etc, but they tend to be dismissed as routine news. So are we looking for in-depth coverage of the season in its entirety? How many seasons even at the pro level would pass that bar? Has (picking a completely random example) 2003–04 Stockport County F.C. season been the subject of in-depth coverage as a whole? Yet that would probably get a "per NSEASONS" free pass. Also, would that requirement not suggest that almost no articles could be created on seasons still in progress?

Apologies if the above is a bit "stream of consciousness" but I think it's definitely a subject that needs some discussion, as there are clearly definite differences of opinion....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Something beyond mere match reports and transfer news. GiantSnowman 11:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
So if a team season in a fully pro league hasn't received that, it should also be deleted? I bet plenty would fall into that category....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that it could be hard to find sources for early seasons. Like ones from the 1800s and the first 3 decades of the 1900s, although there are plenty of club seasons in that state. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, I am not proposing that season articles for teams in pro leagues get deleted based on sourcing, I am more concerned about reviewing/fixing the current discrepancy whereby season articles for teams in the National League get deleted because "the coverage is all routine", whereas if a season article for a team in League Two was sent to AfD it would probably get kept "per NSEASONS" even if (as would most likely be the case) the depth of coverage was no more than that of the National League team...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The weird thing about seasons is that most teams, even in the highest professional league, don't get articles written on them that discuss the season as a whole, and we shouldn't be basing season notability on whether a recap has been written. I think a season article is fine for teams that have been consistently covered by secondary reliable sources throughout the entire season - this requires match reports but also transactional news. The goal of WP:GNG is to test whether secondary sources have "taken notice" of the subject of the article, and I think that's clearly met when a publication reports on every game and the routine stuff that goes on during the season. Our current consensus of "fully professional seasons only" does not respect WP:GNG and creates odd results when fully professional teams with significant coverage play a season in a league not in our FPL list.
  • Therefore, I propose the rule of "For football, WP:NSEASONS is met when a team's season has been consistently covered by reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. This includes reporting on match reports, routine transactions, and any events that occurred over the course of the season. Teams in a fully professional league are presumed to have received enough coverage." The wording might be improved, SportingFlyer T·C 12:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
As a slight change, (not really commenting on what is/isn't notable), but it's worth noting it isn't professional leagues, it's leagues that were fully professional for that season. The league being professional now isn't relevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I thought we already had that broken out by year on that page? SportingFlyer T·C 12:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I am of the belief that any season article that can't be brought to a state of demonstrating WP:GNG, professional league or otherwise, should be deleted or redirected as per, incidentally, the guidance provided by WP:NSEASONS! Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, if a league is fully-professional, the club season page should be easy to make pass WP:GNG with just a bit of effort. There are many ways you can write in background information and info from the season. Coaches interviews, press conferences about the season, how a match might affect the table... I don't know, just throwing stuff out there. But honestly, if I can find stuff to make an article on an I-League club's season notable then it shouldn't be hard to do. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The two problems: users vote at AfD on WP:NSEASONS alone ("was this an FPL? No? Delete"), ignoring WP:GNG, and people interpret what constitutes WP:GNG differently for these articles, leading to inconsistent decisions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Should NSEASONS have no significance whatsoever on whether an article is kept? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The issue with the suggested definition For football, WP:NSEASONS is met when a team's season has been consistently covered by reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. This includes reporting on match reports, routine transactions, and any events that occurred over the course of the season. is that most non-league teams, certainly down to level 8 or 9, would have this level of coverage in their local media. We therefore need to have a realistic cutoff, and matching the FPL cutoff seems the most sensible place to draw the line IMO. Number 57 23:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Also, I think it can be argued that club seasons are simply forks of league season articles, and for non fully-pro leagues, a league season article is a sufficient/appropriate level of coverage and forks for separate clubs are unnecessary. Number 57 23:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't think your assumption is correct. I've just looked for secondary coverage of a few random non-league games and none of them had even a secondary match report online (not National League, I did that too and all of them had coverage). I did find a match report in a hyper-local publication for a match between two of the teams from 2017, but that's probably not independent. Your second argument implies we shouldn't have season articles at all. SportingFlyer T·C 23:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
        • In Suffolk, the Suffolk Free Press covers every AFC Sudbury match and has stories on transfers etc for the club. The Bury Free Press does similar for Bury Town, and the Lowestoft Journal for Lowestoft Town; there are similar newspapers covering other towns with teams at level 9. The county-wide East Anglian Daily Times also contains regular match reports for non-league clubs in the Eastern Counties League (levels 9–10) and above. I'm guessing you may not be finding it because many of these stories appear in the print version, but not necessarily online (many local newspapers have drastically cut back their online content in the last few years – the first two mentioned don't even have their own website anymore, having been merged into a website covering multiple local papers). Number 57 12:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Number 57 - you say that requiring "reporting on match reports, routine transactions, and any events that occurred over the course of the season" isn't sufficient for a season article, which is fair enough, but what I am struggling with is what the greater level of coverage you would be looking for is. Could you give an overview of what sort of coverage you would be looking for? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Due to the level of coverage for non-league clubs I mentioned above, I just don't think coverage is a useful barometer, hence why another cut-off would be sensible IMO. Number 57 12:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
      • @Number 57: The point of WP:FPL and WP:NFOOTY is to provide a guideline for assumed notability for players. This assumed notability is based off the assumption that a player playing in an FPL will create significant coverage of them in reliable independent sources. Of course a player who doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY but has the coverage (meets WP:GNG) is notable and should get an article while a player who does meet NFOOTY technically but doesn't have significant coverage (say played 5 minutes and that's it) may be deleted under AfD. Due to this, there is no reason to have an enforced cut-off for season pages either - we can have a presumed level of notability like NFOOTY, but each page is in the end judged on its notability per GNG. --SuperJew (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
        • It's a matter of opinion. Personally I like having clear cut-offs, as it helps editors understand what is worth their time writing articles on, and helps ensure consistency on what we have and don't have articles on (I would rather we did keep articles on players even with one appearance, as it's part of a set, but I appreciate this is a minority view). For me, having the same cut-off as NFOOTBALL makes sense as we're assuming there is a certain level of coverage of these leagues/clubs/players. I'm not looking to have an argument about this, just putting forward my view. Number 57 14:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

NSEASONS is just a guidance and shouldn't be used as an argument to ever supersede GNG, that's just wrong voting that way in my opinion. As for the National League, surprisingly enough, even know it's semi-professional, it near operates fully professional, as anyone of those clubs, even the smallest of chances get promoted to League Two have to put all players on club contracts. I don't know about others, but I feel that NSEASONS should extend into the National League and that's the cut off, period. Govvy (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The National League is certainly the cut-off point at which clubs get significant coverage from the national media e.g. BBC Sport. Maybe the suggested methdology above could be refined to "For football, WP:NSEASONS is met when a team's season has been consistently covered by reliable secondary sources at a national level per WP:GNG. This includes reporting on match reports, routine transactions, and any events that occurred over the course of the season. Teams in a fully professional league are presumed to have received enough coverage." or similar.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Also bear in mind why the National League gets wide spread coverage, is because it covers the whole of the country before being split up in to regional leagues. Govvy (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

NSEASONS is a waste of time and appears to just create ambiguity and inconsistency with site-wide policy like WP:GNG. Chris was generous selecting a Stockport season, I offered 1958–59 Liverpool F.C. season as a non-notable season (per NSEASONS) which seems frankly bonkers. But I also find it strange that we're expecting news outside "transfers and matches" because that would mean most seasons for most teams would be non-notable. I also find it strange that some people think that you can't write an NSEASONS-compliant article using prose about matches and transfers, that's altogether possible. In summary, NSEASONS really provides nothing helpful at all, especially not in the context of the various deletion discussions I've seen it used in as it does not preclude the creation pretty much any season article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Stars or no stars?

Some clubs, such as Juventus F.C. and FC Bayern Munich, don't have the star(s) on their logo, whereas others, like FC Dynamo Kyiv and Galatasaray S.K., do. Should we remove the stars from the latter, or add them to the former? Nehme1499 18:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

What logos do the independent, reliable sources use? Eldumpo (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: In my opinion it would be better delete the stars Dr Salvus (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Are the starts a permanent addition to the club crest? Or do they just appear on shirts? GiantSnowman 22:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean by permanent? Do you mean that they are purely ornamental and don't change based on titles won? Nehme1499 23:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
They are added for title wins, but are they actually part of the crest or just displayed next to it? I would lean towards the latter. Which means no stars with the crest in the infobox. oknazevad (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Nehme - bingo. If the star is ornamental and might change season to season then don't include it; if it's a permanent feature of the crest then obviously yes, include it. GiantSnowman 11:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The Galatasaray club website doesn't show stars on the crest. Whereas the Dynamo one does. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Aberdeen's website also has stars above the crest. Unlike the relevant Wiki page. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I would just remove stars from logos if the stars indicate titles won, and can potentially change the next year(s) with a title win. Nehme1499 16:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. IIRC Bradford City A.F.C. introduced a star above their crest for the 2010–11 season, to mark 100 years since winning the 1911 FA Cup Final. GiantSnowman 17:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Not agreed. Some clubs integrate the stars in the logo (whereas most have a club logo and only add stars above the logo on the kit etc.) and use it everywhere the logo is used. Why should it matter that the logo potentially might change? Any logo might potentially change. See e.g. the UEFA site for usage. Dynamo Kyiv, Olympiacos, Marseille, Ferencvaros, and more clubs are represented with the star above the logo, while many other clubs aren't. Because the stars are part of the logo, or aren't. – Elisson • T • C • 10:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Nope, it's simple. If the stars are integrated into the logo, include them. If they are not, don't. GiantSnowman 10:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with GiantSnowman. I wonder if this should also be applied to national football teams?--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 21:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of two football sources

What are the thoughts on the reliability of https://thepeoplesperson.com/ and https://www.thesportsman.com/? SK2242 (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Contributions of User:Carlão Junigan Magalhães - vandalising infoboxes of Brazilian footballers

Any admin around who would like to take a look at the contributions of User:Carlão Junigan Magalhães? Spotted on my watchlist changing the infobox of Jairinho to include spells at Flamengo and Real Madrid, despite the sourced career history in the prose. Further investigation found all his contributions from 5 March to today have done similar things on 13 player articles. An earlier editing spree between 19 January and 8 February did the same to 8 other player articles, but may well have been completely reverted by now as none of these edits are still current. User has been welcomed but not warned, prior to my uw-2 for Jairinho. Thanks in advance, Gricehead (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

After further research to check sources, I have reverted all edits in the period 5 March to 15 March, but would still invite an admin to consider whether further action is required. Gricehead (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If further vandalism occurs, please continue to revert, warn, and then report, either at AIV or to me., and I'll block. GiantSnowman 11:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Note that the user has been indefinitely blocked from editing on pt-wiki for making the same sort of edits. [7] Gricehead (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

2020–21 UEFA Champions League knockout phase

The bracket has been added into the page during this phase of the competition (round of 16, 2legs). In recent years, I don't remember adding it during this phase. It should be added only once, only after the quarter final draw, in which all pairings are established 100%. Island92 (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Bracket should be added after the draw for the QFs onwards is complete. Someone is going to have to swap the last 16 ties around in order to fit the bracket which is just unnecessary work. I have removed it for now. Dougal18 (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. See my talk page indeed. Island92 (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Added again by the same user. Island92 (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Reverted. I have told Sb008 to come here about it. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Why doesn't any of you present an argument why the information shown on the page is supposed to be invalid? All I hear is habit. The pairings and results of the matches as shown in the round of 16 are correct. FACT!!! The bracket as shown doesn't make any claim about pairings starting in the quarters and so on. FACT!!! Present me facts that anything showed is incorrect. Factual information is being removed!!! And it's a lot less work to swap some lines, than to add the bracket. --Sb008 (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
No one has stated the information is incorrect. However, the bracket provides no real value until the quarter-final draw, as it includes the exact same information that is already present in the round of 16 tie summary table. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Then why have a bracket at all? All exact same information of the bracket will eventually be present in the summary tables of the rounds. --Sb008 (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  1. We already established that the information I added is correct
  2. The information for the round of 16 is not only today, but also tomorrow, next week and even next year the same as in the summary table of the round. The same applies for all other (future) rounds. There would be a problem if the information wouldn't be the same.
  3. If the fact that information is the same would be a valid argument to remove the bracket, it applies not only today, but also tomorrow, after the draw or next year. Either you add the bracket not at all, or adding it now is just as good, as adding it on any other day in the future.
  4. What remains is the habit. That's non-argument. As I said before, as a baby it was my habit to p**p in my diaper. A habit I luckily don't have any more. And I doubt any of you is going to tell me you still p**p in your diaper out of habit.

