Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Football
Get Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Football essential facts below. View Videos or join the Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Football discussion. Add Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Football to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Football
WikiProject Football (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Are or Is (first sentence - North American teams)

When starting an article, what type of verb should be used. User:Walter Görlitz and I disagree about this on Club de Foot Montréal. I believe it should be a case by case basis based on the situation. In this situation, I believe it should be CF Montreal IS a football club. whereas the other editor says that it should be CF Montreal ARE a football club. The latter sounds like incorrect grammar to me. If it was something like The New York Red Bulls then it would be Are, not when there is no The. There was a similar discussion previously here at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_136#The_or_no_The about this, while Walter says this Talk:Portland Timbers#Plural verb form for sports teams in American English argues for consensus to use "ARE", but I fail to see where a consensus was achieved there. Very few of the other MLS articles use ARE, the majority use IS. RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:PLURALS and Talk:Portland Timbers#Plural verb form for sports teams in American English are clear. If you want to change consensus, be my guest and grammar, it's not on my head. I too prefer "is" but @KitHutch: and @Oknazevad: have a different opinion. They also pointed to all NFL, NBA and NHL club articles as examples. It was my opinion that "are" is "international" (as can be seen at U2) while "is" is American. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I've read that discussion and it seems to me that the discussion relates directly to the other discussion I linked. In terms, of Portland, since their name is Portland Timbers, it would be written as THE Portland Timbers are because of the use of the "THE". When the "THE" is not used it would revert to IS. There were only 3 of you involved, so that's not really a Wide consensus. Reading that, it seems like oknazevad agrees with my view here, given his view of Sporting KC which is the same style as CF Montreal. Furthermore, MOS:PLURAL says " In North American English, these words (and the United States, for historical reasons) are almost invariably treated as singular; the major exception is when sports teams are referred to by nicknames, plural verbs are commonly used to match e.g. the Heat are playing the Lakers". Hence Is should be used in this case for Montreal. CF Montreal is not referring to them by a 'nickname' since there is not 'nickname. The Portland timbers refers to them by the 'nickname' Timbers, hence the are. When it was the Impact that was a 'nickname' hence why it was are prior to the rename. This is all also part of the "The or no The" discussion I linked. NHL, NFL, MLB teams all use a nickname which is why they use Are. MLS teams only some use a nickname. With regards to NFL, there is an exception with the Washington Football Team. They do not have a nickname and the page thus uses is. as does Edmonton Football Team of the CFL. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
One exception in the leagues I mentioned, and only in NFL? And that's because of a local consensus that @Red Jay: explained here. So because of one team, all MLS (and apparently CPL) sides should follow that grammatical exception? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
As I said, all other NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA teams use a team nickname form. Not all MLS teams do. Teams like San Jose Earthquakes, Portland Timbers, Colorado Rapids, New York Red Bulls use nickname forms like all those teams (these teams would use plural form like those teams). The others like FC Dallas, Toronto FC, NYC FC use a singular form. Washington Football Team is an exception from the other NFL teams because they are the only NFL team to NOT use a nickname form. They are in line with the majority of MLS clubs in using singular city-based name form in their name. That is what I meant by exception. MLS wouldn't be following Washington, MLS teams that do not have a nickname based form would be following MOS:PLURAL. The Washington FT link you show refers to American_and_British_English_grammatical_differences#Subject-verb_agreement which contains a similar element as MOS: PLURAL which refers to team nicknames. Every American team they refer to is one that uses a nickname. the link from the WFT refers to this page that refers to the NY Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Utah Jazz, Green Bay Packers, all teams that use a nickname-form. MLS teams are not in this form and were probably overlooked in that because MLS at that point (and still is) not oone of the primary North American leagues. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
All MLS franchise articles did as of end of May 2020, but they have changed over time. As of now they do again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
(discussion imported from:Talk:Portland_Timbers#And_again,_the_verb_is_"are"_in_the_lede)
I think "is" is the correct verb in most cases. MOS:PLURALS only applies to team nicknames (e.g. "the Heat", "the Lakers"). Since "Toronto Football Club" is not a nickname, it should be treated as a singular and the opening sentence should read: Toronto Football Club is a ... BLAIXX 20:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@KitHutch: and @Oknazevad: and most other professional team articles disagree. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
You are greatly mistaken. Other than the 25+ you changed today, most professional team articles do agree. BLAIXX 21:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
MLS and CPL are not the only professional team articles for North American sports. NFL, NBA and NHL all (save one exception) use "are". I, however, agree that it should probably be "is" in American English, but that is not the consensus that was reached above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
NFL, NBA, and NHL team names generally end with "nicknames" (e.g. New York Jets), that's why they are pluralized. My interpretation of the discussion above is that only teams with names like Portland Timbers should definitely be pluralized. For teams with names ending in "Football Club" there was basically no discussion and certainly not a consensus. BLAIXX 21:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
They are the common team names. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Jets is a nickname or why nicknames should be treated differently from legal names. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
By "nickname" I am referring to the part of a team's official name that is not the city or a description. The MOS gives Lakers and Heat as examples despite being part of the official name. The reason why you treat nicknames differently is "a quirk of the language." Oknazvad elaborated more in their last two comments from May. BLAIXX 22:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
(end of imported discussion)

The use of plural verbs for sports teams with a plural nickname is a quirk of North American English that is an exception to the general use of singular verbs for a collective noun. It comes from dealing with the awkwardness of having a sentence constructed like "The New York Giants is...", which just plain grates to any ear. It's not the use of the definite article that makes the difference, it's the plural nickname. When only the nickname is used as a short form, the plural is also used. When only city/state is used as a short form, singular is used, like any collective noun (New York is). Same with the wording "the team is". (The pattern is true for both US and Canadian usage, as the use of nicknames for sports teams is typically the same. "The Montreal Alouettes play in the CFL." But "Montreal plays in Percival Molson Stadium.")

This is in contrast to British usage which treats collective names as plural at all times, so they'd say "New York are". That is incorrect in North American English, though, and tips off that the wrong ENGVAR is being followed. This is accounted for in MOS:PLURALS already.

The question is what happens when the team's formal name doesn't include a nickname, like New York City FC, or Toronto FC. They should be singular. There is no nickname triggering the use of a plural verb. It's not like "Montreal Alouettes", but like using just "Montreal" on its own. If I were writing about Toronto FC, I'd write "Toronto FC is..." just as I would write "Toronto is..." when referring to the club. If I were to use their nickname (the Reds), I would write "The Reds are..." just as I would for other plural nicknames. The only difference Eid that the plural nickname isn't part of the formal name of the club, so it doesn't modify the use of the verb tense for the full name. So, in conclusion, the current lead of the CF Montreal article is incorrect, as it's using a plural verb for a collective noun that is itself not plural in form, which is incorrect in Canadian English. oknazevad (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In most cases, "FC" is a nickname in the North American context as it does not mean football club as it does in international English. That is an interesting point however. So "Toronto FC is ..." but "Seattle Sounders FC are ...", but I can accept that odd inconsistency. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(imported from Talk:Portland_Timbers#And_again,_the_verb_is_"are"_in_the_lede)

based on your discussion there, I accept the "nickname" guideline which would mean any team with only a place name and either "FC", "SC" or similar would use "is" while those with nicknames would use "are".
If I understand correctly, the following would use "are"
* Atlanta United FC
* Austin FC
* Chicago Fire FC
* Colorado Rapids
* Columbus Crew SC
* D.C. United
* Houston Dynamo FC
* Inter Miami CF
* LA Galaxy
* Minnesota United FC
* New England Revolution
* New York Red Bulls
* Philadelphia Union
* Portland Timbers
* Real Salt Lake
* Sacramento Republic FC
* San Jose Earthquakes
* Seattle Sounders FC
* Sporting Kansas City
* Vancouver Whitecaps FC
The following would use "is"
* CF Montréal
* Charlotte FC
* FC Cincinnati
* FC Dallas
* Los Angeles FC
* Nashville SC
* New York City FC
* Orlando City SC
* St. Louis City SC
* Toronto FC
I can make those changes as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(end of import)

