Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 97

Club honours
If this topic has been discussed before please point in the direction of the previous discussions.

On some club pages in the 'Honours' section there is included runners-up, and even semi-finalist, as an honour. This can be particularly nonsensical for super cups as only two teams enter. Anything less than winning a competition (shared or outright) is not an honour, it is just a best performance in a competition. The inclusion of everything which is not an outright winning of a competition is not an honour and should be removed.

Sport and politics (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. – PeeJay 10:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Number   5  7  10:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thirded. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 10:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are umpteen previous discussions: search for club honours in the search box at the top of this page. None has ever concluded that runners-up spots are not honours, because
 * there are too many editors with strong personal opinions one way or the other;
 * and more relevant, reliable sources such as the Sky Sports formerly Rothmans yearbooks do list runners-up spots as honours.
 * Personally, I have no problem with the wording at the club article outline page: "Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree, runner-up in a competition such as the Championship should be included as it means promotion to the Premier League and even Play-Off Winners. It should depend on the size of the club with a team like Manchester United then runner-up in the F.A. Cup for example should not be included while for Watford it should be as they have only appeared in one FA Cup Final.CovCity97 (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So finishing second in the Championship is an honour, but finishing second in the Premier League isn't? Even though finishing second in the Premier League is a bigger achievement? What about finishing fourth in the Premier League and qualifying for the Champions League? Is that an honour? I can just about see how winning the play-offs is an honour, since there's a trophy, but then you could have teams that finished sixth in the league having that "honour" listed, while teams that finish 3rd-5th don't (and preferably not 2nd place either). As User:Sport and politics has said, finishing anywhere between second and last place isn't an honour, it's barely an achievement. – PeeJay 13:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. In my opinion, runners-up positions are honours - the section is not 'list of victories', and I can't see the logic whereby finishing third and winning a play-off is an honour 'because there is a trophy' whereas coming second isn't. However, opinions aren't going to get this anywhere - these different beliefs/preferences are all perfectly legimiate. The correct approach here is to go to independent sources, and these are equally mixed. Some clubs list a whole range of honours (Southend Utd for example). Others just list tiles (Chelsea for example). Rothmans/Sky Sports Yearbook lists runners-up places. UEFA lists continental titles and runners-up, but domestic titles only (eg PSG). So the advice on the Project's guidelines seems appropriate, and reflects the mixed practices of independent sources. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Like Struway says, there are too many editors who have strong inclusion / exclusion views to stand a realistic chance to come to an agreed consensus about this. It would be better simply to operate with a little common sense. If people want to included runners up in a list of honours, as long as it does not create too lengthy a list which distorts the article then let it be included. Fenix down (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There should be an 'honours' section for winning things and a best performance section for competitions where teams have entered, this would include if they win the competition but would separate out actual achievements from a team just doing well. Honours are when a club wins a competition, it also cheapens the honours sections by including best performances and in some cases including runners up with winning the same competition. The individuals here may well be very passionate and opinionated, but that cannot be a barrier to forming a set of clear definitions as to what should be included here. In my opinion honours should be for wining competitions and this excluded promotion playoffs. There should be an 'other achievements' section for promotion through second places and playoff wins and other notable achievements such as doubles, trebles, whole season undefeated and so on. Finally there should be a best performance section for where a clubs performance in competitions is listed. This creates clear bright lines as to what an honour, an achievement, and just a good performance are. Tennis player and golf player honours do not include finishing third or fourth or even second. these are jus best performances and records of achievement not honours. Why is in this case is there the desire to count nearly winning the same as actually winning? Sport and politics (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is all just your opinion. Based on what reliable sources such as Rothmans say then runners-up positions should be included. Players usually receive medals for finishing runners-up, if a pundit is giving his opinion and only finished second then it will often say "FA Cup runner-up with Southampton in 2003" or whatever. It helps the reader, it is useful to the reader to see at a glance that Hull City reached the FA Cup final in 2014, why deprive them of such information? It is standard practice and current consensus at the moment to include them as at club article outline page. The runners-up honour is included on all tables such as this. It makes logical sense to include them as teams in the Football League strive for promotion not league titles, a second place finish in the Championship is equal to a first place finish as both result in promotion. And as to "cheapening honours lists" I don't see how including a runners-up finish in the Champions League is not worthy of inclusion when finishing first in the South West Peninsula League Division One East is by every definition worthy of inclusion. It makes sense for massively successful clubs to omit runner-up honours, but of course 99% of clubs are not massively successful.--EchetusXe 09:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an excessive reliance on a single source: Rothmans while one reliable source is not biblesque. This is a 'bury the head in the sands' moment regarding this highly inconsistent and confusing issue. Players and competitions are not being considered here it is simply clubs, players and competitions (including list articles like the one linked to) are a whole different discussion. Listing in an honours section of a club being the runner up when they have also been the winner is a pointless exercise in information there just for the sake of it. Examples of clubs not listing anything but winning as an honour can be seen here, here, and here. At the very least there is conflicting definitions of what clubs and statisticians consider an honour, I will though take the clubs to be a better source here as it is about them.


 * I cannot see what the issue is with having an honours, notable achievements, and a club performance section is. All of the information is included and it is done so in an easily understood fashion. None of this current confusing mish-mash of some club have this some clubs don't have this. The essay cited above as proof of consensus, is just that an essay and it does not prove consensus. The sheer range of different sides shown here, evidence that consensus is nowhere near being settled on this issue. There is no proof of a consensus at all on this issue. I also do not know what is meant by "massively successful clubs". The examples above could not be considered in my opinion to be considered from "massively successful clubs". One of them only formed a few years ago.


 * The simple difference between the South West Peninsular League-Champions League example is that entering a competition and winning it is completely different to entering a competition and not winning it. Winning is the difference. It is fascicle to say this is a less prestigious win so is not an honour, the same as it is to say that was a prestigious failure to win is an honour so should be included. It is simply original research to say that being the runner up in a competition is the same, more, or less noteworthy that winning a competition. It is sensible to come up with bright lines as to what is an honour and what is simply a notable achievement. Winning is an honour, and second is simply a notable achievement. A relegation play-off is not included as a honour but that is a notable achievement as it avoids relegation. The team though that finished one place above having to play in a relegation playoff, that league position is not considered an honour and nor should it be. Anything other than winning a competition outright should not be considered an honour.


 * Sport and politics (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I cannot see the point though in splitting Honours sections into two just to satisfy your own definition of what an honour is. An honour is defined as an achievement. There isn't any definition besides your own that says runner-up is not an honour.--EchetusXe 12:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * An honour is winning, an achievement can be a lot more such as a club going a whole season undefeated in the league or a club winning promotion through a promotion play-off. Sport and politics (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * When viewing that section of any club, I expect titles and if there are no titles runner-ups finishes of cups and leagues. So on a quick glance you see, if the club ever has "achieved" something big. I don't need any third level league wins, when the clubs has was won a first level league title or a cup. In my opinion, you take "honours" too literally. -Koppapa (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wigan's honours go from Cheshire League to Northern Premier League to second place in the Championship. It shows the rise of the club through the leagues and their fifth tier successes in the 1970s are as much an honour as their FA Cup win of two years ago. Equally though I don't see why their FA Cup final appearance should have been excluded if they happened to have lost the game.--EchetusXe 12:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In simple terms honours are wins, best performances are how well a club does. An honours section is about wins, if the section also includes runner-up and lower then it is a best performance section or notable achievements section, and not an honours section. Including anything other that wins in an honours section is open to so much interpretation, where does it stop. Do first round appearances in the FA cup count for a club who have made it through the qualifying rounds? The progression of a club should be covered in the main body of the article text and not in an honours section, that is not what an honours section is for; that is a club performance summary. There appears here to be a lot of 'how good can clubs be made to look' by filling "honours" sections with just doing well, that in itself is POV as it there to try and make clubs look better. This addition of every 'the club did well, it therefor must be included as an honour', violates WP:NPOV. A win is an honour and nothing else. Second places. tenth places, promotion through a play-off they are notable performances, not honours. Sport and politics (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As a supporter of a club which has not bothered the trophy makers of the world much, the official website of the club would disagree.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

thetopforward.com
Is the site thetopforward.com a good source? I see multiple IP-numbers adding links to the site for example: Emre Can. The IP-numbers also add the link cross-wiki (example) It feels that it's some kind of advertising for the site and in most cases there already is a better source with the same info. Fredde (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Never heard of it before, it doesn't look like a reliable source, and it's definitely being spammed. GiantSnowman 15:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have also seen this, with other editors removing it as spam-link. I think those links should be removed as they are not useful (and spammed). Qed237&#160;(talk) 16:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain // 2014 FA Cup medal
Hey everyone, Wiki user(s) keep reverting edits by users to add in the FA Cup medal he won with Arsenal in 2014 and are saying per a wiki football discussion, since he missed out on the matchday squad due to injury, it should not be included in his honours. If there is such a discussion on wiki project football that is ridiculous. Might I bring up that David Luiz and Gary Cahill were both injured and out of the squads for the 2012 FA Cup final but they still were given medals and that is reflected in their honours section. Nicky Butt missed the 99 FA Cup final due to injury if my memory serves me well but he still won a medal having played in previous rounds. Also, Roy Keane and Paul Scholes just like John Terry, famously missed out on the final of the Chmapions League because of suspensions but still earned medals and that is reflected in their honours section. Could someone please explain to me why Alex's 2014 FA Cup medal would not be included in his honours section, because it doesn't make sense to me. Many thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source to say he received a medal?--EchetusXe 17:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He has posted on social media on numerous occasions with the trophy and celebrating the day of. Further, the FA gives 30 medals to be distributed to the players and staff and he played in the competition. How can you suggest that he didn't receive a medal? Rupert1904 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We have no reliable source saying he is one of the 30 that recieved a medal and not a single image with him and medal has been provided (only with trophy but not medal). I agree that he most likely has recieved a medal but there is not reliable source for it. Or do you have a reliable source? Qed237&#160;(talk) 16:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion again. He did play 4 matches in the Cup, why credit the 2nd goal-keeper with the honour but not him? Also, the source has the title included. I can see it removed, when someone played no matches at all, or more never was in squad. Just add a footnote and it's fine, really. -Koppapa (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information; this is especially important for living people. No source = no honour, it's as simple as that. GiantSnowman 18:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're going to use the argument that since he doesn't have a medal in any picture, then no player should have honours counted anymore. The FA Cup doesn't pass out medals to the players at the final anymore, they only present the captain with the trophy. So why not remove everyone's 2013-14 FA Cup win because there is no reliable source that any of those players got a medal. I know I'm being cynical here but it is clear that he won the trophy. It's different if a player isn't in the matchday squad for a super cup or Community Shield or doesn't feature in any games and is sold, but he won a medal. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Southern Football League
Was the old Southern Football League fully-pro? Impacts this AFD. GiantSnowman 18:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you refer to the "old" Southern League? The league still exists and has existed continuously since 1894.  This history from the league's own website, referring to the league's foundation, says "Only Royal Ordnance Factories and Swindon Town accepted the invitation which resulted in a league of nine clubs. Although the league had been planned basically for professional clubs, it differed from the Football League by allowing amateur clubs as well – Clapton, Ilford, Reading, and Royal Ordnance factories."  I doubt this status had changed by four years later when this player was playing in the league, given that teams like the East Lancs Regiment and Wolverton London & North Western Railway played in it. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't fully professional, but nor was the Football League in those days: it's not really an appropriate criterion to apply. Significant independent media coverage and professionalism didn't correlate as we assume they do now. The Football League only admitted professional clubs, but that didn't make their players all fully professional within the meaning of WP:FPL: many were semi-pro, and a fair number were amateurs. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case the only criterion we could apply to Southern League players from that era is WP:GNG, and this player doesn't seem to meet that (frankly, I doubt any SL player from that era would.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's face it – the only sources for many Football League players from that era are club histories and reference books such as Joyce. Most minor FL players would not meet GNG either.  In the late 19th century/early 20th century, The Southern League was only just below the Football League in status, and many clubs were as professional as those in the Football League. Clubs like Southampton, Spurs and Thames Ironworks (West Ham) were excluded from the FL because most FL clubs were based in the north & midlands and didn't want to incur the cost of travelling to the south. In reality, the FL was not a fully national league until after World War 1, when the Football League Third Division South was formed. It's a nonsense to refer to the Southern League as "regional semi-pro/amateur football". But what do I know?   78.147.148.249 (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Asking this withour prejudice, and being prepared to be swayed either way, would your suggestion be that pre-1920 SL players should be considered to meet WP:FOOTYN? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Providing that there are other reliable sources such as your books on Gillingham, mine on Southampton and the Hammers website, then yes.  78.147.148.249 (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Daresay the Spurs players that won the FA Cup in 1901 got a bit of coverage. Or the half of Southampton's 1902 Cup Final team that played for England while Southern League players. As a generalisation, the "big" Southern League clubs and their players got as much coverage as the average First Division team, particularly and obviously in the London- and southern-based press. The smaller clubs obviously less so. If you're going for a GNG pass for a player from the 1890s/1900s, then apart from the big names, you have to use the relevant regional press. I'd have no problem with the Southern League First Division players being considered notable, so long as the article content is rather better than their name and a list of clubs played for. I don't think players from the second-tier divisions did, in general, get individual coverage anywhere near GNG standard. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When the Third Division was created in 1920 (for the first season it was without the suffix "(Southern section)", because there wasn't a Northern section until 1921), it was essentially the Southern League First Division transferred as a block from one league to the other. After then, the somewhat-depleted SL started making up its numbers with "reserve" teams. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

BBC Premier League history gadget
It's quite fun, but a serious question arises. Their data is, according to the foot of the page, culled from "Premier League, Opta, 11v11.com, statto.com, soccerbase.com, managerstats.co.uk, historicalkits.co.uk". Are all of these currently considered RS? If any are not, I'd like to suggest it should be, as a RS demonstrably relies on it. --Dweller (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Never heard of managerstats.co.uk...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think what it illustrates quite nicely that we should always consider context when judging reliability. The BBC is RS for news coverage, but that doesn't imply that every page on their site, particularly in the "fun" sections, is based on RS. Managerstats.co.uk has nothing to indicate who runs it or or what if any checking it does/did. Their front page is illiterate: "Whose your clubs best manager? Whose won most trophies?" And it says at the bottom "Stats up-to-date for all 92 league clubs at close of play on Wednesday 18th February 2015." Strikes me as a touch out of date... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. What about the others? I'm particularly keen to find season by season attendance stats, btw --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Premier League should be, for its own results, player stats, and attendances. Opta should be, but I'm not sure they publish much for the general public. 11v11 should be, but it's full of inaccuracies, it puts zeroes both for zeroes and for don't-knows, and it claims completeness on pages that clearly aren't. Statto.com seemed superb, but it recently died, and the smartarse placeholder message on its front page doesn't fill one with confidence as to its professionalism even if it does come back. Which is a pity. Soccerbase is what it is: technically RS, because it's owned and run by a major media organisation, but error-strewn and won't act on corrections. Historicalkits is borderline: it's self-published, and accepts input from the public, but it's pretty explicit about its sources and I've never found a problem with its accuracy.
 * The only site I know of that does league attendances over time is european-football-statistics, but I can't find any indication of its being RS. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I used it on List of Birmingham City F.C. seasons to bridge a 6-year gap between a book and the PL site (don't tell anyone involved with FLRC). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Mourinho–Wenger rivalry
As a relatively new editor, this topic has over the years received massive notability and I decided to create the page yesterday. I am requesting any of your professional help on it either by reviewing or clean-up. OluwaCurtis The King : talk to me 06:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find the article spurious. It refers to this "rivalry" as "the longest rivalry between two managers in the history of the English Premiership since its rebranding in 1999". I'm not sure what it's referring to, but I'm pretty sure the Premier League didn't undergo a rebranding in 1999, and regardless, Wenger's rivalry with Alex Ferguson lasted longer (1996–2013). Furthermore, managers come into conflict all the time, especially when they're both at clubs near the top of the league. I don't see how this is any different. – PeeJay 07:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing. That is one major reason why I'm asking for help on clean-up and tone. OluwaCurtis The King : talk to me 07:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I'm not too sure on the notability of this either. I am concerned that a lot of it is just gossip fueled by the press. If there was any rivalry, I would prefer to see it discussed under the wider banner of an Arsenal-Chelsea rivalry. Additionally, the Background and Managerial stats sections seem to have nothing directly to do with the rivalry. We certainly don't need to know of their whole career. If there really is sufficient sourcing for an inter-personal rivalry, the article should discuss that and that alone referencing only matches between the two clubs. Fenix down (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity (as I was surprised to see the redlink), Arsenal F.C.–Chelsea F.C. rivalry does exist..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it is valid with all the coverage. Would definitely need Clough–Revie rivalry and Ferguson–Wenger rivalry pages too, maybe Mourinho–Guardiola rivalry, Ferguson–Benitez rivalry, Mourinho–Benitez rivalry, Sacchi–Capello rivalry.--EchetusXe 09:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But given that the rivalry has only occurred when they have been managers of Arsenal and Chelsea respectively, what would appear in this article that would not appear in the club rivalry article? seems like an unnecessary fork to me the more I think about it. Fenix down (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess all manager rivalries if notable can be discussed at the manager's article. You wouldn't have to repeat the backgroud section. And if you trim down on some stats there is very little prose. -Koppapa (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the background section is far too extensive and there is certainly no need for each manager's infobox to be shown...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * These kind of articles should be a sub-section on the club rivalry articles (i.e. Wenger-Mourinho merged into Arsenal F.C.–Chelsea F.C. rivalry), and not separate articles. A lot of the 'coverage' is tabloid fodder and stuff as a result of WP:NOTINHERITED. GiantSnowman 15:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There's been a lot of cut & paste here. The tables at the foot ought to be reformatted into the same style, if they are relevant at all. IMHO, the article, and this discussion, should go to AfD for a proper discussion. 78.147.164.207 (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not really a rivalry though, is it? You could argue Ferguson-Wenger was, because both managers propelled their teams to great heights. United used Arsenal to spur them on and vise versa. More importantly, it was a competitive rivalry. In the case of Arsenal and Chelsea now, both clubs had different objectives up until say, last season. Mourinho didn't see Wenger as a threat and his 13 unbeaten record is testament to that. It's media-fueled and inorganic. Just send the article to AfD and merge the useful bits in with the Arsenal-Chelsea rivalry article. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that if a rivalry has only existed between two managers during the period(s) when each managed a particular club, barring any strong non-football related elements (which don't exist here) it belongs within the article on the club rivalry -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * These so-called "rivalries" are often inventions of the popular press. All football managers are to some extent rivals of other managers, if only because they would prefer their own team to win instead of the opponents. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I've redirected the article - if I'm reverted I'll take it to WP:AFD. GiantSnowman 17:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

League division in lead (again, sorry)
As far as I'm aware, there's no consensus as to whether the league division of a player's club appears in the lead section of the player's article. The last discussion on the matter here was in November 2014, as far as I've been able to find, and previous ones were August 2014, May 2014, January 2014, August 2013, Sept 2011, and July 2007. Some people think it shouldn't, some think it should, and some don't care.