If no one comes up with a valid argument, I will re-add the bracket and report who ever removes it, for removing valid and accurate information without a good reason (aka vandalism). --Sb008 (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The quarter final draw will take place on 19 March 2021. Come on, you can be patient and simply wait.--Island92 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Since this is contentious, I agree with not adding the bracket until there's an actual set bracket. Right now, a bracket has not been set, and the information's unnecessarily duplicative. We can add it back after the quarter final draw. SportingFlyer T·C 00:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Great arguments again:
  • Just a few more days till the draw, I can wait. Sure I can wait, like you could not bother for those few days.
  • It's contentious. When Galileo Galilei said the earth revolved around the sun instead of vice verse, it was contentious too. Trump and thousands of his followers deny climate change, contentious as well. Guess we have to remove the Climate change article.
Sentimental opinions, but if you lack facts, it's all that's left. And I thought Wikipedia was about facts, how stupid of me.--Sb008 (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Grow up. WP also works by consensus and collaboration, which you seem to be ignoring. Spike 'em (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sb008: As far as I understand, the problem that users have with adding the bracket currently is that it does not reflect the future necessarily correctly, and only after the quarter-final draw do we know the full pathway. Currently (before the draw), you don't know which winners will face-off and therefore listing it now as a bracket can lead readers to think that it is the set path. For example, in this version, a reader might think that PSG will play Liverpool in the quarter-final and Porto will play Dortmund. --SuperJew (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with everybody else (It's a clear consensus). Let's wait... Kante4 (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France

Please help me to improve this page. I would like that this page is a FL DrSalvus (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 Copa América

A new schedule was released today. All the scheduled matches must be revised.--Island92 (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Schedule.--Island92 (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This graph on Real Sociedad

Hi, i found this graph on the Real Sociedad article. If we have a season to season section on spanish clubs, I think it is unnecessary information, do you?. Thanks. Pincheira22 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That "season to season" section should be broken out into its own article, like List of Arsenal F.C. seasons. Many articles have a chart something like the one in the "early history" section (eg here), so I think it's valid, but why the heck is it so enormous?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
That graph is confusing, because there's so many years that it's basically unreadable. As well as probably failing MOS:ACCESS as the numbers are too small and the colours are being used as the sole display of the division they were in. And it's in the Early history section for some reason. I'm sure it could be converted into a readable table on a seasons article instead, which would be much better. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I just messes up the article and, as mentioned above, there's already a section which covers that. It should be removed. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree fully and have removed it. GiantSnowman 16:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Any admins about

Protecting Ché Adams till the novelty of his Scottish call-up wears off would be much appreciated. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Been protected by Lee Vilenski (I had requested via WP:RPP about half an hour ago). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I chucked on 2 day Semi. Might not be enough, but we can always extend. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I saw it was already listed at RFPP so came here as a backup. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
If you've had a semi for two days, you might want to see a doctor. – PeeJay 14:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, how did someone manage to persuade the Blues to OTRS an official picture of Adams? Wish more clubs would do stuff like that....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The bigger question is how did they understand the process? When I ask most people to upload images on Commons they get discouraged as it's "too complicated"... Nehme1499 14:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
It was through 888sport when they sponsored 4 Championship clubs, of which Blues were one. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:Football3r cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Anyone here employed by any major sponsors? Just asking. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Is that why Preston players have those type of images!!! Always wanted to know. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Full name of club in match article

Hi all, there's a bit of a discrepancy in the article names. Which do we think is correct? For example, for Liverpool, we have Liverpool 4–0 Barcelona, Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (26 May 1989), Liverpool 9–0 Crystal Palace (1989) and Liverpool 11–0 Strømsgodset where the full name of the club is not in the title (i.e. the 'F.C.' is omitted) but then we have AFC Ajax 5–1 Liverpool F.C. (1966), Liverpool F.C. 1–2 Grimsby Town F.C. (2001) and Liverpool F.C. 4–3 Newcastle United F.C. (1996) with the full club names in the article title. Which is correct? Are they both correct potentially? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be 'Article Name F.C. 1–0 Article Name F.C. (YEAR)' - so use 'Liverpool F.C.' rather than 'Liverpool', and no need for the full date. GiantSnowman 12:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I also concur that full name should be used - it makes it clearer that the article's about a football match. Not sure that the year needs to be shown every time - Liverpool have only ever beaten Strømsgodset by a score of 11-0 once, so there's no need to disambiguate there IMO....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the need for consistency. To unpack what the right approach is, I'd quite like to understand why we wouldn't go with the simplest option, without FC (etc). Is the concern that some team names are also those of cities/regions?

Another question: how do other sports handle this? Cheers, --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Bingo. If you saw an article e.g. for Liverpool 0–3 Barrow (2022) (watch this space...) what would you think it referred to? Not a clue. Transport maybe? Including the FC/F.C. as appropriate clears that up. GiantSnowman 12:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure those unfamiliar with football to the extent that seeing "Liverpool 4-0 Barcelona" is a problem will be helped by adding liberal sprinklings of FCs, AFCs, ACs, SCs etc. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the title of the club as per what we use on Wikipedia should be used in these titles. It is crazy to use different ways of referring to the same entity in our article titles across the encyclopedia. As for disambiguation, it should be minimised. I can't see a good reason for the full date of the Liverpool/Arsenal match unless there was another LFC 0-2 AFC match in May 1989. The "year" can be helpful in most cases for some immediate context, but isn't essential in almost every single case as the scoreline itself is a disambiguator for most such articles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the need to include F.C. or FC in those title names. Majority of people who would enter a search string for an article on one match won't bother typing FC. COMMONNAME would also drop that most of the time. Govvy (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)#
same. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why we wouldn't refer to clubs the same way across Wikipedia article titles. There is precisely zero logic in that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree, we should stay consistent with the article's name. Nehme1499 22:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Experts opinion needed

I am under the process of reviewing Draft:List of top international women's football goal scorers by country which has been submitted at AFC. The article seems fine, although some minor issues are there. The list is incomplete and needs a few more citations. I would like to accept this. If accepted, this will become an important football article like the List of top international men's football goal scorers by country. With these minor issues, I'm little bit confused here. Im also a new AFC reviewer. So I'm asking for expertise suggestions? Please dont forget to ping me while replying. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 11:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmorwiki: - take out any entries that are not cited, and take out the placeholder entries for the 'TB D' countries. As long as it's in line with the men's article (style, format, sources etc.) then it's fine. GiantSnowman 11:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
As per GS. Anything not cited should be pushed back on. Koncorde (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, some of the years are 1900, I assume that's because they're really just unknown. Should be blank or ? if unknown- putting 1900 is definitely incorrect. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done after fixing the major issues. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 14:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Abdou Diallo

Hello. Abdou Diallo just got his first call-up for Senegal. He was born in France, has lived in France his whole pre-professional life, and has only played for France youth teams until now. Should we wait until he makes an official appearance for Senegal to change anything? And if we do change anything, what nationality should he be in the opening paragraph? French-Senegalese, Senegalese, or French? I would lean on French-Senegalese. I believe there was a similar discussion for John Brooks of Germany/USA? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is not to use hyphenated names, so either Senegalese or nothing (explaining further down in the lede his nationality situation). I would go with the latter, so "is a professional footballer..." and then a sentence such as "Born and raised in France, Diallo is of Senegalese descent and has represented their senior team since 2021". Nehme1499 15:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I would say don't put one in the first sentence, and explain it where needed. Which is what we do quite often e.g. with Ché Adams, who played for England youth teams but decided he wanted to play for Scotland and was called up by Scotland yesterday. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Is what I did now correct? Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that works. I've cleaned it up a bit. Nehme1499 16:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Jade Pennock

While not passing NFOOTY, she does seem to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. However, the current state of the article reads like a fan page, or a CV, rather than an encyclopedic page. I've already cleaned it up a bit, can someone else help out? Thanks, Nehme1499 17:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done - but, however, why do you think she is notable? The sources are primary or questionable? GiantSnowman 17:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
There are these articles I've found, which may be enough to consider her notable ([8], [9], [10]). Nehme1499 17:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
1 is good (I've already added to article), 2 is a podcast website, 3 is unknown. GiantSnowman 19:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability criterias of players in Italy

Which are the Notability criterias of players in Italy? DrSalvus (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It just universal . Professional footballers. Serie C is pro too. However, being a pro only pass WP:NSPORT but may be not enough news coverage to pass WP:GNG. I think some article that no news coverage + few games in pro have been deleted. Matthew hk (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Norway U-20 12–0 Honduras U-20

Please help me to improve the page DrSalvus (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

How is this notable? GiantSnowman 19:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: It is the largest victory of a FIFA U-20 World Cup. DrSalvus (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Again, how is it notable. Where is the significant coverage? Large scores are not inherently notable. GiantSnowman 20:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
We don't even have articles on most U-20 World Cup finals for goodness sakes. Why should this particular random match be considered more deserving of an article than Finals? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I had a look at sources, and most of them focus on one player scoring 9 goals, rather than details on the match itself. I didn't see any evidence the match would pass WP:GNG, as I haven't even seen a decent match report for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As it seems to be notability day on WT:FOOTY...

...what do the gathered luminaries make of List of women's Olympic football tournament own goals, which seems to be a part of an obscure series of lists of own goals in major tournaments? This particular one is sourced entirely to FIFA, which suggests it lacks general notability.

Others are:

Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Both World Cup ones are probably okay (I feel like they both are or they both are not, if we source the women's one better), the Euro one might be okay after a source search, the Olympics one is probably not notable. SportingFlyer T·C 21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Apart from perhaps (men’s) World Cup all seem to rely on non-independent source so not meeting notability. Eldumpo (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Crystal Palace 0–7 Liverpool

Is it really that notable and deserving of it's own article? Govvy (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe so. It's not their biggest away win ever (they won 0-8 in a cup game in 2000: [11]), just their biggest away league win. And we don't have articles for the biggest away wins of most other teams, nothing special or extraordinary about the match itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Nope. Not a record of any type, just a big win. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. GiantSnowman 16:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Normally when we do big win articles, it tends to be if there are around 9 goals scored. 7 goals is just uncommon but not really notable for anything. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see grounds for having a separate page on the above match. I don't even think Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Southampton F.C. should be listed, there's nothing remarkable about it apart from the number of goals, particularly as almost half of them were scored in the last 20 minutes when it's obvious that Southampton wouldn't be trying any more. Individual matches should be included on their long-term significance rather than just because of arbitrary goal counts.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru The Manchester United - Southampton game is a joint record win for the Premier League, along with Southampton F.C. 0–9 Leicester City F.C. and Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C.. I actually wonder, now that there are three of them, whether they ought to be combined in some way, but they're certainly notable in some shape or form. The Liverpool game isn't. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest that all or most of the following aren't notable either;
Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I think some GNG and common sense comes into play here. I think with the Cup shocks (especially ones involving non-league knocking out PL), they should stay. But normal league matches, I think probably shouldn't. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think most of those satisfy the GNG. Take them to AfD on a case by case basis if you disagree. – PeeJay 18:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Lots of professional football matches in the UK, and definitely every match including top-tier clubs, pass GNG though. I would say the line is crossed when the match makes headlines in the non-sports sections. I'm not sure that many of those listed did. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I would say that all of those are notable with the possible exception of the Man U–Nottingham game. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The Chelsea-Bradford City game is definitely notable. GiantSnowman 18:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'm confused. Let's take the 2009 Manchester Derby. Why is that particular one, out of the 170-odd Manchester derbies played, notable? There were no major news stories beforehand, there were none after, it didn't decide anything (it was only the 5th game of the season). OK, 4-3 is an exciting game. But apart from that? Ditto the Cardiff-Leeds and Chelsea-Bradford ones. OK, Premiership team knocked out by team two divisions lower. Hardly exceptional (I had a look and the last time it didn't happen at least once in an FA Cup is 2011-2012). So I'm simply trying to work out why the difference. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
That Manchester derby was voted "best match" of the Premier League 20 Seasons Awards, that's the only explanation I can think of. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Cardiff-Leeds article includes a number of post-2002 sources that look back on the game. Eldumpo (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Francisco Wagsley

Can someone help me out by taking a look at Francisco Wagsley please, and seeing if you can reproduce a bug?

For me, in my default configuration (Legacy Vector), I can't click on the links for Al-Wehdat or Al-Jahra SC, but I think that's just a symptom. Also, select and copy of the infobox flips to include the entire article when I go past these same rows (sorry, this action is hard to describe).

Interestingly, if I switch skin, the issue (mostly) persists, but sometimes on different rows of the infobox. Similarly, if I go through old revisions, it's sometimes different rows of the infobox affected.

