Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 146

Archive 140

←

Archive 144

Archive 145

Archive 146

Archive 147

Archive 148

→

Archive 150

Ruiz-Atil interview

Hello. At around the two-minute mark in this interview, Kays Ruiz-Atil reveals that he went from FC Gerland to Olympique Lyonnais and back to FC Gerland before signing for FC Barcelona. Should we include this in his youth career in his article's infobox? And how should we source that? Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

If the publisher (VISTA in this case) is a reliable source, you can source using the {{Cite AV media}} template. --SuperJew (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Nicklas

Hello. Could someone explain to my why Nicklas redirects to Nicklas Bendtner? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Neither does the Lord Bendtner redirect make sense. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

"Lord Bendtner" is a nickname which is mentioned in the Personal life of the article. Although I agree that redirecting Nicklas to Nicklas Bendtner seems silly, when there's 35 people with that name. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it is mentioned in the article so the Lord Bendtner is defensible as a redirect. I've been BOLD and changed the redirect, and requested that Nicklas (name) be moved over it. Spike 'em (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Spike and Joseph2302. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Idriss Saadi

How can we fit in Strasbourg B in Idriss Saadi? The current way looks weird with the loan underneath. Note that he only played for Strasbourg B in 2018 (2 games). Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Something I proposed in the past for players who go to the B team temporarily is to put the arrow like we do for loans, but not the word loan. RedPatch (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm... My solution that I thought of was to extend the B team years to 2020. But it wouldn't be an accurate representation of the B team years. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Any other opinions on what should be done? Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Simply put Strasbourg B following his loan spell, though I also agree with RedPatch's proposal of adding an arrow without "(loan)". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Segunda División B to Segunda División RFEF / Tercera División to Tercera División RFEF

I've created a RM to Segunda División B and Tercera División, to rename them to Segunda División RFEF and Tercera División RFEF, respectively. Although they might seem clearly a continuity to the aforementioned divisions, a discussion was raised here before, which I failed to see a clear consensus, and despite that, my RM was accepted a month ago or so. Because of those moves, I have created a CfD to the cats related to those divisions (players and managers for now), but @GiantSnowman: asked to raise the issue here as he opposed to it. @Crowsus: also created a category for Segunda RFEF (Category:Segunda División RFEF), so I think the discussion should be brought up here again, because we need to define how we should approach these divisions.

My suggestion is to rename those cats and merge Category:Segunda División B into Category:Segunda División RFEF, but I would like to see some opinions. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Like I said at the CFD, I now think we need separate articles for Segunda División B (the old third tier until 2021) and Segunda División RFEF (the new fourth tier from 2021), and therefore separate categories. GiantSnowman 20:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: After analyzing some leagues which changed name, like the Portuguese Terceira Divisão, I will split them into two separate pages. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Non-diffusing categories

A user (@Mitch Ames:) has used AWB to remove valid categories such as Category:Greek football managers and Category:Australian soccer coaches from articles (now reverted). However, they were not tagged as non-diffusing, hence the confusion - should we run a bot or similar to tag all parent categories in Category:Association football managers by nationality (and Category:Association football players by nationality to avoid further confusion? GiantSnowman 06:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd say yes, if they should all have that, and my understanding is they should. Crowsus (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:CATSPECIFIC is clear that articles ought not be in a category and its parent. I don't see the need for non-diffusing categories here, but if you think it appropriate, please add {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} and {{All included}} to the categories, to avoid the same "confusion" happening in future. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

In absence of {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} and {{All included}}, WP:CATSPECIFIC applies and the articles should be removed from the parent category. According to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Mitch - no, the consensus is clear. Try and remove Category:English footballers from Category:England international footballers and see how many reverts/warnings you get from different users...the categories are non-diffusing, they just need to be tagged appropriately. GiantSnowman 10:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

they just need to be tagged appropriately — Then please do that. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Could someone who is familiar with the local non-diffusing consensus please tag the aforementioned categories - Greek football managers, Greek expatriate football managers, Australian expatriate soccer coaches, Australian soccer coaches - with {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} and {{All included}} please. Note that the WP:DUPCAT says that they should identified thus. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Pizzi

Pizzi (Portuguese footballer) was moved to Pizzi (footballer) without any discussion, and there are other footballers called Pizzi. Is this okay? SLBedit (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the move by @Nehme1499:. Worth a WP:RM. GiantSnowman 17:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Fausto Pizzi and Juan Antonio Pizzi aren't known solely as "Pizzi", unlike Luís Miguel Afonso Fernandes. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Poor argument. This guy is known only by the mononym "Trézéguet", but who comes into your mind when I say "the footballer Trézéguet"? Andd when I say "the footballer Thuram", who comes to mind? This mononymous guy, or this guy with two names, or even this one? 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:B916:E44F:8554:7A3 (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Image crop badly needed

Hi folks. Craig Short's profile image is in urgent need of cropping. Insert pun here… ;-) Robby.is.on (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

On it. Crowsus (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Crowsus. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

On that subject I see that this article has the infobox image requested to be cropped. I tried to follow instructions but the edit was disabled as I did not have permission to review images. That is an unfortunate dead end on that point of view. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I found out from User:FMSky that we can use the crop tool, that user cropped the Harry Toffolo image successfully and I had done so with the image I tried to upload from my device. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Lacking inline citations

Jack Reynolds (footballer, born 1869) is lacking quite a few inline citations. If someone could help add some it would be appreciated. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Watford kits

Could someone create and upload the new Watford kits. home and away kits have been announced by the club and they even wore the new home strip against Villa yesterday. I can create kits but these are above my level. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I've added a very basic version based on existing templates. GiantSnowman 19:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

DFB Pokal

Wouldn't it be better insert the number of the tier for each team in the football box collapsible? Dr Salvus 23:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Leandro Campaz

Some eyes and clean up on Leandro Campaz, a Colombian footballer, would be good; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BLP help at Leandro Campaz. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Notability of American coaches of foreign national soccer teams

Is American coaches of foreign national soccer teams really a notable article? Looking at both of the previous deletion discussions, the keep votes make significantly worse arguments than the delete voters and the delete voters outnumber the keep voters. This article is clearly a U.S.-biased fancruft. Either a deletion review or a 3rd deletion discussion needs to be made in order to sort things out once and for all. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 04:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• No, I don't think so - take to AFD. GiantSnowman 15:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @GiantSnowman:  Done KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 05:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    • This is actually the current AfD, the link above is to one from 2017. This is the third time the article has been nominated..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: the earlier discussions about medals in the infobox......

..... check out Masayuki Okano -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I feel it can be open to over-use if not kept in check. Govvy (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be fairly widespread amongst articles for J. League players. Working through a few J. League players at random, I found it at Kazuyoshi Miura, Ryo Germain, Daigo Nishi, Yoshiaki Komai and Hiroshi Nanami. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

this is my problem with medals in the infobox full stop... GiantSnowman 11:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Club seasons articles and MoS

Why are there lot of pages about season clubs who don't meet our MoS? Dr Salvus 21:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide an example? – PeeJay 20:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: articles about first tier teams season use football box collapsibles for matches but articles about almost of non-first tier teams season use tables. MoS says that tables should be used but almost of our articles don't meet the Mos Dr Salvus 23:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

MoS is just a guideline, not a policy directive. Govvy (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This may also show that consensus in actuality doesn't agree with MoS and therefore the MoS should be changed to reflect actual consensus. --SuperJew (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

People have tried to change the MoS on this but it never succeeds because the football box template doesn't fit with WP:ACCESS and MOS:LIST whereas the current MoS does. Those articles should be updated to reflect those policies. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: Apologies, I'd had a long day and totally misunderstood your comment, I thought you were talking about articles not meeting the notability criteria! I totally agree with you that a lot of articles don't meet the MOS, and it would be nice if we could get some consistency. However, because we're reliant on volunteers keeping all this stuff up to date, if we force them to follow guidelines they don't want to follow, who will update the articles? Like I say, I agree with you, it's just we're caught between a rock and a hard place. – PeeJay 11:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I honestly hate tables for seasons and I do support footballboxes collapsibles even for clubs seasons. But wouldn't it be better include also scorers for the opponent team? Dr Salvus 18:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Why? The article is about one club, not their opponents. We should be writing prose about the season anyway, so if the opposition's scorers are that important, mention them in the prose rather than a stat-dump template. – PeeJay 18:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to know why don't collapsibles meet WP:ACESS and MOS:LIST? I think collapsibles are fine and they show more informations than simple tables Dr Salvus 18:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Last I heard, collapsible templates don't work very well with screen readers, so the guidelines say you aren't supposed to hide information in collapsible templates if it can't be found anywhere else in the article. On top of that, the collapsible template takes up way more space than a simple table. Look how much of the page is wasted when all that info is spread out right across the page. – PeeJay 19:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, as I've said in almost every discussion on this subject, if we want the MoS to be consistent and the consensus is to have the info in table form, then the template should be changed as it is highly doubtful that any editor will go back and change hundreds-thousands of pages from thier current footballbox collapsible form to the table. Also, as I've said my main issue against the table and per template is that it makes editing harder and less available for less experienced users. I also think the collapsible footballbox looks better, but that is a weak argument. Furthermore @PeeJay: why does it matter how much space the template/table takes? What is the extra whitespace used for? (for example on 2020–21 Manchester United F.C. season) It's just extra whitespace and doesn't have any value. Also, this is an online encyclopedia, not a printed version so there's no issue of taking up space on a page. --SuperJew (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It just looks ugly. I know that's just my opinion, but I think aesthetics are important, and if anyone agrees with me, I'd be silly not to bring it up. – PeeJay 22:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

SuperJew yes I agree with you. I hate tables and they're ugly and they don't let to show some important infos Dr Salvus 22:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure a discussion about the merits of each format is particularly useful here, as there have been plenty of discussions over the past few years showing a consensus towards results tables and the WikiProject MoS should comply with the site-wide manual of style and site-wide guidelines which the collapsible templates do not. I agree with SuperJew's proposal to change the template to hep convert to tables en masse, but I don't have the ability to do that myself. (For what it's worth, I find tables marginally more aesthetically pleasing (though how it looks bears no weight as as argument), information is available at a glance so they're easier to read. Also, they're adjustable so if one felt it was necessary to add opposition goalscorers or the referee or something, the table can accommodate for that.) Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with SuperJew and Microwave Anarchist. I personally don't find editing a table/template to be any easier or harder but if creating a new template would help other editors then I'd be in favour. I don't know how to do that either but it might be worth bringing it up elsewhere to see if we can so that. I don't think altering the existing football box would be the best way just because of the amount pages that use it.

Also re the amount of space they take up. It does matter because there is a limit to how big a wiki page can be and how many templates can be on one page because it affects the render speed of the site if it goes over. This was discussed a few seasons ago when the page for Europa League qualifiers went over that limit and had to be split. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

PeeJay was referring to physical space and aestethics. Regarding rendering etc, it can be changed to "invoke" method, as was done on Australia national soccer team results (unofficial matches). --SuperJew (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not know that, will need to remember it in future, thank you. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Reposted and updated version of original now archived.

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

• Dragutin Babic (Yugoslavia) - there is a source in Croat language but it is unclear to me it indicates manner of death
• Walter Berg (Germany) - alleged died in Soviet captivity after capture in war in 1949
• Josef Bergmaier (Germany)
• Henri Bierna (Belgium) - citation to Dutch language article on Waremme civilian air raid memorial sourced by Lugnuts 4-5 August 2021, and added to the list by me today.Cloptonson (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Walter Claus-Oehler (Germany)
• Eddy de Neve (Netherlands) - also disputed death circumstance and identity. A source to a Dutch language article was found and he has been added to the list by Lettler on 9 August 2021.Cloptonson (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Jozsef Eisenhoffer (Hungary) - also disputed death circumstances
• Hermann Flick (Germany)
• Franz Jelinek (Austria) - source to German war graves website found, added to list by Lettler on 5 August 2021.Cloptonson (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Werner Klaas (Germany)
• Karol Kossok (Poland)
• Franz Krumm (Germany)
• Willi Lindner (Germany) - source in German language, not fully clear about death details
• Josef Madlmayer (Austria)
• Richard Malik (Germany)
• Alexander Martinek (Austria)
• Otto Martwig (Germany)
• Philip Meldon (Ireland) - disputed death details, not known to CWGC.
• Hans Mengel (Germany) - source to German war graves website found by Lettler on 3 June 2021, added to list by me today.Cloptonson (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Adam Obrubanski (Poland) - alleged victim of Katyn massacres. Source found and added to list by Lettler today.Cloptonson (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Slavko Pavletic (Croatia)
• Mimis Pierrakos (Greece) - Greek language source found by Lettler who has added him to the list.Cloptonson (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Alfreds Plade (Latvia) - was added to the list but I have taken it out and copied it on list talk page as the citations used did not indicate how he died or any service. There are two citations in his article on Latvian wikipedia (which states he was repatriated to Germany as a Baltic German, served implicitly in their forces and fell on the Eastern Front) but I find both unreadable.Cloptonson (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Eriks Raisters (Latvia)
• Stasys Razma (Lithuania) - disputed death details
• Fyodor Rimsha (Russia)
• Janis Rozitis (Latvia)
• Holger Salin (Finland)
• Otto Siffling (Germany) - It is listed under the list on German Wikipedia, but says he died of pleurisy. I've added it here in case he is found to have served during the war.
• Aleksandrs Stankus (Latvia)
• Erwin Stührk (Germany) - disputable death date, death place given in German war grave site not easy to ascertain as it only gives German form of name rather than its vernacular.
• Willi Völker (Germany)
• Karl Wahlmuller (Austria)
• Heinz Warnken (Germany)
• Willi Wigold (Germany) - date of death is disputed

There may be additions coming onto the list so I encourage watch this space! Others are welcome to add. Please let us know if sources are found and added into their articles.Cloptonson (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Rob Edwards (footballer, born 1982)

An IP and now a registered account keeps adding a sentence that Edwards is the only Forest Green manager to have a 100% record... three matches into his career, like it's a notable feat. I've maxed out my reverts, so if anyone else is willing to keep an eye on it, I'd appreciate it. Seasider53 (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

You can put in a Wikipedia:Requests for page protection which would prevent IPs and newly registered users from editing it for a week or so. RedPatch (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Have done now. Seasider53 (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Wenger

Hi all, there is a situation developing on Arsène Wenger's page and would definitely welcome some input; @Bkhd12: has expanded the lead but I reverted the lead for these reasons:

-- It doesn't need WP:TOOMANYREFS in the lead. The lead should act as a summary of the main body of the text, and certain references aren't necessary. Said user hasn't used 'specific' references, but used generic ones (like Amy Lawrence's book, without a page number). I wouldn't class 'sportingnews.com' and 'GiveMeSport' as high-quality sources either.

-- Why is Wenger being Arsenal's most successful and longest-serving manager omitted from the first para? That is more valuable than him managing 1,000 PL matches or winning 7 FA Cups (Guardiola has won 4 League Cups, you don't see that being in the first para of the lead). Wenger changed the culture of a football club, that is his legacy. Not necessarily his longevity.

-- 'often considered the greatest manager', is unnecessary. I would rather the lead brought out the fact he was an influential manager, to avoid 'greatest ever' talk.

-- Hale End, no mention of it in the main body of the text. Why is it included in the lead? To say he is responsible for the 'early success' of Arsenal's Hale End youth academy is disingenuous and vague.