This stems from a discussion at the talk page of User:TeaLover1996, archived here, which I started because that user was repeatedly removing league divisions claiming a consensus of which I was unaware. Since then they've persisted with such removal, either without edit summary at all or still claiming as a matter of fact that the division shouldn't be there, as at Bafétimbi Gomis and Gianluigi Buffon, and more recently using the argument that it'd cause extra work for editors when the division changed, as at Tomasz Kuszczak, Will Buckley (footballer) and elsewhere.

I'm not particularly after another discussion as to whether it should be in or not, because I don't think we'll get a consensus either way (though if people want another go, please feel free). What I am asking as a matter of immediate concern is: does the fact that there is no current consensus mean that editors shouldn't try and force their personal preference into articles. Which is what appeared to be implied at the last discussion. I'm pinging the user mentioned above, and also PeeJay2k3, who suggested bringing the matter to WT:FOOTY. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

As I keep saying friend in is that having the league division in the lead section, would create unnecessary work for editors if the team were to be relegated, for example if all the players at Sunderland AFC had in the lead section Player X is a footballer who plays for Premier League club Sunderland, if Sunderland were to be relegated editors would then have to go round changing Premier League club Sunderland to Championship club Sunderland therefore by not having the division in the lead section it saves editors time and doesn't create work that really doesn't need to be there. Exceptions would be with players who play for Swansea as the club is Welsh whereas the Premier League is an English League that also includes a Welsh team, and saying Welsh club Swansea would imply that the Premier League was Welsh and not English, so that would be an exception. Many articles about footballers who play in the Premier League don't include the division in the lead section anyway. <b style="font-family:kartika"><b style="color:green">Tea</b><b style="color:blue">Lover</b><b style="color:red">1996</b> (talk) </b> 10:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Any thoughts appreciated. <b style="font-family:kartika"><b style="color:green">Tea</b><b style="color:blue">Lover</b><b style="color:red">1996</b> (talk) </b> 10:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that there is no consensus, then anyone acting as if there is is clearly being disingenuous. If someone wants to go around adding or removing the league then my that's up to them, but they might find more productive editing activities! I'm slightly in favour of including it, but I don't see any reason to make it a mandatory or even 'best practice' feature. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be included, given the propensity of editors to use sponsored names and/or not update it when there is a promotion/relegation. GiantSnowman 10:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly ambivalent about whether it should or shouldn't appear, but if we've discussed something and found there's no consensus, then mass changes should not be undertaken and status quo should be maintained. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it should NOT be included, since sometimes it's forgotten when a team is relagated/promoted (saw it for some Freiburg players a few days back). Extra work for editors to correct them, so if we don't include them it makes it easier. "French/Spanish/German" club can be used. Kante4 (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One might think that's an argument for encouraging and educating editors, not for removing useful information from where it can be easily accessed by readers... But if people want to have a fresh discussion to try and establish a consensus once and for all as to whether the division should be included, please could they start one separate from this thread, to avoid confusion. Maybe as an RfC, so that whatever the result, it can be easily found again and people can't pretend it never happened and doesn't apply to them?
 * The question here was, given that there is no current consensus, should editors be edit-warring to push their own preferred choice, whether they're removing the division from articles where it has been long-time present, or inserting it in articles where it has been long-time absent? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No they should not, status-quo should be maintained, as with other things there is no consensus on. Paul    Bradbury  11:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am one of those that thinks it should not be included as it both creats extra work and many articles are not updated after a team has been promoted/relegated, but team may not be only "Premier League" club but could also participate in other tournaments like Champions League or Europa League as well as domestic cups. However as said before, if there is no consensus there is no need for mass edits. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 11:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone who has ever played for Port Vale has the league they are currently playing in in their lead, except where other editors have taken ownership of an article (I don't mean that in a negative sense). I won't get into an edit war over it. However if someone went round removing it from articles en masse I wouldn't be happy about it.--EchetusXe 18:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * After a long while of favouring exclusion, I've started to see the benefits of including the division. As Struway say, it's a way of providing "useful information from where it can be easily accessed by readers". Mattythewhite (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks as if most editors think the division shouldn't be included, however I don't think the discussion is over yet. <b style="font-family:kartika"><b style="color:green">Tea</b><b style="color:blue">Lover</b><b style="color:red">1996</b> (talk) </b> 12:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My train of thought is simple: The player is not the club, the club may change divisions, the clubs play in multiple competitions, competitions change names (historical vs current), the player may change clubs (transfer, loan, part ownership, temporary contract), the player represents more than one club in more than one competition (club / country), the player may be a youth player at a team but never have played in the respective division or competition...when you can resolve all those permutations then you can begin to consider how to include the information.
 * For instance take a historic player / manager such as Kenny Dalglish who played in the First Division (Liverpool), managed in the First Division (Liverpool) and Premier League League (Liverpool, Newcastle and Blackburn). Do we need to mention the division of each one? What do we write for Liverpool where he was there for multiple instances? Do we go with the historic league, or the current league, what happens if the team is relegated - do we go back and edit "Managed Championship team Blackburn Rovers to the Premiership"? Who would be right if that argument came up?
 * From an encyclopaedic point of view, I can't imagine any encyclopaedia that would list the relevant divisions for current or retired players unless that division was somehow notable (such as mentioning Ryan Giggs, Gary Speeds and David James record number of appearances / seasons in the top flight).
 * If we're saying that this rule is only for current players, at current teams, in current leagues, then it's just further cruft to be maintained. Koncorde (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I for one think the division should be included. It provides additional at-a-glance information. League changes do not happen that often (only a minority of clubs change leagues each season), especially compared to players transferring. It is additional info that must be taken care of, but so what? One has to update a player's stats at least once a year - a good opportunity to look at the lead as there is no way to just edit the infobox anyway. Madcynic (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'm pro inclusion. Doesn't mean i'd add it to any players, but if it's included, i'd see no reason to remove it. That "it creates work" argument can be made for any other useful info. Why include a career stats table, why include the club at all and so on. An good article should be updated with some prose once a year anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest an RfC on the matter is started and all participants here should be invited, as well as being open to the community. In the meantime, there's currently no consensus. --Dweller (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * From the discussion the majority of editors think it shouldn't be there. <b style="font-family:tahoma"><b style="color:green">Tea</b><b style="color:blue">Lover</b><b style="color:red">1996</b> (talk) </b> 21:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly stating something doesn't make it true. Although this discussion did drift off the point rather, it was intended to establish whether, given there was no pre-existing consensus to include or exclude, there was any justification for editors to "try and force their personal preference into articles". I see no majority for that.
 * If you want to try an establish a consensus once and for all for including or excluding the league divsion, I'd agree with Dweller's suggestion of a Request for comment. The linked page explains how to do it. The important bits are making sure the question is clear and neutral, and remembering that the result is judged on the quality of argument, not (just) on reply-counting. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Community Shield?
I'm actually quite disappointed at the zero involvement from this WikiProject in the recent discussion over at Talk:Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry about the status of the Community Shield when it comes to the respective clubs' honour counts. Suffice it to say, a couple of experienced heads from over here could have saved us from the WP:LAME discussion we now have on our hands. The dispute has now escalated to a formal request for mediation. I implore anyone who has an opinion on this matter, whether you agree with me or not, to have their say, if only to prove to me that I've got the wrong end of the stick. – PeeJay 09:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The neutral version was best in my eyes. Stating exactly, why the sources differ so much. In the table, I'd include all trophies, for the best overview. To not pick a side, I would not include a total column. -Koppapa (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sir Alf Ramsey
This article, about the only English manager to win the World Cup, has been tagged for neutrality and lack of references for nearly five years. Is there anyone here who fancies taking this article on and revising it to remove any non-neutral elements and finding appropriate sources? 92.26.162.52 (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Time to update the Football Player template?
I was going to place on the template talkpage but looks like no one has used that in a long time. It seems the WikiProject Football/Players is a bit outdated, and we should update it if people will be basing new player templates on that page. If you look at "popular" pages like Robin van Persie, Steven Gerrard, Cristiano Ronaldo, Bastian Schweinsteiger, and pretty much all pages these days then they all are logical and seem to conform with each other using a similar template. See screenshot comparing Cristiano on the left and current WikiProject Football/Players template on the right.

I wanted to edit the template and it's Sections and make the following changes which are commonly found on almost all prominent players:
 * 1) Change Playing career into Club career and International career. These are the 2 main topics on most pages and should be individual sections. Then if players do get into management then it can be amended accordingly to subsection into Playing Career. (Or instead make a note that if no management career is present then Club and International can become their own sections)
 * 2) Add sections: Style of play, and Outside football with subsection Personal life
 * 3) Change Career statistics breakdown to include Club and International. Maybe add Orders and Records in there too.
 * 4) Career statistics seems to be inconsistent on diff players pages. Are the column headers League, National Cup, League Cup, Continental, Other still considered okay? I thought we could change National Cup to Domestic Cup
 * 5) In ''Career statistics' add footnotes to show that Supercup/Community shield (aka. comp between League & Domestic Cup winner) and FIFA Club World Cup should go in Other and have footnotes to denote where appearances were. And that UEFA Supercup or equivalent should go in Continental
 * 6) Change Country under Honours to International. We have International career, and Statistics; International. Logically we should have Honours; International.
 * 7) The Template intro currently says: Tim Template (born 1 January 1985) is a Templatonian professional footballer who plays as a striker for Temp in the Templatonia Premier League. I wanted to change to: Tim Template (born 1 January 1985) is a Templatonian professional footballer who plays as a striker for Templatonian club Temp and the Templaton national team. In case of promotion and relegation it is tedious to change the league, and I think someone has discussed this before on these talkpages.

By adding more sections in the template then people creating new player pages can always delete sections not needed (Not every player will have orders, international career, etc.). But if they are not on the template then people will start using their own sections and it's highly likely they will not conform to the standard template.

Would appreciate thoughts on the above, if you disagree with any, or if there are any to add? Thanks,--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed with 1, 2 (although the vast majority of the "normal" players - I mean not the popular ones - do not have any reliable sources to prove his/her style of football and his/her life outside football), 3, 5, 6 and 7. And I do remember that some discussion already took place here, and there was some agreement about taking off those leagues from intro. About #4, I don't think that's a big difference at all, as long as we still using the templates in this order, it's fine. The only thing about this format is when it comes to Brazilian players, we also have to specify that state leagues are also included in the Other section. MYS  77  ✉ 19:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1 pretty unanimous probably, #2 yes to Style of play but I don't see much 'Outside football' around, #3 club and international tables yes, #4 should stick to what suits the article best, #5 if necessary yes, #6 yes, #7 No there was not any agreement to remove league from the intro.--EchetusXe 13:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Serendipity
It amused me to see in today's crossword in my favourite newspaper, "The New Stadium" is an anagram of "West Ham United". 92.26.162.52 (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Slaven Bilic / Terry Westley
Input needed please;— User:RealDealBillMcNeal and I disagree on the managerial statistics for the above manager and coach. For West Ham's first two games of the season against FC Lucitans in July, in the Europa League, Slaven Bilic was the manager having been appointed in June. However for the first game he met the players before the game but then went to the stand and left Terry Westley "in charge". For the second game he was on the bench but Westley was in charge. The "Managerial statistics" section for Bilic currently show four games played, six have been played since he became manager. User:RealDealBillMcNeal insists the first two games should count as under the Managerial stats section for Westley. Soccerbase currently has six for Bilic and none for Westley. The Independent after the game on 30 July, the fifth since Bilic was appointed, referred to Bilic's "five games as manager", ESPN referred to five games under Bilic. There have been numerous incidents over the years when managers did not take charge, , but the games still count as under the managership of the official manager and even in Westley's own words Bilic played a significant part in the games — just not on the bench!

We were warned for edit-warring over this and did discuss this on Bilic's talkpage but got nowhere until User:RealDealBillMcNeal reverted again to his opinion. So should all the games played since Bilic has been manager count under his managerial statistics or just those where he has been "in charge"?--Egghead06 (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a direct quote from ol' Eggy to being told he didn't know what in charge meant - "It means in-charge". RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes and as you well know but pretend not to see, Westley was in charge of the team from the bench. He was not West Ham manager and never has been and we are talking about a section which list statistics for the manager. By your theory Julian Dicks was in charge for last Thursday's game as Bilic was suspended and in the stands so that would be another game off Bilic's stats. Your method turns it into a nonsense.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What do reliable sources? Not you looking at match reports and making a decision yourself. GiantSnowman 10:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * UEFA before the sixth game had five for Bilic. Soccerbase currently has six for Bilic and none for Westley. Don't think User:RealDealBillMcNeal rates Soccerbase as he keeps deleting it from the Westley article and replacing it with a match report.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Soccerbase, by all means not perfect, is certainly a RS and is widely used, especially for manager stats. Personally I'd go with that. GiantSnowman 10:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources that explicitly say Westley wasn't in charge? Stats don't mean a thing if it is proven they are wrong. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Might have been in charge, but was not the manager and we are talking about managerial stats.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The manager is the one in charge. Being in charge means being manager. If Bilic was the manager, and ergo in charge, why would it have been widely reported that he was in fact not in charge? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because Bilic was appointed in June as West Ham manager. Since June he has continuously been the manager whilst temporarily handing coaching duties to someone else.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Temporarily handing managerial duties to Westley, actually. Which is how Westley was, get this, IN CHARGE!!! RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes but get this, NOT THE MANAGER!!!!! Any club at any one time has ONE defined manager.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Explain the Roy Evans-Gerard Houllier stuff then? Why, exactly, if any club has one manager, was it widely reported that Bilic wasn't taking charge of those games, ergo not managing the team? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and since you have now removed the Soccerbase reference from Terry Westleys article to support your opinion,, you have left the stats from the games he WAS the manager at earlier clubs as unreferenced.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

In the words of Mr. Cleese...well we know what this is getting! — In many industries a manager may temporarily or permanently delegate some or all of his responsibilities to another person. The person delegating is still the manager until being removed from or leaving his post. Ergo, Bilic is/was the manager and merely temporarily delegated his authority to another. Eagleash (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, managers do delegate some responsibilities to other people (like, you know, the assistant manager), but they don't defer the entire duties of the matchday management to somebody else - there's a reason it was reported Bilic was doing this to Westley, and, get this, it's because Westley was given managerial duties for the two games! RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? --Egghead06 (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * [www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/lusitanos-vs-west-ham-match-report-slaven-bilic-wins-first-game-in-charge-as-10man-hammers-move-into-second-qualifying-round-10380516.html Yes really]. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Referencing transfers
When a player changes club, should we use a Third-party reference such as BBC Sport and Sky Sports News or should we use a Primary Source such as a football club's website? Cheers IJA (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with club websites is that the news item are often removed after a year or so, whereas the BBC Sport pages seem to be active in perpetuity.  92.26.162.52 (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah the IP is right.--EchetusXe 14:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer primary which usually contain more information (instead of bluffing transfer fee in secondary source), then archive the link as soon as possible. However, robots.txt may made the archive not available. Matthew_hk   t  c  19:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I try to include the Primary Source AND a third party like BBC Sport, Sky Sports, ESPN FC. Those 3 are very reliable and the issue with only having a primary source is that they very often are plain, short, and don't include information that some third party sources do which are used in Wiki articles. Additionally almost all fees these days are "undisclosed" but these other reliable sources are accurate and it becomes common knowledge. --Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been accepted for a long time that the only reliable source for the completion of a current transfer is that of the club the player is signing for: that club is the only organisation that knows when and if the player actually has signed, as opposed to what Sky Sports understands. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 58. Once the transfer has definitely been completed, a third-party source is preferable.
 * I agree that undisclosed fees are a pain. But if the club won't tell us, they almost certainly haven't told the BBC either. A little chat with the player's agent (or a club's agent) doesn't count as neutral or necessarily accurate, so we have to attribute the content to our sources. Write "for an undisclosed fee, reported by ESPN as ££££"[ref], or "for an undisclosed fee, generally reported as ££££"[multiple refs], or "for an undisclosed fee, variously reported as between £££ and ££££"[refs]. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Results By Matchday - Early/Late Kickoffs
The title says it all, really. Does this refer to where they were after that weekend's games or where they were just after full time in their game? For example, should Fulham have been 4th (where they were at full time) or 12th (where they were after the weekend) after game one? Spa-Franks (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be whatever the sources say. The BBC has taken to adding "As-it-stood" tables to its match reports, so this source seems reliable enough indeed. Fulham were 12th. – PeeJay 22:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Position by Matchday has been defined as "Position at the end of the day which the team played" and that would in this case mean 12th as they where 12th at the end of 8 August. Previous season we had Statto as a reliable source for this, but it seems like BBC has the same definition and a reliable source to support the position is the key. We can not use "rounds" and wait until all matches are played becuase a lot off English matches gets postponed, especially during the winter. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 23:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Club career storyline
A question, let's see who can answer: are season-by-season sub-sections mandatory in the articles or are they just (as I view it, just my opinion, one of many I wager) overkill? Are the club sub-sections not more than enough?

