Talk:List of England international footballers

Merger

 * It has been suggested that England Caps be merged into this article or section.

I'm not convinced of a merge. there is no source for the other page, and don't want it clogging this one up until it is sourced. --Robdurbar 18:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't Merge. The merger proposed is between an article concerning players with 25+ caps (113 players) and an article concerning players with one cap (333). According to englandfootballonline.com, England has capped 1143. There's a huge gap consiting of 697 players. If someone wants to put in the hours...  SLUMGUM   yap    stalk   18:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Expansion
I think the article should be expanded to include every player who has represented England. Any thoughts? GiantSnowman 20:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As this would entail over 1000 players it would be a rather long list! 80.9.112.249 06:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Very true! But surely point of an encyclopaedia is to provide as much information as possible...GiantSnowman 18:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've just edited it for the first time, and I won't be editing it again. This page is too complicated, confusing and drawn out. The previous page which listed those with 25 caps or more was much more manageable and I was happy editing it each time. Bentley Banana (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

List of England international footballers (alphabetical)
At long last I have completed the task of turning this list into a (rather large) table. Subject to a bit of checking & cross-checking (any help will be gratefully received), I plan to merge this with the main List of England international footballers. --Daemonic Kangaroo 04:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

American date of birth format
This table has all the dates in American format! They really should be translated into English. Postlebury 11:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As the table is too large to use the proper date sorting format, there has to be a compromise. To maintain the integrity of the date sorting, the only workable format is yyyy mm dd. --Daemonic Kangaroo 12:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A pedant writes... the date format is ISO, not American. Does the auto date formatting get affected by the transclusion limit? I thought it was only templates. Oldelpaso 20:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When I was creating the table, using the November 1933 3 template I found that there is a practical limit in WP as to how many templates can be used on a page, and this was reached after only about 95 entries (out of 1150); I put the problem up to an admin for help and he suggested using a substitution after the templates were used. This resulted in a page over 700k in size; again for less than 10% of the total entries. Goodness knows what size we would have ended up with, even if would have been possible to edit this, so I had to arrive at a compromise. If anyone can make the date-sort template work I'd be eternally grateful. --Daemonic Kangaroo 05:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The sorting doesn't work properly anyway so we may as well use readable dates. Catchpole (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It takes me a few minutes each time I have to add a date to realise what order the figures go in! Won't be back. Bentley Banana (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

'Opponent' column.
I think we should change the 'Opponent' column from Austria to 🇦🇹 austria ; this would be both easier to update and more aesthetically pleasing. Any thoughts? GiantSnowman (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger?
I note that users Catchpole and Bentley Banana have reverted the list that had been merged from List of England international footballers (alphabetical) and List of England players with only one cap with no real explanation other than comments on Cathcpole's talk page. As the previous discussions seemed to indicate that there was a consensus to merge these 3 articles, I would appreciate other editors' comments/suggestions. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that they should be merged. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should definitely be merged. Revert their edits with extreme prejudice please. – PeeJay 17:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been asked to expand on my reasoning. The List of England international footballers used to contain a list by number of caps. While I had no objection to this list been expanded to include all English international footballers in alphabetical order, it was no longer possible to order the table by number of caps (when I tried to do so it merely ordered the footballers by first name - this is not very useful). So in my view the article became less useful after the merge than it was before the merge. If 3 articles contain more useful information than can be found in a single article then we should keep the three articles. This makes it easier to distinguish between 'one cap wonders' and players who made a significant contribution to the national team (those with more than 25 caps). As Bentley Banana had mentioned after he updated the article following the Austria game, the date format used in the table was also confusing. So I restored what I felt were the better versions of the 3 articles. I will reiterate that I have no problem with a merger, if it can be done in a way that allows the information in the article to be sorted in a useful manner. Catchpole (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Was there no way you could have modified the single article to make it properly sortable? You know, do something constructive instead of destructive. – PeeJay 18:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just gone to the previous version of the list, clicked on the caps sort button, and it sorts into ascending order of caps, click again and it sorts into descending. Unless there's some browser-dependent problem, or I'm being really stupid, I don't know what you mean by not possible to order by number of caps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think my changes were constructive, they made the articles more useful to me. I'll admit to not being an expert on sortable tables, but when I try to repeat Struway's experiment, I get Safari popping up with an unresponsive script warning. I get the same issue when I try it on List of England international footballers (alphabetical). This may just be a problem with very large articles, (when you edit the latter, you get the following message - "This page is 260 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Article size"). Catchpole (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it's cos you're on a Mac! I mean, why else would you be using Safari when you could be using Firefox? Well, the vast majority of us don't use Macs, so I suggest that your edits be reverted, to benefit the majority. – PeeJay 18:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have tried it on IE7 and Firefox and it works. It is a "very" large article though. I think dial-up will groan under the strain. I agree completely with the old version (ie before catchpole reverts), yet I think the size might be an issue. Splitting it in half is not an option though as it will break the sortable table. Woodym555 (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The pre-catchpole article is a far better navigational tool because sortable tables are ace. It should be reverted to the way it was.  King of the  North  East  22:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't really see why we have to have one or the other. There's no point removing the excellent list as set up by Daemonic Kangaroo purely because some people's configuration makes one of the features unusable, while as demand exists for a more restricted set of information why not have that as well? I'd propose (1) that the main list be reverted to the sortable version, as it is complete and useful for a significant number of users, although the size is clearly a problem for some. And (2) as a separate article, a List of England international footballers with 25 caps, as per the current Catchpole version. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I was thinking about that, but what title? top capped players? Notable players? Woodym555 (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hadn't thought about it :-) There was consensus on the merger to List of England international footballers, and there appears to be consensus that the complete sortable list should be at that name. You could call the other one List of most-capped England international footballers, or List of notable England international footballers, or if all else fails, List of England international footballers with 25 caps. Each to have a hatnote pointing to the other. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

