Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 159

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 155

←

Archive 157

→

Miles Barron - Barcelona’s first “manager”

On the BBC website there is a fascinating article about Barcelona's first coach, Miles Coverdale Stocks Barron. See [https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64403587] Wikipedia has an article about John Barrow (footballer) who is presumably the same person. The article will need moving to a new title and substantially re-writing. Anybody fancy this. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. The BBC article mentions that Barcelona's club records were unsure of the exact name. But with that issue out of the way, there's conflicting information: the BBC calls Barron Barcelona's first coach and mentions Billy Lambe as a player for the club. The Barcelona website, however, states that Lambe was a player-coach making him the club's first coach: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/club/history/coaches … Robby.is.on (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the link is “dead”. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Remove the "..." from the end of the url. The link should work now. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Quote from the BBC article: ".....Billy Lambe (ex-Brighton and Hove Albion), with the latter also serving as player/manager. That, however, was not enough to satisfy Gamper, who was also keen to appoint a full-time manager and administrator to run the team's affairs off the pitch rather than entrusting those important duties to a player". So it seems like they have decreed that Barron was the club's "first manager" on the grounds that he was the first full-time manager. Seems like a bit of dissemblance to me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The Barcelona website says of Lambe "It appears he was the first foreigner to be paid a wage by the Club, something that can be explained by his role as player-coach" whereas of Barren (sic) they say "In September 1912 FC Barcelona contracted the services of a specific coach for the first time when they brought in this Englishman". Whoever was the first "Manager", the present article is not correct in many ways, as I said originally. Also, perhaps someone can create an article about Lambe, if he's considered noteable. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The article has now been moved and expanded at Miles Barron. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Technically not - the original page history is still under the name of John Barrow (footballer) while the newly created Miles Barron has the pages history started from scratch today. The John Barrow (footballer) page should have been moved to Miles Barron to preserve page history instead of blanking and inserting a redirect like what AmorPatiturMoras did. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Can an admin do a WP:HISTMERGE? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm an admin, but don't feel confident to do this. Our expert on this, Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs), is no longer with us. It's probably best to follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe GiantSnowman knows the procedure on WP:HISTMERGE well but checking their talk page, they may not be back till 5 February. You can see for example that the user has restored history before. Someone else - another expert - will hopefully do this procedure correctly. It was last year I discovered Anthony was gone from the project. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Do we still need a histmerge? I see the old article has been redirected. Giant Snowman 17:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Support histmerge as requested. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Surely Barcelona player games from 1899 to 1912 and some player had to be the player-manager if they had no real manager. So its kind of strange calling Lambe the first then, when he probably wasn't and the basically single source of Barren's article is around him being the first manager. Also when the BBC article says "New research has revealed the truth about this footballing pioneer..." why don't they give a hint where that reasearch originate? -Koppapa (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily, some clubs relied on (a) committee member(s) to pick the team. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

A manager is a UK thing, on the continent most clubs and national teams were run by committees. In the Netherlands the trainer didn’t decide who was playing or the tactics etc. until ca. 1950-60. Cattivi (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Nationality in lead

Why the double standards? Raheem Sterling is an English footballer but Riyad Mahrez is "a professional footballer". We have a certain user who will quickly revert any changes to Mahrez to say he's Algerian but does nothing when it comes to Sterling. It's either one or the other, but we can't have these double standards. TonyStarks (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I actually agree, I think we should be extremely rigid on these and treat them all the same. Mahrez and Sterling are both dual citizens, and both played for one country over their birth country. Sterling IMO should have the same lead as Mahrez, omitting English in first sentence. Ortizesp (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope, they are two completely separate cases. Sterling was born in one country and moved to another as a child, and has played for the 'new' country exclusively. He is clearly English, there is no ambiguity. Mahrez was born and raised in one country, but plays for another due to heritage - that is ambiguous. Giant Snowman 22:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