Problem seems to have been introduced in [12] with the introduction of the Romanian language reference as, for me, at that point the São Luiz row of the infobox becomes unclickable.

I initially thought it was due to the right-to-left arabic script in the second reference introduced in that diff, but it seems not.

Edit to add - I can't reproduce this by pulling the infobox and reflist out to a separate sandbox page, either.

Thanks in advance, Gricehead (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I can reproduce this behaviour, though not done a huge amount of investigation into what causes it(using Chrome / Legacy Vector). Spike 'em (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
And if I switch off the Legacy Vector, it is Barito Putera/Borneo that don't work. Switching to Modern it is then Mikkelin Palloilijat / Ceahlăul Piatra Neamț that are problematic. Depending on how wide my browser window is, I have different teams in the IB with the problem Spike 'em (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Me too. Similar issue at Maurice Conroy: at my normal reslution, I can't click the place of death or playing position fields, but if I change my browser width, if affects teams instead. Using Firefox/Legacy Vector. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Without looking at the above-linked pages, I know what you are talking about. I have encountered this as well sporadically in the past 2(?) days. Nehme1499 17:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Having investigated further, I get this with all skins. It is something to do with the interaction between the infobox and the stub template. Whatever is level with {{Brazil-footy-forward-1980s-stub}} / {{England-footy-defender-1910s-stub}} will be the problematic links / text. Spike 'em (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I've created User:Spike 'em/sandbox/fw to test, and have drilled down as far as {{Asbox}} being the problem so have raised it at the talk page for that. Spike 'em (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. Spike 'em (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Spike 'em: A belated thanks! Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Coventry kit help!

Hi project, Amakuru and I are currently pushing ahead with trying to get Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989) to featured status, and there's a very decent comment that says the current kit displayed there isn't correct. Indeed, it needs to be the half-and-half blue shirt as shown in this grainy video. Can anyone here help create this please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Take a look here. Nehme1499 20:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not seeing anything there which is the same as the kit in the video. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: You can try finding a similar kit, and changing the colours through paint. Then, upload it to commons. Nehme1499 20:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The Rambling Man. I would have thought using a white base and sticking File:Kit body lightbluehalf2.png on top of it would work....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude cheers! I know this many seem like an imposition Chris, but would you be able to do that? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Done, although the shade of blue doesn't really match. Let me see what I can do in Paint...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorted now. The shirt was half white and half sky blue, but the white half had sky blue pinstripes on it. I think what's there now is close enough..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
If anyone wants to make the detailed kit then you can find it here. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Liverpool 4–0 Barcelona

Is this page notable? DrSalvus (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Steve Cotterill management statistics (again)

I raised this in January. Basically his games as a manager were omitted from his managerial statistic for games he was in hospital with Covid. This was at odds with Soccerbase who included these games in his figures. The limited consensus at the time was to include them. I changed Cotterill’s figures to reflect this. Eduditio1990 has reverted this on the basis that if sources confirm a manager was elsewhere then those games should be omitted from their tally. Personally I’d go with Soccerbase but any comments on this welcomed.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I also stand, as I did in January, that if a manager isn't at the game, then the games shouldn't be included in his statistics. Same as if a player doesn't take the field, he doesn't get a cap to his tally. --SuperJew (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This is also the view that I take. --eamont (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
If sources say he was manager and give him the stats, then we include them. GiantSnowman 16:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
We should follow what sources say, anything else is OR. Nehme1499 16:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
We follow what reliable sources say, not what someone's OR says. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Eduditio1990 Using one source about him being in hospital and deducting matches from the results of another source is original research. We follow what reliable sources say, and they say he was the manager, even if he wasn't physically managing the team. This is no different to a manager with a touchline ban, who is still the manager, even if they're banned from the stadium. Please stop edit warring against clear consensuses, just because you disagree with them. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Football history has many instances of managers missing games - https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/five-times-managers-didnt-turn-up-for-games-klopp-ferguson-warnock/ and there are sources to show that they missed them. However I’m not sure we really want to revisit historical managerial stats for the like of Ferguson and Klopp?--Egghead06 (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
What makes Soccerbase reliable over, say, English National Football Archives or Manager Statistics? These have disparities in their records for players, managers, seasons etc. Sometimes these disparities are quite stark. An editor, at some point, exercised judgement in selecting Soccerbase as a overriding source. The OR page states: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." I made a judgment that the sources indicating Cotterill's absence overrode the aggregate data of Soccerbase which takes a broader approach to football statistics for the purposes of betting. Could someone please explain why the use of sources that clearly indicate Cotterill's absence from the games counts as original research?--eamont (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
There is also a difference between a touchline ban and being able to engage in remote advice and being incapacitated in an ICU where even remote advice is impossible (physically and logistically).

Just to note the editor's username is Eruditio1990 with an "r", so they won't have got pinged by the misspelt mentions above. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheers- hopefully now, he has.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I know it's a different sport, but in the NBA, if a coach isn't at the game and the assistant is in charge of the match, the result is still credited to the head coach. This was a big deal in 2015-16, when the Golden State head coach Steve Kerr was on a medical leave of absence and the assistant ran the team to a record of 39 wins and 4 losses, while the head coach was out. Kerr still got credited with all the wins even though he wasn't there. Seems to be the same as these sources. RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Also none of the sources given [13], [14] say he missed X number of games. To even consider this, we would need sources saying that Cotterill returned after X games where his assistant was in charge. But again, we should follow what reliable sources say, and they say he was the manager for the games, even if he wasn't there. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
There are reliable sources indicating that he missed games/had a "stand-in" or "interim" manager. There are also sources that indicate his entry to and exit from hospital and, separately, the ICU. Just not Soccerbase.
As I've said a couple of times in this discussion, I think there are two primary issues to consider. First, whether Soccerbase has a special status as a "reliable source" that other sources don't have (stats aggregate sources or otherwise). If the answer to this is "Soccerbase is special", then we need to be prepared to apply this universally, retroactively, and defend why it's special.
Second, are manager statistics on these pages supposed to be recording 1) the CLUB record while the manager is in tenure or 2) the MANAGER'S personal record? I've given my view on this in other comments. eamont (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Steve Cotterill was the Shrewsbury Town manager at the time of the matches. His location at the time of those matches is not relevant. The statistics of those matches go in his statistics column, which is why they are included on his Soccerbase page and likely every other manager statistics site.--EchetusXe 11:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think there are two issues we need to address here. The first: Is Soccerbase seen as the standard? There are other sources that show historical inconsistencies; not just for Cotterill, but other players, managers, and seasons. So in the case of dissenting "reliable sources", which do we refer to? If we can use a "failed verification" flag on a number that doesn't match what Soccerbase says, can we use a "failed verification" flag on any number that doesn't match any other reliable source (such as the English National Football Association, Manager Stats, the BBC, or the Shropshire Star)? (I don't believe this is the right answer, but this is the implication.) The point I'm trying to make is that, as an encyclopaedia, fusion of sources is par for the course. If you want to make Soccerbase the standard for football stats, then are you/we prepared to audit all relevant football stats to make sure they match Soccerbase? (Again, I don't believe this is the right answer - not least because I don't think Soccerbase should be THE standard if this is the route taken - but this in the implication.) Or should case-by-case consensus be reached?--eamont (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The second: Should manager statistics on these pages be recording 1) the CLUB record while the manager is in tenure or 2) the MANAGER'S personal record? In my opinion the latter is more appropriate if stats are included on a manager's page and not a club's page. A follow-up to this: are there extenuating circumstances where games should be omitted from a manager's personal record? There seems to be a spectrum of opinion above where there is acknowledgement this has been done on occasion. So where is the line? Is it when a manager is physically and/or logistically incapable of influencing a game in real time? This would allow us to continue to record games where there's a touchline ban but would also allow for exclusion when people are undergoing surgery or laying in an ICU.--eamont (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

As a further consideration (not yet discussed): We should be aware that in many cases (and specifically in the case of Cotterill) we're talking about a BOLP. These stats have implications for career prospects and many people trust Wikipedia and its editors to present something close to accurate. Should we err on the side of caution - as is the recommendation for BOLP - and exclude games managers had no sway over?--eamont (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Despite being in hospital in January with Covid, Cotterill was not without significant influence in the games played as noted here https://www.shropshirestar.com/sport/football/shrewsbury-town-fc/2021/01/22/steve-cotterill-still-the-man-behind-the-decisions-at-shrewsbury-town/ and as a quote from his stand in, "Obviously we agree on most things most of the time anyway, it’s good to have these chats with Dave, but it will always be the gaffer’s choice, he’s the manager." Anything other than listing these games under his managership would require a value judgment on how much he influenced the game. Wikipedia is not here to do that.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
+1, it is beyond our remit as editors to make value decisions on how much input a manager had over a given game and compile separate stats. Spike 'em (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
The question isn't a question of how much he influenced the game. The question is whether or not he was at the match. Just as when we list "caps as captain" (for example: List of England national football team captains), we only list the games the player played as a captain - if the captain misses a game because of injury or any other reason that they don't play, we don't list it as a cap under the claim "well he led and influenced in training, so we can't judge how much he influenced the game". --SuperJew (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Captain is a role which can be applied and taken away at the choice of the manager. Manager is a contractually binding role for a set period of time- at the game, in a hospital, away for a religious festival, home with an illness or any other reason. Contractually that person is the only manager of that team.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a clearly defined captain who goes to shake his opponents hand / toss a coin with the ref for each match, and this is documented in many reliable sources. Can you show any sources that Cotterill was not the manager of Shrewsbury at the times of these games, even if he may not have been within the confines of the ground at the time? Spike 'em (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Can't check at the moment, but there have been plenty of instance of "caretaker" managers stepping in when a manager is ill, or takes leave of absence, have we ever checked if game stats are duplicated?
FWIW, we need to use the statistics as derived from reliable sources. If we want to insert a comment or note about periods of absences I am sure we can add them in the relativwly few occasions this occurs. Koncorde (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe there is scope for List of association football caretaker managers who have temporarily stood-in for permanent managers?--Egghead06 (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
This is more-or-less what I originally tried with a footnote against Cotterill's tenure at Shrewsbury. There seems to be less debate about the footnote than about the actual change to the numbers, though. Which is fair debate.--eamont (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

John Robertson (Inverness CT)

Interesting debate above. There is a similar situation at Inverness CT just now, with manager John Robertson placed on compassionate leave and they have appointed Neil McCann as an interim replacement. Soccerbase have been including results during McCann's interim tenure under Robertson's record (and not in McCann's). I know this is what the "reliable" source is saying, but it is clearly wrong. e.g. a win for Inverness this week was described by the local paper as "McCann's first win". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Soccerbase have John Askey managing Port Vale and Darrell Clakre managing Walsall. I don't know why it's considered reliable when transfermarket.com isn't. But that's besides the point. Cotterill was the Shrewsbury manager. Robertson is not currently the Inverness manager because they appointed an interim in his absence.--EchetusXe 15:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Soccerbase is reliable, just not always accurate. That's a difference. I agree however that Robertson is not the current ICT manager, whereas Cotterrill was/is Shrewsbury manager. GiantSnowman 15:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
What's the difference between reliable and accurate? Nehme1499 16:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Is it a trusted source? Yes. Does it make the occasional mistake? Also yes. Every publisher does. GiantSnowman 16:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Still nobody has addressed why Soccerbase is consistently referred to as the reliable source over other aggregate platforms, such as English National Football Archive and Manager Stats. What do we do about disparities? I've tried outlining the two or three threads of discussion above - it might be easier to keep them contained there.--eamont (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Well who says there is a disparity with ENFA or other stat collation site over Cotterill? It's a moot point whether Soccerbase or ENFA is more reliable if they both say the same thing.--EchetusXe 18:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Just as an example, Cotterill's page currently says he managed 116 games at Bristol City and 161 at Burnley. Soccerbase says 63 at Bristol City and 170 at Burnley. ENFA says 116 at Bristol City and 169 at Burnley. Manager Stats says 116 at Bristol City and 170 at Burnley. As you can see, there's no two sources that agree on both clubs simultaneously. So which is "right"?--eamont (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Steve Cotterill's manager stats need to be referenced for each spell, not as a whole. Like here. --EchetusXe 23:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
OK - so which source do we use from all those available? The three mentioned (Soccerbase, ENFA, Manager Stats) are probably not the only ones. eamont (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Are there any references showing Cotterill’s "stand-in", Aaron Wilbraham was ever the manager of Shrewsbury?--Egghead06 (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is still avoiding the elephant in the room which is that Soccerbase seems to be treated as the gold standard. Why? Especially when there are other aggregate sources.
Yes, there are sources indicating that he had a stand-in. I'm more interested in the universal/generic discussion, though. Is it your opinion that any stats on a manager's Wikipedia page should report on the club's achievement while they were in tenure, regardless of extenuating circumstances? eamont (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
You're right, there are two separate points to discuss: sources and when games "count". I've separated these points into threads above.eamont (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Red Star F.C.

