Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.

2024–25 season articles

If anyone's interested in seeing what the 2024–25 English club-season articles are going to look like (including overly detailed squad tables and everyone's favourite round-by-round league positions), have a lookie here. Maybe we can nip it in the bud now, saving ourselves hours of work in the summer. Seasider53 (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Why wait? Just look at the Singapore 2024–25 season articles. Rumours sections! Youth teams results! Women's results! Dougal18 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Definitely pertinent to next season to know how much money a club paid to sign players anything up to nine years earlier.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

How did I guess who drafted that Liverpool article, full of nonsense...?! GiantSnowman 13:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Next season’s West Ham page uses the rumoured transfer fee on many occasions where the actual fee was undisclosed. What was wrong with the current season with no fees, no "first signed" dates and no youth team players with zero appearances in the squad list?--Egghead06 (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That level of detail is not needed. GiantSnowman 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I also can't see how "contract expiry date" is in any way relevant. Has anyone ever looked at 1967–68 Manchester United F.C. season and thought "well, it's good, but what I really want to know is when George Best's contract was going to expire"....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Also the verifiability of lots of this superfluous information is questionable. GiantSnowman 15:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Horrible *cries in fancruft* Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this being overkill and way too much info. Since we talk about those articles, i ping @Skyblueshaun:, so he can join the discussion. Kante4 (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry if you think this is overkill, I just took the inspiration from here, and here, and here for example. If someone could send me a draft season article then that would be appreciated. Most League Two and some League One clubs won't have season articles if not created. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons has been in existence for 17 years. GiantSnowman 15:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll use that template in future, may I add a "Released" section in the "Transfer" section please, so we can see what players were released/let go before joining a new subsequent club. Also I'll use the "footballbox collapsible" template for matches. Again, thank you. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That club seasons template clearly states that there are MOS:ACCESS issues with footballbox collapsible. It would be advisable to use one of the other formats. You could also just use the footballbox (ie- get rid of the collapsible function) as that gets around most of the problems with it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yellow and red cards are still not part of the match summaries in the WP:FOOTY manual of style, by the way. Only goals should be listed outside of the attendance, referee etc. I don't understand why you include such irrelevant information, making so much work for yourself, when maybe three other readers find it useful. Seasider53 (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not the only editor to use yellow and red cards, Most of the season articles I come across do include cards. Skyblueshaun (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

See confirmation bias. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

and also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 18:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Do or do we Not include cards then, If I am being warned to stop then so should everyone else. Skyblueshaun (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You claim to be copying other articles. Don’t, and you’ll be fine. Seasider53 (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This says "Goals scored and optionally cards issued". Dougal18 (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The documentation has been like that for almost 15 years, consensus appears to have changed since then. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

We can't really complain about that if it's currently part of the documentation. I don't know that it's worth discussing its removal either, considering there's so much else that we need to clamp down on regarding the current state of season articles. Seasider53 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Not to dwell on this, but I just noticed the visual editor doesn't have a field for cards (unless I'm misunderstanding its functionality), so maybe their non-inclusion is worth enforcing... Seasider53 (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this one better here? Skyblueshaun (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

If you’re going by the season template, nobody can have any qualms. Seasider53 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

And that still has position-by-round, which has been deemed useless in WP:FOOTY discussions of yore. Seasider53 (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't include colours in the transfers tables. It's unneccessary decoration which can make it hard for some users to read. --SuperJew (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that Leeds are definitely getting promoted, that'll save a lot of stress over the next four weeks... Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see this article, here, this wasn't created by me but also includes the first team squad table. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, again. GiantSnowman 11:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Results-by-round appears to be in some 2024–25 club-season articles, but not all. I think that's a nice balance, because if you don't think the section should be appearing in articles, you won't get annoyed all the time. Seasider53 (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Aston Villa F.C.

I've raised on the talk page the possibility of a Featured Article review. The history section is bloated compared to the edition that passed in 2007. [1] Personally, I think approaches like on Liverpool F.C. with no history sub-headings but just links at the top are better, as this is a page about a whole club, not its history.