There's absolutely ambiguity regarding his nationality. He was born in Jamaica, his mother competed for Jamaica in athletics, he had no direct connection to the UK until he moved here. Saying "Raheem Sterling is an English footballer" is misleading due to his dual nationality. It's better to say he's a professional footballer who plays for the England national team. – Pee Jay 12:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Every single article, website and mention of Mahrez say he’s Algerian. It’s only somehow ambiguous for you. It’s not complicated, he’s considered Algerian by every single source. Where is the ambiguity? I’d like to revisit the debate and see what the actual con census on the matter is. TonyStarks (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

i doubt sterling even has a jamaican passport, and cases like Kane (wrestler) and Emma Watson are relevant. no one calls kane a spanish pro wrerstler or watson a french actress. they moved to usa / England as little kids just like raheem Muur (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Sterling was born in Jamaica and lived there before moving to the UK. He most definitely has Jamaican citizenship. TonyStarks (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Sterling has dual citizenship, reference here. Kane wouldn't have Spanish citizenship as he was born in a military base (de facto American), and I don't believe Watson has citizenship either, so they're completely different cases. Sterling when he was born would have been exclusively Jamaican and probably got his English citizenship as a teen, well after he started playing football. Ortizesp (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Emma Watson was born in Paris to expatriate British parents, that doesn't make her French. Raheem Sterling was born in Jamaica to Jamaican parents; he's a naturalised British citizen. – Pee Jay 12:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS:NATIONALITY is our guide here. Mahrez is well known as an Algerian footballer, hence that should be in the lead, similarly Stirling is an English footballer. I don't know what French nationality rules are, but it is irrelevant whether he qualifies for it or not. All sources call him Algerian, so there is no confusion over his nationality. Spike 'em (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like it's pretty common sense but certain people here really like to confuse and complicate things. TonyStarks (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree that MOS:NATIONALITY is clear cut, Mahrez should be listed as Algerian, as that's what all sources refer to him as. Regardless of whether or not he has French citizenship (which isn't mentioned anywhere in the article itself), he's primarily known as an Algerian. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Would he be described as 'Algerian' if he had not played for the national team? No. Sterling however would always be 'English'... Giant Snowman 19:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

If Sterling never played for the English national team, I think he would be called Jamaican-English at the very least. Ortizesp (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That is pure speculation. He IS well known for being an Algerian footballer and there is no reason not to include that in the lead. Spike 'em (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Some of us have discussed the Raheem Sterling situation on the article's talk page in 2021 and earlier in this January and judged he is an English professional footballer there. I think we should consider how many years these players have been in their countries they represented - Sterling has been in England since he was 5 and Mahrez doesn't appear to have been in Algeria much though I see the Algerian equivalent - رياض كريم محرز. Sterling - English, Mahrez - ambiguous per GS who I agree with, and Erling Haaland - certainly Norwegian since he moved to the country he represents at 3, the same way Sterling did. It will be daft to remove the nationality on the Haaland example but less chance of that happening due to protection. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Mahrez representing Algeria is in the lede, though - he's simply not described at the very start of the article as an 'Algerian' footballer. Giant Snowman 21:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, summarising what he does for the international part of football.

Not quite sure why Sead Kolašinac is currently been described as Bosnian though since representing birth country at underage and Bosnia at senior level due to approved citizenship at age 20, whereas both Jonathan de Guzmán and Jordi Amat don't have a nationality mentioned through the same citizenship process. Removing the nationality on the Sead Kolašinac may solve that part of the problem. -- Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

But Sterling wasn't even "born" an English citizen, he is an immigrant. Mahrez on the other hand is a "born" Algerian by virtue of his parent. Haaland is not the same as Sterling, because he was born Norwegian, Sterling on the other hand was born Jamaican. Ortizesp (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Haaland was born English. Muur (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Renaming List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals

I can't remember how to properly request comments on a page move but click on the title and it'll take you to the discussion! Thanks for your input all. Felixsv7 (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

About players involved in the Turkey–Syria earthquake

Good afternoon. As done for Christian Atsu yesterday, I would propose to protect momentarily the pages of his current club, Hatayspor, and his team-mates, as well: it seems like the team has been deeply involved in the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake, with several staff members (including Atsu himself, until a few hours ago) being reportedly left under the rubble and other ones being reportedly led to safety.

Please, let me know what would be the best decision in this case.

