Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 121

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 115

←

Archive 119

→

Template help please: {{Athletic Bilbao profile}}

Hi, Athletic Bilbao have redesigned their website and all the links are broken, including the player profile template on 300 articles. It used to display like this: https://www.athletic-club.eus/en/players/270/larrainzar.html or https://www.athletic-club.eus/en/players/349/yeste.html or https://www.athletic-club.eus/en/players/924/muniain.html, but now it's https://www.athletic-club.eus/en/players/inigo-larrainzar-santamaria or https://www.athletic-club.eus/en/players/Francisco-Javier-yeste-navarro or https://www.athletic-club.eus/en/players/Iker-muniain-goni. Instead of an ID number and the 'shirt name', the page now uses their full name. Even worse, the players who were known by a nickname do not have it in the title (Tiko was at https://www.athletic-club.eus/en/players/18/tiko.htmlbut but is now at https://www.athletic-club.eus/en/players/roberto-martinez-ripodas, Pichichi was at https://www.athletic-club.eus/en/players/334/pichichi.html but now at https://www.athletic-club.eus/en/players/rafael-moreno-aranzadi, and Javi Martínez was at https://www.athletic-club.eus/en/players/1613/jmartinez.html but is now at https://www.athletic-club.eus/en/players/javier-martinez-aginaga ). So with all the variations it's not an easy one to auto-predict or fix but hopefully someone will have the knowledge? Crowsus (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a feedback form on the site: one of the questions is What content are you missing? might be worth a try. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, have sent a moany form pointing out everything that is missing and a suggestion that they could at least make the old pages redirect to the new ones. Not expecting much to happen but as you say, worth a try. Crowsus (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It might be possible to extract the information from the HTML page source. The source for the first team player page has {"id":"924","slug":"iker-muniain-goni" which provides the ID number and the new player string. A bit tedious to extract and then it would need switch statements added to the template to convert id to name. Jts1882 | talk 17:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

{"id":"2008","slug":"alejandro-remiro-gargallo",
{"id":"2772","slug":"cristian-ganea",
{"id":"1753","slug":"unai-nunez-gestoso",
{"id":"2770","slug":"inigo-martinez-berridi",
{"id":"1827","slug":"yeray-alvarez-lopez",
{"id":"870","slug":"mikel-san-jose-dominguez",
{"id":"754","slug":"benat-etxebarria-urkiaga",
{"id":"860","slug":"ander-iturraspe-derteano",
{"id":"2233","slug":"inaki-williams-arthuer",
{"id":"924","slug":"iker-muniain-goni",
{"id":"2021","slug":"inigo-cordoba-querejeta",
{"id":"1095","slug":"yuri-berchiche-izeta",
{"id":"849","slug":"iago-herrerin-buisan",
{"id":"763","slug":"markel-susaeta-laskurain",
{"id":"2229","slug":"inigo-lekue-martinez",
{"id":"2773","slug":"daniel-garcia-carrillo",
{"id":"2224","slug":"mikel-rico-moreno",
{"id":"1984","slug":"oscar-de-marcos-arana",
{"id":"422","slug":"aritz-aduriz-zubeldia",
{"id":"1224","slug":"ander-capa-rodriguez",
{"id":"2496","slug":"raul-garcia-escudero",
{"id":"2168","slug":"unai-lopez-cabrera",
{"id":"1826","slug":"mikel-balenziaga-oruesagasti",
{"id":"2136","slug":"unai-simon-mendibil",
{"id":"2397","slug":"gorka-guruzeta-rodriguez",
{"id":"2483","slug":"peru-nolaskoain-esnal",

Above is the first team. Jts1882 | talk 17:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty clueless about the practicalities of the coding these things, but in theory all of the players should have their full name in the relevant field of the Infobox, and that should correspond with the new url suffix. Would it be possible for a template bot to read that field and generate the link? Crowsus (talk)

I've started to mock up the sort of thing that might work in Template:Athletic Bilbao profile/sandbox. The problem is that the switch statement needs repeating many times and then the list of players needs to be extended. And the positional parameters need handling. I'm not sure this type of solution is practical. I have to go now, so if anyone wants to try and continue in the sandbox please do. Jts1882 | talk 18:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Crowsus and Struway2: I think the sandbox version in {{Athletic Bilbao profile/sandbox}} is working. It takes the number passed as {{{1}}} or stripped from an {{{id}}} in old format (e.g. |id=234/name) and gets the new form id string from the list in {{Athletic Bilbao profile/data}} (which has the current first team as listed above). If not available it just uses the id as passed. This means setting the id to the new style string form (e.g. |id=cristian-ganea) will work.

In short, it should convert old references if that data is in the data file (which will need adding to) or it will work if the IDs are changed to the new format. Jts1882 | talk 08:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The profiles of previous players are available. For instance, Fernando Llorente. I had to guess the name-string. His full name is "Fernando Javier Llorente Torres" and they use the first name and two parental names, i.e. "fernando-llorente-torres".

Fernando Llorente

Overall, I'm not sure how useful it is unless we can get a list of player ids. If we have to compile each player one by one, we might as well edit the player pages. This assumes we can find the target page, though, as I can't find any way of navigating to an previous player and they have no search facility. It seems the switch to the new site is rather premature, so you'd hope they will eventually update the site to redirect the old names. The IUCN recently updated their site and left tens of thousands of wikipedia pages without an important reference, but eventually they provided the redirect. Jts1882 | talk 10:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the template to use my sandbox version. The existing template was producing broken links so there can be no harm even if there are some bugs to work out. The first team and a few other players mentioned in this thread work. Jts1882 | talk 10:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation tag(s)

I think, in all humility, this tag at Cristian Díaz makes for a very poor read. I tried to adjust it but failed miserably, hence left the current one be.

Suggestions anyone? Thanks anyone --Quite A Character (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite agree Quite A Character. I disambiguated it using year born. --SuperJew (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Eleven-Men Football Photograph Deletion Discussion

These type of photos are at risk of being deleted from Wikipedia Dear fellow members, I am in an un-deletion discussion at Wikimedia Commons with an editor who claims that the 11-men standing photo is outside of copyright restrictions due to not being artistic. I would appreciate it if any member of the FOOTY community who knows more about football photos or publications could help provide some input into the discussion. I worry that, as the deletion reasoning stands, it will not only continue affecting one of our featured articles (Peru national football team), but the implications also might affect other 11-men standing photographs currently available for free fair use.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 19:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Link to the discussion (CLICK HERE).--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 19:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with fair use but copyright problem. It is totally fine that wiki-commons had a strict standard on photos. They need to be in public domain in the home country and in the US. Matthew hk (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The sheer premise that we must prove a photograph was not published in a country is already threatening to various football photographs currently available in Wikimedia. Add to that the traditional eleven-men standing photo is being questioned as non-copyrighted by older laws, but rather newer ones, effectively extends their copyright to the present and again threatens various photographs currently under fair use in Wikimedia. The logic being used to keep the photo deleted is the problem here; copyright is directly related to fair use.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 02:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Wiki commons is full of copyrighted relic that was transferred to commons from local wiki back to 2006. I have no objection on cleanup in wiki common. Matthew hk (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Page move/moves (?)

Someone moved this page to Fabri (footballer). Sure, a player career before a managerial one, but i seriously doubt we will ever learn any stats for this subject (i.e. only a Tercera División footballer), thus it's kind of "risky" addressing him as a footballer if he was not a professional/encyclopedical one (a coaching career at the highest level in various countries, that he had). Makes more sense to rename this guy "Fabri", my two cents.

Thoughts anyone? Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

For that reason, wouldn’t it be better for us to disambiguate by the overall topic, not the specific profession within that topic? IMO, we should disambiguate all articles that require it with (football). Then we could avoid having to make subjective guesses about whether an individual was better known for their playing career or their coaching career. – Pee Jay 01:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. So, if i get you well (maybe i fail at that, i'm a bit thick regarding technicalities), it's best to leave the second item as it is and rename the first (for example) "Fabriciano González Penelas" and add a hatnote, thus avoiding second-guessing in the process? --Quite A Character (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Using the full name is better than using '(football)', given the issues with that word. Giant Snowman 12:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Transfer article needed?

Is this Transfer of Cristiano Ronaldo from Real Madrid C.F. to Juventus F.C. really needed? Kante4 (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd say no, but always loathed to push for something being removed that someone has put effort into creating. I would suggest it be merged into the main Cristiano Ronaldo article Jopal22 (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Is he going to be the only sportsperson in the world with articles to his museum, his bust (i think it was a separate one, now it's been duly moved to the sculptor's page, apologies if i'm confusing myself there) and his transfer fees? An utter joke, my humble two cents. --Quite A Character (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge it into the Ronaldo main article. Giant Snowman 12:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Beattie

Many of you will probably remember former Ipswich Town stalwart (and occasional England star), Kevin Beattie, who recently died.

His biography is at FAC and I'd really appreciate any input from you guys. Even if you don't remember him!

He had a really interesting and in some ways sad life. Do take a peek at the article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Guardiola Page Question

On Pep Guardiola's page, it cites him as being one of the best midfielders of his generation with only one source (Johan Cryuff picking him in his World XI team). From what I've seen, similar type claims on other articles require a greater amount of in-depth sources, and I am not even sure this one actually addresses the point at hand as it is one man's opinion. Another editor disagreed however and wanted to keep it in, so what are people's opinions on here? Is this enough evidence to solidify the claim? Davefelmer (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This sort of claim definitely needs more corroboration than a player's former manager picking him out of position in a notional World XI. Spike 'em (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. This doesn't come close to supporting that statement. Probably worthy of inclusion in the body somewhere, attributed as Cryuff's opinion, but not as such a general statement in the lead. Nzd (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I've removed from lead. It was already in the Playing Style section, I've amended that slightly to make is sound less WP:PEACOCKy. Spike 'em (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A lot of misunderstanding here... All the cites claiming him to be one of the best midfielders of his generation are placed in the 'Style of play' section. The one from Johan Cruyff, a consensus top 5 player of all time and the greatest manager ever as well as the father of modern football himself, was just highlighted there as it carries the most weight of them all. This all again comes back to the user Davefelmer disruptively editing all the pages linked with Manchester City for almost two-three years now. Also, I see all of you are just autoconfirmed users here and not qualified to make such a consensus decision on this matter, therefore all the edits will be reverted. Should ask further help from an admin, until then the page in question will stay unchanged. Saksapoiss (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS (which is currently against your view). Admins have no more power over content decisions than any other editor (WP:CONADMIN). Nzd (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that all the cites are in the 'style of play' section and that you have arrived on an incorrect consensus. Saksapoiss (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I've read through the other refs that you claim support this and none of them do, with the exception of the SBNation one which isn't a reliable source and should be removed anyway. Nzd (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have realized my mistake here and already restored the page to the consensus arrived on here. Saksapoiss (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Quique Sánchez Flores

Do we really need all the detail in his Managerial statistics section? I've not seen it for anyone else. --Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No we do not. Giant Snowman 09:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Flown From the Nest

Those who know me, will know I edit a lot about Norwich City F.C..

An incredible website exists, called Flown From the Nest (it's an in-joke for Canaries fans - see The Nest), which has details on the lives and careers of a stupendous number of former Norwich players, managers, administrators and others.

If I were to be harsh, I'd venture that it is reliable and accurate in what it says, but it can sometimes be out of date, so if it says someone left Norwich and went to Kings Lynn, they definitely did that, but they may have subsequently moved on to Thetford. It's definitely reliable for information about people's time with Norwich.

I'd like to know if we can regard it as RS for people's Norwich careers? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good site. I have used in in the past, although I recently came across a rather glaring error (that I had reproduced) about John McDowell's transfer fee (says £20,000 when it should be £90,000). It may be that this was incorrect in one of the site's sources. I did try contacting the site owner (in late October) but haven't heard back and the incorrect fee still shows on the site. Nzd (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I've always viewed it as reliable. Giant Snowman 14:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Ditto. I've used it to detail several former Canaries' subsequent non-league careers. Number 5 7 09:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

{{National football squad player (recent)}} and the natvar attribute

Hi all - is there any reason other than omission that {{National football squad player (recent)}} doesn't accept the natvar attribute like {{National football squad player}} and {{National football squad player (goals)}}? Many of the pages at the maintenance category are flagged because natvar has been included in the (recent) template - and in many of these cases this results in the incorrect club nationality flag being displayed.

Could it be fixed by one of the clever people who write templates? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

ping @Frietjes and Sygmoral: as the two most recent editors of both templates. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean! I did not know about that parameter. I have added it just now. Sygmoral (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Gricehead (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Is England Football Online RS?

Specifically this page: [1]. Being used as a citation in Kevin Beattie, which is currently being considered as a possible Featured Article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that site is very reliable when it comes to England stats. – Pee Jay 13:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks --13:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Not wishing to be a party pooper, but I suspect an FA reviewer will be looking for something a bit more concrete than simply one other editor saying "yes, it is reliable"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That's OK poop away. No urgency now, because TRM cleverly removed all citations from it anyway. Not just useful to know for the future. Does the WikiProject maintain a list of RS sites? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I would say this is reliable, yes. However, they do generally cite their sources, so if there is a doubt, then the original source could be used. Nzd (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

They cite their sources. But they also pride themselves on doing research, rather than regurgitating the same inaccuracies that have passed unquestioned from source to source since time began, and cite their specific sources when they do. Norman Giller allows them to re-publish his reports of England matches: not sure an author of his repute would do that if the site weren't generally reliable. The publishers are named: Chris Goodwin is credited e.g. by Jonny Dewart at NIFG (which is WP:RS) and in this piece for the American Society for Soccer History (which ought to be), Glen Isherwood was Wembley Stadium's official historian and has published on the subject.

Hope whatever your collaborator replaced it with is of corresponding quality. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I did indeed. But the point remains, FAC is very different from WP:FOOTY. If we are striving to get football FAs, then we need a list of already assured sources so we don't have to go through this every time. Other projects seem to have a list of "sources" then "okay sources", then "reliable sources". Suggest this project gets busy and starts running through its list of sources in a simliar way. It would be wholly benificial. Oh, and Struway2, I'm happy to replace the sources, that's not a problem. And if you fancy an hour of light entertaiment, please come and review Kevin Beattie, currently at FAC. He's an unlikely FA, but one which seems to appeal across the divide. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Chaps, you're all really welcome to comment at the FAC: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Kevin_Beattie/archive1. We've had some non-expert attention at the copyedit stage, which was great, but comments from people who know their Hartlepools (singular) from their Hartlepools (plural) are really useful. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a bit of an issue at Talk:2018–19 UEFA Europa League#Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. The articles on the competition's qualifying rounds are absolutely massive, with hundreds of transclusions of {{footballbox}}, resulting in the last few not being rendered (see here). This gives me a good opportunity to suggest something I've been thinking about for a while: getting rid of the {{goal}} template. Practically the only useful thing I can see about that template is that it standardises the way own goals and penalties are presented in our articles. It isn't exactly obvious that the ball icon indicates that the player mentioned scored a goal (no more so than providing the time of the goal, which we do anyway), which means the use of that icon falls foul of WP:ICONDECORATION. The template also reduces the size of the text for the goal time and own goal/penalty indicator, which can cause accessibility issues, especially since the text in the {{footballbox}} template is already less than 100% of the default size. Ultimately, {{goal}} is just yet another template that solves an issue we never really had. I know we've used it for a while, but it's starting to cause issues. Can we please find a way to get rid of it? – Pee Jay 16:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps having {{footballbox}} default to presenting Goals: or Goalscorers: when the parameters goals1 and goals2 are called similar to the way {{rugbybox}} works with tries, penalties, conversions and drop goals could be a solution. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, but I worry it's a little unnecessary. It should be fairly obvious to the casual reader that the number of people/times listed matches up with the scoreline. In rugby, there are several ways to score, so you need some way of identifying who scored by what method; that's not needed in football. – Pee Jay 21:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That's true. Plus there's a separate parameter for a penalty shootout and the consensus is to not include cards so there genuinely is nothing we need to disambiguate from. I'd support deleting the template but I'm guessing we'll need a bot to help, it's used on more than 25,000 pages.Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If no one objects in the next week or so, I'll set up a WP:TfD discussion. – Pee Jay 23:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It does give us standardised output on all pages, rather then ending-up with different displaying on pages depending on what people decide to format it. Cards are used and in some cases on/off indicators so you need something to show that it is a goal. Keith D (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

If there was actually was no use of cards in footballboxes, this might be a good call. But as there are quite a lot of pages which still use cards, getting rid of the goal template is problematic IMO. Furthermore this would create a massive pile of work for the editors to replace the goal template where it is currently used (every football page to date). So it doesn't give much, if at all, and creates a lot of work. I'm against this. --SuperJew (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, the template should not be deleted given it is often used inline with cards. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying the template is being used in ways it's not supposed to be used? All the more reason to delete it. Anyway, surely people will realise that the entries without icons refer to goals? This BBC match report doesn't give an icon for goals. – Pee Jay 09:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Given the usage, a TfD would be WP:SNOW: you'd need to change the consensus and documentation of {{footballbox}} and {{football box collapsible}} both of which say to use {{goal}}. {{football box collapsible}} also indicates card usage is acceptable. Spike 'em (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think any template here is being used in ways they are not supposed to be. The documentation for {{footballbox}} references {{yel}} and {{sent off}} as well as {{goal}}, and there's nowhere else in the template to put them than in the goals1 or goals2 parameter. I don't see a strong enough argument to get rid of {{goal}}. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Given the BBC and Sky include red cards in their match summaries, I don't have any problem with it. I do have an issue with including yellow cards though, as they have absolutely no direct impact on the result of a game. Anyway, template documentations can be easily changed if it's decided that the {{goal}} template no longer has any purpose, which I would argue it doesn't. As I've pointed out, the ball icon doesn't intrinsically indicate a goal, which could mean it violates WP:ICONDECORATION. – Pee Jay 10:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I've often thought that yellows were not of much use (or even worse, just lead to clutter) and have added them out of habit / mimicked what others seem to do, so would happily deprecate those. If you have a link to somewhere saying this is consensus then I'd happily get rid of them where I see them. Spike 'em (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I would disagree that yellow cards don't have a direct impact on the game. There wouldn't be much point in having them as a caution if they didn't affect the way a player played for the remainder of the game, and hence impact the result (example - defender getting an early yellow card is less likely to make a desperate tackle later in the game). I wouldn't support a move to get rid of them, but if there is existing - relatively recent - consensus, I'll follow it. Gricehead (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point, Gricehead, but that's an example of an indirect effect, not a direct effect. Even red cards don't have a direct effect on the result - the resulting numerical advantage to one team may lead to further goals, but by definition, that's an indirect effect. I don't think there was ever even consensus to add them, people just started doing it because they saw icons and decided they prettified the article a bit. "Ooh, a 0-0? But then the 'goals' parameter will be empty! Can't have that!" I'm not saying that anyone who came afterwards thought the same, but it's pretty pervasive now and I don't think anyone stopped to consider the negative aspect. – Pee Jay 11:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Either way, I'd say the template is used in too many different contexts to be deleted outright (it would make little sense for it to be deleted but the other icons to remain). I would disagree with ICONDECORATION, and {{Goal}}/{{Golden goal}}/{{Silver goal}} also contain alt text for the images. A discussion regarding the use of the {{Goal}} in {{Football box}} seems a better option than taking it to TfD. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I'm happy to seek that consensus. – Pee Jay 11:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Spike 'em and Gricehead: Most recent discussion I can find re- cards in football box is here (although I don't think the recentness of the consensus determines whether it should be put into practice or not). As far as I was aware, the cards/subs icons were only used in match articles (eg- 2016 Scottish Cup Final).