There are seven unsourced paragraphs in the history section, all from the pre-Internet era. Users with books on the history of Villa are advised to help. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this alert. I've responded on the talk page on my own views about this. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Manager articles

I've clicked through a lot of football manager pages who were footballers before switching to manager career, including Pavel Dochev. Despite this, there's no evidence of them being one, even a sourced "Playing career" section. I don't want to remove the clubs they've played for on infobox without permission, so I would suggest anyone else to do this with references, which are mostly archived news. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Why would you remove that? Have you looked at the other language wikipedias? Govvy (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you looked at the other language wikipedias Yes, on Bulgarian Wikipedia for Dochev. After translation, there are no sources on his "playing career" section (first section) which certainly will not help copy over English article. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@CuteDolphin712: Pavel Dochev's playing career is supported by his Worldfootball.net (https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/pavel-dotchev/) and NFT (https://www.national-football-teams.com/player/26936/Pavel_Dochev.html) profiles, linked in the "External links" section. Removing his playing career would be highly inappropriate. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

National Football Teams and WorldFootball are primary sources without secondary content/coverage.

Sure, removing "Playing career" on infobox is inappropriate for such players like him, especially if we don't have same section with more detailed clarification by adding sources (e.g. When the manager ended their playing career). I thought we had to only do that, or am I wrong? Does this also apply to active players? Hmm... I guess those kinda spoil people who are new to the football figure! CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

No, Worldfootball.net and NFT are not primary sources, at least not per our definition. They are databases, not newspaper articles, so they're not suitable for prose but they're fine for verifying infobox content.

I thought we had to only do that, or am I wrong? Does this also apply to active players? Hmm... I guess those kinda spoil people who are new to the football figure! I'm sorry, I don't understand that. Could you rephrase? Robby.is.on (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

They're also fine for prose, if the content cited is a basic fact like "PlayerName scored two goals against TeamName on Date". What they're not suitable for is demonstrating notability. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

CuteDolphin712, I respectfully suggest you leave football bios alone for a while, until you are able to edit them from a place of more knowledge. GiantSnowman 20:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

They're also fine for prose, if the content cited is a basic fact like "PlayerName scored two goals against TeamName on Date". Are you sure, Struway2? Don't we need non-database sourcing to demonstrate content is worthy of inclusion per WP:DUE? Robby.is.on (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Existence of non-database sourcing and requirement to supply it within the article are two different things. At the level of "PlayerName scored two goals against TeamName on Date", there's plenty of non-database sourcing available to show the worth of any brace of goals, and editors make a value judgment as to whether that particular brace was important enough in PlayerName's career to warrant inclusion in their article. Once the editor decides to include, then a database entry can verify the fact. The example wasn't about how to write a better article, but what form of verification is acceptable for a bare statistical fact at a basic level. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on Sorry if I don't talk too well :( Maybe... I meant if the playing career is detailed, is that against WP:FAN or something?

Anyway, I kinda agree with Struway2 statement that database sources are inappropriate to demonstrate notability!

CuteDolphin712 (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I meant if the playing career is detailed, is that against WP:FAN or something? Whether content is worthy of inclusion is determined by coverage in reliable sources.

Looking at Pavel Dochev: Dochev spent many seasons in the first tier of Bulgarian football and the third tier of German football. I think most experienced editors of football articles will tell you that this usually means there is significant coverage. There's no guarantee there is but it's a good rule of thumb.

Your initial statement there's no evidence of them being [a footballer] was inaccurate as his playing career is verifiable through the database entries I mentioned. The next step would be to search for coverage in newspapers and the like. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Mágico González

The following month, a fellow user added several honours to this player, sourcing some of them. Yesterday, i took it upon myself to source the rest, but here's the deal:

they inserted that player/country won the 1977 Central American Games, which is what is shown in the pertinent page of tournament. The ref accompanying it (which is what i used to source honour, this one https://www.rsssf.org/tablesc/cag78.html), however, mentions that they won the QUALIFYING tournament (also the only rankings shown in the WP page), and in the finals they lost FOUR matches in FIVE while conceding a whopping 21 goals, finishing second-bottom (at least if i'm reading it well)!