Oltrepier (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, the same goes for all the other footballers/athletes involved across the country, as I've just found about Ahmet Eyüp Türkaslan. Oltrepier (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

KARLSRUHER

Hello. While I totally agree with the point on WP:KARLSRUHER on how the club has to be Karlsruher SC and not Karlsruhe due to demonym/city name problems, I think that the "consensus" should not apply to clubs where there is not a demonym part of the club name. Such an example is TSG 1899 Hoffenheim. In English, the WP:COMMONNAME is undeniably Hoffenheim; yet, we blindly write "1899 Hoffenheim" in infoboxes. I think we need to change that for these specific ones and we need to stop justifying it by KARLSRUHER, because that does not apply and is overruled by COMMONNAME. Other examples may include 1. FC Köln which should be referred to as FC Köln in infoboxes because "1." is not common in English, you could even make a case for a club like Schalke 04 to be just Schalke, and more. I'll be honest it's mostly this Hoffenheim one that bothers me but I just think we are abusing the definition of KARLSRUHER to legitimize "1899" when it's not part of the COMMONNAME. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think WP:KARLSRUHER is overused even without the examples you mentioned. I appreciate that saying "Hamburger SV" instead of just "Hamburg" helps differentiate that club from others in that city, but if you were to say "He plays for Hamburg", no one would think you were referring to SC Victoria Hamburg, VfL 93 Hamburg or SC Condor Hamburg, none of whom have ever played at a comparable level to HSV. The only time the long name should be used is when another similarly named club is mentioned nearby. Augsburg, Bochum, Freiburg, Köln, Mainz, Schalke, Stuttgart and Wolfsburg are all current Bundesliga teams who definitely don't need to be referred to by their full names. – Pee Jay 12:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the consensus to follow WP:KARLSRUHER has been clear, does this really need to be brought upon a yearly basis? See the discussions from June 2021, August 2020 and January 2018. And English-language sources do write "1899 Hoffenheim" and similar, for example the BBC. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, S.A. Juio, no one refers to TSG 1899 Hoffenheim in the English language as 1899 Hoffenheim. It's just Hoffenheim. It's even more common to write TSG Hoffenheim than 1899 Hoffenheim, a quick Google search should show you. The COMMONNAME is Hoffenheim and I frankly cannot understand anyone who says otherwise. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is, I feel like a lot of people are falling back on that essay without fully understanding it. You can’t just ignore the evidence I’ve given against it and just say, “yeah, but it’s in place now”. The essay is wrong. – Pee Jay 17:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The only time the long name should be used is when another similarly named club is mentioned nearby. That does not make sense at all. It is highly relevant in e.g. infoboxes to specify "VfB Stuttgart" rather than just "Stuttgart", even if the player hasn't played for Stuttgarter Kickers. – Elisson • T • C • 15:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that makes sense. No one refers to Stuttgarter Kickers as just "Stuttgart", but they do for VfB Stuttgart. Maybe what I should have said is that the long name is only necessary when use of the short name is ambiguous, which it mostly isn't in the cases I mentioned. – Pee Jay 22:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That sounds more reasonable, and I obviously don't want completely to ban the usage of just "Stuttgart", but it should always be established first which Stuttgarter club we're shorthanding. For infoboxes and tables I see no downside whatsoever in making that explicitly clear, specifically as those types of content elements are rarely read in full, or in the context of the lead text or any other article prose. – Elisson • T • C • 17:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Jimmy Greaves goal count

This has already been discussed and a consensus was reached on displaying 268 goals, but yet there are still disruptive edits ([1], [2]), despite me giving them the link of the previous discussion. Jimmy Greaves has scored 268 goals, Spurs website neglects 2 charity shield goals. Mwiqdoh (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

https://mobile.twitter.com/SpursOfficial/status/1622301725309779968

Then take that up with Tottenham. Their website lists Kane as their all time top scorer. STOP vandalising. RossButsy (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/12804153/goal-h-kane-15-tottenham-1-0-manchester-city https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64442953 https://talksport.com/football/1323853/harry-kane-ahead-jimmy-greaves-tottenham-goals-premier-league-alan-shearer-wayne-rooney/amp/ https://www.football365.com/news/tottenham-manchester-city-kane-breaks-goal-record RossButsy (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

According to this, Greaves had 266 and Kane now has 267. @Mwiqdoh: where are the reliable sources that give Greaves 268? Giant Snowman 20:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

BBC, Times, Guardian, ESPN all reporting that Kane broke the record today. Spike 'em (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Articles on Sky Sports, BBC, Independent, The Times, The Telegraph all support a figure of 268. There's no explanation for why the two goals in 1962 don't count / aren't counted by Tottenham. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