I reverted the lead in keeping with WP:GAC, but Bkhd12 has refused to corporate or reach out here for opinions. So rather than getting into an edit war, I'd welcome some constructive feedback, cheers. Lemonade51 (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You really are suppose to avoid adding references to leads, and other than that, it's looking like a borderline edit-war there! Govvy (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Minus the refs and with a little bit of clean-up I would agree with Bkhd12's version. Wider consensus is definitely needed. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I actually agree with the original version (from Lemonade). A lead should indeed be concise, only summarize what's stated in the body (a phrase from the current version such as "his contribution to the upheaval of the traditional English football culture, seen as classically indolent and outdated" is not supported by the body), and not include any refs (especially sources such as Google Translate...). Statements like "often considered as one of the greatest managers of all time" should also be avoided as it's still arbitrary, even if it's sourced. The only thing I would take from the current version and put in the original one is that Wenger won the most FA Cups as manager. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @WA8MTWAYC:, I had made changes to reflect this here. Lemonade51 (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry for the late comment. Happy to contribute my reasons for the expansion of the article;

- the revision to the para as the manager who has managed the most PL games/FA cups is extremely pertinent to include and has been omitted in @Lemonade51:'s original version. - In my opinion, starting off the lead with 'widely known for managing Arsenal' then adding his achievements (most pl games/facups won) is more informative to a reader than a vague statement that he is the most successful. Which again could be debated considering Herbert Chapman by some (others will have to think, but I'd rather avoid the implication entirely and give a more objective fact)

How is the statement 'vague'? He is the most successful manager because his job is based on trophies, it doesn't need to be laid on thick. No Arsenal manager has won more than he has; if you are going to bring up Chapman than you've confused the lines with 'greatest' and 'most influential'. Lemonade51 (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Completely disagree. Successful is not just trophies. Chapman went and took Arsenal to the highrise of English football from relative obscurity in comparison to Wenger who already took over a big club and carried it through. You need to measure for start & end. Bkhd12 (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

If success is not measured by trophies, then how do you explain Arsenal calling him “most successful manager in the history of the club”?

https://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/20140530/wenger-signs-contract-extension

https://www.arsenal.com/news/features/behind-the-numbers-wenger-s-17-years

https://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/20150521/wenger-is-britain-s-greatest-architect

https://www.arsenal.com/news/features/20140318/wenger-1000

What about these news organisations?

https://www.theguardian.com/football/gallery/2016/sep/22/arsene-wenger-20-years-arsenal-in-his-own-words

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54399999

https://twitter.com/bbcradio4/status/1329779081450319873?lang=en

Again, you are blurring the lines between ‘success’ and ‘influential’. I would argue Chapman is Arsenal’s most influential manager, and perhaps the most important manager they have or will ever appointed, but success is measured objectively. I could put a caveat that Wenger is Arsenal’s most successful manager based on trophies, but it is redundant. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

- 'often considered one of the greatest managers' is again an allude to his reputation, which I've tried to cite [I can see clumsily, but there's some other solid sources there]. Definitely up for debate/consensus, I'd posit Ferguson, Klopp, Guardiola, Mourinho pages who all include some interp of this phrase.

So why is 'successful' vague, and 'greatest' not? Even with citations, it isn't clear what people mean, just like describing someone as a 'world-class player'. You repeatedly ignored the fact that editors are strongly advised to avoid WP:TOOMANYREFS in the lead. Just because Ferguson, Klopp, et al pages have it, does not mean Wenger's should follow suit. Granted, the whole entry is in need of freshening up, but I reverted your changes because the quality of sources do not stand up, you've padded the lead with unnecessary references and more to the point, unlike the manager entries you've mentioned, Wenger's is classed as WP:GA. So its 'present' state, the one that passed the GA criteria, does a succinct job of summarising the article (for now). It could be better, that I'm not arguing with, but if it went for WP:PR or WP:FAC, then I'm sure the lead at its current state would be pulled up.

The WP:GA certification came when? It's obvious the article needs revisiting, some of the language was in present instead of past even. I would disagree with you on that last point. WP:TOOMANYREFS is a good point & I took your advice on board and reworked it. The main point of citations is on "one of the greatest" as it is backing to as you said a subjective topic. Again 'most successful' is arguable w/Herbert Chapman. As well, there is an extreme 'Arsenal-centricity' if you will in the lead. Wenger was a celebrated & successful manager before his time at Arsenal, while I appreciate you are an Arsenal fan and will naturally seek to best appreciate that from his career; it is best to be comprehensive rather than focal. Bkhd12 (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It was GA-certified nearly a decade ago, and I updated the body of the text with a view to getting it FA-standard. I'm not an Arsenal fan, btw. What is your response to WA8MTWAYC's comment above, "statements like "often considered as one of the greatest managers of all time" should also be avoided as it's still arbitrary, even if it's sourced."? More to the point, this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_106#Alex_Ferguson_Success? Lemonade51 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Would "one of the most celebrated" be more preferential to you? This solves both of our considerations. As a side, not to say that I'm doubting your good faith but it seems extremely hypocritical that you label me an Arsenal fan (I'm not. Just have an interest in world football & London based football. If I have to disclose my bias, it is probably to English football in general), even going to the lengths of calling my expansion of the historical child sexual abuse scandal in the Chelsea FC page not in good faith yet you have a much, much more considerable history of influencing and editing Arsenal related articles. Bkhd12 (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lemonade51: responded to your commentary, just now

For reasons of simplicity, my edited version can be found here. I removed referencing and included the bit about Wenger winning the most FA Cups. I don't think managing the most PL games is an achievement that is worth including in the first paragraph; it hadn't up until the point Ferguson retired if we are 'comparing' entries. And if you are that 'keen' on achievements, why not include Wenger being the only manager to have lost all three UEFA competition finals in the opening para? Lemonade51 (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

?? Depending on how it is implemented, it wouldn't be amiss but surely we focus on the achievements of the person in the lead? Compared to other manager pages, there is more of a focus on the achievements because those are the factors that are most important in the notability of the person. Perhaps a note on Wenger's lack of European success would be a good addition. Most PL games managed is absolutely one of the most important statistics. That's the most successfull, influential league in the world. Most FA Cups too, that's the oldest trophy. On both of those, they are non-negotiables in the first para. Bkhd12 (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"non-negotiables", says who? And you accuse me of being uncooperative. Most PL games managed doesn't need to be mentioned in the first para, his career is not defined by that, nor is that the first thing a reader would think of or be drawn to. He is Arsenal's longest-serving manager, and more to the point, the manager who did more to 'change' English football during the 90s than anyone else. If you want to include 'most league matches managed' or FA Cup wins (again, you don't see Guardiola or Fergie's page highlighting the fact they have won more League Cups than anyone else, and furthermore, the FA Cup isn't the competition it used to be), then the best place for it is further down the lead. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

non-negotiables to me, I gave my rationale - failing to see yours. Most PL games managed/FA Cup wons > longest serving Arsenal manager (in notability). He is a football manager first, those are the competitions he competed in. Bkhd12 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

- Willing to yield the Hale End point (however there is some reference in the body by the way, "Several English players have started their careers at Arsenal under Wenger, such as Ashley Cole, David Bentley and Matthew Upson,[398] Wenger commented that an advantage of building his team around British players was the guarantee of stability[399]. ". Although the lack of this recognition makes the lead a bit unfinished I would argue. Especially as Lemonade51 added 'at Monaco Wenger earned a reputation for spotting young talent and developing a youth system' in the lead & is less relevant than his utilisation of Hale End. Perhaps one for future editors to ponder. I can definitely see Lemonade's criticism here

It's relevant because at Monaco, Wenger supported the development of Trezeguet, Henry, Thuram – players who went on to win the big prizes. WP:WEIGHT is important. Lemonade51 (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

And at Arsenal, Wenger supported the development of Ashley Cole, Fabregas, Gnabry. Who also won big prizes. I don't understand what you are arguing, for the sake of it? He was widely credited at Arsenal for his utilisation of the youth system too.

'At Monaco Wenger earned a reputation for spotting young talent and developing a youth system', which he carried through at Arsenal'. Does that work? Lemonade51 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that works. That is almost verbatim the edit I made originally to reach consensus in response to your original criticism! Bkhd12 (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

- Re:3rd para & Le Professeur tag, I would stick with my revision. Will try to cite 'upheaval of traditional english football culture'

Again, you've ignored my point about using general book sources, what page in Lawrence's book does it mention 'Innovations credited to him include; improvements to the scouting of players, the establishment of pass and play traits in English football and the application of modern sports science in the diet and training of players'? Lemonade51 (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I can try to pick up the book again, but these are all innovations that are noted in the body. Bkhd12 (talk)

Until you have done, then it's pointless and cannot be varied. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Compare it to what came before. They are both similar statements (the revision is more accurate in my opinion) that would equally need to be cited. So I would disagree, no it is not pointless Bkhd12 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

- I reckon my expansion also made the article a bit more flowing & improved QoLs compared to the original. Original lead was jarring & terse in structure from para to para.

QoL? Eh? Lemonade51 (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Again sorry for the late comment, looking for consensus instead of editwarfare haha Bkhd12 (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bkhd12:, I have updated the lead (taking onboard your comments to better reflect what is actually in the body of text – hence why 'influential' is there instead of 'greatest' talk) and placed a copy in the sandbox for reference. Please avoid reverting changes, and use what is there now (not here) as a starting point to flesh out a discussion. Feel free to use my sandbox to make your edits; I wouldn't have an issue sorting this out via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring either. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lemonade51: I'm really dissappointed in your efforts to reach consensus. Through every revision I've tried to understand your motivations, and rework the lead to best alleviate your concerns. Meanwhile this entire process you've acted petty & uncooperative with your changes. I don't agree with the base you've proposed, as it is fails to address most of the considerations I put forward. I'm completely happy to escalate this to the Admin noticeboard as it seems you do not want to reach a consensus and clearly both of our renditions have very large differences. Bkhd12 (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Late comer to discussions. The lede needs rewriting entirely. It has clearly progressed through a too many cooks process over the years and needs a good hard prune and re-shape. There are stray sentences, that probably had context in the past, like Arsenal went 49 games unbeaten before 'Battle of the Buffet'. and the flow is garbled and unclear. The opening few sentences in particular are poor summaries of Arsene He is often considered as one of the greatest managers of all time[4][5][6] and has managed the most Premier League games and won the most FA Cups of any manager. is just odd, he isn't considered "greatest" for the two kind of throwaway add-ons to make up the sentence. He is recognised as a significant contributor to the globalisation and modernisation of professional football in the 21st century. is... milquetoast. I notice Mourinho's article is somewhat guilty, but it at least segues directly into "one of the most decorated managers" which kind of justifies the praise. I am happy to work with both Bkhd and Lemonade on this, but I suggest taking it back to the Arsenal talk page and everyone having a cool down for a day or two while I draft better feedback and structure using your versions. Koncorde (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest taking it back to the Arsenal talk page Indeed, no reason for a content dispute on a single article to take place here. Spike 'em (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2014 FA Cup Final line-up

Template:2014 FA Cup Final line-up has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dutchy45 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Brentford merge

I have just rediscovered the old merge conversation at Talk:Brentford F.C. and since the consensus seems to be yes I wanted to merge but am unsure as how to do it. Do I just move the history pages to the main one or will that not work? Also, History of Brentford F.C. (1986–present) is a GA. What will happen to that? Will it be lost? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the result was to merge the three history pages into History of Brentford F.C. My opinion regarding the GA: move History of Brentford F.C. (1986–present) to History of Brentford F.C., and add the information from the other two history pages. Then, clean the page up to GA standards, and request a peer review/WP:GAR. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Player name change

Hi all, I have started a discussion about a name change for the article Thakgalo Leshabela, in the announcement of his loan move today he appears to go by his middle name the same way Wilfred Ndidi does and wanted to see if anyone objects to me moving the page? Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 14:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Result section of National Team article.

I wanted to know what is the standard template used for a national football team page's results section? The template on Indian national football team has been edited saying that it's the "new style", but according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams it's still the old one.

Footy2000 (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:RECENTISM, I don't think there should be a section which only covers the last 12 months. Really, it should be covered in the history and competitive results sections with links to the results articles similar to how it's done at Scotland national football team. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The recent results section should be removed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I think a small section with the team's performance in the current major tournament/qualification is appropriate. Is a team's current squad recentism? I would say not; then why would their most recent results and a few upcoming fixtures be so? – PeeJay 16:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I take your point about the current squad. I would've thought though that the history/competitive results sections should contain information on the current major tournament/qualification the team is involved in. It might not be solely dedicated to the current situation but it puts it into context with the team's history and, when done properly, doesn't give undue weight to any specific time period. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, I think WP:RECENT is only supposed to apply to content that stays in the article forever (i.e. in a section about the entire history of a subject, we shouldn’t focus too much on matters that took place in the immediate past). In the case of a “recent results and fixtures” section, it’s clear the content isn’t supposed to be there in perpetuity, it’s just a way to show readers pertinent info about what the team is doing right now without having to click through to another page. At the end of each two-year cycle, the results get removed and a new set of fixtures gets added. Seems sensible to me. – PeeJay 00:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I also support keeping the recent fixtures. As PeeJay said, it's temporary additions that provide a great deal of context. I sometimes check those out to gauge how those teams are doing and I'm positive others do the same. Just like how I'll check out a club's current season page to see their recent performance. This section is like the nation's current season page, but only a small, but useful section. RedPatch (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to support keeping the recent results and forthcoming fixtures, limited to twelve months either side - the same timeframe used for Recent call-ups. The new style as suggested on the Indian football page however is not an improvement on the style as it is automatically expanded, lengthening the page unnecessarily, and does not have colour coordination for victories and defeats, making it harder to extract information at a glance. Felixsv7 (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, to add, based on the user's editing history, this "new style" has not been discussed or approved. Felixsv7 (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Order of categories

My preference - and one I see on most articles - is (roughly) dates of birth/death, then nationality, then clubs (in order), and leagues (in order). @Geoff3Cae: has been re-organising article categories alphgatnbeticaly, which I think actually hinders navigation. What are thoughts? GiantSnowman 11:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I would just quote MOS:CATORDER back to them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I knew there was a guideline somewhere, thanks - have done. GiantSnowman 13:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I prefer to try and keep chronology in the categories in a similar way to your method. Your way of ordering them is good but alphabetical is a nightmare.--EchetusXe 14:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't actually help at all! GiantSnowman 14:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Geoff3Cae: is continuing to violate CATORDER - please can somebody else have a word? @Lee Vilenski and EchetusXe: GiantSnowman 12:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I've left a message. Lets leave this as a blank slate for now, if it continues, formal warnings will be applied. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps they'll respond by changing their editing behaviour but I wouldn't expect a response in written form. In more than 16,000 edits they have not written a single Talk page message, despite plenty of messages from other editors on their Talk page. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but now I've left a message, I'm happy to start handing out warnings and further. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

OK lets hope he reads and takes notice.--EchetusXe 13:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Page move issue at Talk:Jaminton Campaz

Hi everyone. Something seems to have gone wrong with a page move at Jaminton Campaz. Talk:Jaminton Campaz now contains the content from the article. Is someone here able to fix it? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

A new user added a copy of the article to the talkpage in Special:Diff/1038988533 (on 16 August, before page move). There doesn't look to have been any useful discussion since then, so I've reverted back to before that. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so it wasn't caused by the move. Thanks, Joseph. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Doubt on NFOOTY

Hello; Does a player made an appearance in 2021 AFC Cup is eligible to have an article in mainspace ? Thanks Poppified ^talk 12:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Poppified: Only if the two teams play in fully-professional leagues. Keep in mind that the AFC Cup is for countries without a professional league, so it's almost impossible for someone to satisfy NFOOTY just through the AFC Cup. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Okay; Bengaluru FC and Bashundhara Kings both teams plays in their respective countries top divison. So player can meet NFOOTY right?. Thanks Poppified ^talk 13:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Poppified: Are those leagues fully professional? Kante4 (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Bengaluru plays in a fully-professional league, Bashundhara Kings don't. See WP:FPL. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kante4: Both Leagues are fully Proffessional leagues.Poppified ^talk 13:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Poppified: Nehme answered it for you. So, they are not notable in that case. Kante4 (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Nehme1499 Kante4 Got it.Thanks for the reply.Poppified ^talk 13:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Harry wilson

So apparently Harry Wilson's transfer to Fulham is actually a loan deal with the transfer becoming permanent in July 2022 for 12 million, but the only places I can find this are tabloaids like the sun and daily mail and random people on twitter who obviously cant be used. anyone got a usable source that confirms this?Muur (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope, BBC and Sky say permanent deal. GiantSnowman 20:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

What exactly would the difference be between a permanent deal and a loan deal that becomes permanent a year later? Is it just that Liverpool are making a contribution to his wages for the next year and he can't play against them in the cup? – PeeJay 22:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Liverpool are pretty clear per [1] it's a perm transfer. Govvy (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

to answer that question, itd be a FFP thing. so they could use the 12 million against the next year's accounts rather than this years (where theyd be hoping to be in the PL). bolton also once signed paul robinson on a 3 year deal where year 1 was a loan. note that fulham's announcement actually does imply its a loan because they only say "contract *may* last until 2026".Muur (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

James Mitchell

I think it time to re-visit James Mitchell (footballer, born 1897) and consider updating the article both with new name and more accurate detail. I've added some notes on talk page to those written by others 18 months or so ago. RossRSmith (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Is ethnicity notable for László Bölöni?