I would say that any team that solely uses an FC/SC/City/United/etc would definitely be part of the IS category, regardless of whether it stands for Football Club or for decoration. So I would add Atlanta United FC, Austin FC, DC United, Real Salt Lake, Sporting KC, Minnesota United FC, Inter Miami CF. Teams that use solely a nickname at the end would definitely be in the ARE group (Colorado Rapids, Portland Timbers, San Jose Earthquakes, New York Red Bulls) and would require a THE in front of the name. (Philadelphia Union, LA Galaxy, and NE Revolution could go either in either group depending on how its used, but I feel a THE+ARE combo is more appropriate, but if the THE is not used, it would have to be paired with IS) Teams in the Nickname FC form (Columbus Crew SC, Chicago Fire FC, Houston Dynamo FC, Sacramento Republic FC, Seattle Sounders FC, Vancouver Whitecaps FC) are more ambiguous. I feel for that third group, the FC would change them to belonging in the IS group, but would be in favour of more specific discussion on those specific forms. For the first two groups, I personally feel there is solid consensus from all contributors. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that when a team name is used in a form of that ends in CF/FC/SC/City/[place], regardless of what precedes it, it should be treated as a singular. "United" is a bit more ambiguous for me but I'm fine with singular. BLAIXX 15:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I moved all the discussion here, so that if this issue comes up in the future it can all be combined into one area, and I feel referencing the FOOTY project is more appropriate than referencing a Timbers page RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Vote (for North American clubs)

Establishing a vote option for the following: Pinging @Oknazevad:, @Blaixx:, @Walter Görlitz: and anyone else interested

Teams with ONLY a CF/FC/SC/City/United/etc before or after City name (ex. Toronto FC, CF Montreal, Real Salt Lake, DC United etc)

  • Use IS RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Use is (ex. "Toronto Football Club is a professional...") BLAIXX

Teams with a Plural Nickname (ex. New York Red Bulls, Colorado Rapids, etc)

  • Use THE + ARE RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Use The + are (ex. "The Colorado Rapids are a..." - this one is the most obvious to me) BLAIXX

Teams with a Non-Plural Nickname (LA Galaxy/Philadelphia Union/NE Revolution/Montreal Impact)

  • No preference RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Use The + are by default unless there's local consensus on that page to do it the other way. BLAIXX

Teams with a Nickname followed by an FC (ie. Seattle Sounders FC)

  • Use IS RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Bad example. "Sounder" is singular while "Sounders" is plural. "Chicago Fire FC" would be a better example, if their common name were that, but it is still "Chicago Fire". I agree with the principle, but don't think there are any MLS sides that meet this criteria. Perhaps something in USL or CPL may. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Not a bad example, this situation is whether the FC changes it. The plural or singular nickname is irrelevant as it is about the FC, in my view. I'm applying this case to all of Sounders FC/Fire FC/Dynamo FC/Republic FC RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Still undecided. BLAIXX 16:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Continued discussion

  • Just to be clear, is this vote is only for US/Canadian articles? And if so please make that clearer. Because in British English, it should always be "are". Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
DoneRedPatchBoy (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • At the risk of both going off topic and opening a can of worms, I would suggest that there is some ambiguity in British English too, but it depends on the context and whether one is talking about the club or the team. Personally I would say "Gillingham are winning 1-0 against Liverpool" but I would also say "Gillingham Football Club was founded in 1893", not "were"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
As an added point, this discussion is specifically about the first sentence of every article, not the remainder of the article. (Team Name IS/ARE a professional football team). I notice the majority of the English Premier League teams currently use IS in the first sentence RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. "Tottenham Hotspur FC is a football club ...", "Tottenham Hotspur are a football team ...", "Spurs are ...", etc. (e.g. see here) --  Jts1882 | talk  16:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Kyopa edit warring at Greek Football Cup

A follow on from my previous request. In spite of assistance from Crowsus, Kyopa is continuing to edit war at the page. I am on 3RR and fed up. Help needed. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Good Evening. I must say that I don't intend to create any problems. I am trying to solve an unprecedented problem. Two teams that played a final were penalized and neither won the cup. What are we doing? We delete the event, the spectators who saw the final and we say it did not happen? No. From the moment the federation punished the teams, then both are lost (runner's up). Users Crowsus, REDMAN 2019 and two puppets are against me. But my evidence and common sense support my view. I did not ask for anyone's opinion because I believe that the opinion of many can not replace the opinion of one. Thanks.--Kyopa (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
RSSSF does not assign the "runner-up" status to either team. Nehme1499 (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

All of you need to stop edit warring and take this to the article talk page before you get blocked. GiantSnowman 21:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's already at the talk page in some detail. Kyopa is the only one pushing for two runners-up. As Nehme has observed, the RSSSF ref doesn't assign runners-up for the year in question. Neither club claims it (or meantions any non-winning finals) on their website. So logically it should be left out of their total with a note explaining what happened, which is the edit I made. I was at 3RR by Friday so haven't touched the articles since then. And I'm sick of the conflict. This guy will not change (see "I believe that the opinion of many can not replace the opinion of one", the opposite of consensus) and is far beyond 3 reverts from the different editors who have a differing view. Hence REDMAN's request for more input/intervention. Crowsus (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
...and Kyopa took your advice to heart (edits again on Greek Football Cup and List of Greek Cup finals). You know...GiantSnowman, you go and talk to him. I 'd really like to see that. It is quite possible to block yourself and sign out of Wiki after a while. Abudabanas (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked @Kyopa: from editing Greek Football Cup and List of Greek Cup finals for 48 hours, and told them to use this time to discuss the topic here, to reach consensus. If, after the 48 hours, they continue to edit disruptively, they will be blocked entirely. I suggest that @REDMAN 2019, Crowsus, and Abudabanas: you assist them by clearly explaining why the article should remain as you wish. GiantSnowman 08:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The two clubs have never claimed the runners-up honour, and, as far as I can tell, no one has ever attributed them with it either. Therefore unless anyone can find clear evidence that the clubs were awarded said honour I say that it shouldn't be on the page or the list. Just to make it clear, I am not supporting any deletion of the article about the final. No one can argue that the players and the fans never watched and or played part of the match. My point is that it was never finished, meaning that neither of the two teams won and neither was the runner-up. That is my reason and it is supported my multiple reliable websites and sources, such as the RSSSF one cited by Nehme above. I just hope that Kyopa will understand and agree with my and others opinion. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

REDMAN 2019, Do not hope in me. You managed to punish me while you were cooperating with each other. The fact is clear. Two teams tried to win the cup. They did not succeed. What does this mean? That they failed (Runners up). It was not abandoned. The groups were punished. Like when they are zeroed in a match and their points are deducted. Anyone who can not understand this has a problem. I have none.--Kyopa (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Then you are saying that Crowsus and Nehme have a problem? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I know where you are going. I am a much older user than all of you. I do not tolerate cleverness and that is why I left the first time. I will probably do the same again.--Kyopa (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
deja-vu? Nehme1499 (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Nehme1499. I'm not old. I am a more experienced user who is tired of listening smartly. If I get the chance and they don't punish me again, we will dance one...dernière danse.--Kyopa (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations. But I am getting to the point were I do not care if you leave or go, as long as this is sorted out correctly. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure you care about the article. So sure I'm not worried.--Kyopa (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Kyopa, I am tired of this. I am going to let others give you their opinion on this, and when they have finished telling you exactly what I have, please stop or I will take this to ANI. Or just ask the GiantSnowman here to block you which I am sure he'd be happy to do. That's the last from me for now. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is an article, from in.gr (date 26 June 2020, Nikos Velonakis) ,[1] a website owned by Olympiacos president Evangelos Marinakis. Third paragraph translation: The Red-Whites (Olympiacos) have 27 wins on 39 final attempts with a 69.2% winning percentage (note that the 1962 final against Panathinaikos that was abandoned and not replayed is not included). This article was also re-posted on tanea.gr [2] and tovima.gr [3] (webites of newspapers and ?, also owned by Olympiacos president Marinakis). Added this on Talk page too. Abudabanas (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, can you protect the Greek Football Cup and List of Greek Cup finals from Kyopa? We have a new story there. This is endless. It's never going to end. Never ever. Never. Abudabanas (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you raise his conduct at WP:ANI and seek an indefinite block. GiantSnowman 21:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
In fairness, I feel we're getting somewhere but the new column of compromise also needs a couple of adjustments which are potentially debatable. Crowsus (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Crowsus, I suggested a Final Apps column months ago, but with Kyopa you can never reach an agreement. Check the Talk page. Abudabanas (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I have no views on the content - just the editing patterns. Making any changes, especially straight after a block, was foolish, particularly given the opposition previously raised here - and then edit warring to restore those changes is indefensible. GiantSnowman 22:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I can not make any discussion when an administrator threatens to block me because I have a different opinion. I think I tried to compromise but Abudabanas works as if he owns the article. You all support him and I am alone. So what should I discuss? I think the problem is this: Wrong terms are used. The one who wins the cup is called the winner and the one who loses is the finalist. When two teams qualify for the final, they are automatically considered finalists, regardless of whether the final is interrupted, postponed or canceled. In our case we have 2 finalists and no winner. The term runners-up can only be used in national leagues.--Kyopa (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Five tildes