Also, I've noticed this on some of the Scottish club season articles (eg-2017–18 St Mirren F.C. season, 2018–19 Rangers F.C. season etc) but we could also cut down on the use of footballbox/goal templates if they followed the Manual of Style. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned at Talk:2018–19 UEFA Europa League#Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded, using templatestyles with a Lua module could reduce the transclusion size when repeatedly using {{Footballbox}}. This also applies to {{goal}}. If the goal image was used as a background in the css it wouldn't need to placed as an image each time it was used. The page 2010–11_UEFA_Europa_League_qualifying_phase_and_play-off_round uses has 601 goal icons, each using 430 characters, which adds up to 258k (using one byte per char; utf-8 will use a bit more). That more than 12% of the total transclusion size allowed for a page. I think at least 90% of that can be trimmed if goal was implemented as a module with templatestyles. I've checked that background images are allowed in the saniticed CSS (e.g they are used the citation templates here). Jts1882 | talk 11:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Mensah

There's broken code in the lede of the article on Jonathan Mensah. Could someone take a look? Robby.is.on (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone had broken the {{Needs IPA}} template............. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I was just going to say that... Gricehead (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Trials

Amodou Abdullei apparently had a number of (seemingly unsuccessful) trials with various clubs in 2009. Firstly, these have all been put in the infobox, and secondly he has been put in the player categories for the clubs concerned. Is either of these a correct thing to do? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. Those things should only be for when the player has actually signed a contract with the club, either permanent or on loan. A trial player isn't actually allowed to play in competitive fixtures, so it wouldn't make sense to list that club in their infobox. – Pee Jay 16:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Trials are not notable, I've removed them from infobox and categories. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think they should be in either infobox or category. I was going to raise this myself actually as Danny Invincibile has found his way into the West Ham players cat, apparently on the basis of a single trial game. Nzd (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Football season cycle

Hi. For football season articles like 2017–18 in English football or 2017–18 in Italian football, are the dates for inclusion, particularly for national team matches, from July 2017 until June 2018, for example, or is it more like kin to club seasons mid-August to mid-May? Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was the former (July to June), with matches of tournaments that start in June on the previous season article (i.e. World Cup matches in July would be on the 17/18 article). S.A. Julio (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This. The World Cup would always fit in the "previous season", e.g. the 2018 World Cup was in the 2017/18 season (assuming your country operates a "winter" season). This caused the anomaly of some 2018/19 matches (UCL or UEL qualifying) being played before the 2017/18 season was finished. I think Celtic's first match this season was on the same day as one of the semi-finals, and that anomaly was remarked upon at the time. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Major League Soccer team infoboxes

Can Major League Soccer team infoboxes have team colors/colours added to them? Or is there a reason they are omitted that I’m not aware of? SportsFan007 (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

WP:COLOUR Has issues with colours, especially for people with colour blindness like me. It's normally best to avoid over use of colours. Govvy (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Ah ok, fair enough, thank you!!! SportsFan007 (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

Brian Gayle - Soccerbase/Hugman discrepancy

In creating an infobox for Brian Gayle, I noticed that the stats for a couple of his clubs are slightly different on Hugman and Soccerbase:

Bristol Rovers: SB = 24, Hugman = 23
Shrewsbury Town: SB = 67, Hugman = 66

Any idea why this might be, and is there a wider question about stats from one or the other of those sites? Thanks, Nzd (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

If you actually count the appearances on the individual season pages on Soccerbase, rather than just going by the totals, you get the same figures as Hugman. They're also the same as given in the Playfair annuals for the relevant seasons, i.e.

96/97: 7 league apps for Bristol Rovers

97/98: 16 for Bristol Rovers, 23 for Shrewsbury

98/99: 43 for Shrewsbury

Unfortunately, they have a history of not responding to submitted corrections or queries about discrepancies. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's surprising that the summary table and match listing gives different results on Soccerbase. You'd expect a database-based site would calculate the summaries from the matches rather than be entered separately. Jts1882 | talk 10:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but Soccerbase are making a lot of errors now. e.g. in Saturday's game between Hamilton and Hibs, (bizarrely) both goalkeepers got injured in the warm-up and had to be replaced. Yet Soccerbase recorded Adam Bogdan as having played in the game for Hibs, and their report shows 12 players in their starting lineup. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

There are also a number of younger players who have played in the EFL Trophy who are showing zero games. Giant Snowman 11:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll make a mental note to actually count the games myself in future. Nzd (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Adrian Mutu

Can someone take a look at Adrian Mutu? Looks like we have a WP:COI with AMadrianmutu79 (talk · contribs) claiming to be the subject and deleting swathes of sourecd content from the article. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It is me! How can I prove it ?? AMadrianmutu79 (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @AMadrianmutu79: please verify your identity by using WP:OTRS. In the meantime your editing at the Adrian Mutu article is disruptive and I strongly suggest you do not make any further edits until this matter has been resolved. Giant Snowman 21:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know how to use it but anyway what I was doing is just to add some new stuff for example I’m coaching now in UAE in Al wahda fc U 21 and also some stuff about me that everybody can verify and of course deleting stuff that I don’t think it’s fair to insist on AMadrianmutu79 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

See WP:REALNAME. You need to avoid editing the article (and perhaps those of your competitors, teammates and so on) because that would be a conflict of interest. Instead, post your concerns on Talk:Adrian Mutu and have an uninvolved editor make the changes. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Account has been blocked Equineducklings (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Automated Category move?

Is there a way to move a category and automatically change all the articles in that category so they are in the new category? FC Versailles was moved to FC Versailles 78 in August, but the associated players category wasn't moved with it. There's only a dozen or so articles in the category so not much of a pain to do manually, but I thought I'd ask anyway. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

See WP:CFDS to get the category renamed; once that happens a bot will move all the articles within it. Giant Snowman 11:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! And I can do that with twinkle, even better! Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

2011–12 UEFA Europa League first qualifying round

Who can help me do this merge per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 UEFA Europa League first qualifying round outcome? Thanks Hhkohh (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Full-content paste merger seems like a pretty obvious choice in this case. A small re-write of the lede, and copy-pasta the rest into the article. Then a title change. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Please go ahead, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Top 10 attendance

Hi all, I just want to ask. Do we need to list the top 10 attendance for a league season page? Like Catalyszczowski did on 2018 Liga 1 page in this contribs? Tag Hhkohh. Thanks. Wira rhea (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Just note that I previously opened a discussion in Talk:2018 Liga 1 but there is no result Hhkohh (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That sort of thing seems like fancruft to me. – Pee Jay 15:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Kante4 (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

EFL Trophy

Does the EFL Trophy meet WP:N? There's a lot of Charlton players with pages who have only played EFL Trophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.39.117.10 (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe it does confer notability, yes. It's a national cup competition for professional sides, although you could argue that its value from a notability standpoint was diminished somewhat by allowing the top clubs' U23 sides to enter. – Pee Jay 19:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Only matches between senior sides would meet WP:NFOOTY. Matches played against academy sides would not as they are not both from fully professional leagues, I believe there were a few AfDs recently that confirmed this. Kosack (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Warning template for 'incomplete' stats updates

Can anybody point me in the direction of the warning template for when editors don't update the 'club-update' parameter? Giant Snowman 11:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

{{footyiu}}. You can add it as a custom warning in Twinkle so it'll link to the the relevant aticle. Nzd (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks! Giant Snowman 11:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

National football team results

Hi,

Would it make more sense to make a single article called Lebanon national football team results (1940–99) with 145 games or to divide it into two articles called Lebanon national football team results (1940–79) and Lebanon national football team results (1980–99) with 60 and 75 games respectively?

Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

England is done in groups of 2 decades (1872-1899, 1900-29 and 1930-59 were 3 decades due to the absence of football during the war, 1960-79, 1980-99, and 2000-19), and I used the same logic when I made the Luxembourg pages, although there were so few matches at the start of their international life I combined 1911-1959 into one page as it had so few results by comparison. Scotland are also in groups of 2 decades, again with the exception of the early 1872-1914 years. So I would think that the preference would be pages of 20 years, unless there were very few or very many results for that kind of timeframe? A lot of other lists of national results though are all on one page, so maybe there isn't a solid consensus yet? --Philk84

15:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: I have copied your comment on my talk page here in case other editors have an opinion on this..

These are the match counts for each decades for the Lebanon national team:

1940-49: 1
1950-59: 10
1960-69: 31
1970-79: 18
1980-89: 12
1990-99: 63
2000-09: 93
2010-19: 89

As Lebanon has played more games after 2000 (182) than before (135), I don't think it would make sense to consistently divide the articles into groups of two decades (as for example 1940-59 would only have 11 games). Croatia (which is listed as GA status) for example has three sections: 1940-1999, 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 with about 100 games each. If we were to use the same logic for Lebanon this would be the outcome: 1940-99 (135 games), 2000-09 (93 games) and 2010-19 (89 games).

These are the options:

A single article (317 games)
1940-99 (135 games), 2000-19 (182 games)
1940-99 (135 games), 2000-09 (93 games), 2010-19 (89 games)
1940-79 (60 games), 1980-99 (75 games), 2000-09 (93 games), 2010-19 (89 games)

--Philk84

09:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a logical 5th option - 1940-89 (72) then by decade (63, 93, 89). But it's close between that and the Croatia example. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Based on the England example where the last three vicennials are about 200 games each, option 2 seems a good breakdown (pre-2000, then vicennial). If 200 games per page is considered too many, then I'd go for option 5 (pre-1990, then decadal). The only one I'd rule out is option 1, as it is already large and just puts off the decision to split. Jts1882 | talk 12:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Watch out for changes to some Cats you might be interested in

I just spotted a few of these floating by in my Watchlist. I believe there are over 700 planned for mass changing. All without the definite article, lol.

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 5. The deleted Categories were all under Category:Wikipedian sports fans (now a redlink for obvious reasons).

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Mel Rees

Just been reading the 2004 edition of the Guinness World Records, and in the sports/football department it is said this (unfortunate) guy held the record for youngest player to compete in all four major levels of English football. He did play nine matches (according to hiw WP entry) for Sheffield United in that 1992/93 season when they were in the Premier League, yet his Soccerbase entry does not show any matches (please see here https://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=20953, either he did not play or old seasons are not displayed anymore).

Also, could it be something was lost in the Portuguese translation of said almanac? Inputs please.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Career here. Giant Snowman 16:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Soccerbase doesn't have line-ups for pre-PL days. Perhaps he played at the end of the 1991-1992 season. Jts1882 | talk 16:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Prose in the article says he joined in March 1992 and played in 1991/92 season, infobox correctly says 1992/93 because he was still registered with them in 1993. Should be 8 apps, not 9. He played his top-flight football for Watford in 1987/88. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that somehow "clears the air". But is the record bestowed upon him by GWR accurate or not? If so, it should be mentioned in the piece, wouldn't you agree? --Quite A Character (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Isn't now. GWR must have believed it was right at the time or your book wouldn't have listed it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Probably worth mentioning that he was the youngest at the time, citing your edition of the book, even though the record has since been broken (possibly more than once, who knows?). As Struway notes, the Guinness people must have had evidence that he was the youngest at the time in order to print it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Evidently folks, I was just thinking maybe the translation from the English version was made poorly and thus the read made me think something else. In case not, of course the record is accurate; also, as you both duly noted, that record has now longsince been broken. Many thanks for your inputs, take care. --Quite A Character (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Found this. 'Tis reliable, isn't it not? If so, i'll insert in article to the best of my abilities. Cheers! --Quite A Character (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever, i've embraced WP:BOLD and inserted it anyway. If anyone wants to go MOS on this one (if need be, obviously)... Happy weekend --Quite A Character (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Notability of Ross Allen

Hi there, I'm in the process of writing an article for Guernsey footballer Ross Allen. Though he fails WP:NFOOTY, I believe there's enough non-routine coverage solely about him on notable news sites, enough so that he fulfils general notability criteria and thus justifies an article.

Before I begin properly writing the article, could I please get some secondary opinions? The skeleton for the article (including many references to be added) is at Draft:Ross Allen (footballer). Thanks, Mrsmiis (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

He is a Guernsey international footballer and despite those games are not FIFA match, the coverage seem pass GNG. Just need a proper main text , not a list of reference and infobox. Matthew hk (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I would second Matthew hk's opinion, there is significant coverage in the refs you already have and a quick Google search throws up a couple more. Enough to pass WP:GNG I would say. Kosack (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Cheers guys, article's done barring the international section which I'm writing now - it's at Ross Allen (footballer). Made sure to use as many unique sources as possible to ensure it passes WP:GNG.Mrsmiis (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Darlington Town F.C.

I don't have time but can somebody please work out where the page history of Darlington Town F.C. (formerly Horden Colliery Welfare) has gone? There look to have been page moves/possible C&P job... Giant Snowman 14:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It's here as far as I can see...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

All sorted now hopefully -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks. Giant Snowman 12:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

1971 Unofficial Women's World Cup

Plenty of sources - see eg this and this and this, probably meets GNG and merits an article. Any idea what it should be called? Giant Snowman 12:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I would go with the official name of the tournament presented on the poster, being "1971 Campeonato de Fútbol Femenil". Otherwise, if you knew the governing body who organized the competition, the title could be 1971 [insert governing body] World Cup --Nehme1499 (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

But that's just Spanish for '1971 Women's World Cup'... Giant Snowman 13:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I know, but since we can't call it "1971 Women's World Cup" as it would imply it being official, either we call it with the Spanish name or with the name of the body who organized the tournament preceding "Women's". Nehme1499 (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Why can't we call it that? The lack of 'FIFA' confirms it isn't official. Giant Snowman 14:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Article created at 1971 Women's World Cup. Giant Snowman 14:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Related article at 1970 Women's World Cup. Giant Snowman 16:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure we've got the name right. The literal translation is "1971 Women's Championship of Football" or "Women's Football Championship," as opposed to the 1970 Italian tournament. I'd like to see if any contemporary 1970s British papers covered the event. SportingFlyer talk 07:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Aren't both of these tournaments considered unsanctioned? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  - Yes, they're both unofficial/non-FIFA. Giant Snowman 08:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- The tournament poster (scroll down a bit) includes the word Mundial: so "1971 Campeonato Mundial de Fútbol Femenil", which translates as Women's Football World Championship. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  - The poster for the first men's world cup called it "Campeonato Mundial de Fútbol" but we call it the World Cup, not World Championship. On that basis I don't see why we can't call this tournament a World Cup. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    - I have no issue with these both being unofficial world cups. That seems to be the English common name for this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Both the 1970 and 1971 tournaments were organised by de:Fédération Internationale et Européenne de Football Féminin (FIEFF) Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

If this is the case, then both 1970 Women's World Cup and 1971 Women's World Cup should be renamed to 1970 FIEFF Women's World Cup and 1971 FIEFF Women's World Cup. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Mohammed Magdy Elhussieny

Asking for help with Mohammed Magdy Elhussieny. Came across this when working the queue of articles with bad display titles when the author tried to change the spelling of the name. Does this guy meet the notablity guidelines? I was thinking this could even be a hoax given the teams asserted that he's played for: in Egypt, Gibraltar, Bangladesh, Maldives and now Kuwait. See also Mohamed Magdy and Mohamed Magdy (footballer, born 1993), I don't know whether any of these can be determined to be primary topic for the name. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Not entirely sure. I did find this player profile on Soccerway, which has a lot of similarities to the Mohammed Magdy Elhussieny article but also a few differences - namely the entire playing career history. Might just be a coincidence but thought I'd share just in case it helps. R96Skinner (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, assuming he does exist, there's nothing to suggest he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. The only club listed in his infobox from a fully professional league is ENPPI in the 2011–12 Egyptian Premier League, and no-one of anything like that name or with those stats is listed by Soccerway (select season in dropdown menu) or by FootballDatabase.eu. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Norwegian First Division/1. divisjon

There's a controversial RM over this article here which could do with more input from Footy project members familiar with naming conventions for divisions. Number 5 7 19:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Adolfo Moyano Burgos

I tried to duly move this page to "Popo (footballer)", but was not allowed. As far as i can see, WP already has Adílson Ferreira de Souza (nicknamed "Popó", even though that's not the name of the page) and Popó (footballer).