To avoid confusion with other clubs like Red Star Belgrade, what should we refer Red Star F.C. as in the infobox? For most articles, I have seen "Red Star", but personally I think "Red Star FC" would be more appropriate. Thoughts? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

'Red Star' is fine for the French club. GiantSnowman 22:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I've always had a similar issue with Orlando Pirates F.C. and Orlando Pirates S.C.. The former is clearly the more notable but I've seen the latter referred to as both 'Orlando Pirates' and 'Orlando Pirates Windhoek'. Which would be correct here? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Same for the various Al-Ahly's. I usually just call Al-Ahli SC (Amman), for example, just Al-Ahli if in an article about Jordanian football (such as a league season, or a player who has only played in Jordan). If they have also played for another Al-Ahli, I write Al-Ahli Amman. Nehme1499 00:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
As Nehme1499 says, it depends on the context. -SuperJew (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

William Garbutt

look here, please.. --2.226.12.134 (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Coupe de France preliminary rounds

Which is better beetween create a page for each regional qualifying group and create a page for each round? Dr Salvus 14:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

A page for each regional group would be best as you've done with 2018–19 Coupe de France Preliminary Rounds. I think that is easier for readers to navigate as they can see the progression for any team on a single page. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland: Which are better beetween collapsible tables and normal tables? I ask this question because @Govvy: removed the collapsible tables on the 2018–19 Coupe de France Preliminary Rounds, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes page. I think that collapsible tables are better than normal tables because they are easier for readers to navigate. Dr Salvus 15:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Collapsible boxes like the ones that have been used on the Coupe de France articles act as a barrier to information which is against WP:ACCESS. Collapsible boxes have their place but they shouldn't be used like this because all the information on the page that a reader would be looking for is hidden away. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Exactly what Stevie said, I have my own issues with WP:ACCESS, sometimes I can't read or see something hidden away, especially when colours are used which I can't see. Govvy (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is this mass of results of lower round games between minor teams notable? GiantSnowman 19:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It's no more or less notable than, for example FA Cup Qualifying rounds. Gricehead (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
For which we appear to have one article for each season. Why do we have 13 or whatever for France? GiantSnowman 19:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Because one article was way too long, according to comments on Talk:2018–19 Coupe de France Preliminary Rounds and Talk:2017–18 Coupe de France Preliminary Rounds Gricehead (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Compact articles, but there is enough different sources that can be added, I much prefer the French wikipedia articles over the English ones. I don't see much of a problem with notability if done correctly. Govvy (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

John Barnes rap

Legendary as it is, this single verse of a song surely doesn't need its own article, separate to the article on the song itself....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not think so Dr Salvus 21:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Definitely not. It should be a paragraph at most in the song, and referenced in his BLP also. Koncorde (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it should probably be redirected to World in Motion. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Just done the redirect, though I think it probably needs deleting to avoid it being recreated in perpetuity. Koncorde (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect is fine. If the article is restored then take to AFD. GiantSnowman 12:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-pro arena soccer seasons?

Hi all, I'm looking for a second opinion please. What do people think about the likes of 2019–20 Premier Arena Soccer League season and 2019–20 Western Indoor Soccer League season? Both are only cited to primary sources and this seems to be an ongoing pattern for all of the previous seasons as well. In fact, WISL largely relies on its own Wordpress site! American users in particular, are these leagues, which define themselves as semi-pro with some amateur teams, notable enough? For example, I tried to see if there were independent news sources covering Bellingham United's win over Tacoma Stars Reserves in the final of the WISL last year but nothing came up apart from Wordpress, Facebook etc. Does WP:GNG coverage exist? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Premier Arena Soccer League summer season, which had clear delete consensus. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe that they are notable. GiantSnowman 15:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I have started an AfD discussion here for all Premier Arena Soccer League & Western Indoor Soccer League season articles. Please feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Summer of Champions' Cup"

I've proposed the deletion of 2012 Summer of Champions' Cup (opposed by Emir of Wikipedia, without explanation) and Summer of Champions' Cup, so just asking here if I could get some assistance on having these proposed for deletion, my understanding of proposing an article for deletion is limited outside of what I've already tried I'm afraid, so any help would be greatly appreciated. My reasoning is that coverage of this event, for which there are inexplicably two Wikipedia pages, fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE. ItsKesha (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Firstly I did explain, you are doing you thing again when you bring up some random thing as an argument. You should not be linking to my talkpage, but to this edit where this an explanation in the edit summary and on the talkpages PROD template. Secondly as per WP:DEPROD, I am not even obliged to explain why I disagree with a PROD. If you wanted advice with how to do a WP:AfD you should have just asked, instead of making a big fuss. Also I would consider WP:speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, so politely advise you to leave them until you understand the basic deletion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!)
I don't think 2012 Summer of Champions' Cup, Summer of Champions' Cup or Summer of Champions are notable. Pre-season friendlies? Big whoop. GiantSnowman 21:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree with GS. Crufty pre-season nonsense. Koncorde (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Also agreed. There are hundreds of these sort of articles, for some reason. Most of them should go. Jellyman (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@Koncorde, Jellyman, and ItsKesha: do you have time to AFD these article? I will be busy and then away for the next week or so, with limited editing time. GiantSnowman 21:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
If you think there are hundreds of articles then you might want to consider a bulk AfD. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I can take a look at it but I think we have a big issue we might need a broader discussion first. Someone created this helpful template of annual friendly tournaments. Do we want to take a look at all of these? Some like the MLS All Star game have clear notability, others are now defunct but were national friendly competitions such as Commonwealth of Independent States Cup, but plenty of others were one offs, minimal coverage, equivalent to testimonials. Definitely dozens of articles going on here. Koncorde (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

It has a couple of decent sources but I can understand the deletion arguments. I started an AfD here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

My feeling with these things is that if there's reasonable coverage and it's an annual event then it justifies an overview article which can list the results. But there's no point/need for an article on every edition of the event (personally I'd extend that up to and including the International Champions Cup, it gets more credibility due to being played in packed stadiums, but ultimately its a series of inconsequential, loosely connected pre-season friendlies hyped up for in the media and sponsorship for mutual revenue generation reasons). And if it's a one-off event there's no need either, fans of clubs involved can add it to their season article if desired. With this Summer of Champions one, the 2012 article should go and so should its parent article, this was an offshoot of the Summer of Champions (itself an obscure German version of the International Champions Cup) and was only ever played once. That can all easily be summarised in the Summer of Champions article, which also has an unnecessary branch article for its 2010 matches. Crowsus (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem with country seasons

There seems to be a problem with a parameter in the infoboxes of country seasons articles. The parameter is the "wdivision1", and the "wchampions1" that goes with it. It does not appear in articles. Look at 2020 in Norwegian football or 2019–20 in English football for example. Sørhaug (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sørhaug Fixed here. You may need to purge the pages to see the changes- I purged the cache of 2020 in Norwegian football and can see the women's Toppserien winner in the infobox. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hearts/Brora

Noticed a couple of IPs have vandalised Brora Rangers F.C. and Heart of Midlothian F.C. tonight after the former beat the latter in the Scottish Cup and I wondered if it might be worth temporarily protecting the pages to prevent any more. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Supercoppa Italiana

In my opinion we should have a page called "List of Supercoppa Italiana matches". What do you think about creating this page? Dr Salvus 22:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The Supercoppa Italiana already lists the matches in detail in the Winners section. Nehme1499 23:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Citations wanted - potential entries for List of footballers killed during World War II

Reposted and updated version of original now archived.

As main contributor to this article, I would like to flag up for attention of others on the project a number of candidates for the list that are already wiki-articled and known or believed to have been killed in or died as a result of circumstances brought on by the war (eg execution, in enemy captivity, effects of wounds etc) but which so far lack a reliable citation regarding their death which is preconditional to inclusion in the list. A few have no death circumstances described in the text of their article but I note have been put on category lists that suggest someone knew/believed they died in wartime circumstances. I also include those whose death circumstances are disputed - see their talk pages for further detail - and are in need of a conclusive ruling in or out.

There may be additions coming onto the list so I encourage watch this space! Others are welcome to add. Please let us know if sources are found and added into pages.Cloptonson (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

ISBN 9783895332418 looks like it may have some content on the Germans, but I don't have access to it. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@Cloptonson: - this looks like an adequate reference for Toth, but I haven't added it yet as I would prefer a Hungarian speaker to confirm what the source says. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Coppa Italia finals

Could you help me to add the informations about the spectators in the earliest finals? Dr Salvus 14:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Darko Kovačević

Can somebody please protect this page from vandalism? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.198.249 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the last good version and cleaned up the wording. No need for protection at this stage I don't think - but in future please use WP:RFPP. GiantSnowman 14:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Tolerance of format about Cup articles

Hello. I want to know about the summary format. An user added videos of various matches to the Korea Cup summary, so I moved them to corresponding matches in each year. I want to erase the video links of the summary like the format of other competition articles, but the user who added them wants to leave them.--Pinineeon (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The links should obviously be removed. Nehme1499 16:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:YOUTUBE says no, they shouldn't be there. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I really know that Conventionally, Wikipedia sports tournament summary tables don't include video information.

I think that FIFA World Cup or other famous sports tournament summary tables don't need video information. Because There are so many match information including text information and video information

But Korea Cup's video information is very rare and precious and usefulBecause Korea Cup is old tournament and there isn't enough match information including official match report. For example, We can find player information through video

In conclusion, Korea Cup article need video information.

In addition, We are living in the age of videos and images. But Wikipedia only stick to text information.

I hope that wikipedia keep up with our fast moving world. Footwiks (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You can use Template:Cite AV media to cite video as a source of information. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team

I've edited this template a few times to remove the large section on the 2022 World Cup qualifying campaign and create a cohesive Team Image section as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams however it continues to get reverted by a user without a login. Rather than 3RR I wanted to flag it here.

My amended version can be found here: Special:Permalink/1014124281

If however I'm in the wrong and should just leave it, please let me know! Felixsv7 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Felixsv7: Your version is definitely better than the current or previous ones. Sure, it needs more cleanup, but it's more preferable than what is being displayed now. Nehme1499 17:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Nehme so I've put it back to the way Felixzv7 left it. Might be worth getting it protected if it continues. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, still work to be done. Thanks and have a nice day. Felixsv7 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland: @Nehme1499: Ah, the guy has returned Felixsv7 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You people come in and completely change a template for editors that have been working on the page for years. Your template has NOT been agreed upon but by a few wikipedia users, I will continue to revert it because I have been editing that page for years and will continue to edit it for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3001:276F:0:90EC:4495:CE29:DA38 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And I have made an account now so that your bias towards unregistered users won't continue. Like I said, I have been editing this page for years and will continue to do so.Bihnt123 (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Textbook case of WP:OWN. Nehme1499 21:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Definitely a case of WP:OWN, also Bihnt123 please read WP:EW and WP:3RR. No bias here, just because people disagree with you, doesn't mean they're biased. And telling people that you'll keep reverting is not going to help anything. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
It is not a case of WP:OWN, anyone is free to edit the page, as we have been for years with no issues. I have an issue with the template change which no one but a few wikipedia users is pushing on everyone without any discussion.Bihnt123 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

G. Bull

Hi all. Just over from Wikiproject Cricket. We're trying to find out some more information on an obscure Hampshire cricketer from 1900. Our G. Bull is called George and came from Andover. In 1905, a George Bull played for Andover F.C.. Would anyone know of any website similar to Cricket Archive, where there might be a profile lurking for Bull? StickyWicket (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Not at Andovers level. I would try contacting Kerry Miller who wrote the article and see what sources they had access to. It may well just be the newspaper archives so maybe the Editor can help. Koncorde (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
TBH, unless the footballing Bull played at a significantly higher level of football at another point in his career (at the time Andover were playing at sub-county league level, in the North Hampshire League) it is incredibly unlikely that you will find any further information on him..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Italy women's national football team results (2020–present)