When I merged the three articles I thought that there was a consensus that this was the right thing to do. Consequently I found Bentley Banana's comment on Catchpole's talk page describing it as a "rotten merger" and an "abomination" rather offensive and arrogant. I'm therefore grateful that the consensus here is in favour of the merge. Moving forward, it seems to me that we still only need one list covering all England players (good and bad, major or minor). In view of the size of the list this will always cause problems for those on a dial-up connection - as for Apple Mac users, I'm afraid that I have no knowledge. Perhaps this particular problem as pointed out by Catchpole should be put to a techie for advice. WP must be all-embracing and be equally functional whatever platform is used, although good features should not be thrown away to accommodate lesser used platforms.

At present we have four, possibly five, different articles covering the same ground:
 * List of England international footballers
 * List of England international footballers (alphabetical)
 * List of England players with only one cap
 * England national football team & England national football team
 * England national football team records

All of these will need updating after every England match. The (post-Catchpole) List of England international footballers includes players who have 25 or more caps. Why this particular bar? If the bar was raised to, say, 50 caps this would reduce this particular list to 47 players. This list could then be merged with that in the England team article. Can we agree a final consensus? I can then go ahead and re-merge the articles. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to contribute - firstly, however I have two apologies to make. Firstly, an apology to Daemonic Kangaroo for my terminology in describing his changes. My wording was rather strong, I accept that and withdraw it wholly. My second apology comes in advance of what I'm about to say, as I'm entirely inept with tables and wikipedia terms and therefore exist here purely as a writer with some reasonable understanding of the England team and what is required on these pages.
 * I would argue most vociferously for the retention of the List of England international footballers page in its reverted form, containing the players with 25 caps or more. I would argue that there is no other way to measure footballers in the international game other than by dint of caps won; doing so by surname or date of birth turns it into a rollcall rather than a list which is defined by actual achievement and notability. Alan A'Court shouldn't be at the top of any list of England players; Peter Shilton should be. It's all about the caps won. Nobody is going to come on wikipedia looking for the information about who would be top of an England list alphabetically, but a new user might use our reference to find out who has won the most caps. This is where this page is too vital to consider merging into something which will change the entire focus of its existence.
 * I have never used nor accessed with List of England players with only one cap and feel that while it's an interesting list, it's not a be-all and end-all list. There is limited notability about such players; we're dealing with novelty rather than anything else. A page which lists everyone who wasn't goo enough to play for England after one solitary go but not those who were sturdy and steady enough to hang around more than 25 times suggests to me a lack of priorities.
 * The England national football team records page has, I confess, become a labour of love to me. I am fiercely proud of how that page has turned out and I think it is as vital a tool as any researcher on England can find, even from official sources (indeed, I've seen evidence of more official sources using statistics which I myself researched entirely for the benefit of this page). I would ask it remains as it is.
 * Lastly, on the subject of the merged page, I would ask that consideration is given to those who choose to keep these pages topical as soon as matches are completed. I had an awful time trying to suss out the dating system, find the players in question etc when faced with an alphabetical list rather than one which relied entirely on achievement and notability. The list of 25 caps or more needs to remain as an independent page; even if the full list of alphabetical players stays separately. To remove the shorter, more easily maintained and digested page says that accessibility for both readers and editors has become too low a priority, and that's where people like me, who just want to keep pages digestible and accessible, are alienated.
 * One final comment aside - my main bugbear with the England pages are with editors who go on the main England national football team page after a match and change just *one* fact, rather than the several which always need changing - details of games, caps and goals updates, manager stats etc. This gets right up my nose as you end up doing someone else's tidying up rather than merely a gentle update which should not take up too much time or sweat.
 * Thanks for reading, apologies for my lack of terminology and my previous comments once more. Bentley Banana (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think that the sortable table is a far better navigational tool, does anyone know if there is a way to default set it to show the players by number of caps? King of the North  East  03:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion was copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 14 in order that users may be aware of previous "merge" discussions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Cut-Off Point
I was just wondering why the cut-off point for this page is 25 caps when the source that is cited gives everyone with 20+ caps.Tomaths (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus two of England's top ten goalscorers, Viv Woodward and Steve Bloomer, are missing from this list because they have 23 caps. — sjorford++ 13:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Date of final match
This seems a bit arbitrary. Some current player have an entry (John Terry, Shaun W-P, Peter Crouch) and some don't. Does someone here know the current selection criteria? 82.26.187.137 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There was discussion on why this list contains the arbitrary restriction of 25 caps or more; I leave it to the reader to ascertain why the list is restricted only to men. Four hatnotes suggests a serious problem in scope. Red Slash 21:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