Mr. Burgos' article clearly needs a page move. All the web searches have him being addressed to as "Popo", and links #1 and #2 in his article (both Spanish) attest to the same.

Suggestions? Attentively, thanks in advance --Quite A Character (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

All three of them seem to be named Popo, so best to disambiguate by DOB. I'm started a move discussion for all three of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Nicolò Zaniolo youth career

My edit to Nicolò Zaniolo's youth career was reverted and I don't want to litigate about this so lets just clear it up here.

In summary he was a Fiorentina youth player in 2016. At the end of the summer transfer market he was discared and moved to Virtus Entella to continue playing with their youth team (the primavera). However a couple months in he was so good for the Primavera that he got his first team debut in Serie B and finished up the season there playing at both senior and youth level. The following season Inter sign him, and he plays the whole year with their Primavera youth side, even winning the primavera league as their top scorer. GiantSnowman has decided his youth career magically ended at Fiorentina and deleted the Entella and Inter sections from his youth career.

What is the consensus? If you want to argue he wasn't an Inter youth player that's fine (it's ridiculous considering he played all the games and won the league as top scorer, but whatever fine), but he was definitely still a youth player when he was signed by Virtus Entella. He didn't magically become a senior player when he was discarded by Fiorentina in 2016.

Moreover I can provide you with countless examples of other youth players signed from Serie D or Serie C that have previously been given their debut in the lower leagues but continued their youth football career. Filippo Berardi for example already played professional football for Rimini when Torino signed him, but he was an important player for our youth team for like 3 seasons. Putting Torino in his senior career instead of youth would be ridicolous because it gives the impression he was a first team player - in reality he's never even been called up.Danieletorino2 (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It's long established that, as far as infoboxes go, the youth career cannot extend beyond the senior career. Giant Snowman 13:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

What about a player who has been called up professionally, has played in the first team and scored for them while also playing and scoring regularly for the youth team? A 17 year old who plays both in the first and youth team isn't the same as someone who played in the youth team, was called up for the first team and subsequently stopped playing for the youth. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The reality of many youth players' careers is too complex to accurately reflect in the infobox, hence why we have a rule that once they play senior football they are no longer a 'youth' player. Giant Snowman 14:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I agreed to remove the overlapping from infobox, even many Italian footballers made their debut at age 17 but leaving the under-19 team at age 19/20. Matthew hk (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's time we reexamine this rule because he we have 3 users that make strong arguments against it versus 'oh it's too complicated so lets overly simplify it even if it's wrong'. As Nehme1499 mentioned there's so many players that given 5 minutes debuts when they're 16/17, but continue to play for youth football for many years. Eddy Salcedo is emblematic of this: cameo appearance for Genoa in August 2017, now 2 whole seasons with the Genoa primavera and Inter primavera - still considered a senior player.Danieletorino2 (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No we don't. It's 2 v 2. Plus WP:NOTAVOTE anyway. Giant Snowman 12:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with Danieletorino2, the youth career and the senior career are to be considered independently: until a player stops being called up for the youth team the infobox should show the player still "currently" playing for both the youth and senior. Also, it wouldn't make sense for a player (such as Nicolò Zaniolo) to have not played for a certain youth team (Inter) in the infobox but to reference him being the top scorer for them in the youth league in the body of the article. I don't understand where the current consensus has been reached but I feel like it should be revisited. Nehme1499 (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. If a player is still playing for the youth team, their youth career can be said to be continuing, regardless of their senior status. – Pee Jay 12:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the overlapping of youth career and senior career is acceptable in the infobox. To have the infobox indicate the player's youth career stopped when they played their first senior game is misleading. As the youth careers and senior careers are listed separately, it is not complicated to list the actual years a player participated in youth matches. Some readers will only look at the infobox and not read the text, so it should be accurate and provide additional information when it is simple to do so. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I also agree. A casual reader cannot be expected to know what conventions are being used in the infobox, so are faced with inconsistent (or even wrong) information. Spike 'em (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

For people argue not confusing, the context of Zaniolo is, he made debut before joining Inter Milan, so it would be more confusing to omit Inter in his list of senior club, or much much more confusing to list two but not one overlapping youth and senior club. For people who read only infobox, it is a test of common sense that how much first team appearance for a normal age 19. List 0 (0) does not make a reserve player a complete junk, while a age 25 with a season 0 (0), it indicate otherwise. List the club "youth" does not improve the context as it was a transition period of youth to reserve/bench warmer. Matthew hk (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The point is that we aren't talking about transition periods from youth to senior, but about players who for example play for the youth, then a match for the senior team, then continue playing for the youth again. It doesn't make sense to omit the youth period that follows his first senior appearance. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It is fine if he made debut for the same club at year X, and left the youth team of the same club at X+N year. But it is not applicable to Zaniolo . It may be good to add back Virtus Entella to the youth club as from 2016-17 he was a youth player and made his first team debut in March 2017, but not excessive overlapping that putting Inter as youth club. Zaniolo made 7 first team appearance already before joining Inter. Matthew hk (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

What about a player who spends 1 year with a youth team, then 1 year with a senior team, and does that for 5-6 years? What about senior players who play for a youth team, as punishment or rehabilitation? etc. When do we decide that a youth career has finally ended? Giant Snowman 14:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You would be able to find confusing cases which ever way you do it. Ending a youth career after 1 senior appearance is just as arbitrary as letting editors make judgements about it. Spike 'em (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Spike 'em:, one or two may had a small overlapping infobox. But the context of Zaniolo is 7 games from March to May. Matthew hk (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it's the exact opposite of arbitrary! Giant Snowman 14:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It is good cutting point for using date of first team debut, unless some rare case, he still played in the "youth" squad as wildcard, but not making any first team debut (or just unused bench). Since Zaniolo made his debut in March 2017, the 2016–17 season is his youth and first team season, but Inter clearly his pro season not youth, even he did not make any debut. Matthew hk (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (4 times!!) That scenario seems rather unlikely. In the case of a player who is primarily a first team player, then games in the youth team for rehabilitation or punishment would be just a senior player rehabiliating or being punished, not a continuation of the youth career.

In this case the infobox is misleading. It implies his youth career stopped and he was a senior squad player for Entella and Inter. Was he ever included in the senior squad with Inter as the infobox implies? We know he was top scorer for the youth team that season, so it clearly wasn't rehabilitation or punishment. As the infobox is clearly misleading the approach is wrong in this case.

That means either changing the guidelines to keep separate youth and senior careers or be flexible to allow unusual cases like this one. I favour the latter as no set of guidelines will adequately cover all cases. Jts1882 | talk 15:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jts1882: 7 games in 2 months means first team regular in a Serie B club. For his Inter career, he did played as unused bench, not entirely for the U19 team. Matthew hk (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

But many players will have a simultaneous youth and senior career for a few years - see eg Liam McCarron who at 17 is a semi-regular first teamer. Nobody has yet said when/how we decide a youth career has actually ended. Giant Snowman 15:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It is a clear arbitrary point for turning pro for player that made first team debut at age 17 (plus may be at least a few appearance), as most youth academy period ended at age 18 and at most 19. Also, he was aged 18 when he was signed by Inter, so should be a full professional contract. Yes, it will be a much longer simultaneous period for some wonder kid that made their debut at age 15-16. Matthew hk (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Luke Freeman is another example - he played twice for Gillingham aged 15 while (obviously) not registered as a professional, then when he was signed by Arsenal it was very clearly stated that it was as a youth player, and it was a year before he signed his first professional contract. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Date of professional contract is irrelevant. Some players can be regular first-teamer without a pro contract, others can be professionals nowhere near the first team. Giant Snowman 15:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

So (taking things to extremes), if under some bizarre circumstance that 13 year old wonderkid at Celtic that everyone was talking about a year or two ago (I forget his name) had been named as a sub for a League Cup tie and come on for the last minute, you'd consider his youth career to have completely ended and everything he did from that point on to be his senior career, even if he didn't get anywhere near the first team again for another five or six years? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You mean Karamoko Dembélé I think? For the purposes of the infobox (and don't forget that is all we are discussing) yes. Giant Snowman 15:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

That's the lad :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

But the infobox is meant to summarise the article, so if that states that a player is a member of a club's youth team rather than the senior squad for a period, then the infobox should not conflict with that. Spike 'em (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ask it again (3rd/4th time???) - if not the date of senior debut, how do you tell/decide when a youth career actually ends? Giant Snowman 15:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

When a player stops playing regularly for a youth team? From the examples above it is clear you cannot use a one-size-fits-all rule. Spike 'em (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "regularly"? What reliable sources are you using to track youth stats etc.? It is clear that we need (and indeed already have) a rule - the long-established convention has been to 'end' the youth career in the infobox when a player makes their senior career. It's not perfect but it works. Nobody is able to suggest a better option. Giant Snowman 16:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The same criteria that is being used to determine if a player has stopped playing for the national team: 1) there is a clear statement that the player has stopped playing for the youth team or 2) he isn't appearing anymore for the youth and has started to regularly (so not alternating between first and youth team) be included in the first team team-sheet. All of this could be said about the national team: when do we start saying that a player isn't playing for the national team? When he hasn't been called-up recently and, subsequently, has stopped played for them. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

That's not the same criteria as a national team. It's rare to get an explicit statement stating a player has stopped playing youth football, and how do you define regularly. What about a 17 year old goalkeeper who spends the entire season on the bench because the regular #2 keeper os injured? etc etc Giant Snowman 16:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course a clear statement is very rare, that's why I would opt for the second option I presented. I think that the national team analogy fits well, for example Fabio Quagliarella might be called up for the national team once again as he is yet to retire but we don't say that he has been playing in 2007–, rather in 2007–2010. If a player, say the 17 year-old goalkeeper you mentioned, is on the bench for the first team but never plays football (either professionally or in the youth) for the whole season, it's safe to say that he is only a senior player (so the year count for the youth team would stop). If instead, while staying on the bench for the senior team, he also plays for the youth team then he is to be considered both a youth and senior team and his infobox would reflect it, for example, by saying that he plays in the youth team in 2016– and the senior team in 2018–. Once he stops being called up for the youth team regularly on, for example, 2 February 2019 and he doesn't play in the youth for another year (the time period could be decided, I would say 1 year is appropriate), meaning that if he hasn't been called up for the youth from 2 February 2019 till 2 February 2020, it's safe to change the infobox from 2016– to 2016–2019. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You keep saying 'regularly' but don't define it. What is it?! Giant Snowman 16:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

the time period could be decided, I would say 1 year (of inactivity) is appropriate Nehme1499 (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You mention using sources to determine when a youth career finishes, which may be tricky, but it is possible to find sources to show that current players are still youth players but it seems you are happy to ignore these to stick to an overarching rule. Spike 'em (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

But we need rules - without it it's anarchy. Giant Snowman 09:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

GS, please don´t missinform users that your prefered version is the one that is consensus. It isn´t. Actually in the last discussion most editors were against you and supported my proposal to stick to the reliable sources thus having overlaping or straigh-or-forth years in infoboxes. Here was the last discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_119#Youth_careers_in_infobox. FkpCascais (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Where was agreed consensus for new rules ie to move away from the existing way we work? Giant Snowman 10:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The main rules are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable source. What they say regarding a player career, we add it in the infobox. If they say a player has a career with overlapping or straigh-or-forth years between youth and senior career, his career should be added that way. Simple. There are no rules against it... except irrational GiantSnowman extremism over this. Becuse I see here again vast majority opposing you. FkpCascais (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I see a few editors saying what we do doesn't work, but being unable to suggest something else. Saying "let it overlap and the infobox become anarchy" is not good enough. Giant Snowman 10:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, is perfectly enough. What is not enouth is your will to break RS just based on some ideas you made up, such as no overlapping years in infobox. Where is that rule written? You don´t have support for this, and please stop missleading others with wording such as "we do" cause seems only "you do". FkpCascais (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

What RS are you using? Giant Snowman 10:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

In general. Whatever reliable sources you have and you use in a players article, if they say a player has played 2010-11 as youth, then first half of 2011-12 as senior, but then the second half as youth again, well, years in infobox should be displayed just as they are. No "addapting" or "falsifiying" the years just for them not to overlap, should be made by us. We should not add fake information. What you propose is wrong cause goes against the most important principle of our project, RS.

I hope I am not sounding harsh, someone new reading may think we don´t get along well, when in fact we have been collaborating in this project for over a decade and you are an editor I admire very much. But I really cannot believe you still insist on this when last time we discussed it the consensus was clearly against you. I don´t find at all correct that you pretended now that discussion never happened.

Why don´t we make a proposal for everyone to choose between your proposal of no overlapping or straigh-or-forth years in infobox, or my proposal of having overlapping or straigh-or-forth years if that is the case and just stick to whatever reliable sources say. Lets do it? FkpCascais (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You keep citing "the rules", but from this discussion, I can't see anyone other than you who is objecting to a bit of flexibility. Consensus can change. Spike 'em (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Fully agreed - but what is the consensus other than 'in some circumstances youth years can extend beyond senior years, but we don't know how to source that'? Giant Snowman 11:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, i generally agree using professional debut as a clear cut and just scrap that idea for one season as first team regular and then next season as youth team player . Except those wonder kid case that made their debut at age 16 or even 13 (or arbitrary, any club when he played above age 16-18 are not youth), it work totally fine to consider player that made one professional appearance as pro, which also the criteria of WP:NSPORTS. Or going to area of OR, say 5 first team appearances even they are eligible to play youth/reserves or back to playing age specific ladder team, they are pro and listing the club as youth and pro simultaneously in one overlapping period, did not help to improve the context. In Italy, one wildcard player for the youth team can be in any age, so it did not means much if players still playing for youth team. Or in other league, some first team player can be put in to reserves squad for gaining fitness and keeping the play time on football field. It just step into OR on determinate youth career end date by interpreting appearances and adding arbitrary "not call up" for N month criteria/ instead of simple judgement on first team debut. Matthew hk (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

NSPORTS just determines whether a player is notable, and has no guidelines over article content. Choosing 1 senior appearance as marking the end of a youth career is just as arbitrary as deciding upon with a number of youth team appearances to continue it. Spike 'em (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, no it's not. 1 appearance is enough to become notable. That's the point I think Matthew hk was trying to get at. Giant Snowman 11:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The use of any particular number of senior appearances as ending a youth career is an arbitrary choice made by editors rather than reflecting what happens in the real world. As with NSPORTS, 1 is the most obvious number to choose, but as with 1 fleeting pro appearance not being enough to guarantee notability, 1 pro appearance does not necessarily end a youth career. Spike 'em (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, Spike is absolutelly right.

Gentleman, please, years in infobox should be added just as reliable sources indicate. Any claims on contrary go against the main principles. The argument of a "cut point" in career is not backed by nothing else then just personal interpretation. The documentation of the infobox says nothing about years not being able to overlap. Please present the rules that say we should not follow simply the reliable sources in the infobox. FkpCascais (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

We have been here. There are no rules saying we should not display in the infobox the career right as it is, including overlapping or straigh-or-forth years if that is the case. In real life there is no clear cut point, thus neither do we have to make one up. Doing differently will inevitably break rules, and there seem to be no valid reasons for doing so just for the sake of esthetics or personal preference. Doing otherwise would also make us ignore part of players career for those which had cases of straigh-or-forth years, meaning; if we consider that once debuting as senior, his youth career ends, we will ignore the youth career he had from then on, or, if we make a cutting point later, we will ignore the senior career and stats he had earlier. All that unecessarily, as we can perfectly display the career correctly and have it complete. This is what actually Wikipedia rules and principles support. Adding info properly having in mind WP:Verifiability and WP:RS. Only in cases when technical difficulties appear, we can addapt by making up solutions, but this is definitelly not the case, since the infobox allows to add both careers with proper display of years.