What to do about persistent pest editors (such as @Beeney xx:) who refuse to use five tildes when updating infoboxes, causing confusion about stats? GiantSnowman 21:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

? Beeney xx (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Confusion. hahahahahaha. Soooooooo confusion because I haven't added 17:39 or 23:09 for example! If that annoys you can't imagine how you'd react to a fork scrapping a clean swept plate! Beeney xx (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Is the date always updated? If yes, i don't think it is a problem not using the five tildes, atleast for me. Kante4 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Removing the time and simply updating the date, which is the case being highlighted here, is ambiguous. An editor could have updated the stats prior to the player's next appearance on the same day. Other editors may assume that the stats have already been updated, meaning they may become inaccurate thereafter, as not everyone consults with sources before updating stats and relies on the previous editor updating the stats correctly. LTFC 95 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
If the timestamp is from the day the last match was played we need the time for the timestamp to be unambiguous. So for example, if Jamie Vardy's caps were to be updated today for the match he played today, we'd need the time, too. If someone updates the caps tomorrow and uses tomorrow's date, we don't need the time. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the assumption is that if there is only a date and the player's team had a match on that date, then the update is following the match. The timestamp might make it technically not ambiguous, but in that case requires the user to either know what time the game was at (and then add 90 minutes + break time to get the end time of the game), which requires a search anyway and doesn't really help with quick info. --SuperJew (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
So many pages I update only have the date without time. In fact, I regularly just add the date without a time. I've always assumed the date to be up to and including that date. In fact, I didn't even know five tildes auto entered the date and time. Personally, I find the time makes it look messy, I actually prefer only seeing the date, even though I know technically including the time is more accurate. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
As stated above, the presence of the time makes it unambiguous. GiantSnowman 08:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a particular example here? The most recent edit I saw by this user was updating Jürgen Locadia, which was inappropriate for a different reason (changing the club-update to today's date (16 January 2021) rather than the last played date (9 November 2020)). Is including the time more common on actively viewed players? I mainly edit American leagues so I don't see this problem very often. Jay eyem (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It's on Robert Sánchez, which I have been correcting and warning them about for a long time. GiantSnowman 08:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Looking at that edit history, I don't see anything wrong with Beeney's edit. The vast majority of the player pages I edit only have dates and no times. I always assume the date to be up to and including games played on that date. It's not like he was updating appearances and leaving an old date - that would be incorrect. I see nothing wrong with just leaving the date. Sometimes I will backdate to the date of their last appearance, as Jay eyem said, with the edit happening days later. I obviously wouldn't put a time if I did that, since I'm not going to look up the exact time a match ended. Re: the Jurgen Locadia edit, I just fixed it. It's understandable why he changed it to 18(@) from 17(1), since that's what soccerway says, since soccerway includes the non-league cup match 1(1) in the league section. I fixed the table in the article RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The template documentation at Template:Infobox football biography for club_update states (my emphasis) A timestamp at which the player's infobox club statistics are unambiguously correct. The bare date of the last match played should not be used because this is not unambiguous. Dates should use the same format as the rest of the article; use five tildes (~~~~~) to generate the current date/time in dmy format, or {{subst:mdytime}} for mdy format. The parameter is not needed if the player has retired. and therefore I think we should make every effort to educate users to do this. Gricehead (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Bingo. Also, this response from the editor in question shows they know about but are deliberately choosing to ignore the rules. Pure troll behaviour. GiantSnowman 10:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
That's not what I'm reading in the comment GiantSnowman. The editor clearly does not understand the goal that is clearly described in the template's documentation. At least the editor is not updating the timestamp even when the player was on the roster but did not participate in the given match! Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting, will try to keep that in mind for the future. Jay eyem (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Canada men's national football team

We should rename this article: Canada men's national football team. The title is ambiguous because the mentioned article is about American football.
(By the way, aren't you considering to add the word "men's" into association football article names, too?)
Mai? T. (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it is correct as is. In Canada, the sport goes by soccer. In Canada, the word "football" is primarily associated with gridiron football, which includes both Canadian football and American football. Also, "men's" is in the title, because in Canada the men's and women's national teams have equal prominence in Canada, compared to around the world, where the male team would have prominence in discussion. The same applies to the United States men's national soccer team. The hatnote is correct in my view. A case could be made that your proposed title could be a disambiguation page (like the US equivalent), since the 'national football team' isn't really a regular team, but the page should most definitely be officially named as 'soccer' not football. RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree and have moved that article to Canada men's national American football team. My rationale is in the article's edit history. - PeeJay 20:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with PeeJay. GiantSnowman 22:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
My move was immediately reverted by User:Cuchullain. According to assertions in the RM on the article talk page, this Canadian team is unusual as they compete in competitions for both American and Canadian football. I therefore suggest it should be moved to Canada men's national gridiron football team. It would still be an outlier in the categories for men's national American football teams, but at least it would more accurately describe the type(s) of football played by that team. - PeeJay 23:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
They play the only types of football which are called football in Canada. The title is correct. And anyway this is the wrong football WikiProject to be discussing it on. Smartyllama (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The page should absolutely NOT be moved from its current titlesoccer team to football team. popflock.com resource articles are supposed to be known by their WP:COMMONNAME. I am Canadian and the national team is referred to as the national soccer team 100% of the time. I have heard it referred to as the football team ZERO TIMES, it's always 100% referred to as soccer. As a fan of our sport, I do use both the words 'football' and 'soccer', but will use them specifically based on the context. In the context of the national team of Canada, I always use 'soccer' because that's what it is called and known by. The Canadian national team is run by the Canadian Soccer Association. No offense, but if you are not Canadian, you will be biased by how it is termed in your native country. This discussion shows that because of the wanting to change the other page to "American football". Canadian football and American football are two different sports, just like how rugby union and rugby league are different and fans of those sports do not like when others mix them up or just say they are basically the same. Just because the sport is known as 'football' in Europe does not mean the Canadian team will be called 'football team', it should 100% remain as 'soccer team' according to WP:ENGVAR. Wanting to change it is just an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Furthermore, trying to move the other page to 'gridiron' is not being more correct. Again, per WP:COMMONNAME, it is rarely called 'gridiron football' in Canada, they'll refer to the one being playes. Again to refer to the rugby league and rugby union example, saying their both just 'rugby' would not be accepted by those in the know. Sorry, if my tone comes across in poor taste, but being Canadian, I feel it is important to accurately explain what the case is and why the current names are correct. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is talking about moving Canada men's national soccer team to another title, but I don't think you're right about Canada men's national football team being the best title for that subject. They play multiple codes of football, that's true, but avoiding the term "gridiron" just because no one actually calls either sport "gridiron football" in Canada is a little spurious to me. Just calling the article Canada men's national football team isn't specific enough to help identify the actual sport(s) played by that team. User:Smartyllama is right that this may not be the right location for this discussion, but the current title is wrong nonetheless. - PeeJay 11:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. The discussion continues here. Mai? T. (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Racism Section on Football Wiki

Hello everyone. I want to make clear that racism is a disgrace, but I want a descent discussion about it if it needs a section on football pages. I live in the Netherlands and there aren't pages there where the post this on Wiki pages from clubs. Because it is about de club. What they win, what they loose, the players etc. At the English page of FC Den Bosch there is a big part about a racism part. In a TALK 'discussion' and in the part you can fill in when you make changes to a page the only thing ONE person says is stuff like: The Dutch and English Wiki are different etc. There is no discussion possible. So that is the reason I want to hear/read it from other people on Wiki, what their opinion is about this. A descent discussion and not one person who decides everything. Greetings from the Netherlands :) DutchPJ (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC+2)