László Bölöni is a former footballer and current manager born Mureș County, Romania. He is one of the most capped Romanian players, won the Romanian Footballer of the Year twice and coached the Romania national team. Outside Romania, he is possibly best known for promoting Cristiano Ronaldo to Sporting CP's first team. However, as his name suggest, he if of Hugarian/Szekler origin and has clearly stated he feels more Hungarian than Romanian. His mother moved from Romania to Budapest sometime in her life. In 2021, he worked for Nemzeti Sport to analyse Hungary's games at the European Championship and he revealed his support of the Székely Land football team.

My question is if his ethnicity is considered notable. Per Wikipedia:Ethnicity is not notable, Ethnicity becomes notable if "The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question". Personally, I feel like his Hungarian heritage is part of who he is, and it's a little unfair not be mentioned at least once in the intro. But it's a matter of WP guidelines if it will happen or not.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It should not be mentioned in the lede, but should be mentioned in a 'personal life' section. GiantSnowman 15:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I think how it looks now (following your additions on the subject) is fine. Crowsus (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: and @Crowsus:, do you think changing in the intro from "He is thus considered one of the best Romanian footballers in history." to "Of Hungarian ethnicity, he is thus considered one of the best Romanian footballers in history." would be inappropiate? I think his connections with Hungary makes it relevant. Unlike countries like France and Belgium which have many immigrants, it is quite uncommon for Romanian footballers to be of another ethnicity.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 00:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

No, do not mention his ethnicity in his lede. GiantSnowman 07:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Iraqi Premier League

Could someone please protect the Iraqi Premier League page? An IP keeps adding a load of empty sections to the page, most of these new sections like "20 Seasons Awards" have nothing to do with Iraqi Premier League and are copied from Premier League page, and they just include the text "complete the section" without any content. Thanks, Hashim-afc (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Article Naming Question

I'm unsure about how a couple pages about a father-son pair should be named.

• The father - David Norman (soccer) whose full name is David McDonald Norman Jr. and who was known as Dave Norman
• The son - David Norman Jr. whose full name is David Daniel Norman Jr. and who is known as David Norman Jr.

My question lies from the fact that both are technically Jr's so both could be renamed DNJ (soccer, born XXXX), but it may be best to rename father as "Dave Norman" and leave son as is, with hatnotes to each other. The last is what I think is best, but wanted to see some insights here first as RM sometimes get messy with counterproposals. RedPatch (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Move to David Norman (soccer, born 1962) and David Norman (soccer, born 1998). GiantSnowman 14:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, birth year better DAB in this case as per WP:NCSP.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME for the younger one is David Norman Jr.. He is never referred to without it, so it should definitely be the article title per WP:COMMONNAME. RedPatch (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Then David Norman (soccer, born 1962) and David Norman Jr. (soccer, born 1998) or whatever combination works for you, with redirects as appropriate. GiantSnowman 17:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Why David Norman Jr. (soccer, born 1998)? What other David Norman Jr. does he need disambiguating from.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

His father whose name is also (for some reason) 'David Norman Jr.'? GiantSnowman 18:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that. That makes no sense at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Post-playing career

Is "post-playing career" an appropriate title for a section in a biography of a footballer who went on to become both a coach and a sporting director? Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think "After retirement" would be more adequate. I'd like to know an administrator's opinion on this too, because I also encountered the situation.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 12:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I tend to use 'later life'. GiantSnowman 15:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

later life feels more like what youd use for a dead guy.Muur (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women

This article is today's Featured Article - but doesn't follow standard naming conventions, unless I am mistaken? See Talk:Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women#Title please. GiantSnowman 09:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It was discussed here too. There seemed to be a consensus that "because a few other articles were similarly poorly titled, why change this one?" The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Which, of course, is nonsense... GiantSnowman 15:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I was the one who created that page with the current title and it hasn't been moved once. I note that other articles with similar themes on largest wins like Southampton F.C. 0–9 Leicester City F.C. have abbreviations after their club names. I would have no problems in moving it to Arsenal W.F.C. 11–1 Bristol City W.F.C. in line with other similarly named record scorelines etc. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Fenerbahçe S.K. supporters

Adigabrek has created Category:Fenerbahçe S.K. supporters. Is that a valid category? Robby.is.on (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. GiantSnowman 15:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought so somehow. How would I go about requesting the deletion of the category and on which policies or guidelines would I base my request? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:CFD, perhaps citing WP:CATDEFINING in that this is not a defining characteristic? GiantSnowman 15:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again. I have attempted that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_22#Category:Fenerbahçe_S.K._supporters This my first time, let's see how it goes. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You forgot to tag the category in question, but the actual nomination looks spot on! Don't worry, we all had to start somewhere... GiantSnowman 20:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed I did, won't next time. ;-) Thanks, GS. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

That's unnecessary; we don't have categories of the most famous sports clubs supporters, e.g. Antonio Rüdiger has no categories on clubs he support so I would say deleting this category is the best idea. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

In a similar vain, is Supporters of Santos FC really notable? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a bit different, as it's an actual article with prose talking about their fanbase. Having said that, though, I'm not sure what the "sponsors" section is doing in there.....unless you regard the sponsors as supporting the club with their money, which seems a bit tenuous..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Coppa Italia Serie C

Hi, if a player makes his senior team debut by playing in Coppa Italia Serie C, would that make him pass WP:FOOTYN? All 60 clubs which participate in this competition are from Serie C and it is a fully professional league. So I was just wondering... Kokoeist (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Playing in a competitive match between two teams from fully-professional leagues confers notability per WP:NFOOTBALL, yes. GiantSnowman 14:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Greenlandic Football Championship

A recent query at Teahouse led me to Greenlandic Football Championship. I saw that each season has its own article (each with only on ref, from the league), and each team is the subject of an article, mostly with either no ref or only one ref. I have no feelings one way or the other for either football or Greenland, but do wonder about the validity of this large collection of articles. I posted this at Teahouse, but was advised to re-post here. Do any Wikipedia-football-knowledgeable editors want to comment? David notMD (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Individual seasons probably not merited, clubs probably are? GiantSnowman 14:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI - I do not intend to take any action. David notMD (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Stadium articles moved to sponsorship names

In recent days, Liberty Stadium has been moved to Swansea.com Stadium and Madejski Stadium to Select Car Leasing Stadium, without a discussion taking place in either case. As far as I can tell, these are only temporary 10-year sponsorship deals 1 2 and long-established consensus is we do not use sponsorship names for stadium articles. Any thoughts on this? LTFC 95 (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Revert the moves as undiscussed and citing the long-standing consensus that we do not use sponsored names for football stadiums. GiantSnowman 17:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Both done, one by me and one by someone else -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I did the other. Thank you ChrisTheDude. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Liberty Stadium was a sponsored name - Liberty is a local company. Number 57 20:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Emirates Stadium is sponsored... also as stated by the other guy "Liberty Stadium" was a sponsorship name. The sponsorship is over, and as such the name should be changed similar to how the same thing happened with the University of Bolton Stadium going from Reebok Stadium > Macron Stadium > UOB Stadium. Already sponsored stadiums work differently, Swansea's stadium being a relevant one because liberty was a sponsorship name (a successful one when most dont know it is...)) and as such should be changed unless of course a new concencus comes in meaning Bolton's stadium should revert to Reebok Stadium?Muur (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no non-sponsored name for Emirates, is there? GiantSnowman 20:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It says known as Ashburton Grove prior to sponsorship, and as Arsenal Stadium for UEFA competitions, so sounds like there is. --SuperJew (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Whilst Liberty Stadium was a sponsored name, the name used in European competitions is Swansea Stadium, therefore a non-sponsored name does exist, as is the case with Arsenal's stadium. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The names UEFA chooses to give stadiums that don't meet its draconian sponsorship regulations are irrelevant. Also, Arsenal's stadium was never actually named Ashburton Grove, that's just a name that was used by the media so they didn't have to say "Arsenal's as-yet-unnamed new stadium" all the time. – PeeJay 22:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this was my understanding as well, hence why I have no concerns about an article on 'Emirates Stadium'. However, I do have serious concerns about the 'CompareTheMarket.com Arena' or whatever else they come up with these days (other market comparison websites are available). GiantSnowman 22:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

To be 100% accurate, long-established consensus is we do not use sponsorship names for stadium articles if a non-sponsored name exists i.e. the article on my own club's ground isn't at MEMS Priestfield Stadium. Some new stadiums like the Reebok/Macron/UoB have never had a non-sponsored name, though... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

On the basis of the latter, the Swansea one probably in fact should be moved, but I for one genuinely didn't realise until today that Liberty Stadium was a sponsored name..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget we use official (non-sponsored) names, not common names - hence why we have an article about Boleyn Ground, even though as a kid I only ever heard it referred to as 'Upton Park' in the media. GiantSnowman 22:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I am just going to point out, we shouldn't disregard WP:COMMONNAME. Govvy (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed re naming stadium articles back to where they originally came from, while we recall that Loftus Road was changed to Kiyan Prince Foundation Stadium without a discussion taking place first. There was no RMCD on Talk:Liberty Stadium before the move and I have never heard of Select Car Leasing Stadium before and we had no consensus on moving Reading's stadium to the title where it was for three days. Recently there was a requested move on Talk:Ben Brereton about using the shirt name for the article title but the move was declined and so it stayed put as it is. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

honestly either swansea's stadium name is moved, or bolton's stadium page reverts to the reebok stadium. its not the only example, btw. Britannia Stadium was moved to the Bet365 Stadium for the same reasoning. current usage dictates that Swnasea's stadium should be moved.Muur (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Please could an admin revert this draftification?

Hi all, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Kerteh F.C. season was ended prematurely by the creator as they moved the article to draft while the AfD was still in progress. Please could an admin revert this move? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the draft move, and moved back into mainspace. GiantSnowman 13:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Club name change seasons articles renaming

When a club changes name, do we rename all the past seasons with the current club name or the club name at the time of the season? Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Use the name used at the time, for example, see the seasons at Category:Manchester United F.C. seasons. Hack (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

No, we absolutely shouldn't rename them -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed; use the correct name at the time of the season, do not rename them all to the current name. GiantSnowman 11:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Definitely agree with Snowman. Like with Sporting Kansas City. Everything prior to the 2011 season should have the name Kansas City Wizards while 2011 onwards is the current name. Same with the infobox for players... reflect the name of the side while they were with them. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Squad navigation templates for defunct clubs

Hi! For clubs that are not longer existing/are defunct, what happens with their "squad" navigational template? I can see us maintaining a main club template and manager list one but players don't seem needed if the club no longer has any. Thoughts? Example is Template:Mumbai Tigers F.C. squad. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It would usually be deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, plenty of example at TFD about this. GiantSnowman 14:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

TfD started: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 24#Template:Mumbai Tigers F.C. squad. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

EAG

Hello. Could someone please rename correctly with WP:CFD the categories of En Avant Guingamp? They are currently still "En Avant de Guingamp", the former name of the club. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Tagged them all for speedy category rename- as long as no-one objects to the category renames in 48 hours, they'll be moved. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like they've all the categories/sub-categories of Category:En Avant Guingamp have been moved now. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

caretaking becoming permanent

are those treatd as separate spells? like im pretty sure they are, but the Leam Richardson page has constantly combined his caretaker spell from 13 november 2020 to april 21 2021, and then his permanent role from april 21 to now as one combined spell instead of two spearate spells. im pretty sure these are supposed to be split into two differnet spells? also where can I find player stats for him since hes now a manager, I think someone's expanded his infobox stats to be *all* his appearances, rather than only league.Muur (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes - these are separate spells in my view, separate jobs with different titles, similar to a player on loan becoming permanent. GiantSnowman 15:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: playing stats I have updated those to reflect what Soccerbase shows. The stats in the infobox for his early clubs didn't bear any resemblance to reality even if cup games were included..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

i have re-split his second wigan caretaker role and current permanent role (32 games as caretaker, which is a lot, but he was still officially caretaker for 6 months because of wigans admin) can someoen keep an eye on it to make sure no one recombines this spell and these stats (ill check in from time to time myself but i could miss it for months like I did this time round) its worth nothing its the third time ive had to split the stats this way.Muur (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Motherwellfc

Motherwellfc (talk · contribs) is claiming to have links to the club, and is changing a player bio citing their own website, rather than the numerous other sources which contradict it. More eyes needed please. GiantSnowman 15:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The account is now edit warring. Anybody around to review before I escalate to ANI? GiantSnowman 15:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Their username alone is enough to block as a shared account. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

And they've now broken WP:3RR too. The information they're disputing is well sourced in newspaper articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Now at ANI. GiantSnowman 16:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting case. Seems that the user should certainly be informed of WP:COI and the like. But regarding the content dispute, it seems we have a clash between two sources - Irish Examiner newspaper and Motherwell's official site. So the question is how do we decide between them. --SuperJew (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I count at least 3 sources saying born in Wexford - only the Motherwell FC says London. GiantSnowman 16:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