Attentively, happy week --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends, I think. If a player is particularly active in one season, then a sub-section might be warranted, but for the most part, as long as we're sticking to summary style, the club section should be sufficient. – PeeJay 10:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Soccerbase season
FYI, has put together Soccerbase season for use in career stats tables and the like. GiantSnowman 17:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, but how about those leagues with Summer seasons (those that play spring-fall and not fall-spring), like for example 2015 Allsvenskan. Putting 2015 would incorrectly be 2015/2016, when all matches is 2015. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 18:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * season is used to generate the url and the page title for the cite web call. Even for leagues with a summer season, they keep the same structure: the page for Marcus Nilsson's 2015 Allsvenskan season is still called Games played by Marcus Nilsson in 2015/2016. Didn't realise Soccerbase did the Allsvenskan: can't imagine why anyone would use it ahead of, say, a player's SvFF profile. I've added a bit to the documentation to clarify. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah to be honest I use Soccerbase for British-based players only, Soccerway or other sites for the rest. GiantSnowman 19:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanations, I rarely use soccerbase myself and mostly base my editing on Soccerway (SvFF profile sometimes has too little info). <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice work Struway.--EchetusXe 22:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

JJ Hooper - Reliability of sources
Cheltenham's official club website reported Striker JJ Hooper has completed his move to Cheltenham Town, signing a one year deal with Gary Johnson's Robins on 6 August 2015. The deal never happened though and yesterday he joined Port Vale. The BBC reported that he scored 20 goals in 29 games for Havant & Waterlooville last season. Soccerway reports a respectable but less impressive 14 in 42. Thankfully the Havant & Waterlooville official website clears this up, stating he scored 20 goals in 45 games, though the website records goals in the Hampshire Senior Cup and Portsmouth Senior Cup, but not appearances, so 20 in 45 is not accurate, and we should really go with the Soccerway sources. Before I got to his Wikipedia article the 20 from 29 fiction was recorded. Soccerway = correct, Primary sources and cast iron reliable sources = wrong. Incidentally the BBC reported that Vale signed Jak Alnwick on loan, bit odd considering he left Newcastle months ago. Take from this what you will, gave me a headache piecing it all together.--EchetusXe 00:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's what happens if you actually read the sources rather than just blindly copying them. I'm very wary of figures given as a throwaway line in articles about players that the media organisation concerned probably never heard of: there's a difference between reliable and accurate, the whole "verifiability not truth" thing. Ideally, it's possible to find a likely reliable source that's likely accurate as well without going over the edge into original research. I've done a fair amount of work with players from the 1920s and earlier, and you can find newspaper pieces about the same player with height varying by several inches, age by several years, and career history by several clubs (and not always compatible with any corresponding facts recorded in standard reference books). As to the Cheltenham thing, serves them right for publicising the transfer as complete before Mr Hooper actually signed his name on the piece of paper. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Squad pages for club competitions
Would it be acceptable to make squad pages, like with the national team tournaments, for national leagues or at least international club competitions? Or would they get deleted? I think it would be very interesting to have them as an annex, just like with the transfer market, and be able to check out each season's squads, specially as we go back in time. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do such squads typically get announced in the same way as World Cup/European Championship squads do? I've never seen a PDF of the Champions League squads for any given season, for example. – PeeJay 10:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Squads for tournament are generally fixed as they are for relatively short time periods. For club competitions, squads can vary enormously depending on transfers. The only exception I can think of is the World Club Cup. As a result, I don't think that such lists would not be particularly helpful, especially as they would effectively duplicate the info on the club season articles. Number   5  7  11:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the Club World Cup is the only one which (potentially) fits the bill, given the defined squads and short tournament. For mine that could be an interesting one and I think there is a case to include it. Other than that, pages could become crammed with box after box of club templates (consider Messi or Giggs, who would have several dozen boxes) and may become more distracting than they are interesting. Macosal (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think he's talking about articles rather than navboxes, such as 2014 FIFA World Cup squads. – PeeJay 12:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But there's a complete squad for each season with every player that took part in the competitions, which cover all the season so generally it isn't like some player didn't have the chance to take part in them, and there are batadase websites that compile them like Ceroacero or BDFutbol. On the other hand there are transfers in the seasons pages and the transfers pages aren't rejected as duplicates. And anyway even clubs like Real Madrid or FC Barcelona don't have even half of their seasons covered. In women's football there are barely any seasons pages at all outside of WPS/NWSL teams. Like this you could compare the squads in each competition visually, and they could be ordered by results (Champions, Finalist, Semifinalists, Quarterfinalists...) showing which squad models were more successful ín that competition.


 * If I made one, would it be allowed or would it get deleted? PS. I think I accidentally deleted a comment when I published this in an edit conflict. I'm really sorry :S Can it get fixed? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is needed, to be honest. GiantSnowman 12:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "I don't think this is needed" equals "I will delete it"? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "I don't think this is needed" equals "this is non-notable" equals "any articles I see like this will be nominated for deletion." GiantSnowman 15:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds subjective and abusive. You didn't even explain why you think so or refute my arguments. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need to have separate squad articles for league seasons or similar, especially as squad changes between seasons are usually documented in the season articles of a club. So no need to create another article for the same content. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are season transfers articles accepted then? That's also covered in the club season articles. This would allow you to compare each team's squad in that season, and consider how it influenced the results if they're arranged per placement. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how useful this would be. Theoretically, it would only work in fully professional leagues where every player could potentially have a WP article. However, in these instances, the club itself would fulfill WP:NSEASONS and I would prefer that a specific season article for a given club were created in which the squad could be listed. As such, any aggregation of these lists, my feelings that this would not really add anything encyclopedic aside, would seem to be needless. Fenix down (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it should be only in professional leagues. I believe the Estonian league isn't professional, but it has transfer pages. This is the same, it's information about the competition rather than about the players. I think this could complement the season pages, it's a different context for this information. It would provide a look at the competition's season rather than at a club's season. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Though I insist season pages are far from covering every season of even the best clubs, would you find it more acceptable in sports with little or none season pages? Even men's basketball has few outside of the NBA. And actually the same happens in women's football. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that's something that is really NOT needed. Kante4 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why, just because you aren't interested in those sports? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because it gets nominated for deletion doesn't mean it will get deleted. But I can't really see the point in it, if people want to know who was in Chelsea's 2011-12 Champions League squad they can just go on Chelsea's 2011-12 season article.--EchetusXe 22:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Getting an overall view of the competition's squads. Like the transfers, which are covered both in the individual club season articles and in their own article. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK but to be honest I never look at those transfer pages. You're welcome to create the article but it may be deleted. If it is not up to a good standard it is likely to be deleted, if it is to a good standard it may win over some supporters but it might still get deleted and then you have wasted your time making it to a high standard. Your call.--EchetusXe 09:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

- look, it is patently clear here that there is no support at all for what you are proposing - I therefore suggest you drop the matter. GiantSnowman 11:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I won't do write any article like that. I don't like wasting my time in articles that will get deleted. But I haven't read a single convincing argument about why they shouldn't be accepted. Apparently in this community "I find it unnecesary" equals "it should get deleted", I guess there's nothing I can do about that. Have fun censoring contributions. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I ever said I was against the proposal, I'm just trying to work out the scope of it. Since my earlier comment, I've discovered a few UEFA Champions League stats books that do in fact list each team's squad for the competition, so it could work for the Champions League. The problem is although teams have to specify a list of players who are eligible for the competition, they're not limited to only that squad and can draw from a wider pool of their youth players. This leads to gross inconsistency in who we actually consider part of the extended squad, unlike the World Cup and European Championships, where only players named in the final 23 are allowed to play. – PeeJay 12:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

2015–16 Pécsi Mecsek FC season
As a reassurance question – if a club drops several divisions at once in a way that it is no longer playing in a professional league, for example from level 1 to 4 in this pyramid, we assume that a season article does not meet WP:N any more (pending WP:GNG, of course) and therefore should not be added to the encyclopaedia, right? Asking this because I am currently trying to figure out what to do with 2015–16 Pécsi Mecsek FC season (options here are "wait and see if GNG can be established", PROD" or "AfD"). – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting one, I would probably go with "wait and see if GNG can be established", I seems to be a similar situation as 2013–14 Rangers F.C. season, which exists. Paul    Bradbury  15:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A clear WP:NSEASONS failure. No where near a "top professional league". The fact that the previous season they competed in the top flight is not relevant, the subject needs to show GNG. Perhaps given the circumstances there might be sufficient coverage by the end of the season to warrant an article, but we don't "wait and see if something becomes notable". Articles should only be created when a subject is notable. I have prodded for this reason. Fenix down (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you say 2013–14 Rangers F.C. season meets GNG? It also appears to be the same circumstances (dropped down to bottom tier, not considered a professional league by WP, due to bankruptcy) and fails WP:NSEASONS. Paul    Bradbury  16:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I would, the article is very difficult to read because of it's "on this day" format and there's perhaps a little too much from the club's site for my liking rather than third party sources but amoungst the routine match reporting, there is coverage of events like the pay cut the players were asked to take, board changes, court reporting, and other bits and pieces to justify GNG. Perhaps the Pécsi season will generate similar coverage by the end of the season, in which case, if it is deleted, it will be right to replace it. At the moment though, I don't see anything to justify a season article on a club in the fourth tier, non fully professional league unless there is significant non-routine coverage to allow the generation of a reasonable amount of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Gavin James article history
The history of the page is a bit of a mess. Originally, the page was created to redirect to James Baronets. Since then, a St. Vincent and Grenadines international player has added his own profile at that article title (he meets the criteria for his own article as a full senior international), his changes were reverted by another user/editor.

James is currently at the centre of an eligibility dispute after it was found he only had a stamp entitling him to Vincentian citizenship in his British passport when he arguably should have had a Vincentian passport. TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we need to create new articles on Gavin James, 4th Baronet and Gavin James (footballer), and turn Gavin James into a disambiguation. GiantSnowman 11:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've created the footballer article. I'll leave the other one to WikiProject Baronets.TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see...
...a non-League footballer go off on one because of people having the audacity to touch his Wikipedia page, head this way. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jake Speight, Ryan Burge, Matthew Barnes-Homer. What is going on? Don't see John Terry coming on here demanding certain things be removed from his article.--EchetusXe 23:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Matthew Barnes-Homer, Wikipedia vandal...? Oh my God, that's hilarious. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Guernsey F.C. season articles
Sorry for yet another question on WP:N, but... how about 2013-14 Guernsey F.C. season, 2014-15 Guernsey F.C. season and 2015-16 Guernsey F.C. season? PRODs for all of these have been contested by the creator of the articles with these arguments. So, in short, is the fact that a club from one of the Channel Islands has made it this high up in the English league system enough to assume WP:GNG? – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 10:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * One has already been deleted per Articles for deletion/2014–15 Guernsey F.C. season and I will delete that one now per G4. Unfortunately the others have to go to AfD but they will almost certainly be deleted. It's a shame we have to waste yet more time on these articles. Number   5  7  15:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you going to nominate them? Number   5  7  05:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, in an instant. Sorry, I was too busy with work yesterday, otherwise it would have already happened. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 07:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 08:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Module:Sports results
Quick question about Module:Sports results – has the migration for resultsboxes from fb templates towards this module (which was the desired outcome from this discussion, please correct me if this is a false assumption) already begun in a widespread fashion or is it still used only here and there? – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 21:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is not very used yet and is mainly used together with the tables (when table and results are together like 2014–15 UEFA Europa League). Can not say exactly why, but I know myself I have been very busy and converting the tables to Module:Sports table has had priority over the results. Also I can not remember if we have discussed all visual details of the results, both alone and together with table. Should it look like 2014–15 Eredivisie or should we have the blue (home win), yellow (draw) and red (away win) colors like 2014–15 Premier League? How should the diagonal look, dashes or grey? There is also a discussion on the talkpage about bolding. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 22:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the results tables – no need for either bolding or any color coding regarding home or away wins, as it is pretty unnecessary in my opinion. The diagonal... dashes should be fine, I think, although grey boxes would not be wrong either. Perhaps a bit of an WP:ACCESS issue all in all.
 * Speaking of accessibility, I recently issued the idea of introducing the modules in the German Wikipedia as well, with a bit of a mixed response. Most specifically, there were questions about the duration they take to load, the amount of data necessary to be transferred, and the ability to be properly displayed on mobile and small devices. Does anybody know where that information could be retrieved? – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 15:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

To stub or not to stub
Current article under question is Danilo Sousa Campos (I think it's still too short, an anonymous IP disagrees as they are wont to do) - where would you say the line is drawn? WP:STUB is no help and I usually use the 1,500 character DYK limit. Even with the 500 word AWB limit it's still too short. GiantSnowman 18:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think, five paragraphes, >4Kb of text are very much for stub. This template must be removed from article Danilo Sousa Campos. 217.30.195.63 (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A one-liner is not a "paragraph" by any stretch of the imagination. GiantSnowman 18:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * DYKcheck gives 634 characters (103 words) "readable prose size". Well-referenced, useful, stub, but stub nonetheless. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is DYK limit and DYKcheck? 217.30.195.63 (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To appear in the Did you know (DYK) section on the main page, an article has to be at least 1500 bytes of "readable prose". That's the DYK limit: it's mentioned at WP:STUB as one method that editors use to decide if an article's a stub or not. User:Shubinator/DYKcheck is a script that counts the number of bytes of "readable prose" in an article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It feels like a Start-Class article, since it's got a well-defined structure, the facts therein are properly sourced and the infobox is well fleshed-out, but as you say, there's probably just too little content to say it's better than a Stub. – PeeJay 20:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Stub in my opinion. SLBedit (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

FIFA player template
Unfortunately,the template:FIFA player template no longer works for many players as FIFA have changed their website. TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For example? SLBedit (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ryan Burge
Request for assistance at Talk:Ryan Burge please. Thank you.--ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He is a sensitive lad. Maybe it would make sense to have Glenn Hoddle academy in the infobox though and have some of the "arranged" games for Worcester City and Jerez Industrial be shown as loans. The academy had an arrangement with Hyde so they got a fee to sell him onto Port Vale even though he had never been to Hyde. Burge does have a point that he has a lot of clubs in his infobox and could reflect negatively on him when he was at those clubs in the commonly understood sense.--EchetusXe 22:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the news section on his website. Macho, macho man! —   Cliftonian   (talk)  23:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Glenn Hoddle Academy is not a club though - for the infobox to show that he played league games "for" the Academy would be wrong..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well no the goals / apps bit for the academy would be blank of course, just the clubs they had an arrangement with would be shown as loans from the academy.--EchetusXe 23:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