Help me to improve this page please Dr Salvus 14:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: I've cleaned it up: looks good to go for re-submission. Nehme1499 18:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499 and Stevie fae Scotland: Thanks for your changes but they are not enough Dr Salvus 10:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
TBH I don't know what more the latest commenter is looking for. They say "These games need to be described in detail little bit more and the readers will have a better idea about these games. Try to use Template:Football box collapsible instead of listing like this". The collapsible template doesn't provide any further information (as far as I can see) other than the kick-off time and the name of the referee, both of which are trivial, and it also doesn't meet access requirements. Similar articles which are Featured Lists use the table format like you have used here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I forgot that. Now I have added the collapsibles. Dr Salvus 11:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
It was raised on their talk page and I explained about previous times we'd discussed this and found that tables should be used as they fit with MOS:LIST. More context is needed but not so much in the way they've described, more prose in the intro to explain the article basically. Courtesy pinging reviewer Kashmorwiki so he's aware. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France

Please help me to improve the page Dr Salvus 16:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup awards

Does this article need writing the list of 1930–1974 Golden, Silver, and Bronze Ball, and the list of 1930–1990 All Star Team? They do not have reliable sources. The Golden Ball was officially presented since 1982, and only Kempes was unofficially selected in 1978. The All-Star Team was also selected since 1994.--Pinineeon (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd limit it to the offical awards. And no further blog-speculation. -Koppapa (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Timmy96

Please can somebody have a word with @Timmy96: - an editor who only edits once in a blue moon, and in doing so adds tens and tens of thousands of bites to articles, the majority of which appears to be routine/mundane match and goal commentary (which is therefore inappropriate). My attempt to clean up the Mohammed Abu article (including correcting spelling and grammar) has simply been reverted. GiantSnowman 14:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


This is @Timmy96: responding. I rarely respond to this page but I am responding that I am very unhappy with the GiantSnowman's changes. I worked really hard to find sources from Norwegian, American and English websites. At least, re-check the sources that I added before removing it. They could be very useful to back up the information. User:Timmy96 14:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

You are not listening to what I am saying. The information is trivial and non notable. Who cares what he did in his X game for the club? It's not important. GiantSnowman 14:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't find it too bad to be honest. The bytes count is huge but that's due to lots of properly formatted refs. As for content, it's about one small paragraph for each season which reads OK to me - it could definitely do with some tidying up and maybe some of the descriptions could include less detail, but I wouldn't describe it as ridiculously excessive, OK the player is not particularly famous but it didn't make me cringe to read it due to the level of padding-out, which I have come across in the past. Crowsus (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Crowsus: are you looking at the Abu article before or after I took out 23k of content?! GiantSnowman 16:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't read the article contents before, currently, or after the reverting, but there was this discussion earlier this month about what should be included. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_139#Is_this_too_much_detail? RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I note that @Struway2: has just taken the chop (removing nearly 17k) to Timmy96's past expansion of the Sam Cosgrove article (after I took about 25k out back in January). GiantSnowman 12:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, what I've actually done at Cosgrove is trimmed some superfluous referencing from and then copyedited about half the article; the prose size hasn't changed much from his version (it might when I get round to the Aberdeen goals, but it hasn't yet). I don't have that much of an issue with Timmy96's editing. He can be too indiscriminate in what he includes, and sometimes uses more references than necessary. But, as he says above, he does include some excellent informative sources, which saves anyone trying to improve a page an awful lot of time and effort. It's not fancruft, it's a genuine attempt to improve the article in a neutral manner. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Struway2 (talk)

That means a lot of me what you said. I know I am not a perfect editor or in fact, person, but I do feel what's best to improve the article. I edited Wikipedia because I can't stand there and do nothing if nothing has been changed. If nobody going to edit the Wikipedia, then I am going to do it myself... depending on my schedule. I do admit I don't pay attention to the bytes count. When I edit a Wikipedia article, it would be all at once, from the beginning to the end. For me, it takes days for me to edit a Wikipedia article and save my work on the Word Document once the day comes to an end and then resume the next day until I finish adding the information that I can find. Whenever I look for the website, I make sure save the website by using the Internet Machine Archive for future viewing should the web page disappear. User:Timmy96 21:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Why can't you see that you should not include the content that Struway and myself have had to remove? GiantSnowman 10:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You're right, GiantSnowman. I DON'T see your perspective of the content I include for my sources to back up. Remove all the references and content that I added, but at least, I expanded the Wikipedia article of footballers I edited. That's all it matters to me. User:Timmy96 10:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


Agree with GS and Struway. It is levels of detail no encyclopedic biography would realistically cover. Notable games, notable goals, notable in incidents, significant facts etc are all fair game but they should be backed by a reliable source effectively saying "wow, this is pretty significant" beyond just run of the mill coverage. Koncorde (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Thaiais

This user has created 7 pages: 4 have been deleted and 2 are currently in AfD. It seems they don't understand that their articles are being deleted because the subjects aren't notable, and continue to create non-notable people (as well as having been warned on six separate occasions on their tak page for various other disruptive editing). They have never engaged in any discussion as well. Nehme1499 22:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Nehme1499 - their behaviour is almost identical to User:Joyner Lourenco (an account that stopped editing just before this one was created); same narrow interest in Kelantan articles, similar lack of communication and same lack of understanding of notability criteria. I'm also struggling to work out whether they just don't understand WP:GNG or whether they are being deliberately ignorant of it. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Spiderone: They have been warned 8 (!) times, without reply, before being temporarily banned. 8 articles created, 5 deleted, 2 under deletion. On top of the apparent sockpuppetry. This might need intervention at WP:ANI. Nehme1499 22:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Nehme1499 - I think the only thing that saves Thaiais here is that there is no apparent overlap between the accounts. It's possible that they simply forgot their login details for the Joyner account and created this new Thaiais account; I believe that that is a valid reason for creating a new account. Their behaviour is strange, though, and difficult to justify. They clearly do have some grasp of English so it's not as if they don't understand the warnings. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499 and Spiderone: I'm not the @Thaiais:'s lawyer but I believe that cause is that s/he does not yet understood the English Wikipedia's criterias. In my opinion, we need an user who can speak both English and Thai which explain the criteria WP: NFOOTY and WP: GNG to Thaiais. Dr Salvus 19:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:CIR applies. GiantSnowman 21:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus, GiantSnowman, Nehme1499 - seems like they're continuing to repost the same barely sourced NFOOTBALL-failing BLPs. I'm presuming they won't stop until they're all salted. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Spiderone I repeat, in my opinion we need someone who can speak Thai and explain the criteria in his native language. If after clarification, he continue to make destructive changes then action will need to be taken. Dr Salvus 13:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Dr Salvus My guess is that the user is a native Bahasa Malay speaker, since they only edit Malaysian articles. Do we have any bilingual Malay Wikipedians? Thaiais must have a good grasp of English as their quality of writing is okay. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Spiderone You can find one here Dr Salvus 15:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Classification determination

Hello all. I'm just in the process of writing up 1991 Football League Third Division play-off Final and a reviewer at GAN has asked the very reasonable question about what determined that Grimsby finished above Bolton, goals scored or goal difference? Now, before someone says "it doesn't matter" because Grimsby were superior in both, there does seem to be a distinct lack of WP:RS across the project relating to what determines the positions in the league for a given season. Can anyone help? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

According to reliable and unreliable sources, 1976 / 77 season was the first time in England that the football league adopted Goal Difference rather than Goal Average. The Scots adopted it in 71/72 following its first use at the World Cup in 1970. I am trying to find a single authoritative quality source that says it all in one go in some fashion. Koncorde (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
A few books.[15][16][17] Now, as a complication I seem to recall in the mid 90's the football league switched for 1 season only to goals scored. I seem to recall it screwing a particular team over (Tranmere? Reading? West Brom? All spring to mind for some reason). It reverted the following season. I will take a look for an RS for that also. Koncorde (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay it may have been more than just the one season the GD to GS was changed. Struggling to find a source though. Our own pages on those seasons (95-96-97) reflect the change to GS but never have been sourced. Koncorde (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I checked the News of the World Football Annual, 1992 edition, which has a timeline of rules changes (pp 293-297). It lists the change to goal difference in England in 1976, as mentioned above, and by the end of the timeline in 1992 has not mentioned a change to goals scored being the primary tiebreaker, so I think we can take that to confirm that in 1991 GD still trumped all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello all, many thanks so far. I found an Observer report saying it was goal difference, so that's cool. I'm not entirely clear if we've got an overall picture, reliably sourced for all seasons post "goal-average" but my short-term problem has been solved. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
They adopted goal difference in 1976–77, as mentioned above. They went to goals scored in the 1992–93 season, The Guardian 6 June 1992, and went back in 1999–2000, The Independent 14 June 1999 (scroll down). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Perfecto, thanks! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Holy moly, I never realised it was 7 seasons. No wonder I thought it was 3 teams. I'm going to have to check if I was right now. Cheers Struway. Koncorde (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Seasons were it had an impact, for those interested (definite football quiz knowledge):

  • 1998–99 Football League there was a 4 way tie at the bottom of the 1st Division (pre Championship) with Portsmouth 57g -17gd, QPR 52g -9gd , Port Vale 45g -30gd and Bury 35g -25gd all on 47pts. Bury relegated, and never ever recovered. Following year GD was implemented and they would have survived and PV would have gone down.
  • 1996–97 Football League Hereford 50g -15gd were relegated from 3rd division ahead of Brighton 53g -17gd. Brighton had been penalised two points just to rub salt in the wounds.

Worth 10 minutes of my time to remember that and the ITV Digital debacle. Koncorde (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Reserve teams

What are the rules on articles for reserve teams of professional clubs? Especially in those countries where they are in the league pyramid system but are barred from national cup competitions and national divisions? Abcmaxx (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Abcmaxx: Normal "rules" apply; if they are notable they can have an article. Keep in mind that WP:FOOTYN is just an essay, so participating in the national cup competition isn't a necessary condition. See Juventus F.C. Under-23 for example. As long as it passes WP:GNG it's ok. Nehme1499 16:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: Well Juventus B is fairly obvious, as is Barcelona B for example who have played in the Segunda; world renowned teams and academies. But what about borderline cases seeing normal criteria are harder to apply given in some countries they can't play in cups or national leagues? Abcmaxx (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Republic of Ireland international footballers from Northern Ireland

Do we need Category:Republic of Ireland international footballers from Northern Ireland? Notwithstanding the complex political history in Ireland, how is this really any different to e.g. Category:Scotland international footballers from England or similar? GiantSnowman 20:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Footballers born in Northern Ireland qualify to play for the Republic even if they have no Irish family or links whatsoever. I'm pretty sure this is a unique situation in international football and if I rememeber it went to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. So, yeah, if there's going to be a category "X international footballers from Y", this is probably it. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
This happened with West/East Germany and North/South Vietnam in the past, and slightly different but relevant Suriname/Netherlands, still happening with Kosovo Serbs/Serbia, Guadelopue+Martinique/France, Greenland/Denmark, IoM/Scotland+England for example. Significant population of N. Ireland see themselves as just Irish, same way North and South Koreans see themselves as just one Korean nation divided politically. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC), the IO
I don't think any of those examples are quite the same though, given that FIFA actually had to change its eligibility rules to allow these players to play for Ireland. After all, Ireland and the UK have been completely separate independent states for over 100 years, yet here was a situation where you were not born in that state, had no family who were ever born in that state or indeed had ever lived there, and you didn't even have to ever even stepped foot in that state, yet could play for it. Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Coupe de France preliminary rounds collapsible tables

Hi. Help me to switch all collapsible tables in normal tables in the pages about Coupe de France preliminary rounds Dr Salvus 21:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: I've done 2020–21. Why don't you take a look at that and have a go at the others yourself? It took about 10 minutes. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@Gricehead and Stevie fae Scotland: Which is better beetween these formats?
First Round Results: Mayotte
Tie no Home team (Tier) Score Away team (Tier)
1. Mayotte ASJ Moinatrindri (R3) 2–2 (4–3 p) FC Sud (R3) Mayotte

Adopted by Gricehead

Tie no Home team (Tier) Score Away team (Tier)
1. Mayotte ASJ Moinatrindri (R3) 2–2 (4–3 p) FC Sud (R3) Mayotte

Adopted by Stevie fae Scotland

It is necessary to clarify what and which format to adopt. I also invite other users to choose which format to use between the two. I would prefer the one adopted by Gricehead. Dr Salvus 21:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The flags need to be removed for a start, per WP:MOSFLAG. GiantSnowman 21:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think there's any point in having the box around it when you're displaying the information anyway. I don't know if readers would be fussed with the ability to collapse each round either so, for me, just having the wikitable is all that's needed. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Stevie fae Scotland: This type of table is collapsible but if you don't touch the right "hide" button the table remains visible. I would prefer the table type Gricehead adopted also because it looks more elegant to me than yours. Dr Salvus 21:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I would disagree on the elegance front but it doesn't matter what you and I think about the aesthetics. One thing to bear in mind with these articles is WP:CHOKING as they are long articles purely because of the number of teams involved. I think you've found the optimum way to split them up so one way to keep the size of each article down to a minimum would be to remove the collapsible boxes from around the wikitables (and also to remove the flag icons when they aren't needed as GS says). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland: Now let's do a survey with other users on which format to use. Dr Salvus 22:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No flags and SFS's format. Nehme1499 22:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Mattia Agnese