If we treat his employer as being close to himself then WP:SELFSOURCE is relevant. One mention in a newspaper report with no other details as to his early life is hardly well sourced. Spike 'em (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, there are 3 sources which all say Wexford was his place of birth... GiantSnowman 16:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

is pundit arena a reliable source, or just copying their info from elsewhere? Spike 'em (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I would think the Motherwell website has made an error about his birthplace, hopefully this mistake will not persist if he plays for future clubs. It may well be the case that this user is inserting the bogus information from the club website which triggers the edit warring between Motherwellfc and GiantSnowman. Perhaps the club website would change that to avoid more incorrect facts from more football clubs he may play for. Re pundit arena, there are only 113 pages on Wikipedia which uses this domain (see here), suggesting it is not a widely used source. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The 'motherwellfc' account is claiming to have links with the club and that the information on the official website is correct and has been verified with the player directly... GiantSnowman 17:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

with him currently playing for motherwell I would actually consider their source to be more accurate. they say here that he was born in london and moved to ireland at an early age. (and as they describe him as irish as well, he has an irish passport and must've decided his future is with ireland) also, to throw some more fuel into the fire, leicester say he is spefically from Clonroche hereMuur (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I cannot find any sources which say he was born in London other than Motherwell website - and other than the multiple which say he was born in Wexford, there are others which say he is "from Clonroche", such as LCFC. GiantSnowman 18:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"from Clonroche" could just mean thats where he was brought up. in all honestly it seems like he must've been born in london and then moved to Clonroche (which is in wexford) as a young boy prob around 1/2 years old. the fact motherwell outright say he was born in london and then moved to ireland as a kid says a lot to me. he also clearly has declared for ireland based on motherwell and others saying hes from ireland. i would list him as being born in london and moved to ireland as a young kid (Clonroche) using both the motherwell and leicester sources. in an instance like this, I think the football clubs would be more reliable and it wouldn't be the first time people just saw something on wikipedia with other sources going for that too, with motherwell deciding to do their research.Muur (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with this analysis. I would also put born in London, and moved to Clonroche/Wexford/Ireland at a young age. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he was born in Clonroche based on that source - I'm just saying it's odd that multiple sources talk about him being born in/from Ireland, but none (other than Motherwell that I can find) about London... GiantSnowman 18:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

he's a young player at the start of his career, misinformation can be rampant and many many people just pull shit from wikipedia. i dont really think any of those prior sources can be seen as reliable as motherwell fc. if their information was wrong they would've corrected it by now. they went out of their way to say "born in london moved to ireland as a little kid". its not like its a typo where they just say "born in london" on his profile with no other context, they outright said "born there but moved a few years later".Muur (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) It's very likely the other sources copied from one another. I know this as a fact for lots of Lebanese players, who are listed as being born in Beirut, Lebanon in multiple sources, knowing full well that they were born elsewhere. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, where does this say "he moved to Ireland at a young age" or anything like that? All it says is "Born in London, the Clonroche native was..." which is not the same thing. Again, what third party reliable sources say London? GiantSnowman 18:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Wexford Weekly also says born in Wexford; GSA says born in Clonroche, as does World Football. LCFC says "Born and raised in Ireland, he came over to England to play for City in August 2019, signing his first professional contract in the process". Now why would his local media and previous club all be wrong, and his current club correct? GiantSnowman 18:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Specifically regarding GSA, I can ensure that they got O'Connor's place of birth from another third-party website. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

in the article where they announced signing him here. "Born in London before moving back to his native Republic of Ireland at an early age, he also featured at youth level for Shamrock Rovers and in the Irish First Division with Wexford". we have *two* motherwell sources, not just the one on his "player profile page". and all this edit conflicts, argh.Muur (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

But no none-Motherwell sources saying London, and multiple saying Ireland? Interesting. GiantSnowman 18:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

they all might've just thought "raised in Clonroche means born there" afterwhich motherwell looked into it. it would be really really weird for motherwell to start lying about this for no reason. ive tweeted the player asking him where he was born, but who knows if he'll answer (i did mention its for wikipedia in case he thinks its random AF).Muur (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

He has confirmed to m he was born in london. source. I will correct the page. It seems accurate to still describe him as irish though, it seems very clear thats who he's declared for. (unless of course this means we have to list him as english). but there you go, as stated, all your other sources were wrong.Muur (talk) 07:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, that tweet certainly confirms it if you ask me, I am going to put a footy score down here of GiantSnowman 0 - 2 Muur! Govvy (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

hehe What was the first goal Govvy? --SuperJew (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

no, him being born in England and moving to Ireland at a young age does not make him English (see also Pascal Jansen). We go on what sources tell us. Sources say he is Irish (even Motherwell!) and until he tweeted about it, sources said he was born in Ireland, hence why we rely upon that. If you do not understand that key point then you should not be editing until you do. GiantSnowman 10:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Just because someone happens to disagree with you, doesn't mean they should "stop editing"... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The change made to O'Connor's page was also backed by a source. I agree that the editing way (and name/COI) by the user Motherwellfc was very problematic, but the content dispute itself is legitimate and was confirmed now to be correct. --SuperJew (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I've not said anybody should stop editing because they disagree with me, don't try and twist my words like that. What I said was that editors should not edit if they cannot understand that Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. GiantSnowman 11:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a note should be added to the infobox section, whether an "efn" or an "<! --> note" as some might not notice the information in the body and jump straight to edit that. RedPatch (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: The first goal was the news post from motherwellfc.co.uk the second goal is the tweet reply. Both seem to verify in my opinion that he was clearly born in London, the tweet was even more specific to specify Croydon. Govvy (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the first response from me looks like the assumption was wrong re club website was incorrect and the error may persist in other clubs. I've seen the tweet made by Muur yesterday. Looks like we're settled on London instead of Wexford as his birthplace as I've already seen the information has been fixed. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

List of association football families

It has been bought to my own eyes that at the very bottom of the page there are " #invoke:citation/CS1 " links at the final few references and the "template:Association football" link at the end above the categories. It looks like there are too many references to the article which seems to display what I've said. When I've clicked on the edit section of "Wales" and pressed the Show preview button, these references are displayed properly as normal. I seem to recall a football player with a large amount of references having the same problem in the past. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I would split the article, if only for European countries. Creating List of European association football families would already lift a lot of weight off of the article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Some editor/s had started splitting it (see List of African association football families, List of former Yugoslavia association football families, List of English association football families, List of Scottish football families). But this needs to be done properly. I think maybe one or more editors who have the time should take this on as a mini-project. --SuperJew (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are a load of European entries on that page including Germany and France, both of which have plenty of famous footballers there. That is worth doing whenever people have the time. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I've started creating the page and put the two largest lists of players into there and results in all references and the association football template are displayed as normal already. Looks like a decent start already. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd say to split the list through continental federations (UEFA/CONCACAF/CONMEBOL) etc. or alphabetical, not sure how I feel about UK/Yugoslavia having their own pages although in theory it makes sense.--Ortizesp (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue with splitting by nationality is - what about families with different nationalities? GiantSnowman 09:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say put them in both pages (for example Vieri family put on the page with Italy and the page with Australia). It is a little bit of repetition of information, and the question is if it's off-setted by the advantage of not having a massive page which doesn't display references properly. --SuperJew (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed re "put them in both pages" as multiple occurences are visible on various pages already. I was wondering if Eric Young was related to some Inces which I now see he is related to Rohan Ince as uncle-nephew but I could not check yesterday due to the template errors. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Notability of a player

I've got a player who has no article in Wikipedia. He made no appearance in his domestic league, but has made two appearance and scored a goal in the second tier continental tournament. So the question is, will these options fulfill NFOOTY for he player to have his own article? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

If he is from a club in a fully-professional league and has made a competitive appearance for them, I think consensus is that this is enough for them to pass NFOOTY. Cheers, Number 57 13:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The club he plays against must also be in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Do they? So if a Spurs player makes their debut in an FA Cup match against a non-league club, would we consider then an NFOOTY fail? Have there been any AfDs on such cases recently? Number 57 13:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they would fail NFOOTY. I know quite a few AfDs about players in the FA Trophy against U23 teams. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I can understand a game against an U23 game not counting. What about one against a full age side? Number 57 13:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Remember this game last season? No way the Derby youngsters making their debut against Chorley are notable. GiantSnowman 14:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I also seems to remember an AfD discussion related to someone who made Spurs debut against Marine FC in the FA Cup. But WP:NFOOTY is a guideline anyway, they can pass WP:GNG without meeting WP:NFOOTY (and vice versa). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I remember the Spurs-Marine player AFD, pretty sure he was kept through GNG? GiantSnowman 15:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Lytham F.C.

An IP has changed the existing article at Lytham F.C. to suggest that the current West Lancashire League team Lytham Town F.C. is a continuation of the club that dissolved in 1985. Is this correct? Del_Usion23 (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverted as unsourced. GiantSnowman 17:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Quevin Castro

Castro made his debut for WBA earlier this evening, and it seems despite his young age, he is already something of a non-league journeyman (I might have even seen him play for Norwich CBS), and I am having some difficulty piecing together his non-league career:

Firstly, I do not have access to The Athletic (despite how many times the lovely Joe Devine has has offered a 30-day free trial or whatever) so the article may be able to be expanded using the material from this article, if anyone has a subscription. Secondly, as far as I know he was never under any kind of contract at Ipswich, with the EADT source in the article saying he had a trial in 2019 and a trial there in 2020, but this describes his spell at Leiston as a loan from Ipswich, so how should this be treated in the infobox and the prose. Thirdly, I don't have anything on his time at Mildenhall Town, Thetford Town or Norwich CBS other than sources that namedrop them as former clubs.

I'm a bit scatterbrained today so it might be best if I left this alone for a while, and let someone else probe into this. Many thanks as ever, Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Steaua București disambig articles

Background information you may already be familiar (or tired of hearing) on this subject: FC Steaua București, was or is the most notable football club from Romania. All of the Romanian clubs belonged to the state in one form or another, and following the Romanian Revolution in 1989 they had to turn private. Steaua only turned private after nine years in 1998, and since then its history and record have been "cut in pieces" by Romanian courts.

When Gigi Becali became the owner of Steaua in 2003, he founded a new public share company which continued to play in the country's first division as well as European Competitons. After disagreements between him and the Ministry of National Defense (which owns CSA Steaua București sports club), he lost the "Steaua" name and logo in court in 2017, and changed its name to FCSB accordingly. CSA Steaua refounded its football department that year too.

Moving on to 2021, FCSB has continued to be considered by football governing agencies UEFA (1986 European Champions Cup awarded to FCSB, UEFA Brochure for Euro 2020) and Liga Profesionista de Fotbal as the continuation of the original FC Steaua Bucuresti. The things again again complicated after CSA has won the honours up to 1998 in Romanian Court this summer. It will be interesting to see how UEFA and LPF react to this, since the court decision states that the honours between 1998–2003 cannot be attributed to either entity.

I am not biased in any way regarding this dispute, I support another club from Romania and I only want to help Wikipedia get everything in order. If you need me to provide sources for everything I wrote here, I can. You can read the Talk:CSA Steaua București (football)#RfC on this article's content, which I also started a few years ago and has more sources.

My suggestion: After discussing with Certes who is part of the WikiProject Disambiguation, I realised that there are too many pages that redirect to FCSB or CSA Steaua or Steaua Bucuresti or whatever. Since the term Steaua București only refers to football teams, I believe it should be the disambig article all Redirect pages redirect to. Since we cannot reach a consensus on which club is the REAL owner of the old honours, this would result that when accessing Laszlo Boloni's page for example, the FC Steaua Bucuresti link would redirect to the Steaua Bucuresti page when the situation is explained in detail and the User can choose which article he wants to read. This not the case for footballers who recently played for FCSB or CSA, of course.

The situation is explained very well on FC Steaua București article and I think the content should be moved to Steaua București. This is a sandbox of how the article should look like.

Articles suggested to be turned into redirect pages for Steaua București (some of them already are):

• Steaua Bucharest and FC Steaua Bucharest
• Star Bucharest
• Steaua and FC Steaua
• FC Steaua București

8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• History article We need a single article for history before 2003 (or perhaps 1998), currently split between parts of History of FC Steaua București, FCSB#History and CSA Steaua București (football)#History. (The last two are very similar.) A neutral section on the later disagreement, based on FC Steaua București, could form the conclusion of that article. Then we could remove the pre-2003 history from FCSB and CSA Steaua București (football), replacing it by a brief statement that this club is one of two claimants to the honours described in [link to history article]. We could link all pre-2003 topics, such as 20th-century footballers and competitions, to the history article and redirect all ambiguous terms to a dab. I think that's the quality solution but it's a lot of work; is it worthwhile? Certes (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with the history article, but it's a lot of work to do and there should be some administrator to review the page from time to time since Steaua articles are prone to vandalism from both sides. There is another big club in Romania in a similar situation, CS Universitatea Craiova and FC U Craiova 1948, which could need a similar history article.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 16:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Some observations No offence, but you are biased (and so am I). While I support Steaua, you clearly expressed the fact that you HATE both Steaua and FCSB. More than this, you wrote in Romanian language that Steaua fans are "autistic". Secondly, you are wrong, the term Steaua București doesn't refer just to football teams. I'm not 100% sure about this comparison, but I think it's the same situation with Galatasaray. The term refers to both the football team AND the multi-sports club. However, if done correctly, I might agree with redirects to a neutral page. The thing is, there might be a 3rd entity (besides CSA Steaua Bucharest and Football Club FCSB): AFC Steaua Bucharest. Until things get a bit clearer, I suggest we wait and leave things as they are now. There's no need to make a bigger mess than it already is. --Dante4786 (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dante4786: In my defence, I was under the age of 20 when I made those comments. The football club I support has a traditional antipathy against Steaua/FCSB. I always acted in good faith, however, if I really hated them so much I would have stayed out of the discussion completely. I want this issue resolved for the good of Romanian football fans who read Wikipedia.

Oppose Unclear RFC. The Banner talk 14:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

support 3 articles I would support the separation in 3 articles: Steaua Bucharesti (1947-1998), FCSB (1998-) and CSA (2017-). The source that tells about court decision makes that separation between Steaua 1947-98 and FCSB (98-on). Probably this matter will be subject to more appeals, we will see how governing bodies will deal with this (mainly UEFA) and still, most unbiased people (like foreign people like me) will call Steaua to FCSB. So having 3 articles will always comply with the latest court decision (whatever it will be at any moment) and common understanding.Rpo.castro (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I have started a related discussion about neutral wording of disambiguation page descriptions at Talk:Steaua_București#FCSB. Certes (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Procedural comment - this is not a proper RfC, it does not appear at Wikipedia:Dashboard#Requests for comments. Has the OP followed instructions at WP:RFCOPEN? GiantSnowman 14:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

help needed

fight between few players pages and list on this article

2021–22 Calcutta Premier Division

@Messi Khar and Discospinster: involved — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.108.177 (talk • contribs)

This IP user seems to have been blocked for block evasion and harassment, so guess there's nothing that actually needs doing. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Benjamin Mendy

Can we protect the page? Got charged with a couple rapes, and there's already vandalization on the page.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Already sorted. GiantSnowman 16:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Should his squad status on the Man City page be changed? Maybe to a other players under contract or something like that? The club says he's been suspended. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so, his contract is still active. Same situation as Gylfi Sigurðsson who is still listed with main squad. Obviously this would change if his contract is ever terminated.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, leave both players in 'First Team' for now. GiantSnowman 17:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Riccardo Carapellese needs sources

This his been tagged for no sources since 2009. If anyone can help it would be appreciated. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: I've added a source. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bajic

Stefan Bajić (footballer, born 2001) made 0 appearances for the France Olympic team at the Olympics. Should it be included in his infobox? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope, we don't include uncapped national teams in the infobox. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Easy question: what should be done regarding Jerusalem as a place of birth in infoboxes? Should it be displayed as Jerusalem, Palestine for Palestinian players and Jerusalem, Israel for Israeli players (which is what Global Sports Archive and National-Football-Teams do)? Or should we just display Jerusalem without a country? This is following a bit of edit warring at Oday Dabbagh. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Israel i'd have said. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital. [...] Neither claim, however, is widely recognized internationally. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably neither, which is why that article has a comment saying "Do not add any country here" next to Jerusalem. Whilst Jerusalem is run by Israel, it's also claimed by Palestine, so adding either country is just causing unnecessary drama. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The comment has been added half an hour ago following the edit war. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Joseph2302. Both claims are not widely recognized by the international community and we are supposed to follow that.--Sakiv (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