New debutant
Hello everyone. A football player Thomas Strakosha plays for U.S. Salernitana 1919 and before a few days he made it his first senior debut in career. But the debut came into a domestic cup match, the Coppa Italia (see there). Can we call him now a professional notable football player, is it eligible to have a notable article here on wikipedia, thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is Salernitana a professional club? Were they playing against another professional club? If the answer to either of those questions is "no", then Thomas Strakosha is not yet notable. – PeeJay 18:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The answer happens to be 'yes' to both questions. --  Tanonero    (msg)  18:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanonero (talk • contribs)


 * Salernitana is a professional club. They play in Italian Serie B.Sadsadas (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the answer...and yes it's totally right, both clubs are professionals; His team Salernitana participates in the 2015–16 Serie B (just promoted from last season the 2014–15 Lega Pro) and also the opponent A.C. Pisa 1909 participates in the 2015–16 Lega Pro, where both league categories such as Serie B and Lega Pro even are FPL, thank you, best regards. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

thank you too my bro. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Pleasure is mine :).Sadsadas (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Bryant Ezeji
Can someone check this one please? I'm not sure this person even exists, let alone has actually played in those teams. If not, please let me know or tag it as WP:CSD. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tag it. Vitória never had a player with this name in its history, nor did Lierse. Besides, the page was created by an user who stopped editing back in 2009. After another quick look at the article, you can see that the three refs are a copypaste from Danny Welbeck's. MYS  77  ✉ 05:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone already tagged and it's gone. Thank you for the check! § FreeRangeFrog croak 06:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, meant to say here after I had CSD'd but went into a tunnel! Good spot guys. Fenix down (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Transfer header help
Hi. Seems I have some sort of a minor problem with the header for transfers (click here). For some reason the club ("moving to") isn't shown. Anyone knows what the problem might be? Appreciate the help! Regards, Ratipok (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. See template documentation here. You need to use nc parameter (links to Fb template) not fcl.Dudek1337 (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Knew something was wrong, just didn't know what. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Football in Brazil task force
I created the page for a new Football in Brazil task force in cooperation with the Sports task force of WikiProject Brazil. The Football in Brazil task force is long overdue. There has been lots of interest in the past but no one has taken this step of actually setting it up. Many articles have already been tagged with. giso6150 (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - while I agree that a Brazil taskforce is probably needed, you should NOT have set it up without prior discussion here first. GiantSnowman 19:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * — My intention was certainly not to usurp the processes in place. I have seen this discuss come and go and it generally ends the same: a few people say that they are interested, but no one takes the initiative to make it happen. After a few cycles of this people give up. Please recognize that my intentions are good… If I need to gather more official __??__ (whatever), please let me know what that might be. I’m just waiting now to get the template changes accepted. giso6150 (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I am replacing the "admin help" tag with a "help me" tag, because there is nothing here that an administrator can do that any other editor with relevant experience can't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What are the next steps to make this happen? I now recognize that I didn’t follow this WikiProject’s protocol for setting up a task force, but three people immediately said that they would participate. At the rate that this page fills up, however, I am rather doubtful that many will read back this far even one week from now. By what means should I gather the names of interested parties if not through a list of participants? It is frustrating to have both the need to get something done and the will to make it happen, but then watch as that momentum is buried in this enormous, all-purpose forum. giso6150 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This wasn’t a whim or a rhetorical question. I do actually want to know the best way forward. If the task force is allowed to exist, then can a template editor (e.g., Redrose64) please move the sandbox into the live template? If there needs to be more editors signed up or otherwise expressing their interest, how many people does it require and where is the best place to assemble those names? I am not a novice editor, but I admit that I made a mistake. I’m sorry. Can we move on from that mistake in a productive way, please? Thank you. giso6150 (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It won't work as intended. Specifically, the proposed changes will cause the Irish football task force to stop being displayed. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out, Red rose64. I updated the numbering for the hooks. giso6150 (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)  Please move the template from the sandbox or advise me of what else needs to be done (e.g., creation of categories, etc.). Thanks. giso6150 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

and — per this discussion several years ago, I’m hoping that you are interested in helping with the Brazilian Football task force. It looks like you are both still semi-active to active editors. I would appreciate any sign of interest or support for this idea. Cheers! giso6150 (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Will you please comment on this? giso6150 (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a consensus of more than one before implementing changes to the template. Since the template is (template-)protected, regular editors won't be able to make those edits. Once a consensus in favor of those changes is established, please add to notify editors with the relevant permissions and ask them to implement the changes. Huon (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. Prburley started a thread about this topic today; perhaps he can chime in here to second my motion that  to be added to the template. All of the other country task forces use this pattern as far as I can tell. In fact, I can not see anything remotely controversial about this change, since the tag   seems to have already been used for quite some time. Nevertheless, I will put a new message on the talk page of the fledgling task force to try to drum up other supporters as well. If no one objects and I can have someone else weigh in, then I will add  to the sandbox. giso6150 (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. What with Template talk:WikiProject Football having been started at 14:09, 1 August 2015 this now means three threads on the same matter, which is against WP:MULTI. Also, don't put on the sandbox, it belongs on the template's talk page. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for over-posting; I wasn’t aware of WP:MULTI. Generally it seems that I find out about things here is after I’ve done something wrong… which means I am learning a lot lately. I will put on the template’s talk page as you indicated. I appreciate your patience. giso6150 (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Per a request at Template_talk:WikiProject_Football, I'm posting here just to ensure that this project endorses the creation of a task force dedicated to Brazilian football. Various admins are refusing to add the necessary code to Template:WikiProject Football until consensus has been established. I was sure it had been, but I just want to make sure. Personally, I'm in favour of such a task force, provided there are editors willing to join and take on the necessary work, since Brazilian football is so integral to the history of the game and the state league system is relatively complicated compared to what I'm used to. – PeeJay 17:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest doesn't look like consensus had been reached at all. The whole thing has been done rather haphazardly. However I agree this should be actioned, however they will need far more members to make this worth whilst. Blethering  Scot  17:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Someone define what consensus means and show me anyone who actually opposes the creation of the task force—not the opposition to the million things I have done out of sequence or haphazardly.
 * How many people saying yes does it take to make a consensus? If we don’t get that number of people what do we do next—delete the page? giso6150 (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

My questions: People have had two weeks to step forward and voice their concerns about the creation of a Brazilian Football task force and the only objections that I have seen are about my methods. giso6150 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do I move this discussion to a separate page?
 * Do I move the Brazil task force page page to the sandbox?
 * Do I give up completely?
 * There is no issue here which requires an administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgive my ignorance, but if it isn’t an administrator who has the power to move this forward than who is it? I am willing to keep discussing this until more people are satisfied that there is a consensus, but no one will quantify when that might be. How have my questions been unclear? I am legitimately trying to learn how to do something positive here, but when I ask for help, I just hear different versions of “you’re doing it wrong” without any indication of who might be able to fix it. giso6150 (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost all decisions on Wikipedia are a matter for editors in general. The matter has been discussed here, and if that has produced a consensus, then that is the answer. Administrators have no more and no less rights or powers than any other editors in taking such decisions. Administrators have particular powers only in a very limited range of actions, mainly blocking and unblocking editors, deleting and undeleting pages, and applying and removing page protection. In this case, I would have thought that it is mainly advice and opinions which are wanted, and I certainly don't see any need for any administrative action. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There appears to be consensus for this task force, though in future it would be nice that consensus was sought before the task force begins. Like JBW says there is no admin intervention needed - the task force has already been created, if anyone disagrees in future they can raise it at WP:MFD. Simply get editing! GiantSnowman 16:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience. I will ask for the template to be moved from the sandbox. giso6150 (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not volounteering for it, but I have no objection and the Guide on task forces states that "a good number to start a task force with is five people; it may not be effective until it reaches 10 or so people". It appears you have five so it seems that it should be a no brainer to go ahead. Thanks for sticking with it Paul    Bradbury  13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No brainer, indeed; there are over 5,000 pages… This is just so surreal. giso6150 (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Saulo Batista de Andrade Cordeiro
Could somebody tell me if Saulo Batista de Andrade Cordeiro is notable? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He played in Serie B. I don't know if it's a professional league. SLBedit (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * SLB is correct. 100% notable as he played in Série B with Fortaleza and América (RN). MYS  77  ✉ 04:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Half measures
We have club names without the dots (FC Porto, FC Barcelona) and with them. But isn't Panionios F.C missing something (added or removed)? Just asking.

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the result of a botched move. has a lot to answer for there... – PeeJay 16:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Bits and pieces
1 - is the Topklasse notable? In the (quite possible) event it is not, then the set of twins of Anthony Velder and Nygel Velder should be deleted no (I know for sure that the Portuguese Second Division - where they played the grand total of ONE game combined - is not notable, here are their updated career pages http://www.foradejogo.net/player.php?player=199201230005, http://www.foradejogo.net/player.php?player=199201230004)? I was on the verge of starting to improve their articles, then I thought I should wait for a reply to this question before going through unnecessary trouble.

2 - an anon user (through several IPs) continues to change Lucas João's goals for Sheff Wed from zero to one, even though the goal has been scored in the Football League Cup. I have left a message in the last IP's talk page, but am not hoping for anything good to come out of there.

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the Topklasse – it is the highest amateur level in the Netherlands, so any players at this level are not deemed to be notable (assuming they are not meeting WP:GNG either, of course). – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 10:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Released players Confusion
Recently, I had an edit war with a fellow editor in the page 2015-16 Manchester United F.C. season about my edits regarding the new clubs of the released players. The discussion was put up here and most editors supported the claim that released players new club should not be mentioned in the table next to the player. I had no problem with this. This rule has been implemented on the pages of the big clubs but not in most of the clubs season pages.For example lets take the page of Southampton F.C. In the page 2015–16 Southampton F.C. season, Jos Hooiveld and Dani Osvaldo joined another club after July 1 and the new clubs are mentioned there. The editor also had said one should only add new clubs of players released before July 1. I think there should be a consensus here regarding this issue. --NextGenSam619t@lk 06:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile Glen Johnson joined Stoke after July 1 and his new club is mentioned in the page 2015–16 Liverpool F.C. season, so I am quite confused whether to revert the edits or not. But I'm in the favor of adding the player's new club in the table. NextGenSam619t@lk 06:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless the new contract was agreed prior to the expiry of the player's previous contract, the new club shouldn't be mentioned, IMO. Tom Cleverley, for example, signed a deal with Everton before the expiry date of his Manchester United contract (30 June), whereas Ben Amos and Tom Thorpe didn't sign for their new clubs until 1 July or after (or at least the signing wasn't announced until then). Either way, with Amos and Thorpe, they were technically clubless as soon as the date changed to 1 July, so there was no direct transfer between Manchester United and either of their new clubs. I haven't got a clue about Hooiveld, Osvaldo or Johnson, but I would say the same rules should apply to those guys and anyone else too. – PeeJay 18:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with this. All you are saying in a table listing a transfer is who was the previous or next club (depending if it is a free transfer in or out). Saying "free agent" or whatever gives less information. If the player was released before signing for a new club, rather than signing a pre-contract agreement, just post two references - one for his release and one for his signing. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But what about players who are clubless for several months? Or even a whole season? Where's the limit? Are we saying that as long as a player joins a new club in the same transfer window as he was released from his old club, then we can list the new club? That sounds like a reasonable compromise (although it doesn't deal with the divisions that don't abide by the FIFA transfer window system). – PeeJay 12:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "rule" about whether players' new clubs be listed or not. The last discussion was (a whole six weeks ago) HERE. We can, and some of us will, list a player's new club if we want to, because it's informative to the reader, so long as if it wasn't a direct transfer between the clubs we don't mislead the reader into thnking it was. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Football at the 1948 Summer Olympics
I need your help about the tournament. I haven't seen the official report made by FIFA, just only by IOC. I have noticed 23 teams during the draw, but 18 participated. I don't know which countries didn't participate, I think the countries were Israel, Poland, Hungary, Burma and Pakistan, but I haven't got a proof, only dutch wikipedia gives me some indications. Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The 18 teams are listed here. Paul    Bradbury  21:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I want to prove the withdraws of 5 countries, and I haven't got a link, that's what I want. Where can we find it?--FCNantes72 (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This cites articles in dutch, but I think this and this is what you need. It is Burma, Hungary, Israel, Pakistan and Poland Paul    Bradbury  22:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. --FCNantes72 (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Manuel Soeiro
Just improved this gentleman's article, but left a glitch there: all sources available (links, ref) show only the month of his death, not a day. What are the options? Is it better to leave that field blank? Can it be fixed?

Attentively, thanks in advance --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Something off about Vermont Voltage
In the article on Vermont Voltage, it claims that they play in the Premier Development League, but they are not listed on the 2015 list of teams: http://www.uslpdl.com/teamdirectory/pdl/index_E.html. Since the article was not updated after 2014, I suspect that they removed themselves or were removed from the league. I don't think they meet either WP:GNG or any of the sport-specific guidelines. Could someone please confirm? 208.81.212.222 (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Their own website says they are not playing a full PDL schedule this year. Another website says the USL team folded. Nanonic (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * However the fact that they did play in that league would suggest that they may meet WP:GNG for historic reasons. Paul    Bradbury  11:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

International goals


I just caught up with a discussion, the result of which was some level of agreement to delete international goal sections from player articles. Now the removal of that information has been mainly completed, I note that we now have number of standalone lists covering this very topic, all at Category:Career achievements of association football players, including one which is currently sitting on the main page at DYK. For this project to be consistent, ought this article, and all the others in that category, be nominated en-masse for deletion, or is it the thought of this project that standalone lists are just fine as long as some additional text covering a few of the significant goals is included? I would like to know because I have intentions, based on the Klose list, to create a few of my own, but wouldn't want to waste my time. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say an en-masse nomination is necessary. I think the lists serve a useful purpose, presuming the player has scored a notable number of international goals (i.e. he's his country's top scorer and/or he's scored more than X goals). I'm sure there are some in that category that don't fit the bill, but I haven't had a chance to sift through yet. – PeeJay 08:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Somehow Nené and André Schürrle feel like outliers in this category. Furthermore, we seem to have a bevy of Portuguese in there - how's that happened? – PeeJay 08:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think these lists can be notable, but they're not automatically notable. Someone like Pelé's goals will have received significant coverage and his list will be notable - the same cannot be said for most of the players in that category. I suggest taking one to AFD to test the water, and then once we have consensus we can nominate the rest. GiantSnowman 08:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well feel free to do that, I personally think they serve a good purpose, and can be expanded upon to provide good encyclopedic analysis of notable achievements. God knows how many times we've been told about how close Rooney is to becoming England's top scorer, yet we don't have an article on his international goals.  How curious.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said at the time, there should be some agreed upon number of goals at which the list in the player's article is moved to a stand alone list, following similar precedents in tennis (20 finals), cricket (25 centuries or 15 5-wicket hauls) and several other areas. Unfortunately didn't get much feedback at the time but that to me seems a good solution to this issue - well-defined, appropriate under the guidelines, more likely to be notable (if the number is high enough) and a clear way forward (away from back and forth discussion). Macosal (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no lists in player articles any longer, just these standalone lists. But the point is reasonable, you could start with List of footballers with 50 or more international goals.  Although that would preclude a Rooney list, for example, which, as I noted, has received significant coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We might not have one for Rooney but there is for Robert Earnshaw!--Egghead06 (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to remove lists of goals from all player articles (and many still do retain them, as they should). It's a long standing consensus which cannot be subsided by a short and not unequivocal discussion. 50 I think, should be the minimum - 40 or even 30 could be more appropriate. For mine it needs to be a balance between: 1. Limiting the number of new articles 2. Being a round number and 3. Removing lists which are too long from the player's articles. For mine this would be one of 30, 35 or 40 but it's a question of degree. Earnshaw for example should clearly not have the stand alone list - it's short enough to fit neatly in his own article, and unlikely to have received as much coverage as a very large number of players with more goals. Macosal (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I would agree that I didn't see a satisfactory or wide or long enough discussion before these lists were removed quoting that very discussion. Earnshaw's list should be reintroduced.  Meanwhile I've started Rooney's, so if the project want to excise it, see you at AFD!  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here we go, curious that the other 32 lists didn't attract such attention! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bizarre, Rooney was perhaps the worst 'test' case that could have been chosen! GiantSnowman 16:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but this gives us a good benchmark, I wonder what happens if we AFD List of international goals scored by Gareth Bale? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Or Robert bloody Earnshaw...! GiantSnowman 17:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest someone boldly nominates the Bale list. My bet would be that it be merged back into the main article.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, just a quick reset. Was there or was there not a consensus to remove lists of international goals from player bios? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think there was. It probably needs a RFC or something. GiantSnowman 19:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, in that case, the edits which removed the lists from the bios based on archive 95 discussion really should be undone until a proper discussion is held and concluded. And Bale's list is now AFD to see how we go from here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm probably the worst criminal here – I added Earnshaw as he is in Wales' top 10 and I had the rest of the Portuguese top 10 as well. Earnshaw was the last player to net a hat-trick for Wales and he passed the 15 mark, which I see personally as a long enough table to hold an article. Schurrle has 20 international goals, which is not top 10 for Germany, but more than most countries' top scorers of all time. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the lists of five-wicket hauls is an exact comparison - a fifer is a significant in-match achievement. A list of goals for a footballer is more akin to simply a list of wickets for a cricketer as far as I can see........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I get what your saying, but equating wickets to goals is also not a great comparison - a good bowler picks up an awful lot more than 50 wickets in his career. The point of my comparison was more to illustrate what other precedents there are on WP for how to deal with a growing lists of stats on player pages than to suggest that goals and five wicket halls are specifically analogous in some way. Macosal (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If we are going for an arbitrary minimum amount of goals then I would say 25 at least.--EchetusXe 14:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This whole argument is too WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for my liking. GiantSnowman 17:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree entirely... To look at ways other areas of Wikipedia has dealt with very similar issues to the one faced here is obviously beneficial, and to write that off rather than discuss why it is/isn't appropriate is silly. In fact, I think it's fairly clear why a guideline like this would be useful - to provide some certainty about what articles should/shouldn't be created saves a bunch of time on AfD discussions and more so for those who would create such articles only to see them deleted soon after. As it stands we seem to have a consensus that Wayne Rooney should have a list but Gareth Bale shouldn't, and to explicitly draw a line somewhere between the two would be in a number of people's best interests.
 * See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology... Non-fiction literature, such as encyclopedias, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency is not only not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred."Macosal (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not make a general rule that we add a collapsible tag to the goals list if it is below 30 goals? See Frank Lampard as a good example. That way it doesn't require a new article, however it also doesn't take over the current article as it is hidden unless you want to view it. Any time a player has 30 goals and above, then we create a new article. Removing the international goals list altogether however was never a consensus.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that this has potential - 30 feels like a good balance. Probably no need to collapse for <10 goals either. Only potential issue is at MOS:COLLAPSE, where I guess the question is whether the information is "consolidating information covered in the main text" or not - I'm personally not sure how to read that/what that specifically means (does every goal need to be mentioned in text for this to be done?) I guess most players would have the majority, if not all of their international goals discussed in text. Macosal (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Retire the talk pages for subpages of this project
I notice that this is a very active talk page, while the talk pages for subpages are old relics in comparison. I wonder therefore whether having so many separate talk pages is the best way to go? Suggestions or comments there may not receive the exposure they require, and the talk pages themselves do not get enough attention concerning archiving etc. Many discussions on the National teams talk page are 8-9 years old for example, often without any replies.