@GiantSnowman, your great contributions to this project were properly recognised when you became sysop, and you are ammong the few editors which I admire and which were my role models. However, you are disapointing me here in this case for not being able to drop the stick. Last time we discussed this there was clearly a consensus against you, and your atitude here indicates that you ignored the consesus and just continued editing against it. Not only that, but you missinform other editors that your way is the correct and you probably reverted edits. It is a bad atitude cause indicates disregard towards the time and effort users spent at the discussion which you decide just to ignore because it doesn´t support you. Not to mention that is not nice at all that you use expressions like "we do" to give a wrong idea that your way is the established one and followed by editors. Many editors in this and previous discussions gave many reasons why are you wrong, but you insist in not seing them and ignoring them. Sometimes we are right, sometimes wrong, but we must respect consensus. Can we clouse this chapter and make this a consensus or we need more discussion? FkpCascais (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually there is real cutting point in real world. Either by regluation the youth league had age limit (U19 for Italy and U20 in the past), or by FIFA solidatary mechanism to youth clubs regulation (clubs until the player turned age 23 in general, but CAS/FIFA courting ruling did rule some players' club at age 20 are not youth club anymore, thus exclude from receiving solidatary mechanism "dividend" from future transfer fee), or by another regulation, below age 18 are minor and above age 18 can sign professional contract. For 1 match debut cutting point, it sound odd for "youth player that made professional debut", but not that silly for "young professional player that played in professional match". The overlap is acutally due to infobox lack of row for "young professional" period (only have uni team year), they trained professionally but at the same time only played in youth/age-sepcifc league. And it is not that good for player such as Super Mario that played over 30 games for first team in a season AND played for youth team in playoffs in May/June, and consider that season still "youth". Those most "senior" youth team actually likes other world's reserves in their special league (did not have much age limitation) and B team (Bayern II, Monaco B) in the same adult league system, is a mix of young professional player that made professional debut and don't. Back to Zaniolo's case, it does not make sense for a player that played 7 games in 2 months as pro and consider Inter was signing him and consider him "youth player", putting that season as youth season and put it in youth club row, instead of signing him as "young professional", ready to loan out to pro team, but immediate lack of play time in first team as compare to world class pro player. Matthew hk (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Who the heck is "Super Mario"? Whichever way we do this, there will be players who don't quite fit, but it seems most people above think that more flexibility is needed and that WP:V overrules any local project conventions. Spike 'em (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The "flexibility" that led to pointless OR. For a first team player that played 30 first team appearances and then played once for the top team in the youth ladder teams, that season is youth or not? For a player that played 30 games for the same team and only 1 in first team, that is youth season or not? How about the ratio change to 1:1, 15:15, 20:10, 10:20. Make it simple for those player aged 17+. Only wonderkid that made their debut at age 15-16 worth to discuss on allowing overlapping in infobox and the rest are not necessary. Lastly Mario Balotelli is the "Super Mario", is he a no body for new football fans now ? Matthew hk (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

In the discussions above people have said we should ignore verifiable reliable sources to keep to this convention, which is just as bad as your claims of OR. I'm sorry I don't keep track of every player's nicknames. Spike 'em (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I would say professsional player (or player that made their professional debut), that played for youth team again, mean nothing as "youth career". Paolo Tornaghi had played for Inter Milan reserves or spring team as overage player, which certainly the apperances did not means that season was still part of his "youth training" year. Another example, Alexandre Pato was put to Milan's B list in 2010-11 season, as he was U21 and spent 2 seasons with Milan at that time, eligible to UEFA's B list for youth product. And yes he did played some game for youth team, but should it still called those season are youth and professional overlap year at Milan? It had too much case by case WP:OR judement on who is still youth and who is not in those "overlap", for simplicity , just call those made professional debut and age old enough as no overlap. Matthew hk (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Scottish second tier: when did it become fully-pro?

Question's in the title: the current second tier is deemed fully pro in context of WP:NFOOTBALL, but when does this assumption of fully-professional status date from?

This stems from me de-prodding David Keddie on the grounds that he'd played 60-odd games in the second tier in the 1960s, without considering that it quite possibly wouldn't have been deemed fully pro that long ago. User:Aoziwe queried the de-prod at the talk page and I suggested seeking knowledgeable opinion here. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Mid to late 1990s. St Johnstone won the First Division (second tier) as a part-time club in 1989–90. Certainly not in the 1960s - back then there were only two divisions in the league structure, so the second tier contained clubs who are typically in League One or League Two nowadays. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It didn't! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It's possible that no-one knows. These things do not happen when someone flicks a switch. Such changes are often neb.... no, I won't say it. Britmax (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness, are we going to perform a similar investigation for England? There were definitely part-time players in the lower divisions of the Football League until well after the Second World War, and in fact Kevin Keegan's article claims (apparently sourced to his autobiography) than when he signed for Scunthorpe in the mid/late 1960s they were one of only two full-time teams in Division Four..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I would say the year when the Scottish leagues were reorganised into four divisions would probably be the best cut-off point, which would be 1994. 10:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Romanian club confusion

Hi, while researching for the Lebanese national team I have come across their first match played in 1934 against a Romanian club called "Altak". As searching for "Altak" didn't give me any result, I'm guessing that Altak is either:

A mis-translitteration of "Atletic"
Al-TAC (arabic prefix "Al-" and TAC)

I have found a team called Club Atletic Oradea that could have been the team in question as they have toured French colonies in the 30s but after contacting the club they told me that they had toured North-african countries and not the middle east. Another person found that it could be CA Timisoara (T.A.C.) who have toured the middle east in 1934 (no information on Lebanon however).

In short, I'm asking if there is someone who knows about a Romanian club in the 30s called either "Altak" or whose initials are "T.A.C." that has toured the middle east and played against lebanon in 1934.

Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There's no source in the article - do you have a copy of the source? Altak is definitely not Romanian, here is the list of tables from the 1934 era: [2]. Oradea would be my best guess. Chinezul Timișoara was the Timişoaran team at the time. SportingFlyer talk 08:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

A Romanian-language Google search (Fotbal Liban 1934, Fotbal Liban 1934 Oradea, Fotbal Liban 1934 Timişoara) brought up nothing interesting. Then again, I have no knowledge of Romanian... SportingFlyer talk 08:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The source is reference 5 in the article, rsssf.com, and they have questionmarks after Altak. Even if that doesn't help answer the question. I think rsssf counts as a reliable source, but what do you do when the source acknowledges uncertainty? Jts1882 | talk 09:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I think all you can do is put something like "In 1934, the Lebanese national team played its first game against a Romanian club side. Some sources record the name of the club as Altak but this may not be correct" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I contacted the author of the RSSSF website in question (Neil Morrison), and he told me this:

"A club from Timisoara (Romania) toured the Levant in early 1934 - matches included the following:

6-0 win in Turkey
4-1 win in Greece
9-1 win in Syria
10-0 win vs Damascus
1-3 loss vs Tel-Aviv (combined clubs) - this match was 3rd March 1934.

It seems likely that this was the same club which visited Beirut, although no Beirut match is mentioned above (possibly Beirut was visited later).

The name this the Romanian club was not given in the source of the above results ("The Palestine Post") but it was mentioned that the club was the champion of Transylvania. The Hebrew newspaper "Haaretz" gave the team's name as an abbreviation, which, transliterated, is T.A.C.

The club which seems to fit the description (initials T.A.C. and regional champions in 1934) is Clubul Atletic Timisoara:

Therefore my best guess is that "Altak" was an Arabic phonetic reading of "Al-T.A.C." i.e. and that C.A. Timisoara was the true identity. But I don't have anymore detailed source to confirm this guess."

I would also add that Clubul Atletic Timisoara was regularly called C.A.T., meaning that the acronym isn't something that Neil Morrison "invented". The only problem involves the order of the letters, which is inversed. I would guess that, since Hebrew is written from right to left, someone messed up the translitteration of the acroynm somewhere down the line (from hebrew to arabic or to english, from arabic to english, ecc...). Nehme1499 (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, the club might have been referred to as "Timișoara Athletic Club" by English speakers in Palestine at the time, hence getting T.A.C. Number 5 7 11:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes this is also very probable. I have found out that the Romanian team that toured in Lebanon was, in fact, T.A.C. (source 1; pages: 24, 55, 146, 317), (source 2; pages: 89-90, 128). These sources also add that four T.A.C. players represented Romania at an international level.

For now we know this about T.A.C. (1934):

Team from Timisoara
Champion of Transylvania
4 players in the Romania national football team
Not FC Ripensia Timisoara (I have directly contacted them)

If someone were able to identify this team based on this info it would be great! Nehme1499 (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Flag question

I responded to this question Talk:Portsmouth F.C.#Brett Pitman FIFA nationality however, now I am questioning myself, if you haven't represented a country, should the flag icon be that of the Island you were born on? Govvy (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an interesting point to discuss. I always used English nationality and

ENG when describing players, until someone edited the squad section of the Team Wellington page to change Ross Allen's flag from England to Guernsey, using Brett Pitman's Jersey flag as justification. Since then I've created and written Allen's article, and described him as a Guernsey footballer. For interest's sake, this article is about a player from the Isle of Man, and describes him as "Manx" - just wondering if/how this is any different, as I'm not too familiar with the whole dynamic of these dependencies? Mrsmiis (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

English isn't really correct, because players from the crown dependencies are eligible to play for any of the Home Nations. As Manx-born Kieran Tierney pointed out in an interview with The Scotsman [3]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Koen Kostons

Some sources say he is Belgian, some say Dutch - any idea? Giant Snowman 11:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

His club's own website states "The 17-year-old striker, from Lanaken in Belgium, attended the entire youth academy of MVV Maastricht." It's 8 miles from Lanaken in Belgium to Maastricht in Netherlands. It would seem he is Belgian.TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

British Newspaper Archive

Are there any editors here who possess a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive who would be able to check one or two pages for me to help with a sourcing issue? Kosack (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

If you don't have any luck here, you could ask at WP:RX, which is usually very helpful. Number 5 7 11:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you need?--Echetus Xe 12:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@EchetusXe: I've taken Owen McNally to DYK and an editor has queried the reliability of the Arthurlie club website as it is now defunct. The fact is his eight goal haul against Armadale is a Scottish Football League record. Although, I've tried to explain its reliability, the user is dragging their feet over it so I've taken it upon myself to try and find more sources. There are a couple of newspaper articles that would appear to support it [4], [5] and [6] (hope these links work through the paywall). Could you verify that these support the sentence before ref 3? Kosack (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kosack: How about John Cairney's biography of Jimmy McGrory, published by the highly reputable Random House, which quotes McGrory after equalling McNally's record: Google Books url, if it doesn't work, search for McNally. Also, theScottish Football Hall of Fame page on McGrory lists his 8 explicitly as "the record number of goals scored in one senior League match", so presumably that would verify the "remains" bit. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Struway2: Thanks for those, they should be more than sufficient to get the nomination back on track. Thanks EchetusXe for your offer as well, these should be ok to pass. Greatly appreciated both. Kosack (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is a reliable source but this book mentions some other SFL players who scored eight goals. Hack (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Diego Godín

Before an edit war of some sort emerges from this: do we really need the Ballon d'Or stuff in this guy's intro? Methinks in the body of article (club career) is more than enough, these NOMINATIONS added nothing to his career (one vote both editions combined), so not an accomplishment whatsoever.

Opinions, please. Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool, if Ballon d'or isn't important for introduction, I don't have any problem. I just thought it should be there, being a prestigious nomination. Anyway I think both of us want to improve Wikipedia isn't it? I'm fine with all this, keep correcting me if you think I am wrong.

Thank you. Ninad05mestry (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Not needed, just a nomination. Kante4 (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

On a similar note, I see some player's articles listing finishing positions such as 9th and 10th in the Ballon D'or in the honours section. Do we consider lower placed finishes like this as an honour? Kosack (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

No to that one aswell. Kante4 (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox years for new signings

(apologies if this has been asked before) How should the infobox reflect transfers at this time of the year? E.g. If a player joins a club now, should the infobox say 2018 or 2019? Is it to be based on when the transfer was completed or when registered? I've recently reverted edits over at the Maximiliano Meza article that changed the year from 2018 to 2019, as the transfer was completed in the last 24hrs. R96Skinner (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I think, for season ended in November, even the signing were completed in December, people may assume the player made their debut in January anyway, so they preferred year N and year N+1 for end date and start date respectively. It is pretty much on the argument on effective date or the last game the player actually played or the styling (as season ended in calender year in some countries). Matthew hk (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Serious issue with flag icons and edit warring.

2018–19 Premier League, 2017–18 Premier League, 2016–17 Premier League and others seem to be going through this systemic removal of flag icons by Sportsfan 1234 and then there seems to be people reverting those flags, I have reverted at one point. But there seems to be a more widespread issue I think we need to discuss regarding these articles and beyond.

MOS:SPORTFLAGS suggests that we should use flags for players that have represented their international team, I have nothing against using flag icons on these pages, I don't think we should apply flags to Managers, but players only. I was hoping we could discuss this issue, cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality. In this case, club teams are not national teams and therefore flags are definitely not necessary. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things. There is zero need to indicate someone's nationality through a flag, on a league article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234: The flag icons for players are to show their federation, which national team they represent. Removing these flag icons is removing that information which a good few readers find helpful. You are currently being very disruptive in your editing, engaging with other editors in this petty edit-war. Govvy (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, the national team they represent is not necessary for any of the league articles. I don't think you understand that. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Again the two are intertwined, a players progress at a club is linked to their selection in their national team. It's useful information to the reader you're removing. I think it's you who doesn't understand. You seem to be running a muck in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with their retention, we have always had that precedent that we use flag icons next to players in football articles as it is useful information. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

A player's nationality is traditional information in a football context. No need to remove this information per MOS:SPORTFLAGS. SportingFlyer talk 17:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

If people are interested in which national team a player represents then they can follow the link to the player's article. This information has no direct relevance to the Premier League season and gives it false prominence. Surely the club a player represents is most important here, but the flags here have more prominence. Spike 'em (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not falsely prominent, though. A footballer's nationality matters in a football context, being a global game. Players are frequently known by their nationality. For instance Steve McManaman is best known for being an "English foreign player." SportingFlyer talk 01:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I would recommend those who have spoken in favour of including the flags to take a glance at WP:WORDPRECEDENCE, which states that "Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags", and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Accompany flags with country names, which instructs us that "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag". It is also worth considering that the nationalities these flags represent are entirely unsourced. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a fixable problem if we choose to make it one. The football squad template doesn't follow this rule (see SC Villa for an example, though MLS teams use a table, see FC Cincinnati), and there are many other leagues in the world with articles that contain flags, such as Chinese Super League. There are also articles such as 2018 Singapore Premier League which uses flags to indicate foreign players. These are not one-off examples, either. SportingFlyer talk 17:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I would also suggest looking further down the MOS at WP:SPORTFLAG which appears to imply support for including the flags. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the MOS is telling us that a flag is always necessary in a table, merely what to do if flags are used.

I don't think that a player's nationality has any direct relevance to their performance in a domestic tournament where they are playing for a club team and hence should not be included. I see flags could be relevant in either an international tournament where they are playing for their country or possibly in individual sports. WP:FLAGCRUFT is more important to me here. Spike 'em (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:FLAGCRUFT tells us not to use flags in order not to violate NPOV. In this instance, in a league where the majority of players are foreign and also play for their national teams (I'm not sure if this is still a specific requirement for non-EU players in the Premier League?) the player's nationality does not violate NPOV and is also relevant. SportingFlyer talk 21:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

FLAGCRUFT says :"Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" so what is the good reason here? (I don't consider WP:OTHER is a good reason). The only important thing about the players that is relevant to the league article is which club they play for. Spike 'em (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Good Reasons:1) There are discussions constantly about a) the number of English managers, especially the number (or lack of) managing the top teams b) the number of English players in the Premier League. The flags give a flavour of how international the league is, especially when you click on say La Liga and see much more Spanish flags and Spanish players in the top flight. 2) For instance, if you click on the main Premier League page, you will see the flags next to the winning managers. If I look at that I find 2 interesting things, firstly 4 Italian managers have won, more than any nationality, secondly the league has never had a winning manager from the same country as the league itself. 3) Ole Gunnar Solskjaer becoming Man Utd manager has shown how much nationality matters to people e.g. from the BBC "Ole Gunnar Solskjaer's appointment as Manchester United coach has made big headlines in Norway, with players, fans and even the prime minister expressing their pride."https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46636373. How do you reconcile this article with nationality being irrelevant?Jopal22 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Are any of these discussions mentioned on wikipedia, or are users meant to just guess it is important because someone has added a flag icon? Norwegian interest in OGS being appointed can very easily be added to his article, which would be the proper place for it. Spike 'em (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I really don't understand the argument here. The WP:SPORTFLAG clearly supports the use of flags to demonstrate sporting nationality. This is both useful, and uses little space, so does not detract anything from the article. The argument from Sportsfan 1234 that they shouldn't be used because this is not an article about national teams is insane. That implies that flag should only be used for national teams....which would be pointless as they will all have the nationality of the country they are playing for. Also for national teams the squad listing states which domestic club a player plays for, by the logic above this should be removed as it is not an article about club football. National Flags should definitely be reinstated, and any significant changes in the presentation or information that impacts an array of articles should be discussed and approved here first rather than individuals changing some articles resulting in inconsistency between similar articles. Jopal22 (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the statement above. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I would as well. Sportsfan's edits are just the latest in a long run of disruptive edits by him as it pertains to flags on sports pages. Edits against longstanding ~~policies~~ practices should generally not be made without consensus. Smartyllama (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you point us towards the "longstanding policies" that support the inclusion of flags in the instances being discussed? Mattythewhite (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Gah, I meant "longstanding practices", though I agree with others above WP:SPORTFLAG supports it as well. But this is the discussion we should have been having before the edits were made, not after. Smartyllama (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Longstanding practices? These players and administrators are not representing the nations, they are simply from those nations. And then there's the issue of WP:OVERLINK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Almost every league or club article uses flags to show nationalities. I have no idea how WP:OVERLINK applies here when WP:SPORTFLAG is on point. I never knew the flag template was clickable until right now, and OVERLINK is about not using too many links for clarity purposes. SportingFlyer talk 06:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

So what? Almost every league club article violates WP:V, WP:RS and a lot of other things they shouldn't.