My initial thought was to say 'Israel'. But we could do something like on Mohamed Hadid, who was born in an area when it was more disputed, and just say city but not country? GiantSnowman 22:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I do remember a big argument or something about this issue on Natalie Portman and it was decided to stick to just Jerusalem. Govvy (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? From quick look on Google, BBC says Israel claims the whole of Jerusalem as its capital, while the Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. The US is one of only a handful of countries to recognise the city as Israel's capital. Seems to me from this, that Palestine is not a current state and therefore Jerusalem cannot be part of Palestine. --SuperJew (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think an Israeli should be giving an opinion on Palestine's validity as a state... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a highly inappropriate thing to say, and I suggest you withdraw it. Assuming that someone holds a certain viewpoint because of their nationality is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. Number 57 13:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This is nonsense. How can we maintain a NPOV if someone isn't allowed to express an opinion because of your preconceived view? (And a side order of AGF) Spike 'em (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I made my comment on a NPOV-basis. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: If you read my comment, you will see I did not list my opinion, but quoted the first reliable source that comes up when searching "Jerusalem Palestine" on Google. Choosing to read my opinion from that is wrong. --SuperJew (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It depends on which bit of Jerusalem they were born in. For people born in West Jerusalem (which has always been part of Israel), it should be fine to say Jerusalem, Israel. For people born in East Jerusalem (which includes Dabbagh), is probably best not to list a country. Number 57 12:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Global Sports Archive, National-Football-Teams, Soccerway all list his country of birth as "Palestine", so "either Israel or nothing" is definitely not an acceptable solution. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

For post-1967 East Jerusalem, I think it's a perfectly acceptable solution. If you insist on having a country, then Israel probably has the greatest claim seeing as it actually administers East Jerusalem and regards it as part its territory, so on a de facto basis, East Jerusalem is part of Israel. However, this isn't likely to be accepted on an NPOV basis. Number 57 13:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I want to make this clear, because this discussion is turning into "is Palestine a state?": my question solely regards what the appropriate way to display Jerusalem in the infobox is. Whether or not a territory is a valid state according to someone or not according to someone else isn't the focus of this discussion. We also display "Hong Kong", "Kosovo" and "England" in the infobox, and have never had any issue in doing so. The only two sensible solutions are "Jerusalem, Israel" for Israelis and "Jerusalem, Palestine" for Palestinians (which is what the reliable sources I provided above do), or just "Jerusalem" (which is what we are apparently doing for Natalie Portman). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

By the way, Palestinian passports either show "Jerusalem, Israel" if the person was born on Israeli territory, and "Jerusalem, Palestine" if they were born on Palestinian territories (Jerusalem East); Global Sports Archive reflects that. I would display the country on that basis. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The sources you mentioned list his birthplace as "al-Quds, Palestine". Do you think we should list it that way? --SuperJew (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that also works well. In the end, it's a matter of where reliable sources say the player was born. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, Soccerway lists only Palestine with no city (while for Ofir Kriaf it lists Jerusalem, Israel) and on the otherhand GSA lists Dabbagh at al Quds, Palestine (while for Kriaf it lists only Israel). Hard to see a consistincey or guideline here. --SuperJew (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

If GSA doesn't list a city, it means that they don't know where he was born. The place of birth defaults to the nationality. Basically, for Dabbagh I would write "al Quds, Palestine" (sourced by GSA and NFT) and for Kriaf "Jerusalem, Israel" (sourced by Soccerway). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I must also point out there was an RfC at Talk:Jerusalem which I can't be bothered to search for which also applies to biographies to avoid putting the country name after Jerusalem. Govvy (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't seem to find it; locating it would be ideal. The IP is still edit warring. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Sorry for the delay, but if you're interested, WP:RFC/J , it's a bit of a long read know. Govvy (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: I can't seem to find anything that pertains to biographies, or the topic of one being born in Jerusalem. The main result is that the lead of Jerusalem doesn't state that it "belongs" to either Israel or Palestine (or at least, regarding its status as a capital). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: I did say "If you're interested" but that RfC although for that article can be applied to prose on other articles to avoid stating anything other than Jerusalem. It seemed it was noted as only valid for three years which I thought odd. This is to avoid conflict between switching countries names between Isreal and Palestine which is considered disruptive. I can't give you any other help on the subject, you would have to goto another forum, this conversation should be closed now. Govvy (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo

Full protection required, asap. I would myself, but having made a revert I don't feel adequately uninvolved to do so. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Question while this is here, shouldn't he be listed on Man Utd's squad/squad list and removed from Juve's? The agreement's been reached, I assume this is when 99% of the moves are done on Wikipedia. I know it's subject to visa/fitness/etc, but seems like a formality at this point. Is there another expected announcement when the transfer is 100% done?--Ortizesp (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No, not until the transfer is 100% over the line. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

He still has to complete his medical, so the transfer isn't still official yet. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Same with Kurt Zouma. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please protect the page? It's getting a bit out of hand. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Junior Marsoni Sambu

Hello. Could someone verify the name of Junior Marsoni Sambu? So many sources are saying so many different things. I don't know what to believe. I chose Junior Marsoni Sambu for now. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

For what I can see, we have.

1. Junior Fabrice Sambu Mansoni (GSA, footballdatabase.eu, RFC Seraing)
2. Junior Fabrice Sambu Marsoni (Soccerway, Jupiler Pro League)
3. Junior Marsoni Sambu Mansoni (footballdatabase.eu)
4. Fabrice Junior Sambu Mansoni (walfoot)

Nicknamed as:

1. Fabrice Sambu (GSA, Soccerway, footballdatabase.eu)
2. Junior Sambu Mansoni (walfoot x5, RFC Seraing)
3. Sambu Marsoni (walfoot x1)
4. Sambu Mansoni (walfoot x1)
5. Junior Marsoni Sambu (walfoot x1)

I would personally move the page to Fabrice Sambu, and write in the lead Junior Fabrice Sambu Mansoni (born 3 June 1996), or simply Fabrice Sambu, is a Belgian professional footballer.... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Thank you for that! Can you start an RM, please? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been bold and have moved the article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Good! Well done and thanks for the help. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Notes

2021–22 SBV Vitesse season

Is it me, or is that rather horrible display of statistics on this season page? Govvy (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, should be changed to this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I removed it all, but got reverted. I don't understand the empty tables. I thought there was a policy against that. Govvy (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguate

Hello. How can I disambiguate Samir (Cape Verdean footballer) and Samir (Moroccan footballer)? I can't find anything about the Moroccan Samir suggesting he was a footballer; all I find about him is that he was/is a football manager. In that case, should I move the Cape Verdean footballer to Samir (footballer) and the Moroccan football manager to Samir (football manager), and leave a note at the top? Or should I do something different? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with footballer and football manager. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I started an RM. Please contribute. Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The Requested move can be found at Talk:Samir (Cape Verdean footballer)#Requested move 22 August 2021. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League

Do we really need this? We've never had template like this for Champions League or Europa League as far as I am aware. Thoughts? Govvy (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deancarmeli: pinging the creator for their input. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

First, it's true that we didn't have this kind of templates for football seasons – but that alone is not a reason to not have one. Second, This kind of template exist for basketball seasons, as can be seen in these examples: Basketball Champions League 2020–21, Basketball Champions League 2019–20, Basketball Champions League 2018–19, Basketball Champions League 2017–18, Basketball Champions League 2016–17, Eurocup 2020–21, Eurocup 2019–20, Eurocup 2018–19 and more. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

But we're not basketball, we're football. I suggest it is sent to TFD as this is not standard for football. GiantSnowman 10:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree, not needed. Kante4 (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Not being basketball is not an argument. The template connects the season pages of all participating team, and the page of every competition phase. It is useful. What harm comes from having it? Deancarmeli (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it is useful, and no harm in keeping it. Only benefits. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 14:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely horrible idea. This is the sort of thing that promotes others to create the same for CL and Europa League events, so top teams would have tens or hundreds of templates. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

They won't. The template is for the team's season page, not its main page. Deancarmeli (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

How is it any different from having a navbox for the premier League, and then other cup competitions? And, also, why just the group Stages? Seems super arbitrary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, other stages aren't crated yet, are they? And as you said, domestic leagues use a similar format as well. Deancarmeli (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with the above, there isn't really a need for this, it is just clutter at the bottom of the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• This is not needed. I already thought this and seeing Deancarmeli's attitude, I am strongly against it. The Replicator (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks are not arguments, especially when duplicated across two discussions. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, appears not wanted by the majority so have sent to TfD. Govvy (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: You should see this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:The Replicator reported by User:Deancarmeli (Result: ). He's not interested in discussing his idea, he wants to impose it, despite general opposition here. The Replicator (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Friend, this report is due to your disregard of an other discussion and the edit war you took part in as result. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Squad templates

At what stage should squad templates for amateur clubs be deleted? When clubs reach regional divisions? Or do we just keep squad templates forever even if a club keeps on being relegated. I'm thinking of {{Gazélec Ajaccio squad}} who is in the Championnat National 2, the fourth tier in France. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that we should keep squad templates for clubs relegated to one tier below WP:FPL, but underneath should be deleted. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

As long as there are enough players included, the template can be kept. See {{Al Ahed FC squad}}, which has 16 linked players despite not playing in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Nehme. GiantSnowman 11:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Agrred. If the template is useful for navigational purposes (ie links a decent number of articles) then the level at which the club plays is not relevant -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

RFC Seraing

Hello. Could someone review which players in Category:R.F.C. Seraing players actually played for R.F.C. Seraing (1922) and not R.F.C. Seraing (1904), because Category:R.F.C. Seraing players (which will be moved) currently should have the players of the 1904 club only. The category of players for the 1922 club is currently at Category:Royal Football Club Seraing players. Thank you! Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't Category:Royal Football Club Seraing players be moved to Category:R.F.C. Seraing (1922) players? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Yes... I think that's what I meant to write. What I mean is that Category:R.F.C. Seraing players might have some players that should be in Category:R.F.C. Seraing (1922) players (currently stil called Category:Royal Football Club Seraing players because the CFD is ongoing). Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The categories have been moved and disambiguated. Please check the contents. – Fayenatic London 10:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

OSM location maps in coach articles?

I've just noticed that an editor is adding location maps to articles on football coaches, is this a normal thing to include in the article? It seems slightly odd to me, the contents of the article don't really seem to fit a map very well. Does anyone else have any thoughts on these, are they worth keeping or should they be removed? Some examples: [2] [3] [4]. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's completely useless, and should be removed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - remove. GiantSnowman 14:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

National Football Teams

Hello. Is anyone else having "privacy error" issues with NFT? Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, not sure what's changed.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sure their certificate (Public key certificate) expired. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Has anybody contacted them to let them know? GiantSnowman 10:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks to have been fixed, website working for me. GiantSnowman 14:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep, they bought the certificate on 28 August. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Paul Gascoigne

I can't see in history, but what happened to cite#2 ? It's popping an error message at the moment. Govvy (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It was re-named on 30 July by an IP who insists his name is Paul Lee and not Paul John. if you change that word in the ref (and all the text Lees back to Johns) it will work again. Not checked fully, but England Football Online is generally very reliable, with birth certificates checked etc, so I have little doubt that they are correct and the IP is wrong. Crowsus (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An IP changed his name to "PAul Lee"" from "Paul John" and the ref's were named "Paul John Gascoigne" and they changed some of the reppeat refs to "Paul Lee" which don't have a 'named orginial' so it's broken. RedPatch (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Govvy: There was some disruption on 30 July where an anon. changed his middlename to Lee, from John, including in 'some' of the ref names (but not all) thus producing the error.  Fixed Eagleash (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it @Eagleash: much appreciated. Govvy (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet suspicion

Hi folks. How does one deal with a relatively new editor who is surprisingly familiar with how Wikipedia works? Do I request a sockpuppet investigation right away? I don't know who the sockmaster or what their previous account may be. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

There are many, many different ways in which someone who has few edits might know their way around Wikipedia. They may have another account, yes, but there are also legitimate reasons for this. There are also users who have edited as an IP for a long time, or like me, read a lot of policy before making any edits. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Are they making disruptions? Doing something wrong? What is actually the provlem with them being experienced? --SuperJew (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. It was Mark Bill. They have been blocked indefinitely, the reason given by El_C was "disruptive editing. Specifically, seemingly part of a coordinated action. Failure to WP:COMMUNICATE.".

I saw them removing valid references without explanation. Earlier today, they requested Rollback having made just a few dozen edits. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Surprisingly familiar doesn't really suggest those edits, but at least it's sorted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible hoax?

Landry Romeo Goore was unanimously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goore Landry Romeo back in 2010 due to the sourcing showing multiple appearances in the Thai Premier League, however, this does not seem to be the case. Searching "Landry Romeo Goore" and "Goore Landry Romeo" comes up with nothing other than an empty Transfermarkt page. It appeared to be kept due to this hi5 page, which I have rescued from Web Archive. hi5, in my view, is an unacceptable source as it's a social media site, like Facebook, MySpace etc. I would be apprehensive sending this to AfD given the previous discussion showing such a clear keep consensus but I'm also concerned that we might be looking at a hoax here or at least an unverifiable BLP. I also find the other source to be unreliable and also note that it has him down as a goalkeeper, for some reason. Can anyone find a source that verifies that this footballer existed and meets notability criteria? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, yes. I wasn't able to find anything either searching for "landry goore" and "romeo goore". Robby.is.on (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It certainly is a bit worrying. I'll ping @Paul 012: as I know him to be a fluent Thai speaker and I have no idea how Goore's name would translate into Thai. If there is any coverage of him at all, I'm sure that he'll be able to find it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Think you may be right... GiantSnowman 17:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I've decided to bite the bullet Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landry Romeo Goore; hopefully we can establish at long last whether this footballer is notable or not Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Salomón Rondón

Can someone please protect his article for a bit? The vandalism since his move to Everton was announced has been crazy. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Pinging an admin. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

thank you all! Rupert1904 (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Best off trying WP:RFPP or wP:ANI in future if urgent, in case I'm not around. GiantSnowman 08:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Potential merge

Do you think there is a possibility on merging UEFA A Licence, UEFA B Licence, and UEFA Pro Licence into one article called UEFA coaching licences perhaps? And then having sections for each type of licence? Because I don't think the A and B licences are notable on their own. Who else thinks that a merge is a good idea? If there is some support, we can start a merge discussion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I would support this RedPatch (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. GiantSnowman 20:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Support this.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds very sensible to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that is wise. Seems like a no brainer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I will try and start a merge discussion soon. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Bergenoslo