We have a dedicated article, Racism in association football, where is should also be mentioned. GiantSnowman 10:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, @DutchPJ:, you take issue with the mention of the racist behaviour of Den Bosch fans at the FC Den Bosch article. And you're saying such incidents of racism are not mentioned at club pages on the Dutch popflock.com resource and that this is because Wiki pages should be about de club. What they win, what they loose, the players etc. Well, I've got to say if it's true Dutch articles do not cover racist incidents from fans, I'm very surprised. Fans are a major aspect of clubs and fan behaviour very much affects how clubs are perceived so their behaviour is absolutely relevant to the article - provided it is covered by reliable sources per WP:DUE.
Pinging @Microwave Anarchist: as they reverted DutchPJ at the FC Den Bosch article. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I would say it's perfectly appropriate to mention racist incidents on club pages if they were genuinely significant/notable (as the Den Bosch one seems to have been), but they should receive an appropriate amount of weight. The section in the Den Bosch article seems a bit large considering the overall length of the history section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I reinstated the section as it received significant coverage though I do agree with ChrisTheDude that WP:WEIGHT should be considered. Perhaps if anyone is up for a challenge, the history section could be expanded and the racism incident trimmed a little. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I had a look and read through the history part of the article. I don't think it needs thinning down, all I see is that there is a lot of room for improvement in the history section. Govvy (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Govvy: I agree. It's probably because I wrote it myself in about 30 minutes. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Robbie Keane

Any admin want to sort out the edit-war here Govvy (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Both the users edit warring are new users (< 10 contributions), so page protection should work. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
There appears to be a COI with the editor removing the content as he refers to Keane as a 'client'. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Both seem in the wrong. The information being added is being done in a non-encyclopaedic manner and the phrasing isn't supported by the sources, e.g. "refused to vacate", "while doing zero work", "the usually publicity brash", "renewed outrage among loyal" fans, etc. Removing information from an article about a client is also a violation of the rules, but the onus is on the person adding the information. Something neutral along the line that Keane has remained on the payroll after being relieved of the assistant manager role might be appropriate, but this is standard when people have contracts and hardly deserving the inflammatory description. --  Jts1882 | talk  15:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Both editors warned for 3RR. If they pop up again let me know. I'll also semi-protect the article - no commentary on what the article should look like. GiantSnowman 15:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

James Smith, Fulham F.C.

Hi. The page List of Fulham F.C. players lists a James Smith who played for that team from 1909-1915. Unfortunately it links to the disambiguation page James Smith and I can not figure out if this person has a popflock.com resource page and if yes, which one it is. Can someone help me identify this player? Lennart97 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no 'James Smith' listed at Category:Fulham F.C. players who matches, so I don't think so. GiantSnowman 16:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Fixed - the player in question does not have an article at present -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast. Thanks a lot! Lennart97 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Speaking of Fulham's James Smiths - there is James Smith (Scottish footballer) and Jimmy Smith (footballer, born 1896), both of whose infoboxes say he scored 1 goal in 5 League games in 1922. Are we sure that a) they are definitely different players and if so that b) they definitely both played for Fulham and haven't been confused somewhere? Helluva coincidence if players with the same name had the same apps at the same time... GiantSnowman 16:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
My edition of Joyce lists a player whose career matches James Smith (Scottish footballer) (also played for Rutherglen, Third Lanark, Plymouth, etc). He does not list any other player called James/Jimmy Smith as having played for Fulham in the 1920s and the one he does list is not said to have played for Rangers or Aberdeen. Neither of the sources in the Jimmy Smith (footballer, born 1896) article back up the claim that he played for Fulham. Pinging @Crowsus:, who created that article, to see if any light can be shed on where the Fulham info came from......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks, I have removed the references to Fulham from the 1896 born player on that basis. GiantSnowman 17:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, my source for Fulham was the AFC Heritage ref, which has since removed all their player history trajectories for "temporary data cleanse" - annoyingly they have done this for every player rather than reviewing it on an individual basis. Luckily in this instance there is a pre-cleanse version here that states he was at Fulham in December 1922. John Litster's 'Pre War Scottish Players' files back this up and give a specific loan date of 26/12/22. However he is known to have played for Aberdeen on 22nd and 30th so if correct must literally have been for a day. I suppose there's a possibility he was down in London at Christmas and all parties agreed he could play for Fulham on a guest basis. Maybe there's something to support that and it could be looked into. But it might just all be a mistake based on the very common name and similar position. Litster's files also state that the Third Lanark/Clyde James Smith played for Port Vale then Fulham that season (no further details, it rarely does for English teams) and it does seem more logical that he's the player with the 5/1 stats. Apologies for adding that to the wrong article but I'm sure you can understand why I did so based on the info available (though I should have looked more closely at the Aberdeen appearances for the time since it doesn't add up). PS just to confirm, those files don't shed any light on the original 1909-1915 subject of the query. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Concept for a New Template

I have an idea for a new template. The template would be for past team squads (like UEFA Champions League or top division winning teams). I want to know everyone's opinion on the concept

A prototype/early version can be found here on the Simple English Wikipedia, although that is using only the things we currently have there. ShadowBallX (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@ShadowBallX: This has been discussed a number of times, for example here, as well as TFDs here and here. The consensus is to not have championship winning club squad navboxes, as there are too many competitions for this to be viable. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Julio - simply not viable. GiantSnowman 19:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, we do have {{Italy squad 2006 FIFA World Cup}} or {{Qatar squad 2019 AFC Asian Cup}} for major international competitions. I don't see why we can't do the same for winners of major club continental competitions (UEFA CL, AFC CL, etc.), given that we also have Category:UEFA Champions League winning players. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
International tournaments are usually only every 4 years - and a player, if they are lucky, will play in 2 in a 4 year period (Euros and WC, for example). How many international players have won multiple honours? Very few. However, how many players have won significant numbers of domestic/continental trophies? It would soon get ridiculous. GiantSnowman 20:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Imagine having players like Messi, Ronaldo, Giggs, Maxwell, Dani Alves having all those templates... Kante4 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
(ec) If such templates were created for "top division winning teams", can you imagine what the bottom of Ryan Giggs's article would look like.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Obviously this would only be sustainable for continental competitions, not domestic. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I would agree with ones for things like the Champions League, Europa League, and maybe the FIFA Club World Cup. But ones for first division titles would just be overkill. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

AC Milan, A.C. Milan, or Milan

Hello. I have seen some different articles refer to the football club A.C. Milan in the past few days. This issue came to me when I edited Sokratis Papastathopoulos - in the infobox here, it says "A.C. Milan". Personally, I think the best way is to write AC Milan, because just Milan could be confused with Inter Milan. Is there consensus on the correct way to write the club name? Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: @Robby.is.on: I'm tagging two of you because you are the two editors I most frequently interact with. Sorry to bother you, but I would like an opinion on this. Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I prefer 'AC Milan' but any of them is OK. GiantSnowman 20:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Between "A.C." and "AC", I think the latter is better. Milan on its own is less common in English than with "AC". Nehme1499 (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know. "Milan" on its own is not ideal. I've seen this discussed a few times and there have been edit wars about it. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Alright, AC Milan it is. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I definitely prefer AC Milan. I know its often written as just Milan, but I think AC Milan is better (without periods). RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I just want to note that in the Serie A season articles (see 2020-21 Serie A), the clubs are referred to as Internazionale and Milan. Nehme1499 (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The common names are AC Milan and Inter Milan, so maybe we should change that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Competition notability

Hello, I am looking to make an article about the Championnat National U19. The thing is, I don't know what the notability criteria is for a league/competition, and I can't seem to find it on WP:NSPORTS. Can someone help me? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it would be fine, as we have Category:Youth football leagues in Europe, some of which have existed for some time. The English league doesn't have its own overview article but there are several for individual seasons, the most recent being 2016-17 Professional U18 Development League. And unexpectedly, several seasons also for Moldova, most recently 2019-20 Moldovan Under-19 Division, also with no overview article. Crowsus (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