TalkSport article here specifically discussing the random omission of Greaves' two Charity Shield goals from the total used by Spurs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- National Football Museum gives 268, as does this article from the Yorkshire Post from 2020, this one from the Independent in 2020, this one from The Times in 2017, this one from the Telegraph from 2015 etc etc. To summarise, @GiantSnowman:, there are many many reliable sources which support the figure of 268 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

And there are also many many reliable sources to support that Kane is the top scorer. RossButsy (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

They're obviously not that reliable if they don't count two goals that most people would count. – Pee Jay 23:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, if they are not reliable, then they can't be used to support 268 either, which wipes out most of the sources listed above. Spike 'em (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Surely we just use common sense and answer the following question - did he score two goals in the 1962 FA Charity Shield? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

sources can be wrong lmao and here they are. if kane scored in the community shield, no way spurs say those wouldn't count and isnt the point of wikipedia to try and avoid using self published sources. i.e. spurs making up their own history here to push kane as highest for some reason. they just need to wait like 2 weeks and he'll be the actual highest. these guys are all just going with what spurs say but spurs are wrong. there's things like certain international matches not being counted by fifa but are still counted in player's stats by wikipedia e.g. fifa say lukaku has a lot let goals due to belguim using too many subs. we saw a lot of this with ronaldo where every other week differnet sources kept saying he has the most goals ever record and no one could make up their mind when he broke that record. for now just put that sources differ on who has the record but it wont matter in a few weeks anyway.Muur (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes ItsKesha. He did score the two goals. I think just because Spurs does not consider the FA Charity Shield does not mean we shouldn't. Just because sources say 266, does not mean that he actually scored 266, they disregard his 2 Charity Shield Goals (https://talksport.com/football/1312808/harry-kane-jimmy-greaves-tottenham-all-time-goalscoring-record-stats/]). The question is not whether he scored those 2 goals or not (just check the 1962 FA Charity Shield article), but whether we should consider the FA Charity Shield. I don't see why we shouldn't, especially since Jimmy Greaves' article does. Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

You'd have to check every other player in the top 10 for charity shield goals then too. -Koppapa (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Koppapa: I already have, and you can check each of the player's articles and check the club statistics section, then you can see how many goals they truly scored for the team. Mwiqdoh (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This is all of Jimmy Greaves' goals with Tottenham

Appearances and goals by club, season and competition
Club	Season	League			FA Cup		Football League Cup		Other		Total
Club	Season	Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Tottenham Hotspur	1961–62	First Division	22	21	7	9	0	0	2	0	31	30
	1962–63	First Division	41	37	1	0	0	0	7^[a]	7	49	44
	1963–64	First Division	41	35	2	0	0	0	2^[b]	1	45	36
	1964–65	First Division	41	29	4	6	0	0	0	0	45	35
	1965–66	First Division	29	15	2	1	0	0	0	0	31	16
	1966–67	First Division	38	25	8	6	1	0	0	0	47	31
	1967–68	First Division	39	23	4	3	0	0	5^[c]	3	48	29
	1968–69	First Division	42	27	4	4	6	5	0	0	52	36
	1969–70	First Division	28	8	4	3	1	0	0	0	33	11
	Total		321	220	36	32	8	5	16	11	381	268

^ 1 appearance and 2 goals in the 1962 FA Charity Shield and 6 appearances and 5 goals in the 1962–63 European Cup Winners' Cup.
^ Appearance/s and goal/s in the European Cup Winners' Cup.
^ 1 appearance in the 1967 FA Charity Shield and 4 appearances and 3 goals in the European Cup Winners' Cup.

Tottenham may say Kane is all-time top scorer, but I don't he still needs two more goals. Wikipedia shouldn't be fooled by the primary source here. Govvy (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If we remove Premier League goals then Kane has only scored 67 goals, 201 fewer than Greaves. Makes about as much sense as the claim that Greaves only scored 266 goals if his brace in the 1962 FA Charity Shield are removed. Bizarre stuff. I guess we need to remove the 7 Charity Shields from the Spurs' honours section if they suddenly mean nothing. Weird of them to disrespect a legend like that.--Echetus Xe 10:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@PeeJay: So by your logic BBC Sky sports and the guardian aren’t reliable sources anymore. Yeah don’t think so. RossButsy (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