List of England international footballers → List of most capped England international footballers – There is already a page List of England international footballers (alphabetical) which is a complete list. This page is a top X most capped page. This is a similar set up to List of million-selling singles in the United Kingdom and List of best-selling singles in the United Kingdom where you have a long complete list and a shorter top X list. If this page is re-titled then the 'alphabetical' can be dropped from the full list, as the tables are all sortable anyway. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Btljs (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - name is fine, and you cannot compare footballers with songs... GiantSnowman 14:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? You wouldn't be surprised that a footballer with 24 England caps isn't on a page called 'List of England international footballers'?Btljs (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per Btljs. Seems the most accurate title considering the article's scope. Jenks24 (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Aye, support. List of England international footballers (alphabetical) should then be moved here. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment (or, technically speaking, oppose). Of course, I support articles having clear names that match their content. However, to say that I would support this particular suggestion is more complex than that. If I did, then I suppose that it would look as if I supported an article with that title existing. In fact, I am very sceptical about this 'twenty-five plus caps' article. Who are Wikipedians to decide that a player with twenty-five caps is to be so much more notable than one with twenty-four? The FA keeps no such list. Why must twenty-five be the magic number? Why must there be a magic number at all? The fact that this number has seemingly been made up smells a little bit like original research to me, at least in terms of formulating the list. In any case, I've been reading the talk pages of this article and the alphabetical one, and it seems to me that there was pretty much a consensus to have just one article, although nobody got around to making it happen. The only real problem was the article length. I'm not too sure that that's a good enough reason to have two separate lists. Either way, there will always be one long article. Browsers have developed since those discussions, so it might be easier for the page to load now. If, however, it were to get to a point where it would simply be too long, then there would just have to be a split. That could be done by surname, as with other lists. Alternatively, for an article such as this, editors may feel that it could be more appropriate to do something such as split it according to whether the players were amateur or professional. Another possibility would be to split it so that it would match up to the existing results articles, which mostly cover twenty or thirty year periods. Obviously having one article, only to split it, would not be ideal for those wanting a list that can be sorted. However, a list of the most capped players will always be on the main England national football team page, so I don't really think that that would be a problem. Overall, to be honest, I just think that having two lists is a bit of a relic from seven years ago when the second list was created. If we imagined that there were no lists at all, here today, and we wanted to create one, then I can't really see us coming up with the situation that we've got now. It just seems to me that it is a bit unnecessary to have more than one list. Red  v  Blue  19:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But you don't oppose the title change (as opposed to keeping the status quo)? If you want to then propose deleting the page that's another discussion.Btljs (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly, I'm not sure what the protocol is for dealing with issues such as this. To me, though, it would mostly make sense to discuss the need for an article before moving it.
 * Secondly, if we say that it is to be decided that we are to keep the two lists, then I'm not sure that 'List of most capped England international footballers' would be the best title, anyway. Yes, it is more appropriate than what we have at the moment. However, I would say that England international footballers include people such as Casey Stoney and Rachel Yankey from the women's side, as well as people such as David Clarke from the blind football team. Maybe something such as 'List of most capped England national football team players' would be better, as that matches the name of the article about the team in question.
 * Finally, I would say that there may yet be a future that I could support for having two lists. However, as I pointed out previously, I don't really think that it makes sense to have two lists for the same team. How about we have a list of the most capped players from all of The FA's England teams in one article? I think that would make it suitably different from a list of men's players to justify having two articles, while at the same time notability is justified by the fact that The FA is the overbearing body of it all. What I would suggest is that every player with one hundred caps or more is included, with different sections for the men's team, the women's team, and so on. The FA awards each player that reaches this milestone with a special golden cap. You may have seen players such as David Beckham and Steven Gerrard being awarded with one. The women's players receive the same honour. As for Clarke, and players of the other teams, I'm afraid that I have no idea. However, the point is that there is some kind of specific recognition from The FA. Using this as a condition to form a list would surely be much better than using a seemingly made up number of caps as a cut-off point. Also, players with one hundred caps would be a lot more notable than those with twenty-five, and readers could actually find the article more interesting (which is surely the point of having a 'most capped' list, in the first place), instead of being overwhelmed by a list of over a hundred names. Red  v  Blue  15:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I love these ideas! One of the things that annoyed me when I was looking at the lists of footballers is the way that the default is male while female is specified (, when actually they should both be sub-categories general football articles. The trouble is that this is a huge alteration of the whole football cetegory (and probably applies to other sports as well) and I'm just not committed to sport articles enough to take this on! I would wholeheartedly support someone who did though ;-)