I propose therefore to remove those sub talk pages (or at least the links to them), and to recommend instead to keep all discussions centralized on this talk page. Sygmoral (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not a bad idea. Maybe having a soft redirect to this talk page would be useful?-- MarshalN20 T al k 13:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also agree this is a good idea. Neutral on the form of redirect. Number   5  7  13:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I think it would have to be a soft redirect though, to avoid losing the old discussions on those pages. – PeeJay 14:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! Perhaps they should also be made read-only? In order to avoid people nevertheless still thinking "hmm, this is probably still the most suitable place to start my discussion" (despite the 'invitation' to be redirected to this talk page). Or just make it clear enough at the top of the page that it is desirable to start new discussions by following the redirect, I guess. Sygmoral (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with 'retiring' them - keeping the history, but removing any discussions and turning it into a redirect. GiantSnowman 15:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sadio Mané
Can someone protect this article until the transfer rumours calm down.? Thanks. 77.130.193.59 (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

RM notification
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Savvyjack23 (talk • contribs)
 * Timestamp so it can be archived. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 18:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

improve "12th man (football)" article
Hello, there is a request at Talk:12th man (football)/Archive 2 to improve 12th man (football) around American football vs. association football, by improving the quality of the association football content.

Without directing or limiting your contributions, perhaps editors more familiar with the association content could better structure it such as by country or league as a starting point. Cheers. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ironically when British people refer to the 12th man it's often in a negative connotation to mean 11 players + 1 ref, meaning they had an extra unfair advantage in the form of a kind ref.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Err no we don't. It's usually referring to the fans as the 12th man. GiantSnowman 11:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It can be used as a referee thing as well Snow. However it is def more associated with the fans. Blethering  Scot  18:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the request is mistaken a little. 12th man is a thing in soccer, but it's nowhere near as extensively developed as american football. I think the split is probably quite accurate. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there probably isn't more to say about it. -Koppapa (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Facebook pages
Quick question, can I link the facebook page of a player in the external links if that page is verified? I want to do so for Brandon Fernandes but need to know if I can. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd have a check over at WP:EL, but I think it all depends what else is in there. Personally, I try to avoid players' social media accounts, since they're basically just PR factories; could say the same about a player's official website though (or any other official website, for that matter). – PeeJay 15:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well he doesn't have a twitter or website as far as I know and I have been following his facebook for years so I know it is him and probably just got verified cause of the popularity of the Indian Super League. I would not be opposed to adding it till a time in which he had a website or something. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary though? I'm pretty sure WP:EL has guidelines about the use of social media sites in the External links section. In fact, I'm certain there's nothing that says you have to have an External links section at all... – PeeJay 15:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Honestly, the reason I'm asking is cause someone asked me to add it but I was unsure if it was allowed. He said that the Cristiano Ronaldo page had it linked but I just checked and it doesn't. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Leandro Rodríguez
Can this article be restricted ? He's close to signing for Everton and his article is being updated by vandals. TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want an article protected, the best place to request that is at WP:RFPP. – PeeJay 21:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are any admins about here, a bit of temp semi would be much appreciated. I have requested at RPP, but there's a backlog... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Season-by-season stats
With Carrow Road now an FA (and due to be on Main Page on Aug 31), I am toying with the idea of finishing the job I once started and getting up Iwan Roberts to Featured Article. What put me off last time was that I couldn't find RS stats to flesh out the season-by-season breakdown at the article foot, particularly from the early seasons. His autobiography is no help, btw.


 * Is there a stats website that's RS that can help me do this?
 * I could remove the chart altogether. Do you think an article missing this information could possibly be Featured quality?

Interested in views. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Has Iwan Roberts ever written an autobiography? Stats could be in there. Or you could try getting in touch with Norwich City to see if they've ever published a statistical archive. – PeeJay 08:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "His autobiography is no help, btw." It's the early years stats I need, before he moved to NCFC. --Dweller (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be tempted to just use a club-by-club summary rather than a season-by-season table, I don't think the latter adds that much to the article as a whole. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you mean the table in the infobox? Or something additional? --Dweller (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you make the table club-by-club then that'd match the infobox. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That'd be easy, as it's reliably sourced. Thanks very much. --Dweller (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone has the Rothmans (or similar) series, they would probably contain the season stats for the previous season.  is listed as having them on the booklist so may be able to help?  Number   5  7  10:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll look through my Rothmans over the next days for his pre-1996 seasonal stats, i.e. the Soccerbase cut-off date. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Really kind, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Huddersfield Town stats are right here on Wikipedia and Watford has a web archive. 213.156.113.58 (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. Where and where please? --Dweller (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * and [www.watfordfcarchive.com/] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.156.113.58 (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Just one point: do you intend to fix the format of the table so it reads in the correct order (i.e. earliest at the top) and uses the standard wikitable class? – PeeJay 12:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If/when I work it up, who's a bit of a whizz with tables. If it was down to me, it'd be an ASCII mess. --Dweller (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, shouldn't be a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was gonna say, I don't mind doing it myself, but as long as it gets done. I feel it might be an obstacle to FA status if it remains as-is. – PeeJay 13:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done :) Mattythewhite (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Standardised titles
I believe that the following pages should have similar titles:
 * Italian clubs in European football
 * English football clubs in international competition
 * La Liga clubs in Europe
 * German clubs in European football

To me, the only difference should concern whether the page include either just European or international results (even if I think that these pages should include all the international results as the latter is not covered as systematically as the European ones). Any suggestion for the uniformised title? -- Tanonero    (msg)  16:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanonero (talk • contribs)
 * Would a standardised way be Fooian football clubs in UEFA and FIFA competitions? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe even Martian football clubs in international competitions would be fine, considering that this would include continental competitions too. We already have, for instance, Italian football clubs in international competitions, English football clubs in international competitions and Peruvian football clubs in international competitions, so I guess we should move La Liga clubs in Europe to Spanish football clubs in European competitions and so on, based on whether the page includes just continental or worldwide results. Having said that, I like your proposal too, yet it'd contrast a bit with the fact that the Intercontinental Cup was co-endorsed by UEFA and CONMEBOL and, most of all, with the fact that the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, although official, wasn't organised neither by UEFA nor FIFA. --  Tanonero    (msg)  22:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there any consensus regarding the proposed moves? -- Tanonero    (msg)  15:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Am I right in thinking that all things being equal (footballer, born XXXX) is preferred to (NATIONALITY FOOTBALLER)?--EchetusXe 13:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Brazilian football specialist may be required
Clube de Regatas do Flamengo has seen an edit war over whether the club has one five or six Campeonato Brasileiro Série A titles. At question is whether 1987's Copa União qualifies as a title or not. I have requested temporary protection at the club article and the other page is already locked. I don't have the time or the desire to dig deeper. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems perfect for the new Brazil task force. Paul    Bradbury  15:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up on this. I added a citation. I don’t know where the person who insists on 5 wins is getting their information. Hopefully the edit war settles down. giso6150 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Copa União and 1987 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A articles aren't entirely consistent with each other. Hack (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Relegation play-offs or something else?
I'm hoping to find some consensus on what to label play-offs between tiers for promotion/relegation. I have seen it handled differently in articles, with two being the most common: 1)Relegation play-offs; 2)Premiership play-offs (or whatever the name of the higher tier division is). It seems to me that relegation play-offs may be inaccurate since it is a promotion play-offs for the lower tier team. The only other label I thought of as a possibility is Promotion/Relegation play-offs.

I don't have a strong opinion on this and would be fine with any of these three options, or something else. Consistency across articles is my main goal with the question. Equineducklings (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A name might probably depend on how the "postseason competition" is structured. If the match or matches in question are structured like "one higher-division team vs one lower-division team" (example), "relegation/promotion playoffs" could be the best option. If only lower-tier teams participate (example), "promotion playoffs" could be the way to go; a similar naming might be applied when only higher-tier teams take part. However, if there is a distinctive name aside from the general terms (for example, the Dutch relegation/promotion tournament between two Eredivisie and eight Eerste Divisie teams is called "Nacompetitie"), this should of course be preferred. --– Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't think to specify, but I was asking about play-offs between divisions in hopes of finding agreement. I first noticed it last year in the Scottish football articles where there are play-offs between each division. I think the preferred labels are more clear when the competition is only for promotion or relegation. It would be nice if more leagues had specific names for it like Nacompetitie. Equineducklings (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In Scotland, the playoffs are named after the higher division . That applies to all of the games in the competition, including the two ties (3rd v 4th and 2nd v winner of 3rd v 4th) that don't involve any Premiership teams. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, in Scotland the play-offs are named based on what the teams are playing for (a spot in the Premiership, Championship, etc.). That's why it seemed to me that calling the same type of play-off in another country "relegation play-off" is only focusing on one side of the competition. I'm not sure it's a big enough topic for people to care enough about to want to change anything, but I think there should be some uniformity for labeling these play-offs across all countries. Whether that's "Relegation play-off", "Higher division play-off", or "Promotion/Relegation play-off", any are fine with me. Equineducklings (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can arbitrarily enforce consistency on something like that. We can only go with what the sources say. That may vary from country to country. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And if the sources don't say, or vary? (for example, soccerway and scoresway use Play-offs 1/2, which are normally different from other sources and articles rarely use). Just go along with whatever is used by another editor who labels it first? Equineducklings (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable unless there is a compelling reason to change it. Paul    Bradbury  21:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel like official sources would usually have a designated title for matches like this, in the competition regulations if nothing else (and this should be used per WP:RS). Macosal (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Equally if there's no good reason to change a recongisable name, then we shouldn't change it, particularly if the Official Name is not regularly used. I'd go with what it's been called by the first editor, unless this is somehow unclear or not a commonly recognized name for it. Official names could be useful, but there's no need to use them. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Football Collapsible Boxes
Would it be possible to make football collapsible boxes such that when you click "Show [more details]", the header text (i.e. teams, score, date and stadium) does not move slightly towards the right? I think this is a key template issue, particularly as it's used by so many people.M00036 (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't someone agree with me on this? M00036 (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do agree. It is dependant on screen size: very wide screens did not have the issue. I actually changed the template for a similar issue in the past, but it was reverted for unclear reasons. So I went ahead to fix it again, this time in a better way: I only slightly changed column widths, so that the "Show/Hide" column is actually big enough to fit its contents. Let's hope it is not reverted this time :) Sygmoral (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ive got a wide screen so can't replicate it.
 * Unfortunately it seems like this is quite a sensitive issue. The template is meant to show its contents on 1 line (when collapsed), but apparently many people are used to it taking up 2 lines (due to poor template design), and because of that they keep reverting my change to make it use up 1 line - as it was intended to do. I gave up again for now; seems like for some reason we need clear consensus to fix that template to how it was meant to be. See its talk page. --Sygmoral (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent AfD discussions for National League season articles
In the context of the recent AfD discussions for English National League team season articles, and out of interest – is there an actual reason for the current consensus to keep English fifth-tier seasons despite them clearly not meeting WP:NSEASONS, at least in its current wording? Just wondering because of the rationale for this contested PROD turned AfD. In other words, would this season article be !voted "Keep" if the club were to play in the National League (and it would be similarly sourced as the National League team seasons currently up for AfD)? If so, why? – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to be some kind of abberation. Almost all previous AfDs have resulted in the articles being deleted. Number   5  7  15:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but I doubt that will happen here or here. Also, taking a look at the last couple of navboxes "xxxx–xy in English football" seems to suggest otherwise. So, what made us keep all these Football Conference/Conference National/National League season articles? *confused* – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 08:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Inertia - i.e. no-one had ever bothered taking them to AfD. Number   5  7  11:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that there is a growing preference to make National League season articles notable, as pointed out by Soccer-holic.. I don't know what to make of this personally. JMHamo (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern with these AfDs is that keep arguments seem to revolve around the fact that there are sufficient sources to satisfy GNG, when almost all the sources (regardless of your opinions on WP:MILL) are from primary sources, i.e. the club in question or one of its competitors. Fenix down (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately a sufficient number of editors are electing to keep such articles and as such we are lumbered with them. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Slightly off-topic but similar: Soccer-holic bringing this up reminded me of a similar thing I have noticed recently. Many articles, especially once you get away from the top tier, seem to just be a collection of stats. It seems like these articles should be improved significantly, or deleted. Although, there are probably too many for it to be realistic to ever get to them all. Equineducklings (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Copa del Rey
Copa del Rey Topscorers and Copa del Rey Topscorers by Season. How to improve this articles to can be accepted by the editors. Any sugestions Any help ?? Thank you. I need some editors interested in Spanish football to can improve and post this 2 good articles. Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an excessive listings of statistics, which is why these articles were deleted three weeks ago. Continuing to recreate them is disruptive and may get you blocked from editing if you persist. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What about this ? : List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers or List of top Premier League goal scorers by season or List of footballers with 100 or more caps or List of top international association football goal scorers by country.
 * Wikipedia is full of tables and lists. Thats why I started to like it and write here, because you can find easy what information you need, and if is an encyclopedia is supposed to have all kind of information, as long as has references and is correct information.
 * Do you want me to make the list shorter, instead of 75 players, to post just the first 30 ?
 * And look ... Anexo:Máximos goleadores de la Copa del Rey : Spanish wikipedia have already the list, this is another reason I want to create it in English also (more people can access and understand)
 * Thank you for your time. Alexiulian25 (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I know too little to be sure, but isn't La Liga (Primera División) the equivalent of the Premier League? Perhaps a national cup tournament is too 'local' to be so extensively covered (despite the fact that it's such a big thing inside Spain). But don't take this as a yes/no, just a comment. Sygmoral (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Stockport Town F.C.
Can someone have a look at this one for me? Someone, seemingly from the club in question, has added reems of information and pictures, but some of it came from a pretty biographical standpoint - 'About us', 'Contact us' etc...

I've reverted it to a more Wikipedia feel - i.e. from a neutral point of view.