Each flag is linked to a nation. That's how OVERLINK is violated. And MOS:ACCESS is also ignored. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggest we can create templates that only contain flag without linking to country. Then we use those new templates instead of old ones Hhkohh (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, this would've been an avoided argument. The purpose of flags is to show which countries the managers and players come from. Flags also attract natives of that country to read the article knowing that someone from their country is representing the Premier League. If we remove the flags, we're saying that their nationalities don't matter and that's not even the case. It's the same thing with national teams. The flags next to their clubs indicates which country the club they're playing for is in. So flags are indeed necessary and needed in sporting articles.TB Chigz (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly the reasoning that WP:FLAGCRUFT says to avoid, stating: "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" and "Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride." Spike 'em (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I have a good reason: In some ~~articles~~countries, some clubs employ foreign players. So we should let readers know which country the foreign players come from. Hhkohh (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Do that on the individual player or club articles then, there is no need for it on the PL season articles. Spike 'em (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I know what you say, each club has many foreign players but it is not a matter that we should remove flags in Awards and Statistics section, if some countries (apart from PL) we can describe in foreign players section Hhkohh (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm still completely unswayed on the WP:FLAGCRUFT argument as we have perfectly good reasons to emphasise nationalities on football pages. SportingFlyer talk 21:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain what these reasons are, as I've not seen anything other than vague "some people find it interesting" or "it is traditional". Neither of these are good enough for me. Spike 'em (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think people going on about WP:ACCESS here realise how out of date WP:ACCESS is over flag icons, firstly I am colour blind and I don't need the name of the country after the flag, because if I hover over the flag, I can read the alt popup code. Secondly, I can use special function to have my software read back to me what any image is including flag icons. Clicking a flag icon is a useful function, however it can be annoying at times, because the voice software responds with "Clickable media" a lot!! Govvy (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Frank Grayer

I've received a message from @Dav90mun07 on my talk page (reproduced below) about an edit I recently reverted on the Frank Grayer article as unsourced:

Hi Nzd, Yes, you have made a mistake with taking out the information I provided on the birth location of Frank Grayer, he was born in Southampton, Hampshire, England according to the England & Wales, FreeBMD Birth Index, 1837-1915, and 1891 England Census records. so please use the citation below to be included into the information on Frank Grayer. thank you. ^[1] and also this reliable source material ^[2] Dav90mun07 (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2018

I've had a look at the birth records/census details and they do indeed show a Frank Grayer born in Southampton on that date, and I couldn't find one born in Brighton. However, along with my revert I had also added the Joyce book as a ref for the Brighton birthplace, so it looks like we have at least two published sources showing something which appears to contradict with the primary sources. It would be useful to get other editors' input as to how such situations are handled, and whether this constitutes original research. (Pinging @Daemonickangaroo2018 as original article creator.) Nzd (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

A Southampton birthplace is given in LFCHistory.net, which I find to be one of the best football club databases. Jts1882 | talk 08:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

This archived page on Liverpool John Moores University's Merseyside at War website, gives Southampton. If nobody objects, I'll change this and add a note that some sources have Brighton. Nzd (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Done On second look, content on the Merseyside at War website looks to be user-generated, but I found an archive of the player profile on the old LFC official site, which also gives Southampton. Nzd (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

References

^ Citation Information, England & Wales, FreeBMD Birth Index, 1837-1915, Author, FreeBMD, Publisher, Ancestry.com Operations Inc, Publisher Date, 2006, Publisher Location, Provo, UT, USA, Repository Information, Name, Ancestry.com
^ Citation Information, Detail, Class: RG12; Piece: 918; Folio: 6; Page: 8; GSU roll: 6096028, Source Information, Title, 1891 England Census, Author, Ancestry.com, Publisher, Ancestry.com Operations Inc, Publisher Date, 2005, Publisher Location, Provo, UT, USA, Edit Repository, Repository Information, Name, Ancestry.com

Kit related question

FYI there's a question about football kits at the Teahouse here. If someone who can create kits can look at it, that would be appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Wishing............

File:Nativity tree2011.jpg

.....a very happy Christmas to everyone at WP:FOOTY. And may your team win on Boxing Day...........unless you support Portsmouth ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too! (Hopefully we will win vs Atalanta) Nehme1499 (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas all. Kosack (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all members Hhkohh (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Christmas to you all! R96Skinner (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas (and a Happy New Year) but Portsmouth seems to be a random team which was mentioned here. Iggy (Swan) 12:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: It's more to do with who they're playing... Kosack (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

That possibly means the user who posts this has a connection with Gillingham, who they are playing this Boxing Day. Iggy (Swan) 13:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Well yes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry festivities to you all, from Portugal! --Quite A Character (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

India national team

Can I please have so help or advice for the India national football team. I have a user there who obviously doesn't know how to write properly in English, adds a ton of unnecessary information that shouldn't be in the main article, and then touts himself as this amazing historian of Indian football because of how long he has been following it. Yes, I messed up also by calling him a baby but he has also been touting himself the whole time as this expert, that he himself has edited pages like RSSSF (not sure about that but he says it) and honestly it just got to me like, honestly, who cares, this is an encyclopedia, no ones cares what you did or how long. I never even said I owned the page but that I would prefer it to have accurate facts based on sources and written properly. Yet he keeps adding in stuff like how the kit isn't orange or white due to other neighboring countries like Bhutan, Nepal, and Bangladesh when the source only mentions Pakistan. It is honestly infuriating. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Can someone deal with this. I'm done. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

War of edits about the logo of Real Avilés

Hi, I have a war of edits with the user User:Xabel10 concerning the logo of this team.

The club recently updated the logo to the version I update, as it is used by the club in the t-shirts of all their teams, in the website, in publications about the club, social networks, etc. His logo, and older version, only is used at some sections in the website that do not require to be updating continuously and in the website of the Regional Football Federation (that have other logos in older versions).

Website ([http://realaviles.es/primer-equipo/plantilla2018/ example of people wearing clothes with the new-versioned logo)
Twitter account, not updated since February, New Twitter account
Facebook account

Please, help us to end this. Greetings, Merry Christmas and happy 2019. Asturkian (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The club denies that twitter is official: [7]
Authentic official twitter: [8]
The logo of the club according to Real Avilés: [9]
Official logo for the Federation: [10]
Campus organized by the club at Christmas: [11]

--Xabel10 (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seem the club can't decide which logo they are using. On the banner of http://www.realaviles.es/ it shown the logo had a big yellow ring with white circle on it, as well as a more cartoon style crown on it. While other source as state above, was a logo without a solid colour ring, but yellow small circle formed a ring around the main feature of the logo, as well as a more "realistic" crown. Matthew hk (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I only must add that the "cartoon" logo is used by the club in all the clothes, including the main kit, and most part of the documents. The official account is not updated since February 2017 but other sites yes. Asturkian (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I would say club can have two logos, a more static, formal logo, and a commercial logo that can change every year. You should shown yours version is more representative than another before starting edit war. Matthew hk (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It is very usual to "modernise" the logos as this, becoming the new one as the official. Without going out from Asturias, you can see examples at the two main clubs: Sporting Gijón, Real Oviedo. Asturkian (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I would say many companies had many logos, you have to show the "modernise" logo is the MOST recognizable one by supporting WP:RS. We can't put 100 logos to the infobox but one. Matthew hk (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Colourized headers

There are several moves on pages to colourize headers, such as at 2018–19 Manchester City F.C. season and 2018–19 Chelsea F.C. season Personally I find this tremendously distracting and difficult to read, particularly as players and their flags are already there. My suggestion is to keep the standard grey and less intrusive headers. In favour of trying not to get into edit wars I thought I would seek other opinions. I have reverted these colours several times already but at least one editor keeps re-colourizing. I appreciate any thoughts! Krazytea(talk) 20:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree, should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The ones on the Man City page violate WP:ACCESS so definitely need to be removed. On another note, and related to the discussion above, why does the entire Chelsea corporate structure need 2 flags each? Spike 'em (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The hidden match details on the Manchester City page also violate WP:ACCESS. Hack (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not just the colours, but also the font size needs to be kept an eye on, even know a user can increase the size of what they read we need to make sure that the default size isn't so small, that would also violate ACCESS. But there are colour charting for different colour-blindness, as long as editors can stick to a consistent style that doesn't violate the chart it should be okay. Govvy (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

mehstg.com as a source

Just wanted to ask what people thought for mehstg.com as a source. Govvy (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like self-published source. Better than leaving the wiki content without any citation. (Which many Italian club article are unsourced for 10 years). Matthew hk (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It is one of the oldest Spurs websites (as you can see from the design). In my experience it is one of the more reliable fan sites on Spurs and its history. I think the website might be successor to a magazine of that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jts1882 (talk • contribs) 13:11 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Peter Thompson

Could other editors keep an eye on the Peter Thompson article please? Today's date keeps being added as the death date, but the sources say he died "at the weekend".[12][13] I'm up to three reverts (although I suspect WP:3RRNO would apply). Maybe worth considering protection?

This would be a good one to develop BTW. Nzd (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nzd: I've semi-protected it and reverted to the version without a death date. Cheers, Number 5 7 15:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Article name doubts

Moved to Talk:Alexander Michel#Article name doubts

Note: Due to technical issues, this page cannot run two RM at the same time, see User talk:RMCD bot#Alexander Michel for more details Hhkohh (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hhkohh:, you should tag WP:RM of 2018 Independence Cup in Talk:2018 Independence Cup and make a notice on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves, instead of placing RM in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Matthew hk (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to move discussion, I do not oppose, but I am busy now. Feel free Hhkohh (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A bad article title

Moved to Talk:2018 Independence Cup § Requested move 2 January 2019

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew hk (talk • contribs) 14:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Need sign. Otherwise bot will not archive it Hhkohh (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Who is this kit supplier?

Hi, I was looking at some pictures of Lebanese football in the 90s and I came across a kit manufacturer of some Lebanese teams, as well as the national team. Is anyone able to identify it?

1
2
3

Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Not similar to Le coq sportif. Is that possible a local Lebanese company ? Matthew hk (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It's very likely, but I'm hoping that someone recognizes it. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks likes a three-V version of Chevron logo in the first pic, while by first sight it looks like Le coq sportif in the second photo, but not matching the historical logo in fr-wiki. Matthew hk (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok nevermind I found the kit supplier: Erima. Thanks for your help anyway! Nehme1499 (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge discussion needs closing

This page is not used for request for closure, please use WP:AN/C instead Hhkohh (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can an uninvolved admin please review and close this? No comments for nearly 3 months... Giant Snowman 10:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I think closure request should be posted to WP:AN/C instead of here Hhkohh (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two articles for the same Welsh international player

or who appear by their international appearances to be the same player: Joe Davies (footballer, born 1870) and Joseph 'Joe' Davies (footballer, born 1870). Apart from there being two of him, there appears to be disagreement between sources about the birth year. The former has only one source, that gives birth year of 1866, and the latter was originally sourced to a Sheffield United book which also gave 1866. Yet they're both resident at (born 1870), which the latter attributes to ENFA, to which I have no access. Anybody qualified to confirm whether they are the same bloke or not, and then sort the articles out? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

As everything that is written on Joe Davies (footballer, born 1870) (DoB, details on his international career, years active, appearances ecc...) is all included in Joseph 'Joe' Davies (footballer, born 1870) I would be pretty certain that they are the same person. I wouldn't know however which article title is more approriate out of the two. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Joe Davies (footballer, born 1870) is the correct article name as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), but Joseph 'Joe' Davies (footballer, born 1870) has the most content and the longest history. Possibly we could use a G6 move to delete Joe Davies (footballer, born 1870) and move to Joseph 'Joe' Davies (footballer, born 1870) to Joe Davies (footballer, born 1870)? Or we could get an admin to history merge the two? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding template to all seasons of a league

Hello all, is there any quick and easy way to insert a template (this one in this case: Template:Top level Turkish football seasons) to all seasons of the Süper Lig? It's quite a work to insert it in all ~60 seasons seperately. Maybe it is possible for an admin to do that? Thanks for the help in advance. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not that big an effort to do it yourself. Should only take about 30 mins if you optimise your workflow. Good luck. – Pee Jay 14:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Akocsg: a more helpful answer would be - perhaps WP:AWB? Or alternatively WP:BOTREQ? Giant Snowman 14:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thanks for the hint. I posted my request there. Akocsg (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just noticed that Hack already did that for me. Thanks! Akocsg (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I did this just before I went to sleep, I forgot to reply at the time. Hack (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it took you about 45 minutes. Apologies for underestimating the task! – Pee Jay 15:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I probably could've done it quicker manually - I had to relearn how to find and replace. Hack (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Football Web Pages

I'm of the view that this is a reliable source - it aggregates data on non-league games inputted by the clubs themselves. However, I've seen it removed from articles for not being reliable. Thoughts? OGLV (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I actually think the site is a lot more reliable now than it was a few years ago, it's not a bad resource to use in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there a table of team abbreviations?

We have a problem, see WP:BOTREQ#Bot to convert Template:Fb cl2 team transclusions to use Module:Sports table Hhkohh (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I also think those 3 letters abbreviation, is made up by wiki editor themselves or have a source such as from UEFA or local league organizer. Matthew hk (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

For recent UCL and UEL seasons, I have PDFs with the three-letter abbreviations for each competing team provided by UEFA. The Premier League also has its own abbreviations, which you can see in the hashtags they use for each match on social media. – Pee Jay 12:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope someone gave me the copy for Italy. Never able to dig out one, and it was inconsistent among season articles. Matthew hk (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Segunda División B Groups 1–4 for AfD.

As I say in the discussion, this article is completely unuseful. Asturkian (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion

Hi, there's an ongoing move discussion at Talk:Alexander Michel#Article name doubts. As we have yet to reach a consensus, it would be nice if someone would take a look at the discussion and give his opinion on the matter. Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, forgot to add to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves. Now added. Matthew hk (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

transfer lists articles

I was wondering, do we have a set standard the articles should follow? List of English football transfers winter 2018–19 has started, but it feels like every loan and transfer is thrown in there, should we list football league only? Or just the top two divisions like List of English football transfers winter 2002–03? Govvy (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, just the top two divisions. Not sure why this one is any different to the rest. If you included transfers involving clubs from all four PL/EFL divisions, the page would be monstrous when complete. – Pee Jay 13:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I am really bugged out by the latest transfer list, I hate the editing format used, I was going to edit the article but this multi-row system is horrible to edit each entry individually.. Not sure I can deal with it.. Govvy (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Page moving

I was trying to move User:Govvy/Timothy Eyoma and User:Govvy/George Marsh out of my sandbox into main space because they made their debuts in the FA Cup, but for some reason the move names I kept choosing didn't work, wondered if an admin can work it out for me, cheers. Govvy (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Another editor has already created the pages, see Timothy Eyoma and George Marsh (footballer, born 1998). That's probably why it's not working. Kosack (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

strange, those pages were not there a couple of hours ago... I've had a sandbox of George Marsh for how long... I don't know... Govvy (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yours are better quality, but it's to be expected that more than one editor would have their eye on creating articles for guys like these at big clubs on the verge of playing in a match to trigger their status. It should be reassuring that there is so much difference between the versions, so to me it's two editors working on the same project unknowingly and you were just unlucky to submit yours second, rather than the other editor somehow coming across your draft and using it for their own submission which would be very annoying and I'm sure has happened to others here (though not to me, I'm happy to say) . Crowsus (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe an admin could do a histmerge for George Marsh, as the draft was created in June. The draft for Eyoma was created after the mainspace article, so merging the content would be best. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Would be appreciated if an admin could could histmerge George Marsh, I've deleted the other one. Govvy (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You can move your stuff to Draft:George Marsh (footballer, born 1998), merge the content to George Marsh (footballer, born 1998), and then use {{histmerge}}. You can made additional note in Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, for example, discard edit of the draft before some day. Matthew hk (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Matt, I really don't quite understand what to do, seems a bit confusing to me. Govvy (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Jozy Altidore

This edit claims that the "MLS Cup Playoffs are the equivalent to the League Cup". I am not in agreement with this and I am more than willing to revert back to the "Other" column. It is not called a "League Cup". It's not available for every team in Major League Soccer let alone multiple leagues like the English version of the League Cup. The English Football League playoffs and Dutch playoffs. would not be classified as such. MLS Cup playoffs has the word "playoffs" in it. Just like in England and the Netherlands, a team qualifies for the playoffs based on league position. So, I see no reason why it should be a league cup. Kingjeff (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The MLS playoffs are not equivalent to the league cup since they determine the league's overall champion. Nor are they league appearances. I would support reverting to the "Other" column, unless there's consistency in other articles. SportingFlyer talk 07:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

They are playoffs, a statistically separate competition. "Other" seems okay, although in other US sports they tend to go in distinct tables. Koncorde (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree as per the above comments that "other" is definitely the most appropriate. Jellyman (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Also agree that play-offs should be in other. Govvy (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Play-offs definitely aren't the equivalent of the EFL Cup, that's a nonsense comparison -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The MLS play-offs are neither league matches nor league cup matches. They belong in the "other" column - much like Liga MX's Liguilla matches. Jogurney (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they are 'Other'. Giant Snowman 15:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

National team notability

Hi, just to be sure: being called up for a national team, without actually playing a minute for them, doesn't grant a player notability for Wikipedia right? Nehme1499 (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Number 5 7 21:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Or in other words, no one would challenge the WP:GNG notability if someone made their debut for the national team. While the wording in WP:NSPORTS is the "guideline ..... sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, " So, if the call-up generated enough in-depth media coverage on the footballer, even he did not made his debut, he may pass GNG. Matthew hk (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

While it's not required, it would be a good idea to include proof of meeting WP:GNG in the article. Hack (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Persebaya Surabaya vs Bhayangkara F.C.