On this subject, they're clearly not. Greaves scored two goals in the Charity Shield, Charity Shield goals are usually counted towards a player's professional total, therefore Greaves' Charity Shield goals should count towards his professional total. – Pee Jay 15:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@RossButsy: Despite numerous people telling you why Greaves' two goals should count, you continue to revert on the Harry Kane article. When is this disruptive editing going to stop? Mwiqdoh (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

reliable doesn't mean theyre correct 100% of the time. it means theyre mostly right. bbc once reported about a scottish team signing yerdas selsavon (your dad sells avon). if spurs say they play kane because hes a reliable goalscorer that doesnt mean he scores in every single game, it means he scores in most. sources can be wrong, and theyre wrong here due to trusting the primary source that is spurs - who are wrong about this. we have other sources like talksport considered reliable so all we can do is report what these guys are saying. that spurs said he has the record, some sources reported that too, but that some other sources point out their talking our their ass as its not actually true. theyre just parroting what the primary source says and as such theyve put out false information. Muur (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@PeeJay: You mention Charity Shield goals are usually counted towards a player's professional total - I think that you have the key there. Players in Charity Shield matches were not paid to play in that match - the money that they would have received for any other match appearance instead went to charity. Hence they took part on an amateur basis, so any goals scored would not count towards the player's professional stats. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Players in Charity Shield matches were not paid to play in that match - the money that they would have received for any other match appearance instead went to charity - no offence, but that sounds like a bit of a stretch. Even in the 1960s, top-flight players weren't played on a match-by-match basis, they got a salary, so the notion of "the money that they would have received for any other match appearance" doesn't really exist...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: And all the sources listed above also have articles about Kane being the top scorer. You’ve edit warred with three users on the article so you saying I’m being disruptive is very very rich my friend. RossButsy (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

because theyre just parroting false information stated by spurs. literally just wait like 2 weeks...its not like kane's never gonna score for spurs again is it?Muur (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

We have multiple reliable sources saying that Kane has broken the record; we use secondary sources to WP:VERIFY article content for us. WP:TRUTH is also relevant here. A better solution to the edit-warring would be to make note on the related articles about the disputed number. Spike 'em (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The TalkSport source linked above confirms the discrepancy - the 2 Charity Shield goals are not considered by Tottenham to be competitive and so are not counted. Reliable sources are reflecting that by saying Kane has 267 to Greaves' 266 - what is the issue here? Giant Snowman 18:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that Tottenham aren't the governing body of English football, the FA are. If the FA say the Charity Shield was a competitive game in 1962, then the Charity Shield was a competitive game in 1962. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, regardless of sources, wikipedia should present the truth no matter what some sources say, suggest. Govvy (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

the FA is, as far as I am aware, silent on the matter of the number of goals Greaves has scored. Giant Snowman 19:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

unless you want to move talksport to unreliable, we have a source calling out spurs for being wrong. would also have to throw out all stat databases cuz they all include the community shield in stat pages. who knew spurs got to decide this sort of thing.Muur (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Add the dispute to Harry Kane page then. Spike 'em (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflicting sources Spike 'em (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Mwiqdoh and User:RossButsy have both violated 3RR now. The former has reverted at least five times. Anyone think of a particular reason why I shouldn't block them? Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Nope, block. Giant Snowman 19:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I note that Mwiqdoh has been edit-warring on Jimmy Greaves as well, and also has a previous block for edit-warring. Blocked for a week. RossButsy also has a previous block; blocked for 48 hours. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

bbc and sky sports arent even consistent. they state Javier Hernández scored 59 goals for man united bbc here and sky sports here which includes his goal in the 2010 FA Community Shield. so do they count or not? these guys are just parroting spurs because they dont care to double check. BBC sport also list Olivier Giroud with 105 goals for arsenal here which includes his goal in the 2014 FA Community Shield. so anotehr time the shield counts huh...Muur (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

west ham say he has 268 here sky sports even as recently as two weeks ago said hes at 268 here. bbc in 2015 say here that hes on 268, despite their claims yesterday he's at 266. theyre just going with what spurs said without checking which is pretty bad to do honestly.Muur (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

new MSN article here bringing up this dispute here Muur (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the sky story says Kane is merely two shy of hitting his second century of Premier League goals and only one away from matching Jimmy Greaves' club record of 266 goals. and later goes on to mention the 2 goal discrepancy thus However, Greaves' total excludes two goals scored in the 1962 Charity Shield, which would extend his tally to 268. No-one seems to be disputing that there is conflict, but no-one seems to be prepared to compromise on how to mention it. Spike 'em (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Can't seem to think why back in 2015 the BBC quoted Greaves has been on 268 goals and this says 266 by looking at Muur's second reply beginning with "west ham". I should think the 1962 FA Charity Shield goals should indeed count towards that total. There will be many confused people who both look at the relevant Wikipedia articles and newspapers bought today including me when reading through this whole section. But some users here are in other states of minds, hopefully this can be straightened out. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