The user now keeps deleting all the information he originally put on in what seems a kind of protest - even though some of it is salvageable. Thoughts?

Kivo (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This happens quite frequently with non-League clubs - usually a committee member trying to get their Wikipedia entry to read like their club website and then throwing their toys out of the pram when told that's not how we work (check the edit history of Hullbridge Sports F.C. as an example, including this attempt to blank the history section). Regarding what's left, I'd strongly advise against a current squad section for clubs at this level - players change so frequently (and articles get updated so infrequently) that it's really not worth it. The backroom staff section isn't quite as bad, but I'm agnostic about them to say the best. The stadium section should definitely stay though. Number   5  7  12:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree re the squad list. Personally, I'd say the staff directory is over the top, but if (some of) it does stay, the flags have to go. Flags are for sportspeople to illustrate their sporting nationality; football club employees aren't sportspeople and don't have a sporting nationality. A sourced sentence naming the chairman and manager, and any individually notable member of staff, would be enough. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this just OR?
UEFA_coefficient. "Kassies projection"? --Dweller (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For the stats prior to 1979, yes. This appears to be just one fan's study of what coefficients would have been if they had existed. For post-1979 stats, it's fine, though it could do with some official sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm more concerned that it's just pointless. Number   5  7  20:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have wondered about that in the past. I think anything before the first official ranking (that actually had a meaning) should not be included. It might be interesting, but the informations is linked anyway for people interested. The FIFA_World_Rankings aren't calculated back to the 1890s either. -Koppapa (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Koppapa has hacked out a chunk of what I think was OR. I think that was the right move. --Dweller (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Wales at 1958 FIFA World Cup
Have you got links or books or photos of the participation of Wales during the World cup? Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Nené
I'm strongly considering taking the following articles to AfD:


 * List of international goals scored by Nené
 * List of international goals scored by Simão Sabrosa
 * List of international goals scored by Robert Earnshaw

The Gareth Bale AfD resulted in it being merged back into the main article and I feel that an AfD of these is likely to gain a similar result. The only possible argument for inclusion is that they are in their country's top 10 scorers. The main problem with that is that players can fall out of the top 10 list over time so that would result in some dodgy ground (i.e. articles being notable one day and not notable the next).

Note: I know that there is a similar discussion at the top of this page but I thought I'd create it again before that one got archived. Spiderone 21:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You could take to AfD but I'd be tempted to be bold and just merge and redirect to the player article without the hassle and admin time of an AfD! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of doing that but I was hoping to establish some sort of consensus (e.g. they are allowed a separate page if they have scored at least 30 goals and/or they are the nation's top scorer). Spiderone  08:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you should do that via an RfC, thats not what AfD's are for. Paul    Bradbury  11:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just merge and redirect the lot of them. --Jimbo[online] 12:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Current squad and WP:Recentism
I originally raised this point on the National teams talk page, but am moving it here since we'll probably end up retiring those talk pages anyway.

This is also a continuation of a short discussion on the Belgium NFT talk page: I suggested making the 'current squad' less recentism-susceptible, to be consistent with the decision that the list of "most recent matches" should not appear on a NFT's main article.

A summarization of the issue: player squads for national football teams are mere snapshots. They may often include first-timers, sometimes even without a single cap, while excluding core players that happened to be injured at the time of the most recent match.

The source of the issue is that national football teams are more volatile than club teams: they are separate selections for almost each individual match. Showing the 'most recent snapshot' is nevertheless the current recommendation for NFT pages, and this is what I propose we change.

(only read this paragraph if you're not yet convinced this really is an issue) An illustration of the issue with the current recommendation is that notable active players may not be mentioned under Current squad because they missed out on the most recent selection due to injury or suspension, while a first-timer may be displayed for months because they were selected for the most recent match. An concrete examply is what you can see right now on the Belgian page: Youri Tielemans and Leander Dendoncker are listed in the "current squad", even though they have 0 and 1 caps respectively and their selection is from 2.5 months ago. At the same time, veterans such as Vincent Kompany and Marouane Fellaine, who are much more likely to be included in any future squad, are not mentioned under "current squad" because they happened to be respectively suspended and injured 2.5 months ago. This is an issue because it means the "Current squad" relates much more to "the most recent match" (or the very next match) than it relates to the actual main article. Finally note that this is not just an issue on the Belgian page, but this is in fact the current recommendation.

So now that we have established that this really is a problem, let's move on to my suggestion to solve it!

A solution The most important conclusion is that a any snapshot of a concrete selection is too temporary to appear on the main article of a NFT. So I propose that the mention of "These players were selected for the match on [this date]" be removed from the recommendation (it violates WP:Recentism). The next question then is who we do want to see mentioned here. I believe we need to see what you could call the 'core team' of a NFT. This is not obvious to define: there must be a balance between what is too volatile (update per match) and what is too slow (update per sports season). There is no way around it that this will make any objective recommendation more complex, but I still believe it is the only way to make it adhere better to Wikipedia's general standards (short of completely removing the section).

I propose that some criteria are defined to include players in the "Current squad" section on the main article of a NFT. My first suggestion is the following:
 * Players have at least 3 caps (reached notability)
 * Players have been selected in at least 1 of the most recent 4 matches (are still relevant)

There could still be an (optional) secondary section (like the "recent call-ups" we have now) to mention those players that 'did not make it' into the main list. (Although I'm not entirely sure how relevant that is to the main article of a NFT)

Some of the effects:
 * Established players with a temporary issue (injury, suspension) will stay on the list during a 'grace period' of 4 matches. This makes sense because they can be expected to be selected again when their 'issue' is over.
 * Long-time players that are not selected for 4 or more times will drop off. This makes sense because they can no longer be considered part of the core team: for whatever reason, they are not being selected anymore. (They might still appear elsewhere in the article as a historically notable player, of course.) And if they are ever selected again, perhaps after they've had a year of low activity, they will quickly be listed as a core player again.
 * Players with no or only a few caps will never appear on the NFT article (regardless of their number of selections). This makes sense because they can't be considered a core-team player (yet).
 * New stars will still appear relatively quickly, after just 3 caps. This makes sense because players can certainly achieve popularity (and notability) in such little time.
 * The heading of the 'Current squad' will no longer mention any specific matches (except that little note about 'caps and goals correct as of ...'), but might plainly say something like "The following notable players have been selected in at least one of the four recent matches:".

Well, it's a start. The numbers are arbitrary of course, and it may be a bit weird to have something like that in a recommendation. Perhaps they should only be mentioned as suggestions, with a note that they can be changed based on the activity of a given national team. What do you think? Sygmoral (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with this at all. WP:RECENT is only supposed to guard against undue weight being given to recent events. The current squad of a national team, I would argue, is one of the most important pieces of information you can include, plus it changes every time the squad is updated. Furthermore, the number of caps each player has so far accrued is indicated, so any reader can tell who the established names are and who the newbies are. On top of that, many pages include a list of players who have been called up in the past year, which guards against the omission of any players who may have simply been left out of the most recent squad. Even if that most recent squad is a couple of months old, it's still relevant as the most recent squad selected by the head coach. Your suggestion that we limit the list to players with at least three caps (or any other number) is a non-starter, in my opinion, due to the arbitrary nature of the figure. In my opinion, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. – PeeJay 15:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but the "solution" that User:Sygmoral suggests is much worse than the alleged "problem". WP:NOR being the most obvious flaw with your suggestion. Why should some players who are in every squad for the last year (say a backup goalkeeper who is picked every time but never plays because there is an established first choice) be omitted? If a really notable player happens not to be picked for a while, then they will be mentioned elsewhere in the article - a "players" section should include a description of the most capped players, who has scored the most goals, who has been honoured in some way (e.g. hall of fame if such a thing exists). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that my proposed solution has influenced your responses - I did not want to claim it is the only possible solution :) Perhaps I should not have mentioned it, and first tried to establish that there is in fact a problem. So I will refrain from commenting on any potential solution, but rather on the problem.
 * My main issue is the disparity between the recommendation to show only the most recently selected squad (note that "recent call-ups" is not in the article recommendation), while it is discouraged to make any mention of the most recently played matches (most pages do show that, but it is discouraged during GA/FA reviews). That really does not make sense to me. Only historically significant matches or aggregated overviews are allowed on the article page, but at the same time we do show an inherently temporary list of those players that were selected in the very last selection? How can you justify the difference in these two recommendations? The players are of course very important information, but I can not agree that the results are less important. When you talk about a national team, or want to look something up about them, aren't their recent results at least as noteworthy as their most recent set of players?
 * To conclude: any chance we can agree that the current recommendation is not consistent in that regard? I believe the "amount of recentism" should be the same in both sections (players and results). If we can agree on that, a next step can be to see in which way that might be improved (regardless of whether we are succesfull). Sygmoral (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the comparison you are making. I think you're getting too hung up about what is in the "article recommendation" - that is a very basic outline. In respect of "recent results", there is no reason why the last year's results is more important than the year before, or the year before that. If something important has happened in the last year's results (e.g. winning a tournament), that should be written in the history section. Major national teams should have a distinct "list of results" page, indeed some of them are featured lists (e.g. Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results). The most recent squad selection is important as people will want to know that information (say if their team is soon to play against that opponent). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a bit of a non-issue? When does something stop being "recent"? Articles such as List of England international footballers negate the whole recentism argument. Surely a link to such a list at the top of any squad would solve any problem an individual editor might feel exists rather than creating an additional set of essentially arbitrary rules to get around a problem I do not believe really exists in the first place. Fenix down (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We already have a solution to this problem in place - it's the Recent call-ups section! This includes all players who've been called up in the last 12 months. This tells the reader who is a member of the current squad - a key bit of information - but also shows who forms part of the wider 'selection pool'. Note that both sections are subheadings of Players - they are equal components of this part of the page. Frankly, if a player has been injured for longer than that, then even if they were a major part of the squad, there has to be a significant question as to whether they will ever return - we cannot presume that they will return. Put direclty, then - no, this is not inconsistent. Your assertion that "veterans such as Vincent Kompany and Marouane Fellaine, who are much more likely to be included in any future squad" is inherently flawed and presumptive - we cannot presume that players will return to the squad, and the 12 month recent call ups acts in the same way as the 4 match grace period that you mention. I agree as well with the note that recentism (which is a guideline, rather than a rule) is about undue weight towards the recent. Look at the three bullet points at WP:RECENTISM - I don't think the current situation creates these.
 * The perceived problem/solutions are flawed in other ways. Goalkeepers may be members of squads for years and receive only a handful of caps. Teams play with different levels of frequency at different times - some smaller nations will play 2 to 3 World Cup/Continental qualifying matches every 2 years, while in the period around a World Cup other teams will play 9-10 matches in 2 months. So any proposal needs to be time rather than match based.
 * If it were up to me, the only change I'd make would be to remove the subjective, presumptive and uncited 'INJ' symbols from the recent call ups section, but that's just me. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well then, it seems I am alone with my ideas, so I'll drop my Player tables concerns :) (although I'd agree with changing something about those INJ symbols, which is also something that bugged me)

I remain conflicted however about how relevant recent matches are for national teams. I can not agree with the statement that "there is no reason why the last year's results is more important than the year before, or the year before that", especially if those include qualification matches since those directly influence the team's standing in the group, which seems relevant to that and several other teams. But anyway, let's assume that a list of the recent individual matches is too much. Next question then: if the reason to keep the very last selection of players is valid due to competing teams wanting to know who they are up against (even if you have to do some work yourself to figure out who is likely to appear from the Current / Recent tables :p), what would your opinions be on including the most current qualification group template (you know, like these)? I've seen several national team pages including these but not individual matches; are they doing it right, or would you consider those to carry too much undue weight as well? Sygmoral (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do think adding recent results is undue weight. Unlike the current players, without whom there wouldn't be an actual team, the recent results are too transitive to be worth including. I'd say we should indicate the group the team is in for whatever tournament they're attempting to qualify for, and then mention any notable games in the History section, but listing the results is excessive when we can simply link to the appropriate group article. Although this does raise arguments in favour of creating season articles for national teams. – PeeJay 13:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Statbunker
Hi all. Would this site constitute as a reliable source, only as I can't seem to find booking minutes for the Battle of the Buffet anywhere on the Internet (or archives for that matter). The site is somewhat incomplete, but the minutes do check out with the match video. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You could just use the match video as the source, you know. Madcynic (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's touch and go, there doesn't seem to be a page stating how they sourced the information. It's your call, I'd perhaps be inclined to risk it. NapHit (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Decided to cite the match video for minutes. I guess it would've been more problematic if there was no footage readily available to begin with. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Block colours vs lines
Would it be possible to replace the block colours in this template and its friends with appropriately coloured lines until qualifications have been decided? We used to do that, but I don't know why we stopped. It's just that a block colour implies that qualification is already assured, whereas the line simply indicates the position(s) where the team(s) must finish to qualify for the next stage. – PeeJay 10:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That has been discussed in length. The current format has consistency between league articles and tournament articles. One gets used to it. -Koppapa (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely the same could be applied to league articles as well? Then as soon as qualification is assured, you can change it to a solid block colour... – PeeJay 11:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it can be changed but consensus, after very long discussions, says we should do it this way just like the league tables always has been. Also this way with text on the right and not only a line, better works with MOS:COLOR as some readers may be colorblind. When teams have qualified, statusletters are added. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 11:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Should these two articles have their title changed to be season specific?

 * Average attendances of football clubs
 * Average home attendances in non-European club football

The two articles are well referenced and no doubt satisfy the appetite of stats fans. My concern is that the articles don't specify which season they are taking into account. Is it the most recent season or is it their record average attendance? For example, what does it mean for Boca Juniors to have average attendance of 40,600? Is it their average attendances of all time or just their average attendance last season?

I would welcome any input as I've not been active on Wikipedia for a few years now and a lot has changed. Many thanks. Spiderone 10:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would also add


 * Average attendances of European football clubs
 * The season should be stated in the articles. It should be the average over one year. There is no need yearly articles. Koppapa (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My only concern is that some leagues run their seasons as 2014-15 while others use the calendar year. So if I changed each of the articles to '2014-15 season' then this would not be true of some leagues. Spiderone  11:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * These should be taken to AFD really, pure WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 11:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't attendance one of the most important aspects of football? Spiderone  11:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really have to be the same season for all clubs. As long as the difference doesn't span 5 years i doubt it matters. -Koppapa (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. It's a trivial stat that we just happen to record for each game. The attendance doesn't have any effect on the result. – PeeJay 12:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have created an AfD here which you are all welcome to participate in. Spiderone  12:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Parma article merger
Unless anyone has any opposing views to those already aired, how do we get an admin to complete the merger discussed on Talk:Parma Calcio 1913?  mg  SH 17:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review of Harry Kane
Hi, is anyone interested about the Peer review of Harry Kane to make it a FA? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's too soon to even think about promoting that article to FA status. Kane's career is still in its infancy and many things can change in the next few months/years. All it would take is for someone to stop updating the article for its FA status to be taken away again. Unless they're extremely prominent players, no current player should have an FA-class article, IMO. – PeeJay 09:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Héctor Herrera requested move
I have made a request for Héctor Herrera (footballer) to be moved to Héctor Herrera. The discussion is here if anyone is interested.  GoPurple  'n  Gold24   22:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:European Cup Winner's medal
Is there such a cat/similar cat for players ( not clubs)? MyTuppence (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A map for UEFA member countries?
Is there any thought of making a map for UEFA member countries? Right now the European map used by UEFA articles does not cover cities such as Astana (problem for the 2015–16 UEFA Champions League) and Baku (problem for UEFA Euro 2020, the location of Baku in that article is definitely not correct). There are actually maps for AFC, CONCACAF, and OFC, so I think it may be worth asking. As far as I can see, we can make three improvements from the current European map: I have discussed with but neither of us know how to make a map, so we are raising the issue here. Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Include more territories. Obviously we need to make tradeoffs between how likely a team qualifies for these group stages and how big the map becomes. To the East Baku should definitely be included, and perhaps Astana, but certainly no need to stretch it all the way to Eastern Russia. And to the West, what about Canaries, Madeira and Azores? Teams from those islands did qualify for the group stage (Marítimo for 2012–13 UEFA Europa League). How many teams from these islands are (or have been) in the top divisions of European football?
 * 2) Grey out the territories that are not part of UEFA. So white colour for Turkey, Israel, Kazakhstan, etc. Grey for Syria, etc.
 * 3) Add borders between England/Scotland and England/Wales since they are under different UEFA associations.
 * I'll give it a try. Bmf 051 (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let us know if you have a preliminary version (no need to be perfect). Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll be able to do this one. Location maps have two parts: the image (usually an LAEA projection using a tool like GeoTools) and the equations for calculating (x,y)-coordinates using the (lat, long)-coordinates (look at Template:Location map America to see what I mean). I know how to do the math part, but I don't know how to generate the image. For CONCACAF, I just used the image from Template:Location map America, zoomed in, and adjusted the equations. Bmf 051 (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your try. I'll look around to see if anybody else can help. Do you know anybody who knows how to make a map? Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Graphics Lab/Map workshop. – PeeJay 11:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