 * An article like you propose with 100+ caps in all types of England football teams would have real value. It gets my vote. Btljs (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Does any reliable source group lists of international footballers from different teams (men, women, futsal, etc.) in this way? Bear in mind WP:SYNTH. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, but they don't list 25+ caps separately either. Nobody's opposing having all the male England footballers in a list, it's the use of a second list that's contentious. Top 100's, top 40's are common in sources and 100 caps is a recognised landmark. If this list is just a subset of the full list then, to me, it adds little, whereas if it becomes a 1 stop for subsets of several lists then it adds value. If this is synthesis then the whole of Wikipedia is a synthesis of data from different sources (I think it's synthesis of 'sense' which is meant by the guidelines: like putting women & men in the same list implying that e.g. a woman with 112 caps is above a man with 106) having a page with different lists is OK (imo). Btljs (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moving forward
Well, unfortunately I have been away, and I was not able to contribute to the above discussion before it closed. However, there were a few points in there which I still wanted to answer. Before I do, however, I should make it clear that I did not support the status quo. In fact, there was hardly any support for that. I do hope, therefore, that there is some kind of discussion about what to do next with this article.
 * Firstly, the idea that I put forward about listing all players with one hundred caps or more was not intended to be synthesis. In fact, I was trying to remedy what I saw of that problem in this current article. The point that I was making was that The FA awards each of these players with a golden cap. That means that those players have received some official recognition for their number of caps. There is no such case of this for formulating the current list. In theory, I was kind of asking for a 'golden cap' article which included a list of recipients, along the lines of the FIFA Order of Merit article.
 * However, since I put forward that idea, I have noticed the 'List of footballers with 100 or more caps' article. As this includes tables that can be sorted, it is easy to find anyone from England on that page. This, then, suggests that having an article in the way that I suggested would maybe not be the best idea, as there would be information duplication going on (although players such as David Clarke would still not be included).
 * By the way, after finding that article, and sorting the players by their country, I realised that it could count as yet another list of England players. How many is too many? I agree with the point that was made about hatnotes on this article.