And checking the two BBC sources: the 2015 report says 381 apps and the 2023 one gives 379 appearances. Some other mysterious app has also been omitted from the recent source. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

with 2015 saying 268 goals and 2023 saying 266 goals. just shows further they decided to go with what spurs said despite bbc themselves counting 268 back then. the second missing match is the 1967 FA Charity Shield. so spurs are discounting two matches here. Bobby Charlton scored twice in that match, which if included take him to 249 goals for man united. no prizes for guessing how many goals bbc say charlton scored for man united 249, reported here when rooney got to 249. so bbc counted charlton's shield goals for when rooney did it. here's united saying hes on 249. so that match counts for charlton but not greaves? dont think thats how it works, bbc.Muur (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense that both missing matches are indeed from the same type of match as given by other users here. Looks like Manchester United count Charity Shield matches while Tottenham Hotspur doesn't. Either way if Harry Kane scores two more goals between Leicester v Tottenham this Saturday and the end of the season (at the earliest) he will become the highest Spurs scorer - no ifs, no buts. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Where otherwise-reliable sources disagree, what we should do is follow WP:WEIGHT. A passage might be written as follows:

The number of goals scored for Tottenham by Greaves has been a matter of debate. According to x, y and z, Greaves has been credited with 266 goals;^[123]^[124]^[125] whereas p, q and r state that he scored a total of 268 goals.^[126]^[127]^[128] The discrepancy has been attributed to whether Charity Shield goals should be counted or not.^[129]

In this way, we respect WP:V and do not fall foul of either WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Support the above, but at this rate the minor controversy will become more interesting as certain sources catch onto what is going on and drive drama. Koncorde (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Galway W.F.C.#Requested move 27 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Galway W.F.C.#Requested move 27 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Association footballers from Northern Ireland

Soon after Category:Northern Ireland international footballers was created, a note was added saying "Players in this category should also be included in Category:Northern Irish association footballers", which is consistent with other national teams and nationalities, The "Northern Irish footballers" cat was subsequently moved to Category:Association footballers from Northern Ireland, and the note on the Northern Ireland cat was also changed. The problem with this is that many Northern Ireland players are clearly not "from" Northern Ireland. I have removed the "association footballers from NI" cat from some players, but I want to check whether others agree with my interpretation before going further. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Association footballers from Northern Ireland is a 'Fooian footballers' category, part of the People from Northern Ireland category tree, while Category:Northern Ireland international footballers is a non-diffusing subcategory. The former category was moved in order to avoid issues with using "Northern Irish". However, international footballers should still be included in both categories, just as all players in Category:England international footballers should be in Category:English footballers. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Julio - the removal of the 'Association footballers from Northern Ireland' category should be reverted. Giant Snowman 22:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

List of Turkish football champions

I'm wondering if any of you can figure out what to do about two new accounts fighting it out on a Featured Article--User:Ahmetger and User:Sawo298 are having a great time fighting without explaining or seeking the talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Update: I placed week-long partial blocks on both, but this needs a solution--thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- This list can use a clean up as tables of the Turkish amateur championship winners and Turkish Cup victors were inserted, which are not relevant at all and are messing up the page. Ahmetger (presumably a Galatasaray fan) also amended the performance tables by including the Turkish Cup, which is also not relevant for this list and violates WP:OR. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
  - Thanks for looking at it, Eem dik doun in toene. If you (and others, hopefully) can keep an eye on it. It's a Featured Article, after all, and the investment of time should be worth it. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
    - @Drmies: No problem, I'll keep it watchlisted. I also reinstated the last "clean" version of this list. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

How reliable is rsssf? and transfermarkt?