Can someone please do something about Bergenoslo's behaviour at Italy national football team? They keep reverting any edit they disagree with, and labeling them disruptive. They have opened two sections at Talk:Italy national football team, without taking their time to actually answer Dr Salvus and I's comments. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nehme1499. He's also reported us in WP:ANI Dr Salvus 18:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Kindly note the following: the user Nehme 1499 has threatened to block me and accused me of disruptive editing while I have restored information on the Italy national team page that he has removed without discussing it before on the talk page or providing any kind of reason or source for this removal of stable information. The information removed by the user Nehme 1499 is concerning the injured players that have been recently called up; this kind of information is normally reported on ALL the national football team pages on Wikipedia.--Bergenoslo (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the users @Nehme 1499 and @Dr Salvus have deliberately removed information on recent-called players withdrew due to injury on the page of the Italian national football team. They have not provided any kind of argument to justify their removal of content, while this kind of information is usually provided on the Wikipedia pages of all the national football teams.--Bergenoslo (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven't "threatened" anyone. Firstly, read WP:OTHERCONTENT. Secondly, if you took the time to actually read my edit summaries, you would notice that adding notes regarding the injury reason is against WP:RECENTISM, per this discussion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly not the norm to add injuries next to the squad member, and too be reverted by two different users. That ANI will most likely get shutdown. I can't see this getting much traction, nothing more here to say. Govvy (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference either way but I don't think that consensus from 2010 which was about club articles can be applied to articles about national teams (assuming this is still consensus). Clubs don't remove players from their roster on injury while national teams are by definition in flux and thus will change rosters often. Noting that a player was not called up due to an injury is thus helpful information in an encyclopedic article about recent call ups. Additionally, such information was apparently included in this article [5] and other similar articles [6] [7] [8] [9] for at least five years, so there is a pretty strong indication that consensus might have changed accordingly (if one even existed about this). Regards SoWhy 08:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe that there's been a misinterpretation of recentism here. This discussion mentioned related to the injury icon which was shot down due to violating Text as Images however having a note in the key ( ^INJ ) to indicate that a player's removal from the squad was due to injury has been common practice. Updating a player's status on the national team page regarding their current injury status would indeed violate Recentism however that is not what is happening here (or shouldn't be!) Felixsv7 (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue here? Is it a player who was officially named to an Italian squad then removed due to injury or is it adding a current injury to a player sustained at club level who was a past call-up, but was not called up to this cycle (i.e. he was not officially called up to the team in the current cycle). RedPatch (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

For example, on the Canada men's national soccer team#Recent_call-ups page, Ayo Akinola is listed with INJ because he was actually on the Canada roster at the Gold Cup, but got injured and was removed and replaced by another player. Ralph Priso though who is currently injured from club level and not on the national team for the current cycle does not have an INJ tag because he wasn't an injury replacement and not named to the current squad. That is how I felt the INJ tag always worked for national squads - the INJ tag only being added when a player officially made that squad but got removed and taken off that squad because of the injury because it's verifiable that they were injured as part of that squad. Writing INJ when they were never selected is different because there is no guarantee they would have actually been selected and is merely coincidental. RedPatch (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and there are also INJ examples on the current versions of the England, Spain, Netherlands and France pages (to name but a few, I would imagine). I haven't checked the injury withdrawals from previous squads, but Lazzarri and Belotti were both named in the original squad for this international window according to the citation in the article, so if they've withdrawn injured then putting INJ next to their names would be standard practice. Assuming all the INJs can be cited, I see nothing wrong with Bergenoslo's edits. HornetMike (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Haha, I'd just written this out before seeing your comment: other examples are available on England's, France's, Germany's, Chile's, Brazil's and Argentina's national team pages to name but a few. Felixsv7 (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting the truth @HornetMike and @Felixsv7, at least there are still some decent and honest people on Wikipedia. As I reported above, I have been violently attacked and threatened several times to be blocked by the users @Nehme 1499 and @Dr Salvus only because I restored standard content that they deliberately removed without discussing it on the talk page or providing any kind of reason. They did disruptive editing and then they had the nerve to threatened me just because I restored the information that they removed. --Bergenoslo (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bergenoslo: Please read WP:AGF and WP:OVERREACT. The tone in which you write does not seem to indicate you assume good faith. Thank you and have a good day. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

National teams update

The squads haven't been updated for various teams for this round of internationals, which is the first time in a while. If anyone has time to take a look and is able to make adjustments, it would probabbly be a big help. All of the UEFA squads are updated, but the rest in general are not.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

African women’s football teams

I was going through the GAR requests at WP:GAR and there are a few for African women’s football teams. The main editor of these articles is no longer here so I was interested if anyone from a related project might be interested in picking them up. They basically need updating as the last substantial verifiable edits were in 2012. There are issues with uncited statements and other general fixes needed too. The ones with GA requests are Rwanda women's national football team, Burundi women's national football team and Central African Republic women's national football team. There are other articles like Gambia women's national football team, Madagascar women's national football team etc (see ) that have similar issues. I don’t think it would take much effort to update these as they don’t seem to play a lot of games. The issue is finding sources. It would be a shame to delist them so hoping someone is keen to have a look at them. Aircorn (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

They all seem miles away from good article status though, right? -Koppapa (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Branimir Hrgota

It doesn't seem right to me that his lead sections say he is a "Croatian-born Swedish professional footballer" when he was born in Bosnia to Croatian parents. Shouldn't it say "Bosnian-born Swedish professional footballer"? Or born in Bosnia to Croatian parents? Or am I totally getting this wrong? I remember there was a lot of discussion recently around nationality and Raheem Sterling so want to make sure that Branimir's article is accurate as well. Thanks for any input. Rupert1904 (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hey, the consensus I have come across in cases like this with ambiguous or complicated nationality is to omit nationality/ethnicity in the first sentence, and explain it more later on. In this case I added "Born in Bosnia and Herzegovina to Croatian parents, and raised in Sweden, he represents the Sweden national team" to the end. Hopefully this works, I defer to consensus if people decide otherwise.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ortizesp, I like your proposal/edit. I think it reads better and is more factually accurate. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep, Ortizesp is correct. GiantSnowman 06:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

What about a situation such as Nicolás Galvis. He was born in Columbia and moved to Canada as a child and he received call-ups to the Canadian national team, but didn't make an appearance and stayed on the bench. Given he was actually on the Canadian roster, seems a bit odd to list him as Columbian, but can't really use Ortizesp's Born in X, but represents Y, because he doesn't have an official cap. RedPatch (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Just put what you've written above: "Born in Colombia and raised in Canada, Galvis has accepted call-ups to the Canadian national team but has not yet taken the field" (you could probably phrase it more neatly). He's declared for Canada by accepting the call-up and sitting on the bench, so can't be described as unambiguously Colombian. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Serie A Footballer of the Year/archive2

Hi everyone. I'm posting this here so there can hopefully be more comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Serie A Footballer of the Year/archive2 after Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Serie A Footballer of the Year/archive1 was closed due to inactivity. There is also a similar article that passed some years ago for your reference Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Serie A Coach of the Year/archive1. Thanks, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: - the main reason the FLC isn't getting any comments is that it isn't actually listed at WP:FLC, thus nobody knows it exists...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I have now added it for you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches

Created in a format similar to Template:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group tables. The template allows the editor transcluding it to add parameter such as round, format, bg, result & class, good for use in a team's season page, for example.

Usage examples:

{{2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches|LAS_MTA}}

{{2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches|LAS_ALA}}

{{2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches|LAS_HJK}}


{{2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches|GEN_PAR|format=1|round=1}}

{{2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches|GEN_FLO|format=1|round=2|bg=EEEEEE}}

{{2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches|GEN_ANO|format=1|round=3|result=W|class=collapsible}}

{{2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches|LAS_MTA}}
{{2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches|LAS_ALA}}
{{2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches|LAS_HJK}}


{{2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches|GEN_PAR|format=1|round=1}}
{{2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches|GEN_FLO|format=1|round=2|bg=EEEEEE}}
{{2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches|GEN_ANO|format=1|round=3|result=W|class=collapsible}}

Ping me if you have any questions regarding the usage of the template. I believe it will prevent many matchbox duplications and help keep information updated. Deancarmeli (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Edited. Deancarmeli (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

That breaks WP:OVERLINK. Govvy (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

What is "That", exactly? Deancarmeli (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

OL doesn't effect tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Updated team tags. Deancarmeli (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You don't repeat the same link over and over again, not even in a table, just the first instance, Overlink/MOS:DUPLINK. Govvy (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

What links are you talking about, specifically? Deancarmeli (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

"a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." I'm not sure how this part of OL fits with that. We generally link items multiple times in tables and brackets. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is not needed. I already thought this and seeing Deancarmeli's attitude, I am strongly against it. The Replicator (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

"This is not needed" is not an argument. There are reasons to use a single template transcluded throughout the project – and that's why we to it for tables. It keeps every box updated on every page and is easier to monitor. No reason to do it for the tables and not the matches themselves, as almost every team season's page used to duplicate the match boxes. Moreover, speaking about ones "attitude" does nothing to further your cause, as you attack the person and not the point. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I see that discussing is not your strong suit. You are more like imposing stuff... The Replicator (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm here to discuss, so please: state your case. Why will Wikipedia be better without using the template? Attack my point, not me. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

No, you're not here to discuss, you're just saying you're here to discuss, not the same thing, and that has been demonstrated by your actions. You are the one pushing an idea to do a major overhaul, so you are the one who has to get acceptance for it and actually discuss it. I undid your edits as your idea has not been accepted, at least yet. You decided to engage in an edit-war, not me. The Replicator (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: And I straight up told you in the first place this: "If the discussion is open, don't do this unilaterally.". You ignored it. The Replicator (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

"You, you, you". Please, explain why the old version was better – not why you hate me. I've provided explanations to the advantages of the template. Please provide disadvantages, because currently non were given as Lee Vilenski refuted Govvy's. And for the PS: I've opened the discussion, and than transcluded to template to the page. You can't revert my edit and wtire "go discuss it". Want revert one's edit? Discuss it. Use reason. Explain yourself and why the version you support is better. otherwise it is just noise and violence. Deancarmeli (talk)

Personally, I agree with The Replicator. I don't think it's necessary and I wouldn't use it. There is also the fact that the template doesn't conform to the established Manual of Style for club season articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Nothing is "necessary". The qestion is if there is value in it or not. What if the value of the old vesion? As for the Manual of Style: As it doesn't even reference to a participation in a continental league, I think that we can agree that it need some updating. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree this template is also not needed. Please can somebody send to TFD? GiantSnowman 11:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

May anyone, please, discuss in their comment the merit of the template?
Yes, it is new.
Yes, it is a bit different from what you may know.
Nonetheless, it provides significant benefits, as in usage of a single matchbox across multiple articles, that shouldn't be ignored. The same logic applies for using Template:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group tables, so why shuldn't we use Template:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches? Deancarmeli (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This is like trampling on feet, it's also like watching a dam edit-war now. This is seriously bordering towards an ANI issue. Govvy (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, Deancarmeli's behaviour is becoming increasingly WP:IDHT. GiantSnowman 12:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

So help me. What is the point? Why do you object to the template? Can you explain it to me, beyond stating "not needed"? Deancarmeli (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It's pointless, it's useless, it serves no purpose - there's a reason a template like this isn't already established. GiantSnowman 12:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The is a point to it, it is used and it has a purpose: With using the template, updating it in a single page update the matchboxes across the the project, including the "group stage" page and the relevant club season pages. all simultaneously. Every thing kept updated, and the is no duplication of match boxes. Isn't that good enough reason to use it? Saying "it wasn't done before" is irrelevant. It is suggested to be done now. Deancarmeli (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm undecided on the overall benefits of the templates, but there is an obvious use in updating the same information in one place rather than 3. We transclude things like league tables for a reason, this is reusing match information in a similar manner. Spike 'em (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a good premise for a template. That way when the Fooian team A plays Templetonian team B in the X league, the result can be updated once in the template instead of on the X league page, on team A's season page, on team B's season page, on "Fooian clubs in X league" page, on "Templetonian clubs in X league" page, etc. The general gist of "I don't like it because I don't like it and hasn't been done before" is not very helpful to conversation or to going forward and improving. --SuperJew (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, see no harm in using the template.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Status update

All groups are now updated in the template, and matches were transcluded to every club season page that haven't already done it or those who use their own templates. Pages using their own templates were notified in their talk pages about the existence of this template, with usage examples. The template wasn't inserted into 2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group stage, waiting for a progression of this discussion.
Spike 'em, SuperJew, Ortizesp: Thank you for your comments. Deancarmeli (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't say I have much time in looking into the benefits of this template - but could I get you to refrain from changing the current formatting until you get a consensus for using this template? Even today, after a block you are still pushing this template into articles, despite a wide array of users suggesting that it is not suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't insert the template to any page that already had one, Nor did I change it's format. I'm still waiting for a discussion on the merits of the template, which has has started to develop in the last few comments. And still, not one objector explained why this template "is not suitable" in their opinion. Cheers. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Have also sent this to TfD for those that are interested. Govvy (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Also this has been created Template:2021–22 Toto Cup Al matches. We should gain a consensus for those template matches stuff before creating more. Kante4 (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Created documentation of the template in its talk page and transcluded it to its header. Deancarmeli (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Soccerbase/Soccerway

Are Soccerbase and/or Soccerway reliable for players date of birth? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say 90% of the time yes, but I have noticed mistakes on both websites before. I've actually also emailed them on mistakes, sometimes they actually listen and fix them. Govvy (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I've seen March/May swapped a couple of times, and day/month being swapped as well (someone born on 10 August listed as being born on 8 October, for example). Other than that, as Govvy says, they're correct about 90% of the time. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, very much appreciated. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

On my experience, 95% of the time.Pincheira22 (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry/block evasion suspicion

It has been brought to my suspicion that one of Wikipedia's experienced users could be using a newly created account to evade a current block which was applied today. Full details here. Also the user page was just created with the first sentence about "not engage in any edit war.". I'd say myself, and also Hjk1106, are possibly right about block evasion (per User talk:Hjk1106#September 2021. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I now see the user page has been created, saying in the green box the alternative account of the blocked user. It appears to be the evidence I need for my suspicion to be right. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Soccer Aid

Please find below an idea I have thought of, as Soccer Aid is today and I was thinking to myself of an alternate version based on Wikipedia.

User:Iggy the Swan/SoccerAid Wikipedia 2021

Not sure how accurate this may be in terms of the teams I listed.

Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

How much did you drink last night?? Govvy (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Not anything alcoholic. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Well being as you're a Swan, it wouldn't take much to set you off! Govvy (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Nice work, Iggy. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

As long as I don't end up playing in goal! (left midfield would be preferred) :) REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Robby.is.on - thanks, it did take me a while to find what's on the user pages.

REDMAN 2019 - I'm sure David Raya would still be the Brentford keeper so they don't slot you in between the sticks. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Iggy the Swan, Ha ha. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Proper disambiguation for leagues of same name?