References in stats table

Hi. WP:FOOTY/Players currently states that career stats tables should use a single ref next to the updated template, but there are multiple other ways of referencing it, such as with Harry Kane, where seasons are referenced indivually in the seasons column, and Lars Bender, where they are referenced in a seperate column at the end. Personally, I don't have a problem with the first one but feel the second one looks quite clunky, and would rather it were avoided. I would like to know how other editors feel about these formats, and whether the MOS should be updated to reflect this. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the two brought here, both seem to me a fine way to reference per season - in both it is clear the reference is for the entire row (season). I do think it is better to have per season references, since having a single reference for the whole table isn't always possible. In the examples above it is quite feasible to find a single reference with all the info (for example each player's page on Soccerway), but for other players (especially journeymen) it might be hard to reference with a single reference - for example seasons in lower leagues/less known countries won't be on a site such as Soccerway and would require multiple references. --SuperJew (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with SJ that a line-by-line, season-by-season referencing system is preferable - that is, after all, why we have {{soccerbase season}}. GiantSnowman 18:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
And me. As does WP:FOOTY/Players. It says in the notes that "ideally, each row should be individually sourced. If this is not done, reference(s) for the entire table should appear within this section". If one source above the table clearly sources the entire table, then it's acceptable, but it's a slippery slope: there are very many stats tables with a row of contradictory databases above the table and the reader has no idea which apply to which row. As to formatting, I prefer the Kane method, probably because it's what I'm used to, but don't have a problem with the Bender one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
{{soccerbase season}} is fine as far as it goes, but for the many player articles outside the UK and the top leagues which soccerbase doesn't cover, it's not an option, and alternative databases such as Soccerway and FootballDatabase.eu don't present a separate page per season. In those cases, referencing per line would just be repeating the same reference over and over and over again. I think we need to retain the single reference option, even if we state it's not the preference where soccerbase exists. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gricehead: How would you reference a case then for a player who has seasons 1-3 which appear on the soccerway, and season 4 which appears only in that specific domestic league website, and season 5-6 which appear only in a different specific domestic league website? --SuperJew (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@SuperJew: I usually start from Soccerway, and if I need to augment for any stats which Soccerway doesn't have, I would add an inline reference for that row of the table. Gricehead (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
To me sounds confusing to have both inline reference and overall reference. --SuperJew (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
tbh, 99/100 career stats tables I update are entirely sourced to Soccerway. The occurrence rate of another inline source is about the same as the occurrence rate for a footnote explaining caps in the "other" column. I don't see any point in repeating the same Soccerway reference for each row of the table, and that's the point I was making. Gricehead (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Don't have to repeat. Can also use rowspan. --SuperJew (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@Struway2: fair point - I am terrible with lists. Perhaps the table in the MOS should be changed such that it refences seasons indivdually if that is preferred. And I would agree that it seems odd to repeat the same reference for each row of the table, as is the case with Bender. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@Microwave Anarchist: At first glance I also thought Bender has repeated references, but when I looked closer, it's actually different links. The problem is the titles were all formatted the same. --SuperJew (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@SuperJew: the links are different but kicker.de has changed, so they all redirect to the same page now. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@Microwave Anarchist: Ah I see that now (for some of the links). It's a case though to update it via using an archive or updating the link. I'll deal with it now. And done. --SuperJew (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Typically what I do is place one reference by the update date that covers most (ie. Soccerway) and then if there's other seasons not referenced on soccerway because the league was less notable, I do an in-line citation next to the Team (if the link shows all seasons for that team) or Season (if link shows one season) - I won't mix the two though. Any season without a ref is covered by the one next to the update date. Here's a couple examples of what I mean Example A (team) and Example B (year). I just find too many refs in the table to be not appealing and I also don't like seeing 5 or 6 references next to the Update date. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Charleroi move

Hello. I came across the article R. Charleroi S.C., a Belgian football club. Am I the only one that finds that the name of this article is a bit unusual? I mean, it is not often we see an initial instead of a name in the article. What I'm saying is that I suggest we move this article to Royal Charleroi S.C. or maybe Sporting Charleroi, because having "R. Charleroi" is awkward in my opinion. I didn't move it myself because I wanted to know if I was doing the right thing by moving this. What are your thoughts? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd support a move to Royal Charleroi S.C. following a discussion ay WP:RM. GiantSnowman 19:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Hey, GS, I don't really know how to start a discussion at requested moves... could you do that? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
What is your preferred location, and why? I can then start the discussion on your behalf. GiantSnowman 19:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: My preferred location is Royal Charleroi S.C., because it includes the official club name in it as a whole. Also because several reliable sources refer to it as such, including Soccerway. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion here. GiantSnowman 20:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Thanks. Not to put a burden on you, but a similar move is in order for R. Olympic Charleroi Châtelet Farciennes in my opinion. Do you agree? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Let's wait and see the consensus of this discussion first. Then you can give it a go yourself ;) GiantSnowman 20:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it is a relic that someone mass move all Belgian football article that turn all "Royal" prefix to "R.", may be all other Belgian club name need a review and RM. Matthew hk (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Bench Reserve team order

Hello. I know we established consensus that whatever team a player plays for first is the one listed first in the infobox (B team vs A team.) What I don't remember establishing consensus for was what was listed first when a player appears on the bench first. For example, Tim Template signs for Sample FC - he makes one bench appearance for the A team on 2 September, and then plays in a B team game on 9 September. What would be listed first? Sample FC A or Sample FC B? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Bench appearances are, largely, meaningless. GiantSnowman 19:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Oh. I thought they had value because they represent when a player was playing for a team but wasn't on the field. When a player makes 0 appearances for a club (example Andy Lonergan at Liverpool), we still find it important. I don't see why bench appearances are meaningless. @Robby.is.on: @Nehme1499: @RedPatchBoy: Thoughts? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Please stop pinging me every time you reply. We display '0' stats in the infobox when a senior player is contracted but makes no appearances - I don't know what you're trying to get at? Bench appearances are only worth anything when trying to decide when a young player has moved from 'youth' to 'senior' career. GiantSnowman 20:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no consensus yet. For me, A goes above B as he was officially a player for the league A plays for before being a player for the league B plays for. For example, Serie A has an official list of players on their website (see Juventus). If a player sits on the bench for Juventus on 2 September, then gets his first call-up for the B team on 9 November, he was a Juventus player before being a Juventus U23 player. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Being on the bench is meaningless in this context. GiantSnowman 20:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
That's your opinion. For me, it's relevant. Nehme1499 (talk)`
I would personally just put the B team first if that's where he gets this his first cap. If he appeared in a cup match on the bench, we wouldn't include it in the infobox, so I go with the same logic. A youth player could get slotted into that last available spot on the bench just to fill a spot, even if there's no intention of playing them. If they were consistently on the bench that's one thing I guess where you could say he's definitely a first-teamer, but a one-off bench role wouldn't warrant it. If a player makes a random one-time bench appearance in 2021 at age 16, then plays exclusively for the B team without so much as a bench appearance, until 2024 where he makes 2 appearances, what would be more meaningful 2021-2025 2(0) or 2024-2025 1(0). I'd say the latter because 2021-2025 would make it seem like he played once in 2021 and once in 2025, when it was twice in 24/25 RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I'm convinced by RedPatchBoy. Let's do whatever appearance comes first. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Bench appearances in the career statistics section & infobox

Hello. I came across a dilemma when editing Rémy Descamps. He played matches for the PSG B team from 2015 to 2017. The thing is, he also made bench appearances during 2013 and 2014. The question is whether in the career statistics section, rows with 0s should be included for the 2013-14 and 2014-15 seasons, even though he didn't play on the field. And the question is whether this should be reflected in the infobox as well; should Paris Saint-Germain B in the infobox say 2013-2017 or 2015-17?
Now, there is also a second issue... Descamps's last bench/field appearance for the PSG B team is in 2017... does this mean we stop his PSG B team presence on 2017, or 2018, when that specific season ended (he was loaned out for the rest of that season)? Or 2019, when he was sold to Charleroi after being on loan during the rest of 2017-18 and 2018-19? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