In User_talk:Sir_Sputnik#'Transfermarkt_Not_Reliable', Sir_Sputnik said Transfermarkt is not reliable because, "it a self-published source. This has cause problems in the past with incorrect information that likely originated on Wikipedia making its way onto Transfermarkt. Obviously this leads to serious circular reporting concerns."

How reliable is rsssf and transfermarkt in the big picture? I am looking for a consensus of their reliabilities. -- Ktsquare (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I understand: the RSSSF website has been used at least 60,000 times [3] whereas transfermarkt much much less. Many established football editors are well aware transfermarkt is not reliable, I have read the relevant link and I wasn't aware I could have edited the site myself if I had an account (which I don't). The rsssf website - I'm not sure where I can place that on the scale of how reliable it actually is as I don't visit that site but I'm sure someone else knows how reliable that is, given it is widely used I should not think that is a problem for usage. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd say RSSSF is 90% reliable, although I haven't ever seen an error, they sometimes don't have all the information from a season, so, like wikipedia, there are area's that are incomplete. Govvy (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

We had a discussion on Transfermarkt as recently as 10 days ago: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 396#Transfermarkt, which once again reiterated that Transfermarkt is not a RS. We don't need to repeat that discussion for the millionth time. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Transfermarkt is not reliable - RSSSF is reliable but can be mistaken/incomplete. Giant Snowman 12:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree re Joseph2302's response, I won't opt to participate in any future discussions with the reliability of transfermarkt in the future. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Questionable S.A. Julio edits

It appears S.A. Julio adds some random spaces a few moments before a match ends ([4] [5]), so that if a user posts the match result before he does, it will result in an edit conflict. Mwiqdoh (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: please can you explain? Giant Snowman 22:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The match IDs were in preparation for linking from the final article, though I'll make sure to not impact any spacing in the future. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

At least he isn't editing as if games are complete during the first half like you did to the current PL season. Spike 'em (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"Inactive professional footballer" in opening sentences

Not sure why in just three cases that I have noticed the word inactive in opening sentences of players who are currently free agents - Gylfi Sigurðsson, Hal Robson-Kanu and Adam Johnson (footballer). At this moment I say there are plenty of other inactive footballers at this moment including Connor Wickham who I see is a current free agent. Can't think of a reason that three pages have the word inactive included whereas the rest, who are still footballers without a club, don't. Strange one... Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

There should be no reason for 'inactive'. Giant Snowman 12:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree, it's stupid to add inactive, I imagine it was one person who added them to all the articles because they (wrongly) thought it was a good idea. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I've checked the page histories of all three articles @Joseph2302:, they were done by three different people on three different days, it hasn't been done since then.[6][7][8] One of those, an IP, could not have edited the Adam Johnson page back in 2021. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree - get rid of this terrible wording. Mind you, Gillingham have had a few players down the years who I would describe as inactive footballers....even during games :_D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

BTW I only just noticed that Adam Johnson is one of the articles affected. He hasn't played professionally for seven years. I realise he was in prison for some of that, but he's been out for four years and has showed no signs of resuming his professional career (and frankly it is highly unlikely that any professional club would sign him even if he was seeking to resume his career). To my mind, that's not a professional who is inactive/without a club, that's just a "former professional footballer" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. Giant Snowman 17:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/San Jose Earthquakes task force

Do we really need a club-specific taskforce? Fair enough for Man Utd/Real Madrid, but not for every team... Giant Snowman 21:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I remember nominating the task forces for deletion last year and it was rejected. RedPatch (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a link please? Giant Snowman 17:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the discussion I was talking about: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/FootyClubTaskForces. The San Jose one was nominated individually before: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/San Jose Earthquakes task force. RedPatch (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

If this is once again up for debate I'd argue for keeping club taskforces (like I did 8 years ago), but if there ends up being a consensus for deletion I'd agree with the points from the last discussion (from about 2 years ago) to look at the cases/taskforces individually and decide from there. Christiangamer7 (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I think if they're active they're fine, if not then delete them. Ortizesp (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't look like they are active, so delete it. The only thing that saved it 8 years ago was that all of it's 4 members went to the MFD and complained- even though it looks like it was a pointless task force then. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Elkeson

Hello everyone! Does anyone know if the player has really joined Selangor FC?

I noticed that bit of information while cleaning up the page, so I tried to find some proper sources I could cite: however, neither portals like Globo Esporte, nor the club's official website have seemingly reported anything about this transfer...