Came across this lower division German league page while editing a player's page. Landesliga Bayern-Mitte (2012) is in the current German sixth tier. A former league until 2012 was the Landesliga Bayern-Mitte, currently holding primary topic title, when it probably shouldn't. How do league's get properly disambiguated? RedPatch (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, by year. Meaning that Landesliga Bayern-Mitte should be moved to Landesliga Bayern-Mitte (1963), and a disambiguation page should be made at Landesliga Bayern-Mitte. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest the current league should be at an undisambiguated title and the defunct league have a disambiguator added. This is usually what's done for clubs (e.g. Accrington Stanley F.C. (1891) vs Accrington Stanley F.C., Maidstone United F.C. (1897) vs Maidstone United F.C. etc). Cheers, Number 57 16:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Navbox invisibility on mobile devices

{{Navbox visibility}} says: Templates using the classes class=navbox ({{navbox}}) or class=nomobile ({{sidebar}}) are not displayed on the mobile web site of English Wikipedia. Mobile page views account for approximately 66% of all page views (90-day average as of January 2024). {{Manchester United F.C.}}, {{Chelsea F.C.}}, {{Liverpool F.C.}}, {{Real Madrid CF}} and all the others are beautiful creations based on hard work using Navbox but they are invisible and by that their links are unusable for the majority of our users. To check just click on "Mobile view" at the very bottom of the page in question. Can we kick off a vote for the development of a technical solution? Ruedi33a (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It's always been like that, there is enough to view in an article on a mobile let alone have a navbox on the end. I don't see the point to clutter what a user see's on a mobile. Govvy (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ruedi33a: A vote will do no good. If it fails, nothing changes. If it passes, what then? Whom will you charge to developing a technical solution? And if no one will take that task, what will we do? Remove the Navboxes altogether?
This is Wikipedia. If you want something to be developed, raise a request or develop it yourself. There is no point in a vote on this kind of issue, as if the feature would be developed and increase WP:MOBILE without doing any harm, no one could object to it. Deancarmeli (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ruedi33a: I think the place to bring this up is on Wikimedia. --SuperJew (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree, we have no power to change this, as it's a Wikimedia-wide decision. We'd need the WMF to agree to allow templates like this on mobile view, which I don't think they'd do anytime quickly. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Option to buy

What should we call an option to make a loan deal permanent? An "option to buy", "option-to-buy", or "buy option"? Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"Option to buy". GiantSnowman 07:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Or "option to purchase". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Even better. GiantSnowman 10:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Though a bit unwieldy I prefer "option to sign permanently". The other phrases sound too much like human trafficking to me. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"option to sign permanently" sounds OK. Who else agrees? Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

"option to sign permanently" its ok.who else NeonDone (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

i would go with whatever option the club itself uses in the article when they sign the player.Muur (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Danilo Pereira

Danilo Pereira (footballer) joined Paris Saint-Germain F.C. on 24 May 2021; his loan had an obligation to buy if PSG finished in the top 2 of the league. The option was triggered as PSG came second, and Danilo joined the club permanently. This transfer happened outside a window, a bit like Weston McKennie's transfer. Should we include it in the transfers section of the 2021–22 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season or the 2020–21 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season? Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

the season ended, so count it as 21/22 imo it didnt happen whilst the season was on goingMuur (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Any other opinions, please? @Nehme1499:? @Robby.is.on:? @Kokoeist:? Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the way it should be viewed, but it became an obligation only after the end of the season when PSG finished in top 2, which means the player was on loan from Porto even for the last match of the season. So the transfer should be counted for 21/22 season imo. Kokoeist (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed as well. In addition to this, I think adding a note to his loan move in the 2020–21 article would be fine too. Rupert1904 (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with Kokoeist's logic. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed here also.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

In that case, what is the date of the transfer? 1 July 2021 or 23 May 2021, the last match of the season? Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

if the clause activated on 23 may then 23 may loans can be made permo outside the window as we learned here recentlyMuur (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Third longest article on Wikipedia

Just a heads up... as the title says, Berliner FC Dynamo is, at time of writing, the third longest article on Wikipedia. The user EriFr has clearly put in an astonishing amount of effort over the last two years that must be respected, but the article is clearly too long, and I wouldn't know where to even begin trimming it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is mindblowing... big respect to EriFr for putting so much effort. However, I think that a seperate article should be created (History of Berliner FC Dynamo) and the article size would become appropriate. That is the biggest article I've ever seen, never mind the fact it's on a small German club. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, split off most of the body in the a history page. It should be kept though somewhere, I'm amazed at how comprehensive it is.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

And yet ironically it is probably eligible to be tagged with {{leadtooshort}} :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised that this article does not exceed the post-expand limit where later citations don't show up properly. But yes, this page is too large for a) not as famous as other clubs, specifically from the top tiers and b) the article displays what happened every season where as other club articles don't. If FC Barcelona would display in detail as to what happened to this club every season, the article would probably be far too large resulting in a large number of later templates of citations and others found at the bottom of the article not displaying properly. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I am EriFr. I realize that things have gotten a bit out of hand. My personal opinion does not matter. But I would still like to start by describing this from a personal point of view. (So you know who I am.) I am interested in history and German football (now, obviously, especially East German football...). I found this article a couple of years ago and thought it was too poor for a ten-time East German champion. So I started digging and found one of the most fascinating football clubs I have ever read about. The history seemed to contain everything: the peculiarities of East German football, fierce rivalries, great European matches, fantastic players, etc. (And of course: Erich Mielke). It felt like I had stumbled upon a piece of lost history. The subject is honestly incredibly captivating. This article has since become one of my primary hobbies. I have been working on this article every week for two years. I have now read hundreds of articles about the club and several books on East German football. Right now I am working on a section on the insolvency in 2001-2004 and the period from 2004 until today. I now do my best to write short sentences that go straight to the point, to keep the text as short as possible and increase readability. I understand the problem. If the article needs to be fixed, I would be very happy if the section on history could be moved to a separate article on the history of BFC Dynamo. From there, I can start creating a much shorter section on history for the article on the club later on. And about the notability of the club. Yes, it is a club in the fourth division. But BBC and CNN would hardly write articles about any club in the German fourth division. Right? It is still a small club of course. I wish you all a nice week-end. Kindest regards. /EriFr (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

EriFr The academy/youth section could have it's own page and just a paragraph on the main page. But ye, Bradford F.C. is the other end of the spectrum, but I prefer the work you've done, pretty impressive. You could split the history into two or more articles if needed and keep the main page down to more of a brief. Govvy (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

EriFr I'd also add that this is great work - but too long where it is. I'd suggest that you be the one who creates History of Berliner FC Dynamo to have full oversight, even if you don't have time to tidy the formatting just now, a copy and paste of the history section would be fine as a starting point IMO. Crowsus (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, rather than deleting the content outright, I would fork it into different sub-articles (such as History of Berliner FC Dynamo, Berliner FC Dynamo–SG Dynamo Dresden rivalry, and Berliner FC Dynamo Youth Sector, for example). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy, Crowsus, and Nehme1499: Thank you for the kind words! Allright. I will create the separate article History of Berliner FC Dynamo this weekend. I will copy-paste the history section into the separate article. I will do it during the weekend because I think there will be some intricate work with the references. And as I said earlier, I have already started working on a section (subsection) on the insolvency in 2001-2004. But I will add that to the separate article instead and not to the history section. I have no clear idea how to best fix the history section right now. I would like to take care of the separate article first. The period 2004-2014 is more or less missing and I have already done a lot of research for that. But do not worry, that section should be very brief because the club is hardly notable for those years. :) But after that, I would be very happy to start working on a new and summarized history section! But that would be later this autumn (late October to be realistic). For my part, we could as well delete the history section after I have moved it to the separate aticle. However, that would leave all readers to only the separate article. But, if anyone would like to do some trimming, I have an idea: Do some serious trimming without regard to the current referenses. (Write new sentences over the old paragraphs, if that is the only way forward. And if one or two references are deleted in the process, so be it.) All references used for the current history section will be perfectly saved in the separate article. References can thus easily be added afterwards! I realize that would not be fully compliant with WP:V. (The short history can be verified through the separate article and its references, but that can be considered as indirect verifiability at best.) But I think it could facilitate trimming. And it would be a temporary state. Well, that was just an idea. I'll create the separate article this weeked. I suggest we take it from there! /EriFr (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has also gone down the rabbit hole of greatly researching and expanding a lower tier club article, I totally get the dedication to it. Sometimes it can be fascinating. In terms of what to do about the short history section once you create the second article, one simple suggestion might be to just go back into the article's history and just copy what was there before your edits. I just jumped back to 2019 and saw this old revision that's of a reasonable length (though not fully 100% cited), but could serve as a temporary basis. RedPatch (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Transfermarkt

Can Transfermarkt be used as a reliable source for match reports? Debankan ^talk  10:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The trouble with this website is that parts of it are user generated and thus not reliable. Try to use it as a source and inevitably it will get deleted even if what you are using as a source is not a user generated element.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source. GiantSnowman 11:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I would only use Transfermarkt for news articles. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

it should be simple enough to find another report of the same match ive done it before where i found a TM source for a match in japan, then went to the japanese fa site to find their match report of the same match insteadMuur (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've used it like once ages ago, until I learnt that it's not reliable at all. FastCube (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No. Clog Wolf _Howl 05:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Help with format for a league table format

I have been trawling through Module:Sports table trying to see how I can modify a league table that has an extra column for points per game, but I cannot clearly see how I can make this easily. Can anyone direct me to an actual example of a league table which is ordered by points per game rather than aggregate points, and I will use that as my guide? Thanks. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You want to add |ranking_style=ppgpts and that will add in PPG. Take a look at 2019–20 Scottish Premiership#League table for an example. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, SFS. I knew I had seen one in this format fairly recently, and that probably the one i viewed a while back. I have now successfully modified the NPL table in Capital Football. cheers ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Gavin Bazunu

You might have read that this guy recently saved a Ronaldo penalty. My view is 'big whoop, he's a goalkeeper' - however an IP @89.101.121.132: thinks this, and other penalty saves, should be included in his bio. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 15:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's a game-winning save in a pretty important match, yes. Other than that, no. Kante4 (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, Ronaldo won is maybe worth mentioning, as it's a game-winning penalty in an international match. Not the rest of them though- we're not a news ticker. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Same, unless it changed the course of the match. And it dosen't matter weather it's Ronaldo or Divock Origi at the other end. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. If the penalty save is important to the course of the match, include it. Otherwise, no. As REDMAN says above, the person shooting the penalty shouldn't be a discriminator (unless the goalkeeper stopped some sort of record streak, such as Pepe Reina with Balotelli). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If anybody wishes to edit the article to avoid me getting involved in an edit war... GiantSnowman 16:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

As to the "other penalty saves", I'd include the one at Cork City. This was a 16-year-old boy, coming into senior men's football to keep goal in the Irish top division, keeps four clean sheets in four appearances and saves a penalty to do it? Not sure how that isn't a notable part of that player's career. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Cork is fine, the others are not, agreed. GiantSnowman 17:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

saving ronaldos penalty isnt notable they didnt even win if you can include ronaldo youll have people saying shit like "well he saved agueros in the champions league a year later when they lose 7-1 so lets include that too because aguero is a good player". if it was his debut, then fair enough, but it wasnt. this is just ronaldo fanboying of wanting him mentioned in as many pages as possible (and also prob woudln't even mention whos penalty he saved in such a situation itd just be like "on may 14th bazunu saved a penny in a 1-0 win against wigan, this kept them in league one", whos penny he saved isnt notable, just that he saved itMuur (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The same IP is repeatedly adding U21 stats to the Liam Scales article, citing individual match reports (but getting it wrong - first they said it was 5 then they said it was 6). Can somebody please intervene? GiantSnowman 11:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The IP is now edit warring and has ignored my talk page messages - anybody wish to help? GiantSnowman 11:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

2021–22 Scottish Amateur Cup - is this notable?

I'd like some views on 2021–22 Scottish Amateur Cup. As you can tell from the name, it's only for amateur teams. A few are notable because the winners qualify for the 'big' Scottish Cup and it is totally fine to have an overview article on the competition, but my feeling is that standalone article's on this or any specific season are excessive and probably do not meet GNG or FOOTY requirements. The only references currently are from the Amateur FA themselves, and a tweet from one of the clubs, I doubt there'd be much more than that in terms of coverage until the semi-finals, and even then only local press. Crowsus (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It fails WP:GNG. Amateur football garners very little press coverage and that's evidenced by the fact the results are completely unsourced in that article. I know some local papers print a list of results for amateur teams on their patch but you very rarely see even routine match reports and previews. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Any admins about

want to block the latest of these... thanks, Struway2 (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The vandal has also appeared to email three people as well (I have now removed the setting of new users emailing in my preferences so that won't happen again). I've simply ignored that and deleted it, especially as it contained external links which I won't specify which type for privacy reasons.

And on my "First Edit Day" as well (see my talk page) with the vandal coming back. Struway2 has, as usual, cleared up the mess including a couple of newly affected pages. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

U.C. Sampdoria (women)

JJMC89 bot constantly removes the Sampdoria's logo. It says that the photo is not a free image but it is not true (it also has not removed the photo in the men's team). What should be done? Dr Salvus 14:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I should have fixed the issue. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, the bot is correct that the image isn't free. All you needed to do, though, was add a non-free use rationale to the image page relating to the women's team article. – PeeJay 14:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

PeeJay, at this point: why does the bot not remove the logo in the men's team article? Dr Salvus 14:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Because there was already a non-free use rationale on the image for that page. – PeeJay 14:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ledes on international players

Good morning!

Just to be sure i haven't missed out on anything regarding the footy guidelines (rules change, of course), in the case i have, i apologise for the (editorial) inconvenience...

Do we still write "...is a footballer who plays for...", without mentioning the country (it is mentioned, but below in the lede) or not? Two examples: tried that at Bruno Gaspar, was reverted without one word of explanation. Tried to converse with the user, was reverted at their page without one inch of reply.

Worse, much worse, at Raphaël Guerreiro: for removing "Portuguese" in the lede (when it's explained in the latter part of lede "Born in France, Guerreiro represented Portugal at under-21 and senior level..."), was not only reverted but insulted in the most vile of manners, as several other users have (@Crowsus: might confirm this, for example).

I'd like to finish as i started: if we now write the nationalities of the players per national team currently represented (i.e. "Bruno Gaspar is an Angolan professional footballer..." instead of the previous guideline "Bruno Gaspar is a professional footballer...", please accept my apologies and be sure i will abide by the (new) guideline from now on.

Attentively --193.137.135.2 (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, what you are doing is correct, particularly for the likes of Bruno Gaspar who are born and raised in country A but play for country B due to ancestry links or new citizenship as an adult, so it's ambiguous and the adjective should be left out. The exception to this is players who are born in A but grow up in B and subsequently play for B, so it's considered natural that they are B-ish in both a civic and sporting sense and so the adjective goes/stays in. Can also confirm the abuse in relation to a couple of articles, I think that's being dealt with at ANI. Crowsus (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that's being dealt with at ANI. Unfortunately, since I posted the report four days ago, very little has happened and I've had to add a comment to prevent the discussion from being archived automatically. I am puzzled as to why no admin has taken care of the problem. Maybe you could weigh in there, Crowsus? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I also agree what you're doing is correct and Walter Görlitz restoring it [10] here is completely incorrect. In doing so it takes away his primary nationality, which one should not do. It also makes that first sentence and the third sentence contradictory to each other if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Bruno Gaspar should have his nationality omitted from the lead as he has represented two countries internationally. Guerreiro should be described as a "Portuguese footballer" as he has only represented Portugal internationally. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

No that's incorrect, he plays for Portugal but he has never lived in Portugal as far as I can see, so to describe him as such oversimplifies his circumstances. The article even states he couldn't speak the language when first called up. His is a prime example of why the nationality is omitted from the opening sentence to prevent warring over how to describe him in a single word. Crowsus (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

He really isn't a prime example of this. Omitting nationalities is for footballers who have represented two countries internationally (be it at youth or senior level). Someone being born elsewhere doesn't mean that we should remove his nationality from the lead, if he has only represented one country. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

We typically only omit when there is genuine confusion / dispute but most of them can be resolved with language such as at Diego Costa where we do not deal with their nationality and more who they represent. Bruno Gaspar could be resolved in an identical way. Koncorde (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Very good point @Nehme1499:, thanks for input! --193.137.135.2 (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of incorrect, the formatting here did not follow MOS:LISTGAP until this edit. What I did to the Gaspar's lede was approriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Born in Portugal, represented Portugal's youth teams. The nationality should be omitted. If anything, Angola shouldn't be linked. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Two separate issues. First, the nationality should be mentioned at least in representing. Second, WP:OVERLINK is for commonly known locations, and Angola is one that is not well know. Examples there are Japan and Brazil, not small, African nations. However, since the national team is linked later in the lede, the nation could be left unlinked.