vandal?
this user exchanged 1 player per squad a lot. Some are false, Arenal, umea,paris, no idea about the iranian ones, best way to revert the edits? maybe block him? -Koppapa (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverted and warned. GiantSnowman 13:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Good news, everyone!
It seems like our faithful friend, statto.com, is back online! I can't guarantee it's got all the same functionality as before, but it does seem to have a new interface. – PeeJay 10:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Faithful friend :-)) I'd be happier if they told us what happened, rather than popping back up as if they'd just been offline for a few hours. If we're expected to think of it as a professional, let alone reliable, source again, I'm not sure "apologies for the down time" quite covers a six-week absence with no info apart from suggesting we follow a Twitter account that never tweeted... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Does this mean I can go around and add it as a source again for "results by matchday" section again (Man Utd example). This was used previous season and it is a very good to source that section (if we see it as reliable again). User:PeeJay2K3, what would you say about going back to using it at 2015–16 Manchester United F.C. season again, instead of BBC reports to source every position iundividually? The only difference is that statto lists united as 3rd (instead of 4th), because they has same goal diff and goals scored as team above (they were "tied for 3rd"). <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd rather use the BBC, tbh. Struway makes a good point about Statto's unreliability, given their lack of a proper explanation for their recent downtime. Who knows if they'll have any sort of longevity in the future? At least with the BBC they're almost guaranteed to keep their articles in place in perpetuity. – PeeJay 21:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Great Britain matches
I try to develop a french article about Football at the 1948 Summer Olympics but I haven't got informations about Great Britain. For Sweden, India, Italy, I have but not for GB, whereas GB finished 4th. Have you got informations about 4 matches of GB? Thank you. --FCNantes72 (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you seen this reference? Eldumpo (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Retire sub talk pages
This discussion was archived, although no action was taken despite what seemed like an agreement. Should I execute it myself? I was waiting because I expected someone with more authority to take action :) (if someone believes more discussion is needed, I suppose we need to take it out of the archive) —Sygmoral (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the redirect, and I think your proposal for them to be read-only is the best action. However, this action would need an explanation, or at least a direct link to this page. MYS  77  ✉ 00:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Proven FA Cup medal winner despite not playing in final
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2632644/Wojciech-Szczesny-parades-FA-Cup-medal-famous-trophy-despite-failing-play-single-second-en-route-Wembley-triumph.html

Here proves players who didn't play in the FA Cup Final get a medal anyway, so all you lot who keep removing honours from players pages as they didn't play in the final can stop doing that now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.97.80 (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately as a tabloid newspaper, the Mail is not considered a reliable source.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Look on the page. It clearly shows Szczesny with a winners medal despite not playing in the final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.97.80 (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All you're showing is the importance of using reliable sources to verify honours, and not just making assumptions about who has and has not won a medal! GiantSnowman 13:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

How am I assuming? It shows a photo of him with a winners medal in his hand! How is that assuming? Click on the page and see for yourself! He won the FA Cup despite not playing, it's a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.97.80 (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You may not be assuming now, but people were assuming he was an FA Cup winner despite having no evidence to back that up. Obviously a photo of him with a medal or a source listing the FA Cup among his honours is acceptable, but you definitely can't just assume someone won a medal just because they were part of the squad earlier in the tournament. – PeeJay 13:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This proves that Szczesny received a medal, it doesn't prove anything with regard to any other player..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a process flow around dual nationality players
There is still general consensus needed for dual nationality players. There are some people who see this as black and white issue when it is in fact not. If you achieve notability in two different countries while being a citizen of those countries how can you in fact just be listed as a citizen of just one of these countries. This is in fact illogical and misrepresents many football players for many different countries.

Let's classify dual nationals as players that meet the notability requirements in Country A as a citizen of Country A. While later meeting notability requirements in Country B as a citizen of Country B. The goal of this consensus is the following:


 * Neutrally define dual national players.
 * Properly portray the subject's career and life experiences.
 * Avoid edit wars and conflicts by individuals who feel nationalistic pride or bias around the athlete's countries of origin.

There are many factors to account for when categorizing a dual national player. Birth country, what country the player first met notability requirements, and what country the player represents in international competition. Please see the below flow:

Citizen of Country A and Country B > Notable in Country A = Yes > Notable in Country B = Yes > Country A and B can be listed Citizen of Country A and Country B > Notable in Country A = No > Notable in Country B = Yes > Only Country B can be listed Citizen of Country A and Country B > Notable in Country A = Yes > Notable in Country B = No > Only Country A can be listed Citizen of Country A and Country B > Notable in Country A = No > Notable in Country B = No > Notable in Country C = Yes > Country where the player plays internationally is listed > (if no senior national team) > birth country is listed

As you can see, the subject would have had to meet the notability standards in each country for dual nationalities to be listed. Synthfreq (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So long as we don't use that God-awful "X-born Y" wording, which is a pet peeve of mine. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  18:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought FIFA nationality is all that we report on.
 * What exactly does "notable in country" mean here?
 * Also, MOS:BIO, §Opening Paragraph, item 3.2 "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, 'previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." This clearly argues against this proposal.
 * Finally, we should clarify that no linking of countries, links to "German People", "Americans" or similar demographic articles should not be made. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am basing notability on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability
 * So lets say a player is born in Turkey to American parents and is a citizen of both countries. Let's also say this hypothetical player is a Turkish youth player and plays for a Turkish pro club. When he plays for the Turkish pro club it would make him a notable Turkish Football Player by both WP:FOOTY and Wikipedia standards and he should be listed as a a Turkish footballer. However, let's say that same player decides to play for the United States internationally he would then meet the new notability requirements while also being American Citizen as well. To define this player as just American would be somewhat incorrect since he was first notable as Turkish. However, to just call him Turkish is also incorrect as he plays for the United States in international competition and is a United States Citizen. Therefore, I believe both countries must be equally recognized to logically represent the players career. I think that country the player represents in international competition should always be the main country the player's nationality is listed as and next would be the the country the player was born/first notable in. So in the case of the example above the player would be described as a "Turkish-born American soccer player" or something along those lines.

Synthfreq (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We have to base our decisions on MOS:BIO first and foremost. We dare not go against that guideline.
 * Using your example, the current process, as I have read it, would list him only as an American player (because he plays for the United States) who plays for Turkish club Galatasaray (as an example).
 * But what if the reverse is the case. Born and raised in Florida, he joins and plays for a marginally notable US club, say one in the United Soccer League Professional Development league — not one that has any affiliation with MLS. He gets no press while on the team. He then is called-up and plays for the Turkey U-21 side. Again, no press. Which then is the "notable country"?
 * That is the crux: without defining "notable in country" this is a worthless proposal. No offence. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So in your example you said the player only played for U-21. This does not fit the notability requirements of playing at the senior level. Again, please read here:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability
 * So the player you described would be just American. However if he plays at the senior level for the Turkish National Team he would then be called an "American-born Turkish footballer" or something along those lines. Based on the current FIFA international eligibility a system like this works and would keep things unbiased. Synthfreq (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable to me but only if the player was notable before they represented either national team at a senior level. Otherwise, you may have edits noting the player's ethnicity or where the player was born when it's rather irrelevant. But in the case you described, I believe this makes sense when using "notability" as a standard. 74.120.223.150 (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that if the person hasn't played international football and there is any doubt, then we should not mention nationality in the lead given that it's not relevant to their notability. Hack (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The header should remain neutral simply stating "a professional soccer player" or "professional footballer". This would only apply in the cases where the player competes internationally for a different country then the one they were initially notable in. Synthfreq (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That goes against MOS:BIO. This suggestion should be floated past that project before any final decision is made. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It's very simple. If there's no doubt, then use the nationality in question. If there is doubt, then don't. If a player was born in X but represents Y then don't include nationality in the opening sentence, but explain the situation later on in the intro e.g. "John Smith is a professional footballer who plays for Wiki FC, as a midfielder. Born in X, he represents Y at international level." GiantSnowman 17:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What if the fact that a player was born in a certain country is essentially incidental—for example if he was born while his parents were living abroad, and returned home as a small kid? See Terry Butcher, Shaun Maloney and Cédric Soares for just three examples. Placing so much weight on the place of birth in the basic descriptions of these people is in my view over-simplifying things and against MOS (see WP:OPENPARA), as outlined by 208.81.212.222 above. In the case of Butcher, for example, the fact that he was born in Singapore is more a pub quiz question than anything. It's actually much more pertinent where these people grew up, went to school, played youth football etc. To clarify: I agree with GiantSnowman where a player was born, raised and schooled in a certain country, and started their football career there, but then plays international football for another country; but I don't agree in cases where a player just happens to have been born in a different country. Seems to me like undue weight. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  18:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although not footballers, I think it's useful to compare the cyclists Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome. Wiggins was born in Belgium to a British Mother and Australian Father. He moved to the UK at 2. His birthplace is mentioned in the infobox and early life section, but not elsewhere. It's essentially not relevant to him - Wiggins career and personality has been shaped by being British. Froome was born and raised in Keyna to British parents and then moved to South Africa. He road with African teams until 2008 and represented Kenya in his early career. He's described as 'Kenya-born British' (a phrasing I have no issue with!). His birthplace is much more relevant to him, shaping the progression of his life and career. Most sportspeople will fall somewhere between these relatively two extreme polls, but what they offer are useful case studies of the variety of the relevance of otherwise of birth place and sporting nationalities, and as such stand as good reasons for not having a policy beyond Wikipedia's current stance of not emphasizing nationality/birthplace if there is no good reason to. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, in my opinion Super Nintendo Chalmers has it about right. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  10:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I get the sense that this project does not want to discuss this with the biographies project. I'm not entirely certain why that is. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Has anyone bothered to discuss with the biographies project? Could we be pointed to that discussion? Should they be pointed here? 208.81.212.222 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

CSKA London
Why does "CSKA London" redirect to "Chelsea F.C."? --Theurgist (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * According to this, its a reference to the club's Russian owner. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I guessed so. That was more of raising the question if the redirection should exist than of asking a factual question. --Theurgist (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't it? Even if it is meant disparagingly, it is a plausible search term. Wikipedia is not censored, after all. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So how about redirecting "Manchester Shitty" to "Manchester City F.C.", "Loserpool" to "Liverpool F.C." and "Germoney" to "Germany"? --Theurgist (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Go for it, be bold. --Jimbo[online] 14:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

- See Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 2. GiantSnowman 17:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Guiseley A.F.C.'s stadium
I'm coming here from User_talk:Mattythewhite#Stadium_notability. It'd be appreciated if anyone could take a look at that conversation. Could it have a page? Does it pass the GNG? On the talk page, I've listed some media coverage but I'm not sure whether it is notable enough. Thanks. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The talk page linked: User talk:Mattythewhite. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The general rule is that the stadium should have hosted national-level football, so I would say the Guiseley ground should be notable. Number   5  7  22:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've restored the article (it had been converted into a redirect by myself some time ago) – see Nethermoor Park. Number   5  7  22:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

1930–31 Dumbarton F.C. season
Do articles such as 1930–31 Dumbarton F.C. season meet notability guidelines, being a second-tier part time team? -- ℕ  ℱ  20:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're being a bit selective there, as Dumbarton have oscillated between mostly fully-pro upper divisions and the largely semi-pro lower divisions. Also, I don't think there was such a distinction between part-time and full-time in that era. The article appears to be sourced. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Has the team ever been a full time professional team? I suspect the answer to be no, but if you know better, source? -- ℕ  ℱ  22:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * By the modern definition, probably not. But that was probably also true when they won the Scottish league championship in 1890/91 and 1891/92. I don't think it could be reasonably argued that those seasons are not notable. I think they're an example of a club where you can't draw a hard and fast (professionalism) rule as to what is notable or not. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The difficulty I have is in seeing how a league win in the 19th Century justifies the inclusion of minutiae about a modern season when they were part-time team in the third tier, and were never pro at any time. See 2010–11 Dumbarton F.C. season. I raised the query because it looks suspiciously like excessive detail to me compared with our treatment of other non professional clubs. But if that's how things are really meant to work around here, so be it. -- ℕ  ℱ  11:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow...?
Could we perhaps white out the following deletion discussion on Friendly Cup? The article should have been speedied as an obvious test page or hoax, and also was proposed for this; nevertheless, the proposal got contested by the original author without providing any reason (see talk page of the article). – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * isn't this comment crossing the line a bit? -- ℕ  ℱ  13:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The articles should be deleted (WP:HOAX), but the above comment is a bit like canvassing (campaigning). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Point taken and understood. Won't happen again. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Moving the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup qualification (CONCACAF play-off) article
Should the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup qualification (CONCACAF play-off) article be moved to 2015 CONCACAF Cup ? CONCACAF are now branding the one-game qualification play-off as the "2015 CONCACAF Cup Presented by Scotiabank". TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gone and done it myself (Be bold!) TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Qualifying / qualification, what is the difference?
Why do we say 2018 FIFA World Cup Qualification and 2016 UEFA EURO Qualifying? Is there an important difference between these two words or is it merely a conventional use (so qualifying for European tournaments and qualification for the rest of the world)? Sofeshue (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no difference as far as I am aware – it's two words with the same meaning. Number   5  7  08:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, we titled the articles based on what FIFA and UEFA refer to each phase of their tournaments as. UEFA use the word "qualifying", whereas FIFA use "qualification". Maybe that's changed now, or maybe we should be consistent here, but that's the reason I remember from years ago. – PeeJay 09:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Design Kits
Hey guys, how are you? I was looking for someone who update kits for clubs here... Corinthians is launching its new kits this week (1st and 3rd kits, actually) and I'd like someone to create them so we could update the articles related. As soon as I get in touch with that user, I can send the pics for those new kits. The third is based on the template Nike's using for this season. Anyway, thanks! Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:VEO15 has always done very good work with Manchester United kits, so I'd be inclined to ask him if I were you. I can't guarantee his availability or willingness, however. – PeeJay 22:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just remember that these kits should not have any sponsorships, per WP:PROMOTION. MYS  77  ✉ 23:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just managed to do them by myself. Thanks! Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, if anyone more technologically talented than myself wants to have a go at making the new Central Coast Mariners kit (featuring unique/prominent palm tree) then that would be much appreciated. Macosal (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't all this suffer from WP:Recentism, I remember in the past kits where meant to be typical kits not the current season's palm tree number Gnevin (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What is a "typical kit"? In any case, this season's kit should be used at 2015–16 Central Coast Mariners FC season at the very least. Macosal (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For the Mariners a standard kit would appear to be yellow basic on my very fleeting knowledge Gnevin (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am well aware what colours the Mariners wear... My point was more that even if you say the standard kit is "yellow", that hardly translates into a full kit/kits to put on the clubs page. Any "typical" kit will be more similar to some seasons' kit than others, in fact, determining what kit is "typical" sounds so subjective it is probably usually impossible. Macosal (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In fairness that's good point. Better to have WP:V kit than a WP:OR 'typical kit' Gnevin (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no issue with having more detailed designs to match a season's new kits - just no logos or sponsors please. GiantSnowman 11:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Quique Sánchez Flores - Page move
Feeling absolutely gutted with this outcome, if I knew then what I know now I would have stayed pat as can be. Several years ago, several people sided with the argument that his common name was Quique Flores, not just me, and I was subjected to vitriolic abuse by a Colombian punk for several years for doing so (only me, mind you!).

Moreover, if you check the ref someone else has added to the article (PERSONAL LIFE section), he is addressed as Quique Flores by the ENGLISH press. They call him Q.S. Flores once, then the rest of the article only Flores.

Lost for words, but I still wish the community a merry weekend. Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Premier League and flags
On article 2015–16 Premier League there is an editor, User:Pbradbury, that insists on adding flags despite edit notice on that page saying not to add flags per MOS:FLAG and I know this has been discussed before. Now he accuses me of edit warring and suddenly gave me a level 3 for disruptive editing?. I feel like WP:BOOMERANG or something as he is just as involved in the editing as I am and he has now started with threats just to make me stop. What is "right" and "wrong" here? Flags or no flags?