If this page were created, it would be a violation of WP: NFOOTY. I'm not sure though if he would also violate WP: GNG, as he won the 2020 FIFA Fair Play Award and became famous as a result. Could this page be created? Dr Salvus 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Him winning a specific honour like the Fair Play award wouldn't make him inherently notable. If there are enough independent sources talking in depth about him, then yes why not. Nehme1499 13:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Bogic

@Bogic: has created a lot of pages about non-notable friendly matches. Can you help me locate them and nominate them for deletion? Dr Salvus 18:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus - Hi there, please use this tool. Typing Bogic's name generates this list of articles. It looks like they had a real phase of mass creating friendly tournament articles in the articles listed between #400 and #500 in particular. A large number of those look non-notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Abandoned football matches

I've been editing the Battle of Bramall Lane article, and in my research I've found a couple of other matches abandoned due to a shortage of players. Two I've mentioned in the article. But it seems out of place, and it got me thinking, would an article titled something like "List of abandoned association football matches" be acceptable? It's not common for games to be abandoned, but it's happened often enough that I think this article maybe has merit? Would appreciate any advice or input. ItsKesha (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"It's not common for games to be abandoned" - it's not actually that uncommon. I would suggest that even if you restricted it to matches at a professional level (which presumably you would do, to avoid somebody listing some random under-13s match abandoned because someone's dog ran onto the pitch and had a cr*p - you just know that has happened somewhere :-)) you could get into three figures quite easily if you are considering all countries. I bet there have been at least 20 or 30 games abandoned due to awful weather in Scotland alone..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I think you'd have to specify it was abandoned was for match-related reasons. That should be fairly manageable, but there have of course been many, many matches abandoned because of floodlight failure, flooding and other environmental reasons, which are not only too numerous to mention but too mundane IMO. Things like the Bradford fire and Hillsborough would probably also fall into that external category, obviously more unusual but would have to be dealt with sensitively if you wanted to include them (if you did, I'd probably also mention the likes of Ibrox (1902), Burnden Park and Heysel where the match continued as scheduled). PS I would also include One team in Tallinn. Crowsus (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the above, there are way too many abandoned matches to include in a single list. Nehme1499 16:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree Dr Salvus 18:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
You'd want the 2018 Copa Libertadores Finals on that list, which was abandoned a few hours before kick-off due to the team bus being attacked, but you'd not really want a League Two match abandoned because of torrential rain on there. I'm not sure how you'd accomplish that.EchetusXe 19:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
It is a possible article, but the list would have to pass [[WP:LISTN] somehow. SportingFlyer T·C 19:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Flags in match articles

Didn't we come to a conclusion not so long ago that flags in match articles are absolutely fine? With that in mind, can anyone offer a decent defence for User:The Rambling Man's removal of the flags from the 2019 FA Cup Final article? – PeeJay 19:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG and no critical commentary relating to the nationalities. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
And now these flags imply that these players represent those countries at football internationally. And without the names of the countries with each flag, you're contravening MOS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
All FA Cup Final articles which are Featured Articles, such as 1927 and 2018, use flags. Nehme1499 20:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Nope. 2017 FA Cup Final. But that's somewhat by the by. What's the policy or guideline-driven argument on this?
If flags are used, they must have the names of the countries in the first instance. I assume here you'd add their country of birth as not all are international players? Is that your plan? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
2017 is a GA, not an FA. Nehme1499 20:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
However, for what it's worth, neither 1925 nor 1956 nor 1987, which are FAs, have flags. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
True. At the end, I'm indifferent to both having or not having flags. As long as we have consistency throughout. Nehme1499 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Consistency throughout evolves as newer articles achieve more compliance with MOS. We should retrospectively apply those high standards to our existing FAs but sometimes that doesn't happen. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Why exactly do we need flags for the players in a domestic competition? None of these players are representing those countries, so it feels a bit odd. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. Also, if you want to list the nationalities of their birth nations, why would you use flags? Most people can't tell a Dutch flag from a Belgian flag or a Kiwi flag from a Oz flag when they're at 40 pixels or whatever. This isn't about people's preferences by the way, it's about compliance with WP:MOS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
This is a non-argument. What you are saying is that {{flagicon}} should never be used in any instance because some flags look like each other. Nehme1499 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Not at all. Indeed, if you read MOS:FLAG you'll see it written there ( The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details). You'll need to add the name of each nationality the first time of flag usage at the very least. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
My understanding of flagicon is that it should be used on secondary usage of a flag, similar to how we wikilink. There are certainly times when we would want to use flags, but in this English Vs English team competition, why are we listing out the nationalities of the players? There is all sorts of issues with players changing both nationality, and that which they would play internationally for, it's a bit overkill to even go near that argument for an article like this. I don't think everything NEEDs to be consistent (that usually is a way for CRUFT to remain in articles because it exists in all other articles), but if we do come to the agreement that the flags are superfluous, then removing them in the same way across other articles is also suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • My understanding was per WP:SPORTFLAG that these sorts of flags were okay in major matches. The international scope of the FA Cup final means the "domestic" argument really doesn't matter (it's a domestic English competition, but gets broadcast internationally) and there are good arguments both ways for keeping/removing these. I personally support their inclusion in this instance, since I think they do a good job of conveying information, and are consistent with other competitions such as 2020 UEFA Champions League Final - other finals for less important domestic cup competitions they may not be as relevant. SportingFlyer T·C 20:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    Their usage fails to comply with MOS. Also, Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise. What happens to players who have not represented their countries at international sport? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The relevant text is However, some editors feel that some tables such as those containing sports statistics (example) are easier to read if  [[|]] is used throughout. and If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used. If these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then a reliable source should be used to show who the sportsperson has chosen to represent. These concerns are all in MOS:FLAG. I'm still not seeing how it "fails." SportingFlyer T·C 21:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • So there's a mix of nationality for those who have and those who haven't played for each nation? What flag goes to a player who hasn't played international football and hasn't "chosen" a representative nation? How do we know who each player has chosen to represent in each case? And please, can you tell me where the compliance with the name of each country next to each flag first time round is please? It looks like this for that compliance by the way. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The same nationality that we would use in the current squad section of club articles. Nehme1499 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Which is? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Last senior national team represented, last youth national team represented, country of birth (if the person is also a citizen of that country). Nehme1499 21:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I see, a complete mixture then, with no idea to our readers which one applies. Got it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, these are FIFA eligibility rules. I'm glad you have understood them today. Nehme1499 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm talking about our readers, not me. Thanks though. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
If you and I can understand them, so can the average reader. Nehme1499 21:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
You just explained it to me. Where is the explanation for the reader located in this article? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
There should be text similar to what we have in club articles (Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.) Nehme1499 21:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. That's a start. And there should also be words with each flag so people aren't forced to click on them to find out what they mean. But that doesn't seem to be a concern here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
As SF stated above: However, some editors feel that some tables such as those containing sports statistics (example) are easier to read if  [[|]] is used throughout. Nehme1499 21:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes and as I said "some editors" doesn't include me. Forcing people to click away from an article to find out what a pretty icon means which is being used without any context is not appropriate. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
One of the quotes I wrote shows compliance with the name first isn't strictly necessary. Your other concern is dealt with by the fact the nationalities in this article are indeed sourced (not entirely sure of the RS). I still see no rule-based issue with the inclusion of the flags as they stand. SportingFlyer T·C 21:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
No, it says "some editors". I am not one of those editors who believes that just a flag icon is useful, nor even relevant in this article. But it looks like there's a need for people to use these icons to make things look prettier and even a ropey path through MOS to enable that. So I'm done here. It's a shame no-one seems to be considering the readers in all this, but I guess unexplained icons are worth it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that articles which have no quality standards applied to them, i.e. below GA-class, have no requirement to comply with WP:MOS and as such poor practice like the use of standalone flags in inappropriate circumstances is all too commonplace. But articles which are going through WP:FAC need to demonstrably meet all facets of MOS, and MOS:FLAG is part of that. Finally, just because it might not have happened in the past, it doesn't mean it should happen now or in the future. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Unofficial international games

Are the unofficial training matches between the senior and the under-21 team listed at "Results and fixtures" section in the national team articles, even though none of the sources (soccerway, soccerbase, ESPN, Sky Sports, national-football-teams, FIFA, worldfootball.net, RSSSF etc.) list those fixtures? Because some people are keep adding those matches back to the articles with apparent rational "the game was played, so it must be listed", which makes no sense. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The game was in a different way than the informal, private practice game we were familiar with. He received the crowd and ran in his first changed uniform. It was the first time in a long time that A's national team was exposed on airwaves in a situation where the game could not be played due to Corona. Of course, even so, I think putting these games on the main article can be a lot of opinions. I don't think it's a problem if you just mark it as an "unofficial friendly match" since it's a game within 12 months. issue0501 (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Could you clarify which article(s) this refers to? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: South Korea national football team#Results and fixtures. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be in the main article, that should only have official A matches to avoid confusion and clutter. It should be included in the relevant 'Unofficial Results' article – South Korea does have one of those, with many similar fixtures listed (and these ones in dispute are already there too). Crowsus (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor @Walter Görlitz: reverted this edit stating in the edit summary: "Kits without logos are prefered for reasons of copyright". My question is, how much can be considered "copyrighted" a so small depiction of a logo? (in the specific case of the England jersey, the FA and Umbro logos are so small that blaming "copyright" here does not make sense. Moreover, files like this are included into the de minimis criteria and hosted on commons because of that.

I'd like to read more opinions from other editors so they may clarify the issue and I'll know how to proceed in similar cases. Fma12 (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

They're logos, not "miniatures".
@GiantSnowman: might have additional details. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
My understanding is that we should not use detailed kits with logos for copyright reasons. GiantSnowman 20:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, they are "miniatures" due to their minimum size. Regarding the links of past discussions given by GiantSnowman, I agree with this statement by user Nehme: "...to be fair 4 pixels that invoke the "idea" of a logo isn't really a logo in and of itself...". I don't think the FA care about so a hardly recognisable representation of their logo on a 1" height kit body. But evidently, that decission doesn't depend on me, there is no alternative but to accept what was decided previously. Fma12 (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Creating derivative works of trademarked or copyrighted work is still an infringement. The shirt itself is a specific design that is likely subject to copyright, not just the logo of the brand, or sponsor. Fair Use assumes the detail is needed to convey important information. Manufacturers logo / exactly detailed kits probably not falling into Fair Use. I, personally, think a kit is a kit and the colours alone suffice. Koncorde (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
When I first started editing on WP, there was a very strict rule that infobox kits should not include logos (manufacturers' logos, club badges, sponsors' logos), but I did wonder if this had changed in the intervening 97 years (maybe not that long but it's certainly been a long time) given how many I have seen recently with logos on....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it's just how much they are missed by people doing oversight. For instance I couldn't tell you who has updated the kits for the Prem league teams in the last 3 or so years. It just doesn't appear on my radar among al the other stuff. However our policy is unchanged.
In the end if the mark / design is being made so small or derivative as to not infringe copyright then why are we bothering to make such an effort? The answer is: football fans are the biggest and least cool nerds in the world. Koncorde (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
If I take a musical work and reduce it to an 8-bit, monophonic MIDI file, am I violating copyright? Yes. The file I create may sound very different to the original, but if I've done my job right, it would be recognisable as a facsimile of the original work, and if I were to use my file for commercial purposes, I would be violating the work's creator's right to profit from their efforts. The same applies to any copyrighted work, including logos on representations of football kits. Honestly, I think our kit graphics are too detailed even without the logos, but the logos are protected by copyright as long as they're recognisable, and should be left out. – PeeJay 18:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
As an extension to this, certain logos are not copyrighted (nor can they be), most notably: the Nike "swoop". Other logos are copyrighted, most notably: the Adidas "leaf". Not sure about Umbro or others. I still think a blanket ban works best, but it also requires the project to create a logo-free shirt body in commons, and not many have the knowledge or ability to do that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The Trademark of the Swoosh is well documented. Infringing on a trademark used in commerce is one up from copyright so should be treated with the same (if not more) care. Koncorde (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