So in my view i feel this "honour" should be removed, but i come here for "enlightenment" first. Attentively 193.137.135.5 (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

According to that RSSSF source, El Salvador won the football tournament at the 1977 Central American Games, which also acted as a qualifier for the football tournament at the 1978 Central American and Caribbean Games, which is a different competition. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

User:ChrisTheDude I see, DIFFERENT competition. I got it now, honour stays! Many thanks. --193.137.135.5 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Jack Eggett

Should this be moved to John Eggett? Two source material refer to him in title as John Eggett, it was also known as Jack Eggett and he seemed to have been nicknamed Jack. Govvy (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Jack is a common diminutive of John. Given that there are plenty sources which call him Jack eg this one, from one of his former clubs, I don't see an issue with leaving the article where it is -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Massive rapid fire unsourced edits

An IP has been making large numbers of rapid and unsourced changes to football related articles. I have already reverted quite a few, but there are probably hundreds. Could someone have a look? I suspect vandalism but would like to be sure. The IP has been blocked while this gets sorted out. It's extremely late here and I will check in tomorrow. If the edits appear to be disruptive, any experienced editor should feel free to just roll them back. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

looks like 90 reverted; 296 to go ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted all of their still current edits. I think close to 400. This reminds me of someone I blocked a while ago doing similar stuff. They may be the same person. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Назар Кусий edits for links to a stats and betting site

To let you know that User:Назар Кусий is back (after a block in late 2023), adding external links to their related stats and betting sites once again (they were unblocked recently : @PhilKnight:). I do not think that they are here to build an encyclopedia. Block again ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked them again. PhilKnight (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

New Article for AFC Champions League Elite (ACLE)

The AFC Champions League is being rebranded in the following season to AFC Champions League Elite, at which time there should probably be an examination as to whether to change the name of the AFC Champions League article to AFC Champions League Elite. However, a new article has just been created called AFC Champions League Elite (ACLE). So the question posed is whether this new article should just be speedily deleted, on the basis that the AFC Champions League article will be renamed (perhaps in a month or two) and two separate articles for the same competition are not warranted. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

1907–08 Western Football League

Can someone help, the article was vandalised by an IP on 6 August 2017, making the maths on the tables completely wrong, it's never been fixed, and there are a couple of edits in between, I was looking at trying to restore the article, but keep the future edits, but my previews looks odd. I didn't want to fuck up the article. Can someone else help fix the tables back to normal so the maths add up again. Regards Govvy (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

A quick question, not directly related to your query - why is one of the columns headed "goal ratio"? This term was literally never used (at least not in England). The correct term was "goal average" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the point of the goal ratio, but tables are still broken! I might just have to revert back to the edits before August 2017 then if no one else fixes it before me... Govvy (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I corrected Spurs' record, which seemed to be the only issue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No you didn't, goals are all wrong in the first table, Tottenham came second in the league not Bristol Rovers, and the third table goals are all wrong. Govvy (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not what RSSSF says. What source do you have that is wildly different....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I reverted that 2017 IP the same day, undoing all his edits, so I'm not sure what he did is the problem. These historic season articles were better off with simple tables before they were overcomplicated. The "goal ratio" thing was added here [2] during the mass expansion of templates on all these articles. The maths was changed here [3]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Well Spurs played 12 games, won 7 and lost 5, they never drew a game. The third table down, total 309 goals for and 274 total against? How is that even equal? Goals for and against are always equal. Govvy (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Also Spurs scored 26 goals only only let in 13 goal in that league. :/ Govvy (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