Is there anyone with knowledge of Indonesian football here? I'm concerned about these IP edits, all of which change the club from Persebaya Surabaya to Bhayangkara F.C. in player infoboxes and other places for the 2015 season. Both clubs were in fact involved in a series of mergers and renamings around the same time, so some truth might be in there. --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Persebaya and Bhayangkara FC are different clubs as of today. Before the name Bhayangkara FC used, they use Persebaya as their club name, while the current Persebaya use Persebaya 1927 as their name. There are no merging occured between these two clubs. Fauzannaufan (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

What would you suggest as a solution? Keep the edits or revert them? --BlameRuiner (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

List of English football transfers winter 2018–19

Can someone please fix the list, it's just going to be a great big long table which is stupid. Can some compitent editor please, please, please, seperate loans from transfers, and seperate per month, please, please, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:E26B:F900:9532:BA2F:128D:AABD (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried doing this yourself, as it would seem to be a lot of cut and pasting that shouldn't be too tricky to do? Spike 'em (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: It's probably just a person who reads wikipedia, have seen comments like that before, I don't think he/she will edit. Govvy (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably not, but they made the effort to come here to ask about it, so must know a bit about how things work. Spike 'em (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with unsourced edits

GiantSnowman, who is going through an ArbCom case, has suggested that input is gathered from WikiProject Football on how unsourced edits are dealt with. Views have been put forward that Soccer articles attract a significant amount of inappropriate edits. I can imagine this to be true. How do folks in this project typically deal with inappropriate articles? As an example, following up on a comment in the Evidence page of the ArbCom case, I started to edit Julius Bliek by bringing over and copyediting material from the Dutch article. While I was still editing, a section I was working on was reverted because it was unsourced and incorrectly formatted. About an hour later another editor replaced that section with appropriate formatting and references. Which edit is the more typical of the project? Which edit is the one most expected and encouraged of members of the project? Which edit is the more reasonable in the circumstances of editing a topic area that faces a lot of inappropriate edits? SilkTork (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

It really depends on the editor, some will invest time in fixing the issue where as others will find it easier to simply revert. In an ideal world, I'm sure everyone here would hope and encourage someone to come along and fix the issue but the sheer number of articles that football editors (especially GS) cover makes that considerably more difficult. Kosack (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Edits should always be checked for veracity as many are correct and made in good faith by fans who don't really understand how Wikipedia works. The worst thing that can be done is blanket reverting, which usually means restoring out-of-date information whilst also getting people's backs up. I think I have >1,000 football articles on my watchlist and I don't find it that difficult to check. Number 5 7 21:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the accuracy of the information was in question, after all the source is already in the article which I'm assuming GS knew. GS reverted on the basis that it was not properly sourced and was unusually formatted and they found it easier to revert than fix. I'm not saying they were right or wrong, I'm just trying to clarify their position. Kosack (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I think football article are generally lack of citation. For example, i tagged ref improve for the broadcaster section of Serie A, and it was nicely removed. For some simple fact, such as height, games played and goals, generally people less tolerate on changing them to new value without providing citation. But people more tolerate on other stuff. Some season article of the club did not have any citation at all. Certainly those articles were made by fans and less likely to be hoax, but not ideally they should have citation to WP:verify. Matthew hk (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd say (personally) it also depends on how much time I have. If I have a lot of time to check, I'll have a search for the info and add appropriate references if I find, and revert and message the user if I don't find. However if I don't have enough time, I'll usually just stick a {{cn}} tag on it. --SuperJew (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I will revert these edits without using rollback fiction and write edit summary called unsourced. But sometimes, if I have already verified content, I will help editors who forgot to cite source cite source. (If I revert before, I will restore as well as cite.) If I assumed those edits are good faith, I will discuss with other editors before reverting. But if I am lazy to verify or the content is small update, I will leave it without any action. If user repeatedly add unsourced content, I will use rollback fiction and give editor warning(s) Hhkohh (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Note For more, I have placed my statement on evidence page Hhkohh (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy doesn't require that all statements are sourced. The requirement is that all content must be verifiable, not that it is verified. The documentation tends to be a bit contradictory on this with some sections implying sources are necessary if read in isolation. On the other hand, reliable sources must be required for "any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged", which introduces a level of subjectivity.

When applied to football, my interpretation would be that material like a players height, the score in a widely reported match and other pieces of information that can easily be verified don't absolutely need a reliable source as an inline citation. If it did, every line in an infobox would need an inline citation. Jts1882 | talk 07:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox did not need citation except height, as many other information could be found in the main text, such as start and end year or status of loan. But ideally main text should have citation, and if there is no citation available (even press release), then the footballer may have GNG problem instead. Providing citation is a good way to stop edit war on transfer rumour and height up and down for ±<3cm, which height is one of the most vandalized parameter. For goals and caps, it did not need inline citation, but it should be supported by site listed in external link section, to prevent hoax player profile. People create hoax player or player create hoax profile for themselves. Also, user forget to update timestamp, user update the stats. during the game, would sometimes add +2 games instead of +1 to the stats. Thus, although height and goal are simple fact, they need the most on verification, as source are readily available. Only need the user mentioned in the edit summary or included inline. Matthew hk (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Height should be referenced - otherwise you get edits like this that would normally go unnoticed/unchallenged. And yes, there is a requirement for general in-line citations per WP:BLP - "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source". Giant Snowman 11:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Please stop restating this fallacy, which you trot out every time this is discussed. There is not a requirement for general in-line citations per WP:BLP; a fair amount of material in footballers' bios is not likely to be challenged. Anyone doing so with basic facts is being unreasonable and probably challenging it to make a WP:POINT. Number 5 7 11:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've literally quoted from Wikipedia policy (and then provided a recent example as to why) but OK. Giant Snowman 11:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

For "not likely to be challenged" fact, i would say it is something like queen is women, footballer with given name David is male. "not likely to be challenged" is not a wild card of a bad practice on not adding citation. Yes sometimes some statement was difficult to dig out citation, such as debut (most of the time the citation is a match report but in that report, only mentioning the appearance of the player, but not mentioning as "first"). Also, it is not that rude if just adding {{cn}} to the article or {{uw-unsourced1}} (as long as it is level 1 not 4) to user talk. Soon or later newbie need to know wikipedia require citation (or at least tell me the source in edit summary or something like "update the stats. after the foo match). Just some articles did not have citation for a very long time and setting a bad example. Matthew hk (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

For disclosure, I was the other party in the Julius Bliek edit sequence. I didn't see why a stats table readily verifiable from RS already in the article, particularly one added by an active editor in good standing, would be reverted within four minutes without any communication beyond an edit summary. "Revert" and "fix now" aren't the only alternatives. As that editor didn't immediately re-add the thing, it was easy enough to restore it reformatted and inline-sourced myself.

In general: we have to look at each unsourced edit on its merits. We can't just go round deciding that the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" actually can't be edited by inexperienced editors because they don't know the "rules". And if an edit gets removed because it does break the rules, we need to tell the editor what was wrong. At this time of year, with the transfer window opening, there'll be a lot of crap written on a lot of articles, and there'll also be a lot of not-quite-perfect people genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia. We need to be able and willing to spot a good-faith edit when we come across one and behave accordingly. It shouldn't take long to check whether Player A signing for Club B is fact, rumour or nonsense, and whether Editor C is a regular purveyor of nonsense or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: - you might be interested in this. Giant Snowman 11:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Struway2: Not that good if allowing registered user and "extended confirmed user" had a wildcard of not using edit summary and any sort of way to disclose the source and/or the edit is doing (e.g. update timestamp). But on another side, rapid reverting good faith edit is not encouraged. Only after adding {{cn}} again again as well as contacted in the user talk, reverting good faith but less easily to be verify edits should be allowed. Matthew hk (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the Project's editors tend to revert unsourced material that is not readily verifiable rather than all unsourced material. As other editors mentioned above, easily verified information (such as a footballer's appearances for a club or national team) doesn't need to be reverted immediately. Obviously, we have an enormous amount of articles to review, and several contain hoaxes or otherwise violate our BLP policies simply because we lack the editors (and foreign-language expertise). I understand reverting unsourced material immediately because it can quickly get lost (and unintentionally accepted as verifiable) in an article which is edited several times daily, but it would be better to communicate with the editors adding such information (or to simply verify for yourself before removing). Jogurney (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's input. I was curious as to why GiantSnowman pinged User:Mattythewhite, so I took a look at his talkpage, and found this exchange interesting and useful. My impression from reading the comments here, and in that discussion, is that there is a difference of opinion in WikiProject Football regarding how to deal with new editors and how to deal with information updates in articles. Is that impression correct? Are there users here who want to be hardline in regards patrolling football articles in order to encourage maximum following of the rules, while others wish to be more helpful in order to encourage new editors and to ensure accuracy of the articles, though this may mean a little more work? Is this a fair summary? There are some who see that it is possible to clean up within the spirit of Wikipedia, while others feel that given the amount of real and potential inaccuracies introduced into football articles that in order to control it, speed and firmness are what is important, and that such behaviour is permitted within Wikipedia's policies. SilkTork (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

That is also my impression, yes. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Have there been significant discussions within the project for which approach is preferable? SilkTork (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this project was under significant pressure in the past regarding the amount of unreferenced BLPs - I remember at one point a few years ago we were rushing to reference tens of thousands of BLPs (and proposing deletions for the many unreferenced BLPs that were not notable). It was a massive amount of work conducted over a period of a few months, and while we have a much more manageable amount of unreferenced BLPs, there are so many poorly-referenced BLPs (e.g., single external link) within this project that I completely understand the way group members try to strictly adhere to WP:V. It's a tough balance when editors (many who make a handful of completely unsourced edits and vanish) are constantly adding content to these thousands of articles. [Just a few days ago I stumbled across a Zambian football club article that was vandalized many months ago - the editor even admitted to some vandalism in his edit summaries.] I think it's important not to discourage the editors who have spent countless hours patrolling and improving these articles. Jogurney (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jogurney. What I am looking to do is establish what is accepted practise in Football, and why. The evidence being presented in the ArbCom case is that on the one hand GiantSnowman's approach and methods are heavy handed, and not in line with Wikipedia's spirit of openness and welcome, and on the other that Football gets a lot of vandalism (I assume this means disproportionate, as we know that all of Wikipedia gets vandalism) so needs a fast and firm approach. GiantSnowman asked ArbCom to approach Football to get views of members. Before doing that I edited a football article myself and experienced GiantSnowman's fast and firm approach and also some helpful editing by another Football Project member: Struway2. During discussions I am seeing that there is a divide in Football, with some feeling that the football topic needs a strong hand, and others who feel that it would be more useful, and more in line with Wikipedia's general philosophy, to be more welcoming and respectful to other editors. I don't know at the moment how deep that divide is. Is the general consensus that GiantSnowman's approach is the one that Football should (needs to) follow, and those who object to it are in the minority, or is it the case that GiantSnowman's approach is one that is in the minority, but people are unsure if they should object because he's an experienced and respected admin.

Part of the ArbCom case is also to look into claimed suppression by admins of objections to GiantSnowman's approach.

It is helpful to know that Football went through their BLP articles to clean them up a few years ago. I know other projects, and a number of editors, have done the same thing, though we still have over 2,400 unreferenced BLPs: Category:Unreferenced BLPs, so more projects could perhaps follow Football's example. SilkTork (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It's difficult to answer this because I have only edited a handful of non-football-related articles. However, my experience was there was more ownership and edit-warring behaviors exhibited outside of this project (perhaps I choose too controversial articles). Jogurney (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If the edit breaks formatting, misinterprets basic footballing data, changes nationality etc then a cursory glance to see what was being intended and then fixing the change, or reverting it, is my common practice and indeed seems common to most WP:Football users when our oversight overlaps. Often in the summary I would indicate what the problem is, but I have reverted IP's who have just broken things with no clear indication of their intent without any such summary beyond "Rv Vandalism" because I have no other way of explaining it. A fine example of 'helpfulness' amongst the community is someone such as Davefelmer who I spent a significant amount of time attempting to refine his understanding of processes etc and made a significant effort to improve. However I have no doubt that many of his earlier edits would have been very obviously reverted as blatant POV, or just not actually improving the article, or removing unsourced information on the basis that there was no in-line source (although other sources within the articles was often present and could corroborate, or a brief search could find such information quickly).

I have personally objected to the rather literal "challenge all unsourced information" attitude that has been around on occasion. Particularly for football players where we seem quite happy to have statistical data / biographical data in the infobox with no source, but object to statistics being presented within an article of a well detailed career without a literal source for each sentence. This has included in the past objecting to GiantSnowman blanking sections needlessly, or reverting where someone has attempted to populate commonly and easily found information without also providing a source. To be clear however this is once or twice in thousands of edits where we have worked synchronously on a project for over a decade. Along with Matty, Struway, PeeJay and Number57 I can't really think of another user with a more positive input to the project than GS on a whole (no insult meant to the many other editors on the project who I have failed to mention).

Football, unlike other sports people, seems to generate an awful lot of POV and RECENT updates. Coverage during the World Cup for instance leads to near instantaneous updates of pages, which can make it difficult after the fact for someone like myself to see if (amongst the series of edits within 90 minutes) if appearances, goals etc have been updated, and whether the goal scored warrants a line by line, blow by blow breakdown. I am somewhat guilty of seeing Matty's name and simply not checking his edits at all... I assume he is right in most cases, and I would do the same for GS and several others. In contrast rapid, multi-IP edits to dozens of topics at once are going to attract my attention and I am liable to revert most of their changes, and check for other edits to see if these have also been reverted, or the changes corrected. I accept that this is likely an unfair process, but attempts to maintain the status quo on an article until it is ready to be routinely maintained. Koncorde (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that Koncorde, very useful. Can the situation be summed up as: "WP:Football aspires to be supportive of all editors, but the nature of the topic sometimes requires a blunt revert; some productive editors tend to use the revert button more than others, but this is accepted/tolerated." SilkTork (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

No, not accepted. Every edit needs to be checked. Kante4 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

In General Silktork, I would agree and make the point that this is common across wikipedia, not just football. However I would like to clarify (per what Kante has added above). I do not use any tools that enable blanket reverting as appears to have been the issue with the Rollback tool at hand. I always check the edits being made before I revert. I will then check the IP's other edits to see if there is a pattern, and whether I need to take action across multiple articles or not. However I am liable not to necessarily check a known user who I have seen being a solid contributer for a long time. Football being tribal, there is a strong element of WP:OWN in some articles which means that specific users are often taking responsibility for large swathes of content. IP edits editing "their" articles may be seen as unproductive, often duplicating information, or re-interpreting perfectly fine content. I am sure that these would be checked, and are likely to be let slide. However there will be a strong reaction when a specific user / or IP is seen to be making the same mistake of comprehension. Someone like Matty and GS are known quantities, with their own POV regarding quality of articles. This does not necessarily match my own, but I see no harm in them being more stringent on inclusion if it means it produces more comprehensive articles. Sweeping up the occasionally productive editor is, in my opinion, going to be an honest mistake and nothing more (I have been reverted in the past, and I have even reverted GS and Matty where I have seen an error, this is normal).

Regarding content detail / fidelity: I am, for instance, not bothered by the inclusion of "height" in an infobox. It isn't particularly significant in football other than in some unique cases (Koller, Crouch, and Kev Poole spring to mind). So to see edit wars and mass reverts between multiple named users and IP addresses over which source they see as authoritative is very common (nevermind other statistical data). GS's perspective in this case is to say "enough is enough, provide the source or it gets removed". This is a legitimate approach where he is the person challenging information included (per WP:BLP) as mentioned above, even if others think he may be being very literal in his approach. The discrepancy is then between someone like myself and Number 57 who see that information as relatively insignificant and / or not worth challenging over. In contrast, where I or Number 57 see whole swathes of content removed by GS, we are likely to oppose his changes as being overly fussy and / or examples of literalism when it comes to inline citations. Koncorde (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. I would tend to agree with you that what happens in Football happens all over Wikipedia, though there is evidence (albeit mainly in the form of comment) that Football is a special case because of the nature of the topic (huge global interest, lots of bios, lots of weekly changing stats, etc), and so it is to be expected that Football editors will revert rather than check because there is so much to do all the time. That while some good faith editors (like myself) may get inappropriately reverted, that is the price to pay for keeping football articles accurately up to date - some collateral damage is to be expected. Better to revert a handful of good faith edits than to slow down and so miss several inaccurate edits. Now, if that is the reality that is something that does need to be taken into consideration. In my mind it wouldn't fully excuse GS's reversal of my edit, but it would go some way towards mitigating it, and so give me a greater understanding of the whole nature of his approach to editing. I'm getting the impression that a number of editors prefer to be more careful, but are somewhat tolerant of those editors who are not so careful because of the special situation in Football. What is not yet clear to me is what proportion of editors in Football regularly or commonly make quick reverts without checking, and how widely this is tolerated. SilkTork (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable assessment. As someone who has just shy of 5,000 football-related articles watchlisted, I do try to check every change but sometimes that's just not possible. I can only imagine the rate at which editors like GS and Matty - who probably have a multitude more articles watchlisted than I have - find themselves working at. As I noted in the discussion you linked to before, there are specific data integrity issues which, combined with the high volume of edits, make football articles something of a special case. We have regular issues with new/IP editors changing clubs or updating appearance stats incorrectly, and differentiating between good-faith attempts and malintent can sometimes be difficult. As well as all of the unsouced stuff, there are also issues where changes are sourced only to user-generated sites like Transfermarkt.

That's not to say I agree with GS's actions. The use of mass rollback seems to have been counterproductive in many cases. A couple of hours ago, I updated stats for James Rowe, only to discover afterwards that the same valid stats had been rolled back previously, twice. Also mentioned above is the blanket removal of anything not inline-cited, and indeed one of my first encounters with GS was this. I'm not sure how this kind of robotic removal really helps the encyclopedia. If I'm working on an article now, I actually make a point of going through the history to look for valid content that GS might have removed.

The other issue, probably one best answered by ArbCom, is to what extent an admin is involved when reverting. I agree with @Koncorde's point above (with apologies if I've misstated it) that any editor (admin or not) has the right to challenge/revert content that is unsourced, and in many cases would be correct in doing so. However, various comments at ANI asserted that GS blocking editors that he has himself reverted is counter to this part of the policy, and I would tend to agree with this.

Ultimately, I'd prefer not to see GS lose the mop, but I would like him (and, indeed, the project) use this as an opportunity to make some changes to how new and inexperienced editors are handled. GS, as has been pointed out by various others, is one of our most prolific editors, both in content creation and patrolling, and knows the project and the 'football world' intimately. The project needs admins like that. It already doesn't have enough.