On a related note, the graphics should have a high degree of transparency as well so they can be greatly utilised, as stated in template:Football kit/pattern list#No transparency. For example, there's no point for half of those in commons:Category:Football kit templates/Liechtenstein national football team, just change the background colour in the kitbox. VEOonefive 15:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Skawinka Skawina

Two things to ask, have they played in the Polish cup to qualify for an article, as I couldn't find that, and if so, should the article be moved to TKS Skawinka Skawina? Govvy (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Well the same user also created Prądniczanka Kraków and Prokocim Kraków. Looks like they might be creating articles for every team in Liga Okręgowa (group: Kraków II). RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 International Friendlies

Is this page necessary? And if so, it should be moved to 2021 international association football friendlies (or something similar). Nehme1499 18:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is required. GiantSnowman 18:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. pinging the creator of the page. 19:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
No, really not needed. Should be deleted. Kante4 (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Listed for deletion. Nehme1499 22:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Friendly tournaments articles

There seems to be a lot going to AfD, I am a bit concerned we maybe wiping out that information when it can easily be transcribed to a clubs season article, a sentence in club history page. I feel it's good to show what a club did that summer, winter and to ask those that nominate an article to make sure the same information is associated on another page. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Marcellin Koukpo

Strange one here - every few weeks a new account will pop up (nearly all with the format of a few letters followed by a few numbers), change the stats incorrectly, and then disappear again. What is going on - socking? GiantSnowman 09:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Probably one user or more likely a group of teenagers who just like messing around. Doesn't look like enough vandalism for semi-protection though IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
My guess it's one person, similar username every time, same pattern, clearly you got a WP:DUCK. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 Looks like a duck to me. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for confirming my suspicions - I'll tag and block. GiantSnowman 12:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The Home of Football

The disambiguation page keeps getting changed to a redirect and messed around with. Anyone else able to help out? Govvy (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I have warned @JorgeLaArdilla:. GiantSnowman 12:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Surely this is a continuation of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 139#The Home of Football. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe I correctly formatted Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 29 but you guys have cocked that up now. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
It's bad form to revert a disambiguation page active for over a decade to a redirect and then to start an RfD immediately afterwards. If you don't think the disambiguation page should be on the wikipedia, AfD would be the correct forum, but considering the term can refer to multiple different things I'm really not sure what the point of all this is. SportingFlyer T·C 18:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Hmm...sorry I forgot Wikipedia was for the editors and not the readers. Where is the Home of Football? Brazil? Gloucestershirefa's website?. Even Wakefield makes the claim. Sheffield, Home Of Football, Gives Lessons To The South, (The Times 14 November 1960). Ashington Home of football B. Mead, The Times 22 June, 1996). Studbrick Park? Dont want to forget my beloved Villa Park (official claim) and England of course JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC) p.s I voted Keep, but hey, Strawman, you've managed to turn it around.
The answer is Britain, definitely Britain (or England, obviously, but the reality is we should be using reliable sources for any claim. Koncorde (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I've added several refs to the page for both incarnations of Wembley - not implying that they ARE the home of football, but that the term is used regularly in relation to them so might be searched for by a reader. If there are other, serious, claims to the title, I don't see why they shouldn't be added too. The argument for a redirect to a single location is clearly incorrect, as has been demonstrated there are many uses for the term, both in terms of a venue and in the sense of a country overall as a spiritual home. Crowsus (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
It's almost certainly so extensively written about, even if only by MP's chatting rubbish in Parliament (for which I found 2 or 3 references), that it makes a reasonable case for an article (or at least a stub with links to appropriate cases). Koncorde (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@Crowsus: thank you for your effort. It annoys me when someone thoughtlessly reverts others hard work. Were I not fending off low blows at RFD:The Home of Football, I would change the "home of football" page designation from disambiguation, which disallows references, to a List, which does not. BUT, repeating a comment I made at WP:RFD about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization): In the case of Sheffield's stadium, The Home of Football is a proper name with the common noun football. The "home of football" is the proper capitalisation for the miriad the other stadiums, cities, towns and countries that have been given that description. So the redirect to a single location is clearly correct for the Capitalized title. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
"Home of Football" is also a title type proper noun such used by any number of organisations or locations such as here[18][19][20][21][22] and the trading name of a shop. In short, directing to one location because they gave themselves the name when there is no indication it is in fact them being sought for would be something of a leap, this is particularly true when both the ground is not even the original ground, but was also a former ground of another football team, so is a little self promoting. I would support a "Home of Football (stadium)" as a redirect to Sheffield FC if it was somehow decided as required. Koncorde (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The functional difference between "the home of football", the "Home of Football" (redlinked as of 8:38 31/3/21) and "The Home of Football" is due to mediawiki software. Checking your references I still cannot see where "The Home of Football" is the official name for anything other than Sheffield's ground. The Oldest football clubs states Sheffield F.C. in England, is the world's oldest surviving independent football club so I certainly don't begrudge their decision to officially rename the Coach & Horses Pub stadium. I certainly begrudge Sports Direct claiming the title. At present the Sports Direct article makes no reference to THOF but, should that change, the hurdle for inclusion is a proper reference, not my personal feelings.JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
"low blows" when you are the one who said that others had "cocked that up"? Spike 'em (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

FC Andorra

Hi. The FC Andorra, football club from Andorra. They play in Segunda División B on Spain. My question is about the categories for the players, they count as "expatriate sportspeople in Andorra" or "expatriate sportspeople in Spain", and "Expatriate footballers in Andorra" or "Expatriate footballers in Spain", or just maybe both. Grettings. Pincheira22 (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say Andorra - for a similar reason why you would not describe a Toronto FC player as an 'expatriate in the United States', even though the MLS is primarily for American teams. GiantSnowman 17:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
This is broadly the same situation as AS Monaco. From what I have seen, for the French players any 'expatriate' categories are ignored, while foreign players have the Monaco expatriate categories added rather than the French. Not sure if that is correct, and obviously I haven't gone through all of the 559 Monaco players to check for consistency, but that appears to be the way it's being applied. It would certainly be a lot less work for anyone involved if only the FC Andorra players from outwith Spain (and Andorra of course!) need to have additional cats. Crowsus (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I believe the French players should have the expatriate in Monaco categories added. In the same way, players of FC Andorra should be expatriates of Andorra, not Spain.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Relevant REFUND request

Not the right place for them to request it, but does this represent a change in notability for Mukhtar_Abayomi_Sanusi? Eddie891 Talk Work 21:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Yes, as they (barely) satisfy WP:NFOOTY. Obviously it must also be shown that the subject also satisfies WP:GNG. Nehme1499 22:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@Eddie891: - I would happily change my stance due to now meeting NFOOTBALL Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Query on 'Youth Career' in infoboxes: players that have made a senior debut and 'returned' to youth football

This query comes about from Viljami Sinisalo, an Aston Villa youth player on loan at Ayr United currently. He made one emergency league (3rd tier) appearance for his Finnish club FC Espoo at age 15 in 2017, this is classed as a 'pro debut'. Around a year later, he signed a youth contract (not professional) at Aston Villa and then spent 2 years and three months there as a U18 and U23 player before joining Ayr on loan this season on a full season loan. He is still not on professional terms as per this recent article [23].

My query is that this is a player without a professional contract who has played youth football for Aston Villa for 2.5 seasons, he has never been in a match-day senior squad for them, however his infobox shows that his youth career ended on that day in 2017 as a 15-year old when he played 90 minutes for FC Espoo's seniors and his 'senior career' at Aston Villa started in 2018 when he signed for them. My gut instinct is that this is not a true reporting of the facts and that you should be able list Aston Villa in this player's youth career section as that is factually what happened. The purpose of the infobox should be to present the information clearly and in this case it's not. Can we form a consensus for the niche case of when a player 'returns to youth football' that that second spell of youth football is included in their youth career infobox section? Does anyone have a strong argument the other way? I have looked up the past history of discussion on this topic and it seems like there is not a strong consensus or guidance either way, just a currently agreed status quo. Mountaincirquetalk 10:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Sigh - this is a perennial question. The status quo is that once a player has made their senior debut, the infobox should not 'return' them to youth. That is a view I uphold, as it is well established and the most straight forward. GiantSnowman 10:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
While I respect your right to a different opinion, your view is not the status quo; the last RfC showed that there was no consensus. Nehme1499 14:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
No, the RFC failed to change the status quo. GiantSnowman 14:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Based on this discussion between four editors in 2008 (which you linked to me when I have asked for proof of this status quo): one is saying that they have "no opinion one way or the other", and another is saying that the player "was still on a schoolboys contract". Only you and another editor believed that the youth career closes once the player makes their senior debut. Nehme1499 14:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
GiantSnowman's answer is their view, and not necessarily consensus. I agree wit you Mountaincirque that it is misleading to claim a player's youth career ended at age 15 because they made an emergency senior appearance, but continue playing youth football. --SuperJew (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the youth box should clearly continue to read Aston Villa if he is on a youth contract. I have no issue with gaps in a players career so if it shows Epsoo - 1 - 2017 and then nothing until he makes his debut with Villa then that seems more accurate than suggesting he is a professional with 0 appearances who then may never make an appearance for Villa. Koncorde (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
There are exceptions to any rule, and this seems like a perfect case for an exception. He's clearly still a youth player, and we can explain in the text about how he made a single appearance at the age of 15 in an emergency. It's not like FC Espoo were in the EPL at the time. SportingFlyer T·C 12:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I also agree that the period between 2018 and 2020 at Aston Villa should be listed under the "Youth career" section of the infobox. Nehme1499 14:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm also of the view that youth career does not have to end on the first senior appearance, especially when there are many reliable sources confirming their continuation in youth football. The most recent RFC in 2020 in fact had a majority of those involved opposed the current status quo of an infobox with a single senior appearance marking the end of youth career. The issue was more so that too many alternatives (about 10) were proposed and none gained a conclusive majority consensus. Most popular outcomes were 9 allowing for overlap in youth/senior (some variations), 7 for removal of youth altogether, and 6 for the current youth ends on one senior appearance, and 1 for a merging of youth/senior. The closing admin recommended a new RFC with less options, but a new RFC was never started. If the "current consensus/status quo" is based on that discussion over a decade ago, in which only 2 of 4 editors supported it (50%) - which per Wikipedia:What is consensus? is not a consensus, I would say that it definitely needs another go, especially since in the recent RFC with a much larger contribution (only 6 of 23, or 26%, supported ending it on one senior appearance). Since this is the FOOTY page, we could try a World Cup bid-inspired system to try to achieve a consensus, since this is clearly still a heavily controversial topic RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for the responses. Can I first off thanks to @RedPatchBoy for the RfC details, @GiantSnowman, your opinion would be valued on that too. I agree that the quite brief discussions shared by @Nehme1499 above don't really provide consensus either way for me, seeming to be split 50/50. Based on this discussion today I can see six editors, including myself, for being open to exceptions to allowing overlap of senior/youth career when a player returns to youth football after their pro debut, such as Viljami Sinisalo, with one editor preferring the previously used approach of always keeping clubs in the 'Senior Career' section after the pro debut, regardless of any extenuating circumstances or lack of a pro contract.