[4] Govvy (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

In the reference I originally used for this article, Spurs' record was Pl12 W7 D0 L5 GF26 GA15. I assume it's been changed to 6-1-5-16-15 because someone's found a different reference and changed it. As for Division Two, in the original reference I used, the total goals for and against were 304-274, hence I added the note about totals not balancing. I assume the original tables were wrong, so...? My reference shows Welton having scored 23, not 28 (goal average of 0.5), so that's been changed somewhere, but as you say, still miles off. I also don't know why Welton were above Weymouth, given their goal averages suggest it should be the other way round. My guess is that somebody made a mistake historically, and Weymouth actually conceded 53 goals, not 23. That would fix the goal difference across the whole division, and give Weymouth a goal average of 0.471, explaining why they're below Welton. But that's just my guess... Unless someone has a reference which makes them add up? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Bob Goodwin's Complete Record lists the twelve Spurs games, which add up to a record of P12, W7, D0, L5, F26, A15, Pts14. On the same page there is a league table showing Spurs record as P12, W6, D1, L5, F16, A15, Pts13. The match record is confirmed at Topspurs, so the 6-1-5-16-15 is an error derived from the book. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Philip Soar records all the games in Tottenham Hotspur The Official Illustrated History 1882–1995, not one draw list for the Western League in the results. I have both books here. Govvy (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Jardel (1999-2000 season) - 37 or 38 league goals

Unfortunately, there are discrepancies in sources and football databases regarding Jardel's number of goals in the 1999-2000 season. That's why I wanted to ask if anyone has an official source (like perhaps from the governing body Liga Portugal itself) for the top scorers list from 1999-2000?
In most Wiki articles (e.g. 1999–2000 FC Porto season or Mário Jardel) the number of goals is listed with 38 as it is according to this sources:
Mario Jardel 1999/2000 - zerozero.pt or infordesporto.pt.The problem is also increased by the fact that sources then state the total number of goals across all competitions as 56[5] instead of 55 .

But these reliable sources have 37 goals in the league for Jardel in the 1999-2000 season:
Record (Portuguese newspaper) [6][7],worldfootball.net,RSSSF, footballdatabase.eu [8] and Besoccer [9]

Apparently it's about one game where this discrepancy comes from in different sources:

Database	BeSoccer (37 league goals)	Worldfootball.net (37 league goals)	zerozero.pt (ogol.com.br,playmakerstats.com etc.) (38 league goals)
match-report	Porto 3 - 0 Braga https://www.besoccer.com/match/fc-porto/sporting-braga/200018481	Porto 3 - 0 Braga https://www.worldfootball.net/report/primeira-liga-1999-2000-fc-porto-sporting-braga/	Porto 3 - 0 Braga https://www.zerozero.pt/jogo/2000-02-05-fc-porto-sc-braga/736558
goals	Capucho 1x goal, Chaínho 1x goal, Jardel 1x goal	Capucho 1x goal, Chaínho 1x goal, Jardel 1x goal	Capucho 1x goal, Jardel 2x goal

So the question is whether someone has a better source (like perhaps from the governing body Liga Portugal itself) or even a video link to the game in question to check it out. Miria~01 (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a minor comment: per WP:WPFLINKSNO, FootballDatabase.eu should not be used. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither should ZeroZero - I trust WorldFootball. GiantSnowman 20:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the difference in sources is due to the method of the goal. I tried to search for the different goal and could not find it. I think we should follow the most reliable sources, which consider that Jardel scored 37 goals. --Mishary94 (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I found the explanation for this discrepancy in an article from the Portuguese sports Newspaper Record:

https://www.record.pt/futebol/futebol-nacional/liga-betclic/sporting/detalhe/jardel-atinge-150-golos-na-i-liga-lusa

Translated excerpt from 12 January 2002

The number of goals scored by the Brazilian in the Portuguese championship is not unanimous (148 for Record). All because of the second from FC Porto-Sp. Braga (3-0), played on February 5, 2000, and which our newspaper attributed to Chainho, as did “France Football” and Eurosport. After Chainho headed the ball to the goal, Jardel claimed that he was last on the ball and changed the direction, what Chainho not disputes. Nevertheless, the official match report by the fourth referee and the League delegate lists Chihnio as the goalscorer.