The page notice was added by User:Black Kite so I also inform you about this. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 15:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a discussio about this on the article talk page which you have refused to participate in, also please provide a diff where I have added any flags to this article, other than the one revert I did to your edit warring. Paul    Bradbury  16:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally don't think the page is violating any Wikipedia policies, and according to MOS:FLAG: Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.  In these tables, the flags are relevant enough. In other hand, I'm considering that this discussion between both of you is unnecessary, as Bradbury's warning. MYS  77  ✉ 16:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll accept that, I am tired and possibly overstepped with the warning, I have tried discussing several times with this user what I consider his disruptive editing. I think I'll just step away from editing football. Better for my sanity and maybe the project. Paul    Bradbury  16:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with MYS77 - the flags seem like useful information here. Number   5  7  22:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, flags can/should be used. No violation. Kante4 (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

On a related matter, why in the table do the managers sort by country but team captains sort by surname? 77.130.197.6 (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The editnotice now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Editnotices/Page/2015–16 Premier League since we should have flags based on this discussion. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 13:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Viv Richards playing in World Cup qualifiers?
See this edit. The edit obviously needs to be reverted, but is there a way to find team list for these matches in a reliable source? --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * RSSSF has listings, which indeed do not feature Richards -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * FIFA also has a comprehensive list. GiantSnowman 12:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can find match results on fifa.com but not line-ups, unless I'm missing something........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In the meantime I have amended the article to make it clear that the claim is in doubt....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Richards cowrote two autobiographies, "Viv Richards" (with David Foot), 1979; and "Viv Richards" (with Bob Harris), 2000. In both books he mentions playing football, and mentions that both his father (Malcolm) and younger brother (Mervyn) both played cricket and football for Antigua. He doesn't make that claim for himself. Both books mention that he spent six weeks at Alf Gover's cricket school in London (in company with fellow-Antiguan Andy Roberts), and the later book states that they came to London in November 1972. So at the time the World Cup qualifiers were played (Nov/Dec 1972) he was in London.BW Lawrence (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Football box/football box collapsible
Nabla raised an issue at the non-League task force talk page that has quite wide effects. In numerous articles the football box and football box collapsible are corrupted and causing one or both teams' names to display twice (see e.g. here). This appears to be caused by the use of </b> before one team's name in the coding (removing this resolves the problem). However, this doesn't appear to have been added recently, and this seems a little odd - either the articles have been corrupted for a long time and no-one has ever said anything, or somehow the </b> has only just started causing problems, which suggests a coding change somewhere has affected it.

But anyway, it looks like this may affect a lot of articles, so perhaps better to try and work out the root cause before spending a lot of time removing the </b> from articles? Number  5  7  07:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the templates need to be changed, because it's those pages using an unsupported hack -- which by the way looks incomplete: it closes a  tag but does not reopen it later. What you may be experiencing is the browser that stopped supporting this (or maybe the Wikipedia parser). It might be fixed by putting a <b> later in the same parameter that starts with , but still, it's a bit ugly. Note that it does display correctly on 2014–15 FA Cup, without any html tags! :) —Sygmoral (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As TheBigJagielka pointed out at the task force page, the issue is indeed with the hack – the box automatically bolds both teams, but should only bold the winner. The </b> hack was one way around this - i.e. to debold the losing team. The other one (that doesn't cause the problems) is to bold the losing team using  , which is then reversed by the template code – this is the solution used on the 2014–15 article.
 * Sygmoral, I would suggest that the template itself does need to be changed to allow for the winning team to be automatically bolded using a coding function, rather than relying on backwards hack to debold the losing team. This must be possible somehow. Number   5  7  13:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It should indeed be possible, and is in fact the most recent suggestion on the Football box collapsible talk page. —Sygmoral (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two suggestions going on that talk page at the moment: (1) putting penalty shootout results inline with the regular score, so that it still only takes up one row (as is the intention of the template), and (2) add/change a parameter to allow choosing which team names should be bold. They are not getting a lot of feedback though, so feel free to weigh in! —Sygmoral (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Qualified for v Qualified to
The correct way to phrase it in British English is, for example, England "have qualified for" the European Championships, rather than England "are qualified to" the European Championships. I realise that English is not necessarily everyone's first language, and that "qualified to" may be valid in other versions of English. I think that users should be encouraged to change "qualified to" to "qualified for" wherever they see it. I realise that this is a bit trivial, but I think it's important for Wikipedia to get it right, especially in articles like international football ones with a high number of second-language English speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squajar (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Having league division in lead section
Should the division a player plays in be included in the lead section of the article? <b style="font-family:tahoma"><b style="color:green">Tea</b><b style="color:blue">Lover</b><b style="color:red">1996</b> (talk) </b> 09:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No. GiantSnowman 09:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not. If it's included, there is no point in deleting it. -Koppapa (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It gives such little information as to be near-useless. GiantSnowman 10:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not isn't technically a vote.--EchetusXe 14:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It should not be mandatory to include it. As well as it should not be mandatory to delete it. -Koppapa (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a request for comment, not a vote. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No. Kante4 (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. It provides additional at-a-glance information, particularly for players playing for clubs in countries or leagues unfamiliar to casual readers. Madcynic (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 12:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes--EchetusXe 14:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No-- <b style="font-family:tahoma"><b style="color:green">Tea</b><b style="color:blue">Lover</b><b style="color:red">1996</b> (talk) </b> 15:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No. What happens when 3 sides from every division get relegated (and sometimes 6 in case of relegation and promotion in lower leagues) at the end of the season? We run around doing unnecessary edits for  tens of thousands of players. To put it in perspective, according to FIFA here there are 327,000+ clubs and 38 million+ registered players in the world. Obv not all are on Wikipedia, but still it leaves us with potentially alot of extra editing that is unneeded. Most people know where club are located, and if they don't then a simple hover over the clubs's name usually reveals it. --Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Same argument could be used for the club of a player, there are so many transfers each year. Or career stats... -Koppapa (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I came across some players from Freiburg a couple of weeks ago which still had them as "Bundesliga" team. Don't see why this is important to have it included. It just makes more work after a team is relegated/promoted. For each team about 20-25 pages have to be updated, this work can be saved. Kante4 (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The answer is more complex than a yes or no. I do think that mentioning the division is good for an article that presents a thorough research of a retired player (along the lines of: "Bob played most of his career in the third division, but had one season in the first division"). Doing this for an active player would clearly be a problem, except if that player is a notable one. So, to make it a requirement would be wrong, but to say it is inappropriate would also be wrong.-- MarshalN20 T al k 18:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No – While a player is still active, the division they currently play in is too fluid to warrant such regular changes. As well as being relegated or promoted, a player can be transferred between clubs in different divisions. I don't see a problem with mentioning the division at the time of the player's transfer in the main body of the article, but not in the lead section. As MarshalN20 suggests, it could work as part of a summary of a player's career once he's retired, but during an active career there's too much potential for change to warrant the inclusion of information that's barely relevant to the player's career overall. – PeeJay 20:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak yes It's a case by case thing but in general, it's relevant information and it's certainly changes not any more, in fact usually very much less, than club for most players. It's really not that much of a burden. Also it's not a vote you need to give a reason for why you have that opinion consensus is based on reasoned arguments not voting. A simple yes or no doesn't cut it.   Paul    Bradbury  21:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No JMHamo (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Koppapa, Marshall2N20 and Paul Bradbury. If it's there and not outdated then I don't see a problem with it and it does help inform the reader of the current level of the player. The reasons stated against by Peejay and Shreerajtheauthor are strong reasons for not making it mandatory, but I also don't think that they're reasons for prohibiting it, and if it's accurate, let it stay. If it's outdated, remove it. It's also important to remind editors that this is not a vote. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. SuperNintendo agreed! While I don't think we have to retrospectively change every player's template, I think we should all make an effort to start displaying the nationality of the club instead of the division in the intro. And in the body most players are broken out by season now, so saying Premier League side would be fine as it's taken in context to the club's standing in that given season/date range.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Koncorde (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No Cant it just be in the infobox? MQoS (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So you'd favour changing the player infobox to include division as well as club? Wouldn't that cause a huge amount of work?  What if a player was promoted and/or relegated multiple times with the same club?  They'd end up with loads of different rows in the infobox for their time with that one club..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's one thing forthat kind of stuff to be required where it's a one league system (NFL, NHL etc) but problematic in multi league / competition systems. Having looked at an awful lot of articles that exist - very few even mention the division in the narrative unless there is a reason to do so (i.e. promotion, change of division when transferring, final league position etc). The use of "Premier" in Cristiano Ronaldo and Gareth Bale's profiles is quite telling. It is almost never in reference to the club - and always to some personal achievement, goal, or to differentiate between a league game and cup game. Koncorde (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ian Ashbee would need at least four rows for his Hull City career, which would look ridiculous -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Adam Webster for Pompey would need his own encyclopedia! --Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, if I must choose one or the other. Why not is closer. It's relevant information, the answer to the sort of question readers ask when they start reading about a player. Most people don't know what division most clubs are in: we're not writing for the football expert, we're writing for the general reader. What harm does it do to include a small piece of helpful information somewhere where that reader can see it at a glance? After all, a player's up-to-the-minute stats are apparently important enough to include in the infobox, which is supposed to be an at-a-glance summary of the player's career. How much time do editors spend 40/50 times a season updating infobox and career stats? Yet once a year, or less, is too much time for our poor overworked editors to spend on updating a change of division. If it's outdated, fix it: that's what policy would advise. I'm not arguing that it should be mandatory to include it, but I am saying that if people want it in, I can't see any justification for removing it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No "Nationality club" is sufficient. SLBedit (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No It's overkill. We will have to update a lot of players only because of promotions/relegations. Only Country club is enough. MYS  77  ✉ 04:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, The league the player currently plays in is most definitely applicable. As long as they are kept up to date which they should generally be then there is no issue. However there is no need to systematically add them, just as there is no need to systematically delete them. This should remain principally an editorial decision. I however would be against us including every league a player has played in, just the one they currently play in. Most leads will have the club and that is enough when they no longer play there. Blethering  Scot  17:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Very relevant information which a reader looking up a player potentially, and often likely, doesn't know, which will inform in turn their opinion of the player. To those saying "it will require too much updating", I think the scale of such changes would make it a very small issue when compared to the thousands of players who play matches each week (or even season) which require more updating/research. Macosal (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes same reasons as Struway and Macosal. BigDom (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes same reasons as Struway and Macosal. "Too much editing" has nothing to do with it. The same way you need to update caps is being a lot of consistent editing we must keep up with, the league name is nothing compared to that. What does it take to change it if a player leaves. Nothing at all. Very relevant information, more so than just the club nationality. It is much more important for the major players of major teams. I understand that the lower league team players may not get updated as often, but they already do not as it is. Most if not all Serie D clubs' still have the 2012-13 positions in the infobox, for example. Where are editors then that need to run around and edit? Might as well get rid of that part of the infobox then right? Too much editing right? Come on guys. That cannot be an excuse. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Why not? it seems to me that this should be a case by case issue. As long as the club is listed, the information is readily accessible. Still, why not? I don't see why it should be mandatory, but it can't hurt. K90sdrk (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No I'm not sure what value this would add to the articles, particularly given how easy this info is to obtain by checking out the page of the club they play for, which is listed quite prominently.MichaelProcton (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Specifics of players are important. Pixelatedbro (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What conclusion have we come too then? <b style="font-family:tahoma"><b style="color:green">Tea</b><b style="color:blue">Lover</b><b style="color:red">1996</b> (talk) </b> 21:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

National team squad numbers
During the last set of international fixtures a couple of months ago, an anonymous user added Wales' squad numbers from one of their qualifiers to the Wales national football team article. I objected to this since the squad numbers for qualifiers are no more permanent than those worn in friendlies; they can change from game to game (and often do). Gareth Bale, for example, wears number 11 in Wales' qualifiers, but there's nothing to stop him from wearing any other number he likes (except number 1, of course); by contrast, numbers assigned for a major tournament such as the finals of the European Championships or the World Cup are permanent for that tournament - players have to wear those numbers for every match in the competition. Basically, I'm asking whether or not you guys think it makes sense to update the "Current squad" section of each national team to include the numbers worn in each match. – PeeJay 21:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends what "Current squad" is in national team articles. If it's the last squad called up, and they have numbers assigned, I don't see the problem in assigning them. Having typed this out, I can't think of what else current squad could possibly be, so I guess that means I'm in favour. Number   5  7  22:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That may be true when the squad is only together for one game, but national team squads for UEFA qualifiers are usually together for two games. While players may wear the same number for both games, there is no formal announcement of squad numbers for any game. – PeeJay 22:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it's a gray area. It's the same for the Belgium team, where the numbers are also not announced on beforehand, but several websites do then report them afterwards, including uefa.com. So yes, it's temporary, but it's verifiable, and in the end that whole table is temporary. So I don't think it hurts, as long as the note says that not only the caps and goals but also the player numbers are correct 'as of' a certain match. People just need to look at the table with that variability in mind. —Sygmoral (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Can WP:GNG be passed using one source (albeit from a national newspaper)
See Articles for deletion/Gianluigi Donnarumma for full details.

In short, there is a Daily Mail article provided in the AfD that provides extensive coverage of this footballer. There is no doubt that it gives him more than just a passing mention. My issue is that, in my opinion, he still doesn't meet WP:GNG since my interpretation was that there needed to be more than just one source providing extensive coverage. Can anyone enlighten me please? If proven wrong, I'll happily withdraw my deletion nomination for Donnarumma. Spiderone 17:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally, it's accepted practice to wait until he's played a first team game for either club or country, even Raheem Sterling's article was removed until he had played a first team - his page was receiving thousands of views at the time too. TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer the question you asked. That article is far from being 'extensive coverage' of someone's biography. The newspaper in question is an unreliable source for BLP articles. Even if these first two points were not so, one article is insufficient to establish GNG. -- ℕ  ℱ  18:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * the Daily Mail is not a RS and one source is insufficient for GNG. GiantSnowman 19:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * just out of interest, why is the Daily Mail not a reliable source? It is written by full-time journalists and is a national newspaper. Admittedly, it is a Tabloid but then would that mean the Metro, Mirror, Sun etc. are not reliable also? Spiderone  21:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Those aren't reliable either. None should be used to add material to biographies of living persons per WP:BLPSOURCES. -- ℕ  ℱ  21:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * At time, particularly on exclusive interviews, the Mail is a good supporting source, but should never be the only source. Its football coverage is far more reliable than its notoriously flawed coverage of science, for example &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only info it sources is he plays for Milan. So that is fine here. But one mention in a nationwide paper doesn't make a person notable for an article. Should this farmer or this farmer get an article? The coverage has far more details than that of the keeper. Answer is not obviously. -Koppapa (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

FIFApedia???
I would like to bring to attention this AFD: Articles for deletion/Alban Bunjaku (3rd nomination). Why is FIFA the standard for notability? Football exists outside of FIFA. This is Wikipedia, not FIFApedia. This is a free encyclopaedia which isn't affiliated to FIFA, therefore I couldn't give a flying **** what FIFA authorises. Going by only what FIFA says is legit, goes against Wikipedia's core principles. The recent changes to WP:NFOOTBALL which state what is notable and what isn't (based on FIFA only) is a f****** disgrace. This isn't a FIFA affiliated encyclopaedia. This guideline needs changing to make wikipedia a free encyclopaedia instead of aligning it to a corrupt organisation! IJA (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because only FIFA can sanction recognised international football matches? If we ignore that, what's to stop some students creating a match between two "countries" and declaring it a full international? This would also open up a whole can of worms with regards to things like the Island Games - can anyone seriously suggest that any of the people who played for Sark are deserving of an article?
 * Even ignoring the FIFA issue, if this guy had actually played for Derby, then he'd pass WP:NFOOTY (which he doesn't). There's also the WP:GNG to fall back on. If he didn't pass that either, then that's a fairly solid hint that he's not notable. Number   5  7  13:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FIFA can only sanction international matches which are recognised by FIFA, UEFA, CAFCOM ect. But like I said, there is football outside of FIFA and WP:NFOOTBALL should reflect that instead of being FIFA-centric. IJA (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said, where would we draw the line? Are Sark players notable? Are the players who played in that Tibet v Greenland game a few years ago notable? Looking at FIFA-recognised games seems the only reasonable cut-off point to me without developing some convoluted set of of rules that would no doubt be argued about for years by people from territories who just failed to meet the cut. Number   5  7  13:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Updating Photos
I think that we should start a initiative to update some of the current player and retired player photos as some of them are quite old (Michael Owen, for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixelatedbro (talk • contribs) 02:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't get the point of this section, to be honest. Everyone can upload images to Wikipedia/Commons if the image respects WP:IUP. Owen's image is old because no one upload any free image more recent. We also have a Bot who adds images tagged with the Creative Commons license to here, so I think everything is sorted right now. MYS  77  ✉ 02:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone had a newer copyright-free image of Michael Owen, I suspect it would have been added a loooooooooooong time ago...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Harry Hanger
Some conflicting information from a few RS about this guy's football career and his time in World War I - input welcome over at the article talk page please. GiantSnowman 19:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ilford F.C.
I try to develop french article about Football at the 1948 Summer Olympics and someone says : Which was Ilford during 1947-1948 season? I have no idea. Can you help me? I have only a few days to complete the article, that's why I don't want to lose time. Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I find. Thanks.--FCNantes72 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)