How many times was he an unused substitute in the 2013-14 and 2014-15 seasons? If one or two, don't include them; if 30 then do. I think start the senior career in 2015 in this example. GiantSnowman 19:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Wait, how come the number of bench appearances is important here? This sounds a bit like the time somebody tried proposing that players become notable after 3 appearances instead of 1... what's the difference in importance between 4 and 30? (Not trying to be rude.) They both show value of how much he was on the bench, they are both valuable stats.
BTW, he made 4 bench appearances both 2013-14 and 2014-15. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Because a player (particular a goalkeeper) who makes 30 appearances on the bench is obviously a first-team member, even if they aren't playing. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 is not indicative of that at all. GiantSnowman 19:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Alright. But how can we decide? Where's the limit? If a player made 10 bench apps, what would you say? There needs to be a limit. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
No, there doesn't. Every case should be taken on its own merits for people like that. But in Descamps's case, start the senior career at 2015. GiantSnowman 19:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Similar answer to the discussion above: for me, his career spans from 2013 to 2017. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
So if a club has a goalkeeping crisis and they put their 16 year old youth keeper on the bench for one game in 2010, but he doesn't make any more appearances (bench or on field) until 2015, are you saying we should say his senior career began in 2010? GiantSnowman 20:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep in mind that I also don't believe that we should begin the senior career when the youth career stops. My opinion here goes hand in hand with my opinion in the "Discussion" had a few months ago about senior/youth. Nehme1499 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
You haven't answered my question. GiantSnowman 22:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
If I understand Nehme, he's saying that he would add that 16 year old bench player under senior, but he would continue their youth not end it, which is why it's consistent with his previous view. Say that bench appearance was in 2018, he would have youth 2015-2020 and senior from 2018-2023 with the overlap. In that case, he was saying that senior career started in 2018, but it did not end youth career, but that goes back to a previous unresolved disagreement. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Bingo. Nehme1499 (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I view a one-off bench appearance similar to a youth player getting to train in practice with the first-team, it's a like a reward, but doesn't signify he's a full-time senior player. Oftentimes, it's just a filling of spots. We wouldn't add the senior team if they played in a reserve match/practice/pre-season match/cup game bench. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. GiantSnowman 22:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, (was adding this to my previous comment) I will say this though, I agreed with Nehme that a one-off senior cap shouldn't end youth career section. Similarly, a one-off bench wouldn't really start senior, because technically nothing "started". I feel like the youth career should only end when they stop appearing in youth team matches and senior career should only start when they start appearing in senior team matches. Those two feel like they go hand-in-hand IMO, but that's not what this discussion is about RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
See my comment in the previous section. Although I'm laughing to myself at recalling the prior youth career discussion a couple months ago. I remember Nehme saying one senior appearance was meaningless with regards to ending a youth career infobox, whereas GS said it should signify the end of the youth career in the infobox. Yet here, GS is saying a bench appearance is meaningless and youth would continue, while Nehme is important and needs to be recorded in senior. I'm not trying to prove a point, I just had a little chuckle :) . RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Because there's a huge difference between being an unused substitute (as we are talking about now) and actually playing a first-team game (as we discussed previously). GiantSnowman 22:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh I know there's a difference, I'm actually siding with you on this one. I just anticipated the opposite views based on that discussion. I wasn't trying to start anything (or re-open that past discussion). I probably should've just kept that to myself. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, so let's say the senior career starts at the first official appearance. Fair enough. But in Descamps's case, where does his PSG B spell end? 2017 (last game)? 2018 (end of season of the last season he played in)? 2019 (when he was sold after being loaned out in second half of 2017-18 and full 2018-19)? I'd personally say 2017, and say that we end his PSG A career at 2019. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me add onto that: this is assuming that PSG A team should be included in the infobox. He did make bench appearances & have a professional contract, which for me, is enough for Descamps to have PSG A team included in his popflock.com resource page. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
6 bench appearances over two seasons does not indicate that he was a member of the A team. I'd be happy having just B team in the infobox, but A team should be included purely because as he went out on loan, and we have loans coming from the A team. GiantSnowman 22:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't expect this answer... but wait, does this mean that on Moussa Sisssako, the PSG A team should be included? (Sissako went out on loan to Liege & made no appearances earlier this year.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, a player is loaned from the A team, not the B team. GiantSnowman 12:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
For Moussa Sissako, when should his PSG A career start? (He never made any bench appearances, he only signed a pro contract in 2018.) Should I start it at 2018, 2019, or make it just 2020? Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, signing a professional contract is not indicative. You get loads of 17 years old turning professional who don't go near the first team for 3/4 years. For Moussa Sissako I suggest start the A team in 2019, to reflect the end of the B team career and the fact he moved on loan in the 2019-20 season. GiantSnowman 16:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Apparently number of bench appearances are now important in deciding whether to put a line of zeros, but in cases where a player has made no bench appearances and spent the entire season out on loan it is automatic. Spike 'em (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Well how would you display it? GiantSnowman 18:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
If a player does not appear on a teamsheet in a season then I'd not include a line for it. Spike 'em (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
If a player played for team A, then moved to team B who promptly sent him on loan to team C, it would be incorrect to not have team B in the infobox as it would seem as if he were loaned from team A. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I thought this discussion was about the career stats section. I'd keep the ib as is and mention which team the player was on loan from in the borrowing club line in the career stats section. Spike 'em (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Isn't the regular procedure to just put "(loan)" next to the team? Like at Raffaele Alcibiade, for example. Nehme1499 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd just prefer the loan to be under team B and no mention of team A if he never appeared for them. Since, he'd essentially be a team B player. Now if the player never played for A or B, then sure I'd list the loan under team B. For example, Ballou Tabla when he joined Barcelona it was specifically stated in reports that he was joining Barcelona B, but even when he went on loan, we didn't add Barcelona. He was for all intents and purposes only ever a B player, even when loaned out. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
B teams cannot loan players though. It's incorrect to say that Barcelona B sent him on loan. Nehme1499 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I view it as the same thing earlier where if the player only ever plays for B, we only include the B team in the infobox. Even though only the B is listed, we know they were part of the A organization. So a loan from B would still be known as a loan from the organization. I feel its cleaner. If A and B were both listed in the infobox, then yes, list the loan under A, but I feel adding an A 0(0) is unnecessary, if they're basically a B player. That's just my personal view, I view it more as a loan from the organization, than from the specific team. While the B team doesn't loan out players, the A team doesn't really loan players either, the club loans them out. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
If a player moves from Wiki United (having never played for them) on loan to Wiki City then we include both clubs in the infobox and both teams in the career stats table. See popflock.com Resource: WikiProject Football/Players. GiantSnowman 09:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, loaning players specifically from the A team is a bit silly - this would contradict loan deals during youth career, which I have seen for some players. If we are going to say that a player cannot specifically sign for the B team or A team of a club, but signs for the organization itself, why can only the A team loan players out? The club itself loans players out. I don't want to create another lengthy argument, but I think that Moussa Sissako should not have the A team included. If someone explains why I am wrong, I'll listen. I would just like to know what to do, because this is starting to become really confusing. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

article split

I proposed an article for splitting a few months ago but have only received two responses. Any chance of a couple of you chipping in with your thoughts so I can close the discussion? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 Supercoppa Italiana name change

I also posited this question on the talk page of this specific article, but not sure how much traffic that page has so wanted to bring up here as well. The official Supercup logo on TV screens and the badge that the players have on their kits, for the past couple of editions, has read as the season rather than a calendar year, i.e. "2019/2020" and "2020/2021". You can see the logo here for the match played today: https://www.mondocalcionews.it/coppe/supercoppa-italiana-2020-21-ecco-quanto-vale-il-trofeo-questanno/Mattia-Di-Battista/. Should we change the title of these articles to reflect that, i.e. 2020-21 Supercoppa Italiana instead of 2020 Supercoppa Italiana for this specific article? Similar to how the Supercopa de Espana has also changed to be played in January of the following year and is now formatted on Wiki as 2019-20 and 2020-21 instead of just simply 2019 or 2020. Thanks all. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I would support both moves. Nehme1499 (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I have created move requests at Talk:2020 Supercoppa Italiana#Requested move 21 January 2021. Nehme1499 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Steve Cotterill

I notice his managerial statistics table has been amended to exclude a game when he was in hospital with Covid-19. The verifying reference from Soccerbase includes this game as, presumably, Cotterill was still Shrewsbury manager at the time regardless of him being in hospital. There have been many instances of a manager being absent for a game or two and I don't remember excluding those games from their stats. What's the general view on if we include or exclude games where a manager is absent from the game itself?--Egghead06 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