... Days later it was made public that the fourth referee and the League delegate indicated in their respective reports that it was the midfielder who scored.

--> The conclusion from this is, in my opinion, that we should follow the sources according to worldfootball.net and state 37 goals for Jardel in the season 1999-2000, as @GiantSnowman and @Mishary94 already recommended. Miria~01 (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Great work, I will change everything related to this in Wikipedia (it will be considered that he scored 37 league goals with Porto in the 1999-2000 season). Thank you --Mishary94 (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Willie Frame

Can anybody with access to ENFA or other sources confirm Willie Frame's league statistics for Gateshead in 1931/32? Would really appreciate the help. Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll add later but Michael Joyce's book says 6 apps in 31/32 ColchesterSid (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Anything approaching a confirmed DOB would also be very helpful! Crowsus (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Joyce is vague - DOB is for William G Frame is "Larkhall 1898" and no date of death. It also has two extra clubs - sequence of clubs is shown as Larkhall Thistle, Clyde, St Bernards (loan), Motherwell, St Mirren (trial), Dunfermline Athletic, 1931 Gateshead 6/0, Bray Unknowns, Linfield, Motherwell. Oddly Joyce lists him as a goalkeeper - maybe a mistake? ColchesterSid (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we've got two different men here. The Gateshead Frame did indeed play as a goalkeeper for Gateshead, both for the first team and the reserves, in 1931/32. ENFA gives birth details as William Gray Frame born 11 Nov 1911 in Blantyre, which would have made him about 8 when he made his debut for Clyde. They list clubs as 1926 Kirkintilloch Rob Roy, 1926 Shieldmuir Celtic, 1931 Motherwell, 1931/32 Gateshead, 1932 Bray Unknowns, 1935 Linfield, 1938 Motherwell, 1940 Parkhead. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if there's multiple editions of the Joyce book but mine (dated 2004) lists only one Willie Frame, a goalkeeper, and it shows him as playing only for Gateshead, no other clubs at all. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple editions; I have the same one as you.

As to the Gateshead Frame, he definitely isn't the same man as the full-back that our article is about. If anyone has full British Newspaper Archive access, there's a decent little biography of him in Ireland's Saturday Night of 7 March 1936, url https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0004162/19360307/129/0010 . I've only got snippet view, but it's enough to show he joined Motherwell as a young goalkeeper, stayed for 15 months playing reserve team football, and then moved on to Gateshead, Bray, and Linfield. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Great intel, Struway2! That of course poses the question.....what was the other Frame doing for seven years between 1931 and 1938.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It was the Gateshead/Linfield goalkeeper who signed for Motherwell in 1938, per the Wishaw Press: the first para says they're going to play him (in goal), scroll down to the bottom and it talks about him signing after a trial having regained fitness from a shoulder operation. Now that we know it wasn't the Willie Frame in our article, the Motherwell LB, who played for Gateshead in 1931/32 or rejoined Motherwell in 1938, Litster might have his later career attributed to some other W. Frame; or perhaps he retired: he'd have been early-mid 30s by 1931. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to dig into this tonight. Crowsus (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I have now amended Willie Frame's article as best as I could find. The source of the confusion seems to be that GK Willie was a reserve with Motherwell but didn't play for them in the same season as DF Willie left, so the Litster database recorded DF Willie's move to Dunfermline (which seems to have been permanent) as a loan with a player of that name still on the books but not playing. Litster then links GK Willie's return to Motherwell as being by DF Willie in error, but doesn't mention any of the other clubs in between.