Moving forward, I think it'd be useful for the project to work on some ideas which might reduce the volume of 'problem edits', and address some of the points that have been raised in the ArbCom case. WP Football doesn't have much in the way of guidance for new editors, which probably results in good-faith, but incorrect, attempts being reverted, and potential new editors being scared off. This clearly doesn't help the WikiProject, or Wikipedia in general. I'd like to see us do more to encourage inexperienced editors and for us be able to give a clear explanation of what is expected of them. This should not only help with retention, but would also help patrollers get a better handle on whether an editor has genuine malintent or competence issues. To that end, I've opened up another discussion with some suggestions below. Nzd (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Bruno Gaspar

Clearly an own goal by Vincent Sasso, no (please see here https://www.vsports.pt/vod/48425/m/449680/vsports/4b3fa6de955f86d0da800c23846101df)? FORADEJOGO (reliable whereas ZEROZERO is not) says he has 10 matches and no goals thus far.

Before an edit war is afoot, inputs please. Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Whether you or I think this is an own goal is irrelevant: we have to go with the sources. I don't know how reliable either of the 2 you have mentioned are, would it be possible to post links so we can have a look? Is there no dubious goals panel in Portugal as without some sort of VAR / Hawkeye, I can't tell if the original shot was going in or not? Spike 'em (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hence i asked, to go with just other than my opinion. FORADEJOGO is considered reliable like i said in original message, they don't credit the goal. This just in: the Portuguese League website (they are the governing body of the professional leagues) does give him the goal (http://ligaportugal.pt/pt/epocas/20182019/noticias/geral/liga-nos/15-jornada/sporting-cp-leva-a-melhor-sobre-belenenses-e-sobe-ao-segundo-lugar/). i will change it thus.

If anybody has additional thoughts please share them here, what's good about this site is that every bit of info can be altered, much better if done through discussion. --Quite A Character (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, A Bola claims it was Bruno Gaspar's goal. Jogurney (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

New editor guidance

Following on from the discussion above, I've noted down some suggestions for how the project might do more to encourage new editors and provide guidance on editing expectations. It'd be useful to get feedback on which (if any) others think are good ideas. I don't mind putting some work into drafting something based on input received.

Guidance for new editors - An essay in WPFooty space detailing the basics for updating stats and other 'need to know' information, for example: timestamps, domestic league only, UGC sources. It would be useful for @GiantSnowman, @Mattythewhite, and any other regular patrollers to feed back any other common mistakes made by new editors, so related guidance can be included.
Wikiproject Football welcome template - Inviting new editors to the project, linking to the project guidance and the key Wikipedia tutorials and policies.
Create other 'general note' templates for other common issues - domestic league only, UGC sources, plus any other issues raised in discussions (for anyone not aware, {{footyiu}} can be added as a custom warning in Twinkle to notify editors about updating timestamps)
Instructions at point of editing - Work out if we can cater for those casual browsers that see a [perceived] incorrect statistic, try to correct it, but don't get it quite right. Can we be more proactive and display some instructions at the point of edit? That might work either as an edit notice or as a standardised hidden comment at the top of {{infobox football biography}}.
Explicit sourcing of infoboxes - Add a |source= parameter to {{infobox football biography}}. This is included in {{Infobox cricketer}} and seems to work well.
Sources database - @Kusma made the point that editors need to know which sources the project considers reliable, and which sites should be avoided. {{ping|The Rambling Man|p=} also suggested this recently for different reasons

Other editors may obviously have their own ideas. Nzd (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. With respect to sources, someone creates Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links long ago. I don't believe it is up to date, but would be a decent start for a sources database. Jogurney (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good list, but we really need something with an indication of whether the site is considered reliable or not. @TRM suggested a 'sliding scale' of reliability, i.e. those that are OK for general use up to those that would be acceptable on featured articles. Some time ago, I made a tentative start on a list in my userspace but that format is probably too unwieldy for a list with lots of entries. I'll create another topic for discussion of individual sources. Nzd (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Brisbane Roar

Could other editors please take a look at recent edits on Brisbane Roar FC. @Eden64 is adding content sourced to a blog, and I've reverted twice. I'd rather not get into an edit war. Cheers, Nzd (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I've just updated the sources. While @Eden64 was "wrong" in using a blog as a source, I think that it would have been better to take your time to scroll down and see the original sources that the blogger posted. Instead of reverting one's edits, which in this case are in good-faith, I feel that it would have been more apporpriate to fix the issue yourself, by citing the sources written in the blog. Of course, you may not have had the time for this and it's not a big deal, but I think that it would have still made for a better solution than constantly reverting the other person's edits. On the other hand, of course, @Eden64 could have been more careful himself. No need to get into an argument over this though :) Nehme1499 (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that @Nehme1499. Are we OK about including bare stats (assuming the sites that host them are RS) to make a point, though? That seems like OR to me. Nzd (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

While bare stats alone do tend towards OR, I would say that they are sufficient enough to back up the claims in the post. Of course, there isn't a clear line in the page saying "Brisbane Roar's pass accuracy went down from 2015/16 to 2016/17", but by simply looking at the table this becomes pretty apparent. The claims themselves added on the page technically weren't OR themselves, but to be able to source them in a reliable manner this is the only solution I see possible. Nehme1499 (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the validating much of the criticism on the latter stages of his tenure part, which very clearly falls foul of the WP:SYNTH part of the OR policy, but have left the rest. Nzd (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

First-team squad listings on club pages

Is there a consensus that only players listed on club websites as first-teamers should be listed in the 'First-team squad' sections of the club articles? @P0g0.try has been removing players on this basis. Xande Silva played in the Premier League today, yet has been removed from this section the West Ham United article. That seems a bit odd to me. Thoughts? Nzd (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

He is on the official Premier League website squad list so should be included https://www.premierleague.com/clubs/25/West-Ham-United/squad Jopal22 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

That does seem odd, but I think listing players in club articles is unnecessary. It makes sense in the article for the season, but not for the article on the club. The current season's players are no more notable than players from any other season. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I think this suggestion is going to go down like a lead balloon... Mattythewhite (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Our readers would expect a current squad listing on the main page. Going back to the original point, there seems to be a tendancy to add new players when they are called up into a first-team squad, so there may be a consensus through editing. I personally think this is probably a step too far, and that they should only be added once they have made an appearance. Any player that doesn't appear on the source in the section hat, should be sourced separately IMO. Nzd (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need to include a hard and fast firm appearance rule, but it's good practice for youth or reserve players who wouldn't otherwise be on the list. SportingFlyer talk 04:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

My method has always been - at the start of the season, only include players announced by the club/league (when they release squad lists/numbers etc.) Then, if another (usually youth) player is part of the match-day squad, add them to the list. That's what I see happening on the backs of match day programmes, for example. Giant Snowman 09:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Since I'm being called out, let me just say that if you want to add those player back I won't make a fuss about it. I primarily edit NBA articles but I've been checking some football articles for a long time, and most good ones (like Liverpool's or Man Utd's) use the rule I tried to apply. For me, the key is consistency. If it says first team squad, you put only 1st team players on it. For an academy player that has an odd appearance here and there, there's team's current season page and his own page. On West Ham's page, what's the source for the first team squad list? (url after the date of last update) Let me help you, like any other club, it's a first team page on the official site. So if that's the source where's the argument? Are we gonna ignore the source? If you want to argue that, change the source/url. West Ham is having (once again) a nightmare injury crisis with Lanzini, Yarmolenko, Wilshere, Sanchez, Hernandez, Balbuena, Fredericks, Reid etc. out. If they want to field 18 players they had to call up a couple of academy players. It sounds silly, but that doesn't make them a 1st team player. Once everyone is healthy they'll go back to an academy team. Every team has some version of "Reserve and Academy squad' page on wiki, and youngsters who are not promoted full time belong there. If you don't wanna respect/agree with that (which you have every right to do), you'll get Leeds Utd's page, which is so bad and edited by so many people who don't care about principle of sourcing that I don't even have the courage to edit it. It currently has 34 players on it, 8 of those never played for the 1st team. Cheers P0g0.try (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd expect to find any player that either has a squad number or has been in a matchday squad in a list. On this basis, Silva should definitely be included. Number 5 7 13:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

If they are not in the squad list on the official website, they should not be listed either. Kante4 (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I hate this topic. It usually makes sense to assume that a player with a first-team squad number is part of the first team, but sometimes they might just be being included to meet quotas or because of an injury crisis or even because the club has decided to put out a more inexperienced XI in the EFL Cup, for example. I wouldn't include Mason Greenwood in Manchester United's first-team squad list despite him having a squad number and appearing on the bench for the Champions League game against Valencia a couple of weeks ago. I probably wouldn't even include Angel Gomes, and he's actually played for the first team! – Pee Jay 00:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

IMO, first-squad listing should include only players who are signed on a senior contract. The clubs' season pages is the place to list all players who were in matchday squads. --SuperJew (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I supported the version from official club website first team section, plus any players that not included in the "official" squad list, but actually played for the first team that season. Matthew hk (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I prefer and tend to stick to what the official club websites have, who they list in their first team on their website should be replicated on the club article. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually for the real practice in Italian clubs article, made a sub-section Primavera (the name of the reserves league, which borrowed as the name of the team) , and stated that those player are member of Primavera , but also made first team debut and bench appearance during this season. For the source, the press release of the list of called -up players for a first team match, seem bold enough to say those Primavera players who appeared in the first team call-up, is some sort of member. Matthew hk (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, what I'm reading from the above is no consensus. Silva had already been readded, but I've been bold and restored the other couple of players (both on pro contracts) that have made first-team apps, and added the programme from last week as a source. Cheers, Nzd (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Viking FK players

Viking FK was promoted from the 2nd tier of football in Norway last season (2018), and will now play in a fully professional league in the 2019 Eliteserien. Most of their first team players have professional contracts, but there are currently 11 players without a Wikipedia article. Can I create these articles? Or should I wait until they make an appearance in the league? Sørhaug (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Definitely wait. The guidelines relate to individual payers making appearances in a fully pro league, not merely being contacted to a club that plays in one. If you create articles now for players not meeting the criteria, you're liable to find them deleted. Jellyman (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You could create drafts for them? R96Skinner (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Continent World Cup Qualifier Maps

Hello everyone. I was reviewing some of the UEFA Euros and World Cup qualifier pages, and noticed that whereas the Euro qualifiers had maps that illustrated which nations did and did not qualify, the World Cup counterparts lack these. While I would create and add these maps myself, I have no experience, so I was wondering if anyone would support or be willing to add the images themselves. Thanks. Good888 (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You need to use a web site such as https://mapchart.net/europe.html, and then save the image and move it to wikipedia. Good luck!Jopal22 (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to do this with England, Scotland, Wales split. All the tools I can find have the UK as one? ThanksJopal22 (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't these kind of maps already exist here? Del_Usion23 (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I was asking because I also want to create a map for another article, so I wanted to know how to put my own together--Jopal22 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Delusion23: Not from a continent perspective, which would be useful for the UEFA qualification pages. Like with Jopal22, I am looking for the right European map needed to make said images. Thanks. Good888 (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Matías Vera

Hello! Quick question about Matías Vera. A deal was announced by Houston Dynamo, stating they've signed Matías Vera. However, in the official release on their website they state it is "pending receipt of his International Transfer Certificate (ITC) and P-1 Visa along with a completed medical". As such, I added that information to the article but didn't change the infobox, categories etc. @UncleTupelo1: disagrees, he says the deal is completed despite the aforementioned - claiming it's "standard MLS transfer talk", with Vera added to Houston's squad list here. In fairness, I've been following to see if/when the medical gets done and have seen many media acting as if the transfer is indeed done. So, what's the stance that should be taken? R96Skinner (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, for absolute reasoning, the transfer is NOT completed. The transfer can fail or incomplete (fail medical , after the closure of transfer window, if applicable). But to avoid edit war, it just leave them on infobox and remove 3 days later if the transfer do fails. Save a lot of undo and time on watch list. Matthew hk (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Matthew - you're technically right, but there's no reason to revert. Yes, it's not technically complete, but the fact there's a press release from the club, along with the fact he's on their roster, means that it's almost certain to occur. SportingFlyer talk 05:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Side note: the deal was announced on 21 December, so it has been a while. I reverted to how the article was pre-UncleTupelo1's edits while a discussion could take place, assuming that was standard. It does seems strange to tell any potential reader that the transfer is done when it isn't though. No danger of an edit war at all, just wanted a discussion first. I've restored UncleTupelo1's edits. R96Skinner (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, if the deal was announced in December and the medical was in January or February and the transfer window open in February (in FIFA list, 13/02/2019 for the male transfer window), then may be worth to tell the user it is not complete and WP:Crystal. Matthew hk (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

BTW, even the transfer window did not opens, the user may be had their point. Vera already on the official roster: https://web.archive.org/web/20190113020736/https://www.houstondynamo.com/players. Matthew hk (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

FC Dallas

Didn't we have something against having a large kit gallery like on this page? Govvy (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Been discussed a few times previously, these types of sections violate WP:NOTGALLERY. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Help formatting standings for League1 Ontario

I am having some trouble interpreting the guidelines at WP:WikiProject Football/League season#Standings for League1 Ontario, specifically the 2017 and 2018 seasons which each had different formats. The league is tier 3 in Canada and has no promotion and relegation. The league champion is determined by playoff and also qualifies for Canada's national cup competition. A league cup is also awarded in a separate competition.
I am hoping for some clarification on which colours should be used to indicate playoff berths, should champions be indicated on the standings table despite not being determined until playoffs, should league cup winner be indicated on the standings table with a letter, etc. BLAIXX 20:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Both tables look fine to me. SportingFlyer T·C 20:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Georges Leekens article

I don't follow football, but somehow Georges Leekens made it onto my watch list. Today I saw that there were a number of new & IP editors that removed material from the article, & I am asking editors who are more experienced with the national football teams to have a look. Peaceray (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peaceray: If it continues to happen you can request page protection at WP:RPP. I don't see any controversial content to be removed. It really does need better sourcing know. Govvy (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sean Scannell

Born in England, played for Eire at youth and B level. In 2018 he was "interested in switching [his] allegiances to NI" per this but from what I can see never did. An IP keeps changing his flag to NIR rather than IRL. Thoughts? Giant Snowman 16:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

His change of nationality never completed. So stay with the old nationality.

Off-topic, i remember there is a footballer that completed his paperwork in FIFA to switch to the new (POB of his father) nationality , but he regretted and refuse to make debut. FIFA declared that he can't switch back to old nationality (his POB), but should we considered his nationality is the new one due to coverage on his switch , or the old nationality due to he did not made any debut.

It would be interesting if some footballer did filed all the paperwork to switch, but did not made any debut for his new nationality in sport. Matthew hk (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The sources appear to confirm he's already declared for NI, given that source and this one say he's submitted paperwork. I would probably still wait until he's actually made an appearance before changing flagicons, but I've added the reported switch to the article in prose. Nzd (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ada Hegerberg

Ada Hegerberg is the one we should focus on. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah so since she is the first woman to win the Ballon do'r, I thought we should use her as the starting point to improve articles related to women's football. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, it's already about as good as it needs to be. Crowsus (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I think ImmortalWizard was suggesting we use Ada Hegerberg as a template for other women's football articles going forward, not that that article needs any further improvement. – Pee Jay 11:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

lists of hat-tricks notability

Hi, Sorry if this has been asked already... what lists of hat-tricks are notable? I saw here that some leagues and some national teams have pages for them, but not all. Is this notability issue or just no one got around to creating the rest? --SuperJew (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The latter, I suspect -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

On a related note, I note that the List of TT Pro League hat-tricks article repeatedly uses the team "beaver-trick" to refer to scoring four goals in a game? Is that really a thing? I have genuinely never heard that term in my life. Maybe it's Caribbean-specific......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a cricket term, see here and here - never come across it in a football context before. Giant Snowman 13:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

May be the term is shared between cricket and football in Caribbean? If there is no news article to use the term in football, better chop the term in List of TT Pro League hat-tricks. Matthew hk (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

That's more like a disambiguation page than a list. Govvy (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: You mean the page I linked? It's a list of lists. I linked it as it shows easily what there is (instead of linking 2 categories now). --SuperJew (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Never heard of a beaver trick in football or cricket to be honest... Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

FIFA international results page?

Hi, is it just me or have FIFA removed the individual national team results pages? For example, if I click on "All fixtures and results" on Lebanon's profile page on FIFA, it just redirects me to an add for their app. Have they moved the results pages to the app in order to promote it? Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like FIFA are pushing their App. I get the same. It's on other national teams pages and also on league club results, standings, etc. You can still get the full rankings but it requires navigation through four pages. Jts1882 | talk 10:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you know where I can find a full list of FIFA approved matches? The app itself is pretty bad and it doesn't show all the matches (in some cases even none). Plus, I sometimes have to use a list of FIFA matches for a specific team as a reference. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Try www.soccerway.com TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

2018–19 Chelsea F.C. season

I have to say, this season page is a perfect example of over use of primary sourcing, should use it as an example of what not to do!! Govvy (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm also glad it tells us who the assistant fitness coaches are (and where they are from) too. Spike 'em (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using primary sources for facts where those facts are readily available, accessible, and transparent with no requirement for interpretation, assessment etc. The significant failing of the article is in the opening paragraph failing to use reliable secondary sources to indicate notability, and to source the subsequent opening paragraph, kits etc and the absence of any sourcing for specific sections. While secondary sources could be used for transfers etc, they are not critical, and wouldn't even be available for some of the information such as the Academy (which probably isn't particularly notable for inclusion).

However, a much bigger issue is that I doubt that Chelsea's website actually does provide the detailed breakdown that is being claimed without some serious digging for things like the main squad, appearances, start and end time of contracts etc which is synthesis. Same with wins / draws / losses, beyond possibly having an article each week it is unlikely a primary source would break down the individual competition WDL For and Against in quite such a way.