They should definitely be included, he was still employed as manager at the time. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
He was still the team's manager, even if he wasn't at the ground. Same as managers who miss games for e.g. touchline bans or other medical reasons. We should follow what the sources say, and the sources include that game, so we should too. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
And to change the stats based on him being in hospital with COVID is original research unless sources do the same. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Phil Thompson was acting manager when Gérard Houllier spent some months recovering from heart surgery. Missing a few games for a temporary illness is not the same thing seen as they are still picking the team and directing things from home.--EchetusXe 15:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo first billionaire footballer

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo#Dollars, further input is required. Nehme1499 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If more people could give their opinion it would be greatly appreciated. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

League categories

Hello. I would like to know when to include league categories (like for example Category:Ligue 2 players) in player articles. Of course, we include that category when a player appears in that league, but what if they play for a club in that league but never make an appearance? (My personal opinion is no, we would not include it, but that is just my thought.) Would it be reasonable? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If they never make an appearance in the league then they are not eligible for the category. GiantSnowman 15:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Club categories

Hello. Do we include club categories (like Category:Paris Saint-Germain F.C. players) for these different scenarios? I know its obvious we include it when a player plays in a match for the first team, but I would like to know if we include it for these cases.
1. Players that did not play in a match for the club, but were on the A team.
2. Players that played for the B team.
3. Players that played for the B team but did not make any (known) appearances.
4. Youth players.
Of course, this is assuming there is no category for the B team, which there is not for PSG, for example. Please answer each 1, 2, 3, and 4 individually. Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If a player is contracted to a club, even youth only, then they appear in the club player category, even if they do not play. In countries where many clubs have A and B teams in the same league system (France, Spain etc.) then is a player only plays for the B team then only include them in that category (if there is a separate category - if no separate category then there should be if the B team has a separate article); if a player plays for both A and B team then include them in both categories if there are separate categories. GiantSnowman 15:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Include all player , adult or youth. Personally, there may be some exception likes Parma F.C. (signed 100 players and all loaned out) , Rentistas (the club that Hulk (footballer)'s transfer fee wired to). Matthew hk (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
In France there should not be any B team categories. Players signed for either A team or B team should go in the main category for the club, regardless of any appearances made. Gricehead (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I was unaware we included the categories for youth teams. So, for example, should Hassan Maatouk have Category:Rot-Weiss Essen players? Nehme1499 (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes. GiantSnowman 17:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

C.A. Fénix

There are two clubs known as 'C.A. Fénix' - Centro Atlético Fénix in Uruguay (article currently located at C.A. Fénix) and Club Atlético Fénix in Argentina (article currently located at Club Atlético Fénix). The current article locations are clearly not good enough. There is also a disambiguation page at CA Fenix. I think that either we need:

  1. Articles located at C.A. Fénix (Uruguay) and C.A. Fénix (Argentina) respectively, with disambiguation page at C.A. Fénix; or
  2. Articles located at Centro Atlético Fénix and Club Atlético Fénix respectively, with disambiguation page at C.A. Fénix.

What do you think is best? I will then start formal a RM. GiantSnowman 16:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I would opt for the former. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Full name as article title (which you can pipe it, or does not need to). Bracket as redirects (which you must pipe it). Matthew hk (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
As a bit of a precedent, there are 3 Albion Rovers. Albion Rovers F.C. from Coatbridge which is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and then Albion Rovers F.C. (Newport) and Albion Rovers FC (Cairnlea) which use the city rather than the country as the disambiguator. Personally, I would prefer the latter per WP:ATDAB as that is a natural disambiguator. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
South American clubs seem to use the full name as the title (Club Atletico, rather than C.A.), for example Club Atlético Lanús, Club Atlético River Plate, and Club Atlético Vélez Sarsfield. I would opt for option 2. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Why not just set up a RM with Option 1 and Option 2 similar to this RM request? Then a vote could be tabulated directly in the RM instead of here then there? RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@RedPatchBoy: if you wish to set up the RM before I find the time to do it then be my guest! GiantSnowman 21:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Started it here: Talk:C.A. Fénix RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Cheers - one thing ticked off my 'to do' list tomorrow... GiantSnowman 22:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Lists of national team results

I know we have had this discussion before but, following on from a discussion here, I would like to reaffirm that the correct way to list national football team results is to use a table. The most resent discussion I can find which mentions this was about club season articles here but it didn't really go into too much detail. For background, I had created Argentina national football team results (2000-2019) as I was unaware Argentina national football team results (2000-19) had been created by @Sakiv: as I was working through creating earlier results lists.

As national football team results articles list the results of national teams, they are subject to MOS:LIST so they should be constructed in a format which fits the established manual of style. There are a number of different acceptable styles but as these are standalone chronological lists, they also fall under WP:SAL which details a range of specialised lists. None of the specialised lists use a similar format to a list of football box templates and none of these include or could reasonably be expected to include sports results. However, under WP:WHENTABLE, sports results are specifically included as occasions when tables are most useful. I don't see why we should be deviating from this and using lists of football box templates. Football box templates are most useful in tournament articles when the match result is the most important piece of information and can then add things like goalscorers and stadia where this is required. The collapsible football box acts as a barrier to information by hiding it away which is contrary to WP:ACCESS. By using a table all, of the information is displayed in an equally - if not more - easy way to understand and follow without hiding information relevant to the article. As an example, Scotland national football team results (1872-1914) is a featured list. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a note: Argentina national football team results (2000-19) should be moved to Argentina national football team results (2000-2019). Regarding the usage of tables instead of the collapsible boxes, I agree. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: If that is correct, why do you use collapsible boxes instead of tables for Lebanon's results articles?--Sakiv (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Because I shouldn't be. Once I get the time I'll fix those pages. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This is just totally unnecessary and illogical. Why change thousands of articles now after years without any objection? The editor above wants his opinion to prevail just because he likes it.--Sakiv (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
SFS has brought up several guidelines to back up the usage of tables over the collapsible boxes, it's not just because he likes it. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Nehme. It's not because I prefer one over the other. When I first started editing articles like this and club seasons, I used the football box template because I believed it was correct. I have since been shown that that isn't the case and that there were policies and guidelines already in place which mean we should be using tables. As a result I have changed how I edit. Creating these articles and improving the already created ones takes time which is why I've only got through all the OFC nations and Argentina. If anyone wishes to help, it would be most appreciated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Only 5 teams from transcluded table

How do I only display 5 teams in the table here? Nehme1499 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I've put a |showlimit=5 in the table module in 2020-21 Serie A (women). Gricehead (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! Nehme1499 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

i league india

please revert infobox edit as it is still joint number 1 in structure -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.25.3 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Nehme1499 (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Sakiv removed the "See also" section from 2021 WAFF Championship, I reverted him, he re-reverted me (violating WP:BRD). I restored the original version letting him know about BRD, he reverted me once again without any comment. I would rather not violate WP:3RR, so what's the correct course of action here? Nehme1499 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me again, I have only removed an unrelated link from this article. What is the real connection between the FIFA Arab Cup held in Qatar and the WAFF Championship hosted by the UAE? They are two different competitions. The first tournament will also be attended by African teams. Your recent behavior is unacceptable. I was discussing with you another issue while you were busy monitoring my edits.--Sakiv (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
You have all the right to remove the section, as I have the right to re-instate it. As we are at an impasse, we should have a discussion (and not keep reverting each other).
My point is that they are similar competitions, where the 12 teams in the WAFF Championship are all part of the Arab Cup (and make up over half of the teams there). The two competitions don't necessarily have to be held by the same organizer and have to feature the exact same 12 clubs in order for them to be in the "See also" section.
Also, no edit monitoring going on. Is it that improbable that a Lebanese editor who mainly focuses on Lebanese and Asian football has the WAFF Championship under his watchlist? Nehme1499 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Plus, you didn't really seem open to talk in the previous discussion as you just removed your response towards me. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
You did answer others here after my recent reply so I got a feeling that you wouldn't respond.
So according to your vision, we must add links to almost all football articles because they are related to each other, for example, we must add the 2019-20 FC Bayern Munich season to the 2020 FIFA Club World Cup and the UEFA Euro 2020 to the football tournament at the Olympic Games because they were both postponed due to COVID.--Sakiv (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Bayern itself is already linked in 2020 FIFA Club World Cup, and there is no need to link to all 6 teams' season articles. The Olympics are a U23 competition while the Euro is a senior competition, so they are not related. Notice how Football at the 2020 Summer Olympics has a "See more" section linking to similar competitions (such as the Asian, African, and Pan American Games). Nehme1499 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I am aware of everything you mentioned. Again, the two tournaments are not related and there is no source confirming what you say. The WAFF Championship is not always a senior-team tournament in the sense that the participating teams are not obliged to send their main players. Do you want more explanation?--Sakiv (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
MOS:SEEALSO: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article." Nehme1499 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sakiv should not have re-removed the section after he was reverted, per BRD, and instead you should have gone to the article talk page to discuss. Instead you're here after an edit war. Fine. What is the relevance/purpose of the 'see also' section? GiantSnowman 22:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