Certainly there are refs for GK Willie at Gateshead which mention Motherwell, and at the other end at Motherwell which mention Linfield, while DF Willie seems to have retired after the season at Dunfermline, so it's fairly certain that the Bray spell was also GK and it's only the Motherwell 1930/1931 period where their careers actually overlapped. With 6 FL and 10 SFL appearances for GK Willie, under the old rules he would have been eligible for an article, dunno if anyone wants to attempt it... The Ireland article above confirms Earnock Rovers Juveniles > Motherwell Reserves > Gateshead > Bray > Linfield and indicates he was from Blantyre, and a bit of snooping shows the only male of that name born there in the right period is William Gray Frame in 1911 which would match the 'G' in the name. Would be shocked to discover that isn't our GK.

Coming from the same part of the world, I don't recall ever actually meeting anyone called Frame, but there are plenty who have played league football! Many of the results in my searches for the 2 Willies were actually for Leicester's Billy Frame. And there are a couple of others, but no big names (Tommy Frame played for Man Utd but in the 2nd Division). I have a feeling a few of these guys were related but haven't come across anything in the reports which even hints at that. Crowsus (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your sterling work on this, Crowsus! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Johnny Orr - Blackburn Rovers

Does anyone know what happened to Johnny Orr who played for Blackburn Rovers during the 1910s? Hack (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

My copy of Michael Joyce's book lists no clubs for him after Blackburn so unless someone can dredge up another source then we have to assume that either he retired or the information simply isn't known -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked because a Scottish guy with the same name ends up in Melbourne during the early 1920s and plays for Australia in 1924. It's probably a different person but the dates match up. Hack (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

John Litster's database has him as 'Retired' from 1920 but then resurfacing at Leith Athletic in July 1924 (2 seasons in Scottish 3rd tier, 35 league app / 14 goals), depending on the Australia dates it might still be him, but came back home...? I'll try to get a source. Crowsus (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

...British Newspaper Archive actually has him playing for Leith as early as 1922 (they had closed down for WWI and were non league at that point until 1924, explaining the discrepancy) so looking less likely. Also a snippet from a benefit game in 1926 which doesn't mention any time in Australia. I can see that the other Johnny Orr was pretty prominent in the mid 1920s; you've probably seen a passing mention here. Crowsus (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

lfchistorc profile, worldfootball.net profile. Govvy (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

ENFA says he played for Newtongrange Star, Blackburn Rovers, Leith Athletic - there was also a John Orr active at the same time who played for Kilwinning Rangers, Luton Town, Dunfermline Athletic. GiantSnowman 20:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't think the Luton / Dunfermline guy is the Australian as he played in Britain at pretty much the same time, and seems to have been a goalkeeper. I have now knocked up an article for Johnny Orr (footballer) (Blackburn) and still found nothing for Australia plans etc. Crowsus (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

International Friendlies

Can someone explain why we don't list friendlies play outside the FIFA international windows? eg England v Canada women in 2023 or any of the Gibraltar games against non-FIFA nations. I can understand why these don't count towards official statistics, but for them to be on separate lists or just not included seems odd. Mn1548 (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes these matches are made unofficial and not registered with FIFA for specific purposes, such as non-standard lengths, using ineligible players (ie. dual-nats considering a one-time switch), other alternate rules (players in and out), etc. Friendlies played outside windows are counted if they are still official friendlies RedPatch (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

For England v Canada women in 2023 the reason is clear:-> The teams played two 45-minute halves with unlimited substitutes

It's the same like for this match: FIFA downgraded Belgiums friendly victory over Luxembourg.
Recognition only as a practice match, but not as an official friendly according to the rules of the FIFA and IFAB Miria~01 (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks, so essentially FIFA classification differs between Friendly and Practice Match to if they follow official rules or not. Mn1548 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Managerial vacancies

If a club has no current manager, should we show "vacant" against that field or just show nothing at all? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

If there's a caretaker, show that, using |managertitle= to show what the club are calling the caretaker role. If there's nobody, which might well be the case when the playing season's just finished, show nothing. IMO. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this source credible?

Is this website Footofeminin.fr : le football au féminin a credible enough source to use for usage of coverage of women's football articles in France? Dwanyewest (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)