How to proceed from here? I agree with RedPatchBoy that an RfC with limited options would be the way to go but frankly I don't have the time to manage that myself. Based on the previous RfC it seems to me that there is already enough leeway here to allow cases such as Viljami Sinisalo to be amended, especially as 'allowing overlap of senior/youth' was the most popular option in the most recent RfC on this (despite not getting an overall majority). Mountaincirquetalk 15:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

How about a simple Yes / No RfC "Does a player's youth career always finish (for infobox purposes) the moment they appear during a pro-game?" If this really is the consensus then we can all put it to bed once and for all. If not then we can use our editorial judgement to apply exceptions to the current default whilst we decide if there is a set of rules we can use. Spike 'em (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I think it looks stupid when you have to jump back and forth from youth teams to senior teams if a players switches. In Sinisalo's case, I think it looks clean and chronological as opposed to the alternative that is being proposed. And the fact that he signed a contract with Villa at all justifies it being considered senior.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I am happy with the odd exception in exceptional situations (of which this might be one), but overall Ortizesp hits the nail on the head. GiantSnowman 16:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
To me the 'jumping back and forth' between youth and senior is no different than there being overlap within a section such as senior career for players who make appearances for A/B/C teams, or in international career with U17/U21/U23/senior teams, or managers who manage a club and national team concurrently, or across sections player-managers who will thus have the same club for the same years in different sections (senior and manager), or with North American college players who play for a senior club in the summers (overlap in years in college career section and senior section). People go from youth->senior->coaching, allowing the latter two to overlap, but not the first two is inconsistent. Overlap is still chronological as each section is chronological and all sections do not always begin where the previous ended RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree with RPB. We have players who move between national senior / junior teams seamlessly, but actual junior players we stop tracking if they happen to play one senior game for any reason. I understand it seems redundant if their infobox includes both a junior and senior club entry, but given the number of players this affects I am not overly concerned as it is better for people to understand he is still a youth player in some way. Koncorde (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I kind of see what you're getting at, but don't see the harm in showing this particular player as a Aston Villa player with 0 caps. NT/Colleges are completely different. I would even go as far as just ignore youthteams in general in the infobox if I could, and I've seen that argument made here before. Youthcaps are often unsourced and open ended without actual documentation for dates.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Youth stints should always be sourced in some way in the other (ideally in the body of the article). If unsourced, they should be removed. Nehme1499 19:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
But this is the issue - when do we decide a cut off? GiantSnowman 19:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Based on what reliable sources say. See Marco Da Graca as an example: all four of his youth stints are sourced within the body of the article, with the start and end dates. If, by cut off, you mean "when do we decide that he stops being a youth player for Juventus and becomes an U23/senior player?", then reliable sources will also tell us whether he has participated in the 2020–21 Primavera season or not. We should default to closing it when the senior opens only if we cannot find such a source. Nehme1499 19:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Nehme1499 Dr Salvus 20:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Where are all these reliable sources that tell us exactly when a player has left the youth team for good? GiantSnowman 20:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I often find articles saying things like "He played a key role with the U16, and was promoted to the U19s in 2019. During the 19/20 season, he made his first team debut, coming on as a 90th-minute sub in the Serie A. After scoring 15 goals in 30 games in 19/20 U19 league, he was made part of the B team. Etc. etc." I am not saying ALL players have such in-depth coverage (I barely know the youth teams of Lebanese players, let alone when they began and when they ended), but for the most covered nations (England, Italy, France, etc.) there is enough information available. Looking at the big picture, probably only <5% of players are going to be affected. Most play/have played in lower tiers or not-so-notable leagues, and their youth careers won't be known. If the clubs are indeed known, but not the years, the yearspan should default to ending when the senior begins for convenience. Otherwise, we should follow what sources are saying. Nehme1499 21:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Nehme's post above expresses it perfectly in my mind. You go with the sources. If you can find a source that shows he was in youth in 2017, even though he played a senior match 2015, I'd close it off at 2017. If I later find one that says 2018, then I can change it to 2018. The other option is to simply deactivate the youthyears parameter. Then there wouldn't really be an issue with when he was officially done with youth, it just acknowledges that the player spent time in that youth system, even after playing a senior match for a previous club and eliminates the uncertainty of the exact date when youth ends. That was another one of the alternatives that a few people supported as a compromise in the previous RFC. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499 and RedPatchBoy: The problem with such a system is that those sources simply don't exist outside of top leagues, generally speaking. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
As Nehme's post said, in the "absence of sources" you default to it ending upon senior or to the year that is known. However, if sources exist, then update to reflect true data. Many players don't even have youth careers listed or the clubs are listed but the years are blank due to being unknown. That's the benefit of deactivating the youthyears parameter as it reduces that ambiguity by making it a non-issue. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that we'd be better off just removing the youth years. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Team stadium in a player article instead of word "club" or the actual name of the team

I've had my edits changed a few times by an editor who feels like a club's name can only appear once in an article. So instead they will write and "he left the XYZ Stadium that year" using obscure stadiums. If it was saying the Camp Nou/Old Trafford/etc, I'd say okay, but an obscure stadium for a mid-table non-top league, who would know those stadiums. For example, I got my edit changed here (accusing me of stuff I never even did - I never touched spacings, categories, etc) from "In May 2019, Braga announced Ferreira would be leaving the club when his contract expired the following month" to "In May 2019, Braga announced Ferreira would be leaving the Estádio Municipal de Braga when his contract expired the following month" because writing the stadium name was important because the word club apparently "appears 500 times" (it actually appears twice in the whole article). At least that stadium had the city name in it, I've had this user revert to even more obscure names in the past because they felt a team name couldn't be used more than once in a multi-paragraph section. Feels more like "Trivia" that actually improving the article. Thoughts? I also got passive aggressive and over-the-top edit summary responses such as this because I wrote a player's first name in a an image caption - I haven't even been engaging with this editor. I'm just editing articles for players from Canadian teams or Canadian themselves, which is where I'm from, that I normally doRedPatchBoy (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like a weird way of phrasing it, by using the stadium. Alternating between the club's name and "club" is perfectly fine. Also, leaving a club means one thing, leaving a physical premise (such as a stadium) grammatically evokes a different image (I am imagining Ferreira literally walking out of the stadium...) Nehme1499 23:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I can understand using the stadium name occasionally, in some fashion, but it reads as journalism rather than encyclopaedic. It can also be really uncomfortable grammatically (especially with a long named stadium). This Braga announced Ferreira would be leaving the Estádio Municipal de Braga when his contract expired the following month. is poor, but "the club" is also redundant as Braga announced Ferreira would leave when his contract expired the following month. says the same thing, or even better Braga announced Ferreira's contract would not be renewed at the end of the 2019 season making him a free agent. Ferreira was without a club until January 2020 when he signed a short term deal with Belenenses SAD which conveys even more context. So the user isn't actually improving the structure of the article in making it more complex, nor are they conveying the information more clearly. Koncorde (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Bizarre. Why would we expect the reader to know what stadium the team plays at? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
That logic should also extend to team nicknames. Saying things like "they signed for AC Milan in 2010" and then a few sentences later saying "their last youth season for the Rossoneri" isn't helpful to the average reader who are unlikely to be unfamilar with both a foreign language, and a nickname. Plain English should be used where possible, some duplication of words is to be expected. Koncorde (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. We shouldn't be doing that either. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Trying to vary the language is good, but saying you can only use a club's name once is nonsense. And, as noted, it's no good replacing the club's name with something which many readers won't understand..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Featured article candidates

Hello all, just a reminder that a number of featured article candidates are currently running which are member articles of the football wikiproject and could use some reviews! Those in need:

Have a good Easter weekend all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Football in Abkhazia

How are we treating football related articles for Abkhazia region? I've just prodded two club pages for deletion, (Football Club Abazg Sukhum and Football Club Kiaraz Pitsunda). I am not sure if Abkhazian Premier League is running independently away from the main country of Georgia or not. It feels somewhat a little more complicated, with a few issues when I look into it. Govvy (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • It appears to be independent of the Georgian league and receives local coverage. I'm not sure if those clubs are notable, but I've removed the PROD since I did find coverage of the league in Russian. The source discussion will be difficult due to language issues. SportingFlyer T·C 15:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As an addition, the analogy is Kosovo prior to 2016: we had an article on the Kosovar Super League dating back to 2008. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, and GNG, did you consider that at all? Govvy (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Of course. As I stated, the league receives local coverage and the teams are probably notable. Since WP:GNG won't be met with English sources, I'd prefer if the deletion discussion happened at AfD so we can analyse what's available. It's possible some of these teams meet GNG while others do not. SportingFlyer T·C 12:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-playing staff category structure

Where a club has both a "managers" category and "non-playing staff" category, I believe it makes sense for the former to be a subcategory of the latter, since managers are a subset of non-playing staff. However in England at least, only three clubs (Middlesbrough, Sunderland and Sheffield United) currently follow this structure (those with the blue triangles under Category:Football non-playing staff in England by club). Let me know what you think of this structure; if it seems sensible then I will start to apply the same to other teams. --Jameboy (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and one additional point, would the above proposal be a problem for player-managers or would we consider their playing and non-playing roles separately? --Jameboy (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I believe the mangager category is so important that it should feature directly in Category:X F.C., as well as being a subcat of Category:X F.C. non-playing staff. GiantSnowman 16:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with GS. Nehme1499 17:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah it's basically a miscellaneous category. Managers and players wouldn't be miscellaneous. --EchetusXe 12:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Paris Saint-Germain C

Hello. As more articles of players that have played or play for the PSG reserve side since 2019 emerge, the question of what to call the team becomes bigger. Basically, in 2019, PSG got rid of its "B team". The amateur "C team" got promoted to the fifth tier the same year the B team was deleted. So, since 2019, the PSG reserve team has been playing in the fifth tier, but is composed solely of amateur footballers, and is not linked to the first team the same way the former B team was. The final step before becoming pro is now the U19 team. My question is what to call this "new" reserve team. Should it be called Paris Saint-Germain C, Paris Saint-Germain Reserves, Paris Saint-Germain Amateurs, or Paris Saint-Germain B? I personally prefer Paris Saint-Germain C. The only players I know of that have played for this team that are on Wikipedia are Lucas Bernadou, Cédric N'Koum, and Gaël N'Lundulu. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

What is the team actually called? Is it PSG U19? Then just use that like we do for Juventus U23. I wouldn't call it C, because that implies that a B exists RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
(e/c) We should use the name reliable sources use. Which is more common? C, Reserves, Amateurs, or B? Nehme1499 21:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
This source calls it the "reserve of Paris Saint-Germain" and the "C team". Maybe calling it Paris Saint-Germain Amateurs is the best option, because this is the equivalent of AFC Ajax (amateurs). Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
At this point I would call it Paris Saint-Germain F.C. (amateurs), and explain the historical context (it was the C team, they got promoted, the B team were disbanded, etc.) Nehme1499 18:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: In the prose, you mean? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, in the lead or under some sort of "History" section. Nehme1499 20:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Since there is no article on the now disbanded PSG B, another option would be to call it Paris Saint-Germain (reserves) and then both the disbanded "B" team and this "amateur C" team could both be contained in that article, similar to how B teams will be linked to the reserve team section in the A team page. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@RedPatchBoy: I don't think we're making an article for PSG Reserves. It doesn't meet notability for football clubs because they can't play in the cup. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, WP:FOOTYN is just an essay. Playing in the domestic cup isn't a requirement. A club just has to pass WP:GNG, there is no formal guideline for anything other that players. Nehme1499 18:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Jean-Pierre Adams

Hello. Which image would you recommend for the Jean-Pierre Adams article? This one or this one? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: I'm not sure either should exist on Commons as I'm pretty sure neither are the uploader's own work. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
You can propose it for deletion if you want. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I've done it myself. Nehme1499 19:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

List of FA Cup Finals

There's a dispute going on here as to whether a table of "Winners by city/town" is a valid inclusion. Bringing it here to get a wider consenseus. Pinging PeeJay and Cheesy McGee -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it's completely unneccessary. And is also incorrect, as some of the "London" teams weren't part of London when they won it, and Bury wasn't part of Greater Manchester in 1900 when they won it. Also, it's entirely unsourced, and would need sources for the whole table to show that reliable sources think it's important to categorise FA Cup winners by city. Right now, it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Not necessary per Joseph. However I do know that some newspapers several years ago ok quite a recurring basis did do a north vs south vs North west vs South east type list where London was segregated into its own category. That at ghe least, if it could be found, would give some RS behind something similar - bug it wouldn't be up to date. Koncorde (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:LIVESCORES

I know the above link refers to an established consensus at the Snooker WikiProject, but I've also seen this applied to footy articles with match results as well. I'm curious about whether this WikiProject already has an established consensus for this as well, and if not, whether we should try to establish one, as I do agree that live score updates do fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Consensus#Updating and this discussion it's no live updates for both scores and updating player stats. For player stats, I recall there was a discussion that said if a player was "substituted out" then updating their infobox stats was not ideal (ideal is to wait for match to end), but not the biggest issue because they were at least out of the game. Players who remain in the game should wait until the match is over in case they score another goal(s). RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
As per RPB. We should not be updating without a reliable source conclusively saying that this is the outcome of a match. Live commentary (even text) is notoriously opinion led and often not accurate (or the same depending on different sources), live game stats are not reliable sources (for the same reason); in addition things like goals can be re-attributed. Claims related to "first start" or "debut" I am less worried about, but other stuff should be based on post match reliable source coverage. Koncorde (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the snooker (and cue sports) wikiproject has trouble enforcing this even with a policy on the matter. I'd be fine with making it a bit further reaching, but I'm not sure how to actually stop people updating in real time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I think last World Cup they had to literally lock the pages for the duration of the game to all editors and openly opened it to approved editors for a while afterwards. Everyone on the planet wants to see reality reflected everywhere they go. Koncorde (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Could we put together a talk page message along the lines of Template:Footyiu? Mattythewhite (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I've also thought that in the past, some people where using wikipedia to bypass gambling websites which are blocked in their country, as a way around to get live scores, for the purposes of gambling. However, we haven't mentioned that in policy here. Govvy (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I think Mattythewhite have come up with a good idea.--Sakiv (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_140&oldid=1137383225"