You will see from the diff above, the national team was not listed in the lede and was instead it was buried in a third paragraph, and so nationality was represented correctly in the lede. I have no problems with the way it is linked now as was changed here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

While such links are appropriate for nations such as New Caledonia, Angola are substantially bigger and better known on the international stage, (They qualified for the World Cup in 2006.) and do not need linking in the lead like that. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Is Raheem Sterling's lead correct? Same question for John Barnes. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Check this discussion out. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Help

Hey! I need help making fixes for the GA review going on at Thomas Tuchel. Could someone/some people help? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Stadion Narodowy

I was just looking at the article and clicked State Treasury in the info box, which just directs to the Treasury article, is there not a better target?? Govvy (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ministry of State Treasury (Poland)? GiantSnowman 20:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GS, have changed it over, but blimey, that article needs some serious work! Govvy (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

O wait, it says dissolved in 2017, so... still seems broken. Govvy (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Does it really need a link at all? I'd say it was pretty obvious that "State treasury" means the stadium is owned by the Polish government. – PeeJay 00:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Career Stats table mess

Anyone want to take a crack at fixing this career stats table at Tariq Kazi? It's a bit of a mess. (Found it when seeing a user who posted an image to a page I created which was a copyright violation also uploaded a copyvio image here (which I also nominated for deletion on the commons)) RedPatch (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

And remove the figures for assists. Impossible to verify the number of assists any player makes in a career except in very exceptional cases.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nehme. RedPatch (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Pau López

I saw that on Pau López, "loan" was linked in the opening sentence. Should we do that? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not: many readers will find this link useful if they're not familiar with football terminology. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

A loan is a pretty straightforward term though, imo. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I am with Nehme1499 here, I don't see the point in linking to it. 99% of English readers should be understanding that. Govvy (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

For us who not only follow football but write about it on an online encyclopedia, it's obvious what loan means on a football page. But the most commonly used meaning of the term loan means something quite different, and we shouldn't assume that our readers are necessarily au fait with the topic they're reading. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Matty. There's no harm in adding the link, and we can't assume that people (even those who casually follow football) know exactly what a player loan is -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

A loan in football is the same concept as any other loan in everyday usage. I don't think we would link to Transfer (association football) every time we mention the word "transfer". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Not every time, but certainly the first time. --dashiellx (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

RMCD on Liberty Stadium

There is currently a move discussion going on about renaming Swansea's stadium from the old to the current name it is using at the moment. There are not many page watchers watching this article or page views on the talk page so I am alerting you here to be aware of the move discussion. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Fraser

Hello. I just created the article of Delwin Fraser, a Guyanese footballer. His brother Delroy Fraser also made appearances for Guyana and I am creating his article right now. I have an issue with his birth date. In this article, it says that Delroy is the older brother of Delwin. Delwin was born on 11 July 1986 according to various sources (will get back to that sooon). However, according to NFT (and WorldFootball.net), Delroy is born on 26 October 1986, making him younger than Delwin. FootballCritic says that he was born on 28 July 1988, and Transfermarkt (although technically not a reliable source) says he was born on 26 October 1983.
Due to the Guyana Chronicle article stating that Delroy is the older brother of Delwin, I personally feel more inclined to believe Transfermarkt's 1983 date, despite the hate towards the website. I came to write this to ask what y'all thought of this weird situation. As of now on Delroy Fraser, I will leave the birth date blank.
I said I would get back about Delwin Fraser's birth date; according to most sources, he is born on 11 July 1986. However, the Grenada Football Association claims he was born on 14 April 1982. I ignored this since all other sources said the contrary. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: I am hesitant to say Delroy was born on 26 October 1986 for a few reasons: firstly, it contradicts the Guyana Chronicle article, and secondly, it seems unlikely that two brothers are born 107 days apart - either Delroy was born 6 months early, their hypothetical common father got two different women pregnant in the space of 107 days, or at least one of them is adopted. Or they a had surrogate mother(s). It just seems unlikely to me, although this isn't based in facts, but guessing. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to give my input: Global Sports Archive list Delwin as born on 14 June 1982, and Delroy as born on 28 July 1988. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Aha, I just remembered. The Grenada FA use GSA's database for their own website. I would probably use those dates of births. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Reminds me of baseball player Wilton Guerrero, who according to official MLB records is less than 4 months older than his brother Vladimir..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Anybody else want to chime in apart from Nehme1499? Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Jorge Fernandes

Jorge Fernandez given that his daughter is doing well currently is in the news and well referenced to be a former international professional footballer. Apparently he played in Guayaquil and over South America and potentially Canada seeing as he grew up partly there. However I cannot find any sources to say which clubs he played for nor any of his stats. Assuming he was good enough to earn an international cap at some point and was fully pro, I'm not sure where to look? I am not a Spanish speaker nor well versed in Americas football and he does have a popular name so that doesn't help. Any help much appreciated. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Woah. That article is a mess and needs cleanup. And needs to be checked to see if it meets WP:NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow last time I ask for help. Meets WP:TENNIS and WP:GNG anyway. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The most comprehensive database for international football is NFT, which doesn't include him (nor do the other major database websites such as Soccerway or GSA). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Well then there are 3 options; either 1. he has publicly lied about his past 2. he played a long time ago for some pretty obscure clubs or 3. He played under a different name or nickname Abcmaxx (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Not even the not-so-reliable Transfermarkt list him (and they usually list pretty much everyone). The most likely option is that he played for amateur/youth clubs. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I doubt he lied, it's probably just a case of journalists who don't know much about football doing some half-arsed research and misunderstanding/misreporting what they found -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

it could be that, however it doesn't have to be untrue. If he played in the Ecuadorian second division many years ago and then say had stint in the Brazilian fourth, with one youth cap, he'd still be pretty obscure but a professional career nonetheless and wouldn't be all that surprising that there are no internet sources. All these databases are only good for players 2000 or so onwards, not so good for former players. Also Jorge Fernandez is a common name, he could well have played under a nickname, as is common in Latin America Abcmaxx (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Neither of the sources claiming he is an international look very reliable to me so I'd ditch that claim altogether: firstsportz.com and archysport.com Spike 'em (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I would agree with that. He could have been in the U8 squad for all we know. However I'm still intrigued as to which clubs he played for, assumingly didn't have a particularly illustrious career but I find it hard to believe there no information about that at all Abcmaxx (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

His page should be moved to Jorge Fernandez (tennis coach), he's not notable as a footballer clearly. Shouldn't be involved in this project unless actual information is found for his football "career".--Ortizesp (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Honestly it's probably a poor journalism. It was probably "Did you play tennis as a child like Leylah?" "No, I played football/soccer" meaning that was the game he played for fun, not necessarily that he played pro. RedPatch (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Postponed matches

Good Morning, is it necessary to add matches that were postponed in club season articles? I did put them in but one edit got reverted and quoted "Unnecessary inclusion of a match that is not taking place. Please do not include in future". Can I have some feedback on weather it should or shouldn't be please.

--Skyblueshaun (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I personally definitely wouldn't include them in a results table and probably wouldn't even mention them in prose (and haven't in any of my recently-promoted club season FAs) unless there was something noteworthy about the postponement (it took place in bizarre circumstances or the fact that the game was played later than planned meant that it became a title decider or similar) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't support including postponed matches in a results table and I agree that the circumstances would need to be noteworthy to be included in the prose. LTFC 95 (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Inspectormusic

Inspectormusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Can someone have a look to @Inspectormusic:? They do continue to violate the MoS about footballers despite two warnings Dr Salvus 05:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Senior vs U23

A friendly between a senior national team and a different country's U23 team doesn't count as a cap, correct? Has to be senior vs senior (or U23 vs U23, U20/U20, etc) right? RedPatch (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This is true for present and the recent past. Hack (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, I would definitely count this for U23 player (as an U23-nt cap). --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Do reliable sources do so? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Dwain Jacobs

If anyone wants a player to edit about, there is Dwain Jacobs. His playing career's dates are unclear. If someone would like to take a closer look and clarify the dates using sources that would be beneficial to the article. I left the dates blank due to the conflicts between sources. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I should have put the correct dates, using a mix of NFT, GSA and news articles. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Nationality in lede

It is standard procedure on footballer biographies to omit the nationality from the lede if a player was born and raised in one country but represented another at international level. Please can somebody inform @Dealer07: regarding Zeca (footballer, born 1988) who has been reverting an IP and me and ignored our talk page posts... GiantSnowman 14:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The key point is that he also represented represented Portugal internationally, rather than the sole fact that he was born in Portugal. I wouldn't remove the nationality from Raheem Sterling, for example, just because he was born in Jamaica. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

So we can agree on the Portuguese-Greek characterisation since the former user also agrees. Deaker07Dealer07 15:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't use hyphenated nationalities. Either we omit the nationality (which is the case of Zeca), or we only include one nationality. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

That was my thought. It's sometimes appropriate to say people's nationality, even if it's dual, as long as that's well-sourced. In this instance, though, him being "Portuguese-Greek" doesn't seem to be sourced, and you can infer the same info from what's already in the lead.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hyphenated nationalities are only appropriate in very limited situations, such as where a player has played for 2 countries at senior level - and even then the standard wording is preferred. It does not apply to Zeca. GiantSnowman 17:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the idea was to never use hyphenated nationalities as it could be interpreted as an ethnicity, per WP:OPENPARA (which you noted here). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

For info, Dealer07 is still edit warring over this...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Since Dealer07 has now reverted the page four times, I have reported them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for a breach of the three-revert rule. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

This randomly amused me.......

Back in 2010, Raheem Sterling's article was deleted on the grounds that he was deemed non-notable. One contributor described him as a "footballer who hasn't made it" (he was 15 years old at the time). Just a random bit of amusement for a Monday afternoon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Very good! GiantSnowman 17:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It was the correct decision! (And a good example of why we shouldn't get upset over article deletions. Once a player achieves notability, it's inarguable.) Ytoyoda (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, it was definitely the right decision at the time. It just made me smile to think that while 90% of young players whose articles are created prematurely and then deleted are never heard of again, occasionally we get one who does go on to play 500+ professional matches..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Meghan Markle was deleted a while back for being a non-notable model on US television... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Time to start some AfDs! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Bouncy

The Poznań is fairly well-written. I think it's a decent article we should keep. However, is The Bouncy really notable on its own? I think it could be merged as an "alternative" of The Poznan. Who else agrees? Opinions? Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I proposed a merge. Please contribute. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:100 players who shook the Kop

Is it me or is this template list craft? Govvy (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

{{100 players who shook the Kop}}

It's absolutely cruft. – PeeJay 10:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is cruft. Clog Wolf _Howl 13:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this not similar to being in a club's Hall of Fame, which we have templates for (there are 65 teams with Hall of Fame templates in Category:Association football club Hall of Fame navigational boxes)? It seems like the Hall of Fame concept, just with another name. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems to have just been a fan poll of Liverpool's best players (which has been run more than once, with differing results). I can't see that the players received any sort of formal recognition. To me, a Hall of Fame suggests something a bit more permanent/in-depth. Liverpool seem to have an actual Hall of Fame (see here).... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely slang with a bit of POV thrown it. If it's not a formal Hall of Fame, probably best to get rid of it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that if it's not their "real" Hall of Fame, then delete it. When I asked the question, I thought/assumed that it was just their Hall of Fame under a different name, but as it isn't, then we don't need it. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The list actually used to have an article many moons ago, but it was merged following an AfD -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

It definitely isn't a Hall of Fame. As Chris said above, it's a fan poll that has been run two or three times. If the last one was in 2013 and they run it again now, how many of Klopp's players are going to be voted in? Best to delete it, I think. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

TfD started: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 September 14#Template:100 players who shook the Kop- I have mentioned this discussion there. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, started this conversation yesterday, then work... But I see you have sent this to AfD. Cheers for the input guys. Govvy (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals

There is an edit war over including the photo of Drogba at the List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals by TheRealGutripper. The photo was originally removed by an IP editor because the caption said "only African footballer to score 100 goal". I restored the picture changing the caption to "the first African footballer to score 100 goals". This was reverted by TheRealGutripper, so I reverted with the suggestion that they get consensus on talk page to change the picture. This suggestion was ignored and TheRealGutripper reverted again with the edit summary "Photo caption not cited", although this editor saw no need for a citation in this edit expanding the caption to the Michael Owen picture. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Edits have previously been removed by Wiki users on other pages the grounds that citations are needed on photos stating facts not referenced. The same ought to apply here for all the pictures if this is the case (agreed same should apply for ALL the pictures if this is the requirement, including Lampard, Owen, and others). Separately to this, three separate unique users have considered the Drogba picture as unnecessary and removed it with fair reasoning - Jts1882 continues to reinstate it despite this. His insinuation that I am the same as the previous two IP editors is false and slanderous, and admins are welcome to verify this. TheRealGutripper (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

First, no where did I say or imply your are one of the IP editors.

Secondly, statements made need to be "verifiable". Citations for easily verified facts are not required. You certainly didn't see the need when adding to the Michael Owen caption.

More importantly, the Drogba photo was removed at the weekend because being the only player to score 100 goals was no longer true. The caption had previously been changed by Spectralmania) in light of Salah's achievement, but this edit got reverted in a mass revert of pending edits. I restored the version of Spectralmania.

The Drogba picture has been there for a long time and being the first African player to score 100 goals is a significant milestone in PL history (more than Michael Owen being the first to 100 goals and also getting a Ballon d'Or). The onus is on you to establish consensus for the change as I indicated in my edit summary. You chose to ignore this advise and continued reverting, hence this discussion. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is this discussion not happening on the article Talk page? If disagreements over content arise, the first step should be a discussion – not just through edit summaries. If that doesn't work out, you can still ask for intervention from others. See Wikipedia:Consensus. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why it wasn't posted on the talk page there, it's a fairly well monitored page considering. I restored the Drogba image. It's a strange edit to remove a picture saying to cite it, when he is clearly there in the list. I've always said the page needs more citations. Better prose is the key here. Govvy (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Non-UN national football teams

Does playing for national teams that don't represent actual countries (like Martinique, Gibraltar, or French Guiana) confer notability for players appearing in that match per WP:NFOOTY? How can I tell if a match is FIFA-recognized? Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Non-FIFA international football may help. Clog Wolf _Howl 02:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Gibraltar national football team are FIFA/UEFA recognised and play in the qualifying matches for those tournaments, so yes they count towards WP:NFOOTY. The other 2 mentioned are non-FIFA members, so I would say no. Technically they play the odd international match, but those matches aren't covered anywhere near as well as a FIFA or UEFA/COMENBOL etc recognised match. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

As Joseph2302 says, it's easy for teams like Gibraltar/Cayman Islands/Cook Islands who are all members of both FIFA and their relevant confederation. Players are presumed notable if they are capped by the national team. For the likes of Martinique/French Guiana/Tuvalu who are members of the continental confederation but not FIFA, being capped isn't enough for presumed notability under WP:NFOOTY. Notability is presumed for players capped in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA, or the Olympic Games. So when Martinique play in the CONCACAF Nations League or Gold Cup, the players used in those matches would be presumed notable because it's at confederation level. It wouldn't apply to players who are capped in friendlies or competitions below confederation level, for example, players capped by Kiribati at the 2011 Pacific Games. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, if non-FIFA sides play in continental cups they pass NFOOTY. Otherwise they have to pass NFOOTY through pro games or GNG through notability. I'm of the opinion that all NTs (even unofficial ones) should pass NFOOTY, but I don't think it's shared by the majority.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

If by unofficial, you for example mean CONIFA ones (such as Sardinia national football team), then I would obviously oppose those players passing NFOOTY. Teams part of their respective continental confederation, but not of FIFA, who play in official continental tournaments are fine. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)