All links that are within this section must show a relevance, but in this case I do not see that there is any special link between the two tournaments as the first tournament is usually not a priority for the participating countries and is organized by the regional association while the second will be under the supervision of FIFA and often it will be a tournament of high importance.--Sakiv (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
As a side note, WP:BRD-NOT states BRD is never a reason for reverting, BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once and BRD is not mandatory. So "violating BRD" is not a reason to revert. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Loan in club career section

Hello. I have seen different things for different articles, which is why I would like to know what the correct way to do this is. Basically, when there is a sub-heading 2 for a loan in the club career section, is it appropriate to write "Marseille (loan)" or "Loan to Marseille"? I came across this issue on Arek Milik; there are some other weird sub headings there that I think an experienced football editor should check out. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

'Loan to Marseille' is better IMHO. GiantSnowman 11:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd agree with "Loan to Marseille". But bear in mind that it really isn't necessary to have subheadings every time a player goes out on loan or for every season, particularly if the section created has minimal content. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed - some editors seem obsessed with the idea that a player's article needs a subheading for every single club, which in many cases looks ridiculous. In the case of Milik, I really don't think his six games at Leverkusen merit a separate subheading/section, which is never going to have any in-depth content. Although, to be fair, it doesn't look as daft as some articles I've seen on English players who, after dropping out of professional football, had short spells at 15 different non-league clubs and have a subheading for every single one....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I reckon this stems from the articles being written in real time and not retroactively. So when a player signs for a new club, an editor will add a sub-heading, since you don't know how long or in-depth the period will be. And most players don't have editors going back and reassessing years later. --SuperJew (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Assistant manager honours

Hey. Do we include honours for assistant coaches? (My personal opinion: no.) I would just like to know if this was something we did. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say no too. Honours should go to managers and players, IMO, otherwise we should be adding titles to fitness coaches, analysts and so on... MYS77 ? 05:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
If they received an honour, why not? I've watched the backroom staff received medals on the TV. Govvy (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd have to say no. It's entirely possible that the club gave the assistant manager a physical medal, given that in the Premier League they get about 40 medals to dish out or something, but a) it would be very hard to prove/source and b) as mentioned above, it would be the start of a slippery slope where we list honours for physios, conditioning coaches and who knows who else..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Except physios and conditioning coaches don't have popflock.com resource pages... (I still say no, but just putting that out there.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Notable people could have been assisting staff in the past. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Some physios and similar have articles. Arsenal won a ton of honours while Gary Lewin was physio, should we note them as honours on his article? Definitely not IMO..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I think Peter Taylor is the exception that proves the rule. I can't think of another case where it would be warranted.--EchetusXe 13:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Serbian names

Should Vladimir Molerovic and Demir Avdic be moved to Vladimir Molerovi? and Demir Avdi? respectively? Nehme1499 (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

What do sources say? GiantSnowman 19:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Some use "c", others us "?". I don't know if the ones using "c" are just lazy and don't feel like using the diacritic, or if the ones using "?" are just assuming that it's the correct spelling even though it may not be. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The Serbian PrvaLiga website has the diacritic on Molerovic; presumably that's how it was spelt when he played in it. And SrbijaSport has the diacritic on Avdic, I'm guessing they ought to know. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! Nehme1499 (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
It can be a choice by the source not to use extended Latin characters even if the player's name contains them. The World Curling Federation for example, often use aa instead of å and oe instead of ø so that could explain why some sources do and some don't include the diacritic. I would agree with Struway though as you'd expect Serbian language sources to know whether or not the name includes it so they should probably be moved. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I miss the diacritic hatnote template, which is deleted. Matthew hk (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Fabrizio Romano

Hello. I wrote the draft article Draft:Fabrizio Romano (journalist); you may know this guy as he's pretty well-known in the football world. Anyways, I would like some advice and help on the article writing process. First of all, does this article meet GNG? I personally think it does, as it has several independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject. If it needs more info and sources, I would greatly appreciate some help for the article. If someone is interested in writing more about Romano, then please help. Thank you. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: I wouldn't use the article name Fabrizio Romano simply, because that is also the name of an Italian actor who has a page on the Italian Wikipedia. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
If the article were to be created, it should be located at Fabrizio Romano since the page doesn't exist yet. The existence of a Fabrizio Romano page on it.wiki for another subject is not important for us. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Anything about the article itself? Oh and by the way, I would make it at Fabrizio Romano (journalist) because otherwise it will be indexed incorrectly on Google and users will be very confused. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Google would create two different profiles at that point (given that there would also be two different wikidata IDs). Regarding the page itself, I think it easily passes WP:GNG. If I get the time I'll try to clean it up. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much! By the way, would making a "For the actor, see it:Fabrizio Romano" at the top of the page be appropriate? Lastly, I hope you don't mind, but I moved the page to Fabrizio Romano already. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah being WP:BOLD is not an issue. I would avoid cross-wiki linking (especially in the hatnote). Nehme1499 (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Alright, and thanks again! Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to England player infoboxes

Hi guys, a number of IPs (I think all from the same person) appear to be making disruptive edits to England player infoboxes such as Calum Chambers, Adam Lallana, Dominic Solanke and Nathaniel Clyne among others, claiming that their international careers have ended despite not provideing a source. A user account (Chedix, who has been blocked for the same on three occasions previously) is now involved as well (may be him behind the IPs also). Can someone have a look at this please. I've requested a protection from Calum Chambers as it's on my watchlist. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, Chambers played three games in 2014, Clyne last played in 2016, Solanke only played a game as a sub in 2017, and Lallana last played one game as a sub in 2018. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
As a rule of thumb I'd also 5 years without an appearance before closing the international years. GiantSnowman 20:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Although Chambers has not formally announced his retirement from international football (because, let's face it, it would be utterly pretentious for him to do so after just three caps) he hasn't been called up now for more than six years, and realistically there's no chance of him being called up again any time soon, so I wouldn't disagree with closing off his international career. It can always be re-opened if he experiences some amazing career renaissance and gets called up again...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I would say to put Chambers, Clyne, and Solanke down as retired internationally. There is still the outside chance that Lallana could play for the national side again. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
This thing again... Why on Earth would anyone think that end year in NT career means retirement? 99% of international players would simply stop being called up without any sort of announcements.--BlameRuiner (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Totally agree. The oft-held notion that we can't close off the international career of a player who is still active unless they have announced their international retirement is ridiculous. Dominic Solanke could easily play professionally for another 10 years or more. If he never gets called up for England again but doesn't formally announce his international retirement (which, let's face it, under that scenario he never would), would we still be expected to show his England career as ongoing in 2030 based on the fact that he played for England for 15 minutes 13 years earlier.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you that there has to come a point when we close the book on a player's international career, but encyclopaedically speaking, when is the right time to do that? Without a source to say their international career is dead and buried, we'd just be assigning an arbitrary time limit after their last appearance. If we're okay with that, that's fine, I just wanted to make sure we were all aware of what such a decision would mean encyclopaedically. - PeeJay 12:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Sheffield Town

I know Wakefield A.F.C. got away with having their article remain on popflock.com resource recently, despite having never played in an FA cup competition or at Step 6, but are Sheffield Town F.C. really notable enough? I might start producing articles for all teams in the same league if so. Kivo (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The Wakefield article was kept because multiple editors argued that it met WP:GNG. This was in no way an automatic green light for other clubs at the same level to be kept. If other clubs in the same league can be proven to meet GNG then feel free to create the articles, but don't create them all just to make some sort of point....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Career vs Club career

Hello. When a player has never played international football, would it be appropriate to name the "Club career" section just "Career"? Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. GiantSnowman 15:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Don't see why not -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football
 



 



 
Music Scenes