 * I'd also just like to respond to the point about male being the "default" in Wikipedia. I have to say that I completely agree. Every single time that I visit a national football team article it bugs me that it is a men's team, and yet it does not say "men's", whereas over at the articles for the women's teams it does say "women's".
 * I do understand, to a large extent, why Wikipedia has its articles named as they are. I'd say that the main reason would have to be related to what actual differences there are in the names used within football. For example, there is the FIFA World Cup and the FIFA Women's World Cup, there is the FA Cup and the FA Women's Cup, and there is Liverpool F.C. and Liverpool L.F.C. Of course, I do not think that we should add "men's" to the article names for the men's versions of all of those things. Those are official names, and they should be respected.
 * Where I think that there could be some improvement on Wikipedia is in its own naming conventions. The clearest example of this would be the 'national football team' articles. Indeed, 'List of England international footballers' would be another example. These are articles which do not use official titles, but which use a name that is consistent throughout the whole of Wikipedia.
 * Of course, consistency is a good thing. However, this has created the problem where it is difficult to make changes if there does happen to be something that should be changed.
 * The fact is that "national football team" are words essentially made up by Wikipedia. The FA's England website does not use those words. It says "Men's Senior" and "Women's Senior".
 * These naming conventions could be amended so that they specify that the content in an article for a men's team is to do with a men's team. It would simply mean using the highly inoffensive measure of adding the word "men's".
 * The articles for the teams from the United States actually already do this (as well as using the word "soccer"). The argument that is used for that article to be an exception is that the women's team is fairly popular there, so it needs distinguishing.
 * However, my argument is that these are words that have been created by Wikipedia, and as such, they may as well say the right thing.
 * Maybe it wouldn't be necessary for all teams. An example could be when there is only one team. For instance, the Saudi Arabia women's national football team doesn't really exist.
 * The biggest problem with all of this is that it seems impossible for issues about naming conventions to be addressed. I recently tried to suggest something different for the 'Next United Kingdom general election' article. However, that would have required a change to the naming conventions, and so it was a nonstarter. Red  v  Blue  14:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Some really good points here. I would recommend everyone look at the FA website http://www.thefa.com/england which has articles about both women's and men's teams under the heading 'England' as well as offering links to all the different teams (men under 21 etc.) where the word men's is used as well as the word women's. Strictly this article should be called List of Football Association England Men's Senior Players with 25 or more appearances (caps). Wikipedia should reflect official sites like the FA but NOT perpetuate an inequality for the sake of it (when even the official sites are moving away from it). Btljs (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Come to think about it, if it is possible for there to be an exception for the United States, then that must mean that it will be at least possible for there to be exceptions for other teams as well, including England.
 * Many of the news articles about the women's team on The FA's England website refer to the team as just "England". As such, it could be argued that it is not true to say that "England national football team" would only ever be said as a reference to the men's team.
 * Citing the United States as proof that exceptions are allowed, I don't see why someone couldn't go over to the England national football team article and ask for it to be renamed to include "men's". I would support any such action.
 * If such a change were approved, then it would only be the articles about England that would be affected. This would save any problems with overall naming conventions. However, that may then cause other countries to follow suit, and cause a later discussion about that. Red  v  Blue  01:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that I couldn't get a consensus on the fact that a list of players with >=25 caps is not accurately titled, I wouldn't hold out much hope on this. Btljs (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know. I'd be interested to see what kind of arguments those supporting the status quo would produce, and then what the response would be from those arguing differently. Red  v  Blue  19:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

List of England international footballers (alphabetical) #2
In October/November 2017, there was an AfD to decide the future of the full, list of players (see here). The result of that discussion was to merge the alphabetical,list and the list of players with 10+ caps, although there was no agreement on how this should be done. Recently, User:Ad Orientem decided that it was appropriate to redirect List of England international footballers (alphabetical) to List of England international footballers, although I don't think that his decision was correct (or, rather, it was premature) as he didn't properly take into account the discussion nor the closing admin's comments: a redirect is not the same as a merge, and has resulted in the loss of content.

I have now created a new article, List of England international footballers (2–3 caps) and in due course will add List of England international footballers with one cap and List of England international footballers (4–9 caps). My intention is that all four articles will follow the same format, so that, as players careers progress, they can be moved seamlessly from one list to the next. As it took three weeks of my time to create the first list, it will be a while before the others are added, unless someone else wants to get involved. This approach was discussed at WP;Football.

If anyone has any comments on the first of the three new articles, please let me know. --Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems to be clear on what needs to be done per the consensus at the WikiProject (I haven't looked into it but I think consensus is to split the (alphabetical) article into 3 articles). The (alphabetical) article doesn't need to exist anymore per the AFD closer - "there's clear consensus here that this should not remain as a stand-alone list in its current form." If it is easy as copy-pasting, I can do that. Please let me know if you need any help with creating the other 2 articles. The editor  whose username is Z0  15:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @ no content has been lost. The entire article and its history is preserved and can be viewed here. If you want to merge more information into the target article please feel free to do so as long you show due respect for consensus and WP:V and WP:CITE. On which note, I am a bit concerned that you do not seem to grasp that a verdict of merge at AfD means that you are not going to have two stand alone articles when it is over. Further I did in fact read the close at the discussion which states this explicitly. And yet you were edit warring to preserve the article contrary to the clear consensus of the AfD. The manner in which the merge is carried out is beyond the scope of the AfD and is almost always left to the discretion of the editors who work on the two articles. If there is a disagreement about how the merge was handled, or not as the case may be, that needs to be resolved in a talk page discussion. As we currently seem to be moving in a direction that does not contradict the AfD's close I am going to move along. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC).

Old players still classed as current players?
There are a few players that have not played a match since 2013, and i am wondering why they are classed as active squad members? Is this a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbatey1105 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)