In short the article has issues, including a dependency on transient squad data that will likely be deleted by Chelsea when a player departs, or the season ends. This means fidelity of the article year on year will begin to degrade. Koncorde (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

There isn't anything wrong with primary sources, but many secondary sources should be available. It's a bit ridiculous as it stands and likely violates WP:SYNTH. SportingFlyer T·C 04:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The primary sources for contracts/transfers etc. is fine. Of greater concern is the mound of unreferenced stats. Giant Snowman 08:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

IP users making wrong infobox updates

Hi there. I've reverted all of the four infobox updates from 91.69.84.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I came across in my watchlist because they were inaccurate. Maybe someone would like to take a look at the remaining changes which are likely wrong? (Edit: In fact, the Talk page suggests a block might be in order.) Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Spot-checked five which hadn't already been reverted. All are incorrect per sources. No clear pattern - sometimes it's adding cup appearances in. Sometimes it's just wrong. I would support rollback of all this IP users edits from 13 January, with appropriate counsel on the users talk page. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Similar editing from 194.2.76.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) today. Giant Snowman 10:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

All edits from 91.69.84.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) corrected. Gricehead (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman and Robby.is.on: both these IPs activities are what {{footyiu}} is made for, no? Gricehead (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not that they are not updating the date - it's that the stats are just plain wrong. Giant Snowman 10:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I did find a couple of correct ones in the 91 IP edits. Not many though, agreed. Gricehead (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I found 1 or 2? But I suspect they are simply inputting random figures, and just some happen to be correct... Giant Snowman 11:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I would say it is irritating to fact check 10 articles. Few days ago, a new user randomly add +1 to the stats of Real Madrid players, probably testing or draw attention to review his draft. Back to the ip, if fact checking the first 10 edits (or the first 10 articles), all were wrong, either random + 1 or substitute league stats. to all competition stats in the infobox, i don't feel any wrong to revert all by assuming bad faith (10 is a good sampling for 91 edits), or assume good faith but also assume he/she did all wrong. Matthew hk (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

They resumed their disruptive editing today. Time for a block? Robby.is.on (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed the seven edits performed by 194.2.76.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) today (one was correct in terms of stats, but not dated), and given them a final warning with additional wording about expectations when stats are added to the infobox. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Good job! :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Bits and pieces

1 - after seeing that in Mauro Eustáquio and José Bosingwa, the following question arises: shouldn't we have just one "People from X" (or "Sportspeople from") category? Is it customary to have two in some cases (in which, then)? I'd go always with the place where the subject was born (not raised, as it seems to be case here?).

2 - Phil Jones (and others, I thus assume): is a fourth place at the World Cup (or a similar competition) an honour? Never knew that, sincerely.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

1) - where do sources say they are from? Birth place is not sufficient

2) - no, it's not an honour. Giant Snowman 13:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree 100% that what is essentially "losing semi-finalist" is not an honour -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry GS, I don't follow, birth place is not sufficient for what? From where I come from, both Mr. Eustáquio and Mr. Bosingwa have comprehensive sources for both "departments", where they were born (as well as the descent) and where they were raised --Quite A Character (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Birth place is not sufficient to say somebody is from there, for the purposes of those categories. Being born in London does not mean they are 'from' London, for example. Lots of smaller towns and villages in the UK don't have maternity hospitals, so many people are born in one location but grow up somewhere entirely different. Giant Snowman 14:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Realistically all such categories should probably have been named "People born in [place]" rather than the ill-defined "from", but I somehow doubt anyone would be prepared to co-ordinate that sort of change..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

1, The documentation states that place of birth is not necessarily the defining attribute. I don't see anything wrong with adding multiple categories if the subject has notable associations with more than one place. It seems fairly common practice and I've done it myself.

2, No, not an honour. This was discussed previously. Nzd (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3:... Giant Snowman 17:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I would rather say POB cat is something trivial. It may be not that trivial if a news article claimed that he was raised in city A and played for team from that city until joining professional club B. Footballers are notable for their nationality and then member of clubs B, C, D, E, F, and only some of them notable for the POB. But it is a wide spread practice (not only in footballer article) to add people to People from foo cat even POB was routine mentioned in the article. Matthew hk (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

YouTube as a source

Hi, I was thinking if I could use a YouTube video to source a claim. For example, if I say that a goal has been incorrectly considered offside, and the video clearly shows the goal being onside (also showing the still-image of the offside line and everything), can I use it as a source? I'm asking about this specific situation since a goal being on/offside is (usually) a yes or no answer (it's not subjective, unlike fouls or yellow cards). Otherwise, can I take a snapshot of the still-image, upload it, and use that as a source? What's your opinion on this? Nehme1499 (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

YouTube can be dodgy as a source because you have to make sure a video clip doesn't breach copyright. I don't think it's a good idea to use YouTube as a source. Govvy (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, this sounds like original research. If a secondary source talks about it being onside/offside, I would use that. SportingFlyer T·C 00:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

What about using it to source something simpler, like "In the 57th minute, he scored..." if the video has a timestamp on the top left corner. Would that still count as OR? Nehme1499 (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I would seriously suggest not using video as evidence for anything other than itself. The 57th minute should be sourced to a reliable source which itself may be dependent upon analysis of the video, but for you to do it would be OR. Koncorde (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok I see, thanks. Nehme1499 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:YOUTUBE. Giant Snowman 09:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation query

An article on David Johnson (soccer) has recently appeared. Given we already have some articles on other David Johnsons who were footballers (David Johnson (footballer, born 1976) and David Johnson (footballer, born 1951)), does this disambiguation work? If not, would David Johnson (footballer, born 1984) be appropriate given that they're American, or should it be David Johnson (soccer player, born 1984). Number 5 7 22:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I would say the second option. Crowsus (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The latter. "David Johnson (soccer)" should point to the dab page as an R from incomplete disambiguation. "David Johnson (footballer, born 1984)" can also be a redirect as an R from other disambiguation. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep at David Johnson (soccer) and turn David Johnson (footballer, born 1984) into a redirect. Giant Snowman 09:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Whilst we are discussing the article, are reserve team appearances really worthy of note in the infobox / career stats? Spike 'em (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If the reserve team plays in the same pyramid as senior teams (like in Spain, France, Germany etc.) then yes. If not then no. Giant Snowman 12:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

They are listed as being in a reserve league, so I'll remove them (and also the source used is not reliable, given it says this David Johnson played 1 game for Liverpool before he was born) Spike 'em (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Some MLS teams' reserves do play in the senior pyramid (see New York Red Bulls II), so those kind of stats should stay. Simply playing in the reserve league is not sufficient. Giant Snowman 12:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Portsmouth F.C. again

Can someone sort this IP, guy out, he has a WP:OWN complex over the article. I've been reverted so many times for trying to fix the article it's nuts. Govvy (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The guy wrote; It was I who put all these kit designs here in the first place, they have been here for many months. Please stop interfering and being pedantic, you contribute nothing, but you frequently interfere. You are not even a Portsmouth FC fan, unlike me.

It's strange that I get a comment like that as my school sports teacher played for Brighton and Portsmouth and he took us to games at both clubs, so I've always had heart for Portsmouth FC, not only that, a few of the Spurs players I have met in my time have gone to Pompy and he thinks I don't support them! Govvy (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Franck Kessié's cap

It seem his international cap was not consistent among the source. For example, soccerway listed a friendly appearance against South Africa. However NFT.com did not record that match, but against Zambia instead. May be dig out individual match report on newspaper, and add the sum ourselves? Matthew hk (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Since ip changing the value of the cap, and based on RS i can't verify it, so chop the value all together? Matthew hk (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The Côte d'Ivoire women's national team played against South Africa on 25 October 2014, but the men's national team played against Zambia on that date. I haven't found a match report yet, but Soccerway's data appears to be wrong if they claim Kessié appeared against South Africa on this date. Jogurney (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The Lusaka Times indicates that Zambia uses youth players ("Zambia B") so I wonder if FIFA considers this match an "A" international. Jogurney (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The Times of Zambia confirms that this match was not a FIFA "A" international, and it shows Kessié was named in the squad (although I can't be sure he appeared in the match, it would not be an official cap). Jogurney (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, may be in the weekend i will verify all the cap and exclude the B cap and may be posting full match list in the talk page for someone else to pick up in the future (but it should just need to add new cap to the 2019 entry of the national cap box, without verify the past cap again). Matthew hk (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Transfermarkt

Can I confirm that we do not regard transfermarkt as a reliable source? Dumdaiduekdingdao keeps adding two inches onto the height of Jay Emmanuel-Thomas, based on a transfermarkt profile.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct; it is not considered reliable. Giant Snowman 14:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The content of Transfermarkt is user-generated, thus never qualifies as WP:RS. However, it is not cheating if double check their match report collection, compare to other database. I am not sure now how they run, but in the past they once claimed Matteo Guardalben played for Serbia, which Italian newspaper claimed at that time he was injured. Matthew hk (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Three different heights from different reliable sources - please see Talk:Jay Emmanuel-Thomas#Height. Giant Snowman 14:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Talking generally about heights, would anyone disagree with the following statement?

Sources for a player's height can sometimes vary. Where there is a discrepancy, the most recent official source should usually be used. Generally, this would be a player's club/league profile, or FIFA listing.

I'm working up some guidance (per above) and thought this would be a useful thing to add.

The Emmanuel-Thomas example is something of an exception, as discussed on that talk page, and is the main reason for my use of usually/generally. Nzd (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Nzd agree with the statement. At least not that necessary to open discussion on which values for most case. just stick to the latest citation if old and new values are similar (say, ±0.02m) . Matthew hk (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Caretaker manager notability question

I was trying to clean up Jesper Fredberg, and realized the article's sourcing didn't support the claim that he had worked as a manager in a fully-pro league (except for a stint as caretaker manager in the Cypriot top flight). He was the club's academy coach and became the caretaker manager after the senior side's regular manager was removed with 8 matches remaining in the 2017–18 season. Do we treat a caretaker in the same manner as a regularly-appointed manager? (I think it's possible the article can satisfy our notability requirements in some other way - it claims he played for AGF, and otherwise there could be enough sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG, but I wanted to understand what the group thinks about caretakers.) Jogurney (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:NFOOTY counts for managers as well as players, so caretaker managers would qualify if they've managed at least one match between two fully-pro teams (even though that qualifies people like this geezer). Nzd (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Pete Wild article now created - and he probably passes GNG anyway... Giant Snowman 09:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Winger

Hi, I want to ask, maybe it's a stupid question. Is winger a forward player or a midfield player? Wira rhea (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

In between, really. They usually play ahead of the midfield but behind the forwards, outwide. Giant Snowman 08:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Traditionally a winger was a forward. All outfield players who weren't half backs or full backs were considered forwards. A winger was another name for outside forward (compared to inside forward and centre forward). In modern formations with a variety of midfield formations the distinction is blurred. If playing in a front three (say in a 4-3-3), the winger would be condidered a forward (or wing forward), but a player playing a very similar role in a 4-2-3-1 would be considered an attacking midfielder. In traditional 4-4-2's the wide midfielders often get described as wingers, but it really depends on how they play. Ryan Giggs was a winger, but it's hard to describe David Beckham as a winger on the other side of the same midfield. So winger could be considered more a way of playing than a formal position. Jts1882 | talk 09:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I tend to think of two separate positions: wingers and wide midfielders. As User:Jts1882 says, David Beckham and Ryan Giggs are two different types of players, so I would describe Giggs as a winger and Beckham as a wide midfielder. – Pee Jay 12:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_(association_football)#Winger as mentioned here, in the English 4-4-2 system it's counted as a midfielder. But nowadays 4-4-2 is almost history. As many clubs are playing with only 1 striker, the wingers are counted as strikers. The modern midfielders from now are the defensive, central and attacking midfielders. Every time I'm adding the wingers to the forwards it is getting rejected. Is it possible to accept it when it is not a English team?

But see Midfielder#Winger. Giant Snowman 13:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Links page,

On a side note, I wanted to create a shortcut to the bottom of the links page, we have WP:WPFLINKS. But I am confusing myself as to what WP shortcut would be good to the section of links not to use, maybe WP:WPFLINKSV or WP:WPFLINKSU, asking for idea's what would be best, cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:WPFLINKSNO? Giant Snowman 15:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Also I think we should have WP:FOOTYLINKS as one. Giant Snowman 15:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

k, I went with the one you said, maybe it will help with issues like the one above, that bit of list really needs populating with the undesirables!! Govvy (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hugh McLaren date of death

Please see Talk:Hugh McLaren (footballer, born 1926)#Date of death, thanks! Giant Snowman 10:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

About transfermarkt

Hi all, I and Edwink85 want to ask about why transfermarkt is not a reliable source. I don't really know the details so I couldn't explain to Edwink85 about it. Maybe someone can give the details about it? Thanks. Wira rhea (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Edwink85 and Wira rhea: Transfermarkt is not considered a reliable source because the content is generated by random users, in the same way that Wikipedia is. That is why WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Giant Snowman 12:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I tried to explain it in Talk:2019 Bali United F.C. season and User talk:Edwink85 before but....Hhkohh (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Sir Sputnik who may know about it Hhkohh (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

We have WP:WPFLINKS you can see the bottom of the page. But as GS has said, transfermarkt is user generated. Govvy (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I'll respond here, but don't really have anything to add. Snowman has already explained why the site isn't reliable source. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Weltfussball, playerhistory and many other statistics sites are also user-generated, yet no one objects. 109.232.29.145 (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Playerhistory is defunct; no comment on Weltfussball, there have been no issues in the past with that site, whereas IIRC Transfermarkt was abused by vandals. Giant Snowman 08:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

For the record, Weltfussball/Worldfootball is not UGC, although users can add pictures, videos and their own articles. I confirmed this by creating an account and I am not able to edit data. It's published by HEIM:SPIEL (a "service provider for sports data").

Transfermarkt relies on "Data moderators" to keep its stats intact. Any user can apply to be one. Nzd (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk

The official site is swindontownfc.co.uk so what's with swindon-town-fc.co.uk? Is this a fan site or not? I was a little confused and wanted to double check. And the that websites YouTube channel? I've noticed a link used as a citation, should I remove that link? Govvy (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Under "Other" it describes itself is unofficial etc. So definite fan site. Koncorde (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

k, I've removed a reference then, probably copyvio link. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't know how to assess the reliability of a Youtube channel, but the website is quite possibly the best unofficial club site going. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Struway2: Wasn't the website that bothered me, it was the YouTube channel, because I couldn't see any established copyrights. Govvy (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

2018–19 Eredivisie

Is anybody able to make the map smaller, it seems huge on the article!! Govvy (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Done To make the map smaller/bigger just change the width parameter (it's set to 400 now). Nehme1499 (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

lol, cheers, o what a simple fix, I really don't know why I couldn't see that code first time I looked!! Cheers. Govvy (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ahahaha no problem! Nehme1499 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

1967–68 Football League First Division

What is going on in the qualification relegation column of the table. Some clubs are qualifying for next season's events (European Cup and CWC), others are indicating that they are playing in the Fairs cup that season, based on qualifying the previous season. Is this what was intended or is desired? Jts1882 | talk 15:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, I know the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup was played during the season and not a summer tournament. Unless it's indicating that, which it really shouldn't it should really show who qualifies for the next season shouldn't it. Govvy (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There was no qualification process for the Fairs Cup; clubs simply entered it if their city had hosted an Inter-City Fair. I would imagine the text is just there to show that they were playing in the competition that season. Number 5 7 16:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Initially it was related to the city fairs, but by the late 60s qualification was based on league position. However, there was a limit of one club per city, which led to oddities like Newcastle qualifying in 9th because Everton and three London clubs who finished above them couldn't enter. This limit carried over to the UEFA Cup for a few seasons. Jts1882 | talk 10:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the question was more about why the article says that teams were qualifying for the 1967-68 Fairs Cup when they should have been qualifying for the 1968-69 Fairs Cup. – Pee Jay 17:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Help!

Please help me, I am new to this project. Let me know where to start. Thanks! ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to reek havoc making WP:POINTy edits and trying to rewrite all the guidelines like you are doing in WP:CRIC? Spike 'em (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Spike 'em what no? why? and why not? proper discussions are always open. what do u mean anyways? I am new here and want a fresh experience. So help me rather than this. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

And what do u mean rewriting guidelines? I am discussing. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Doing this on more project pages, looks a bit fishy, tbh. Not sure what you are up to... Kante4 (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Kante4 hahahaha so funny. Nice catch. You guys can't even welcome properly. ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested moves

Already included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves Matthew hk (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi all, I thought I would to your attention three open RM requests regarding the national football teams articles:

South Africa (football to soccer)
DR Congo (DR Congo to Democratic Republic of the Congo)
Timor-Leste (Timor-Leste to East Timor)

Regards – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. SportingFlyer T·C 02:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BBC Face quiz

[14] Anyone tried this, I got 6 out of 10, but what a laugh. Govvy (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Lol 5/10 for me . ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

[1] Citation Information, England & Wales, FreeBMD Birth Index, 1837-1915, Author, FreeBMD, Publisher, Ancestry.com Operations Inc, Publisher Date, 2006, Publisher Location, Provo, UT, USA, Repository Information, Name, Ancestry.com

[2] Citation Information, Detail, Class: RG12; Piece: 918; Folio: 6; Page: 8; GSU roll: 6096028, Source Information, Title, 1891 England Census, Author, Ancestry.com, Publisher, Ancestry.com Operations Inc, Publisher Date, 2005, Publisher Location, Provo, UT, USA, Edit Repository, Repository Information, Name, Ancestry.com

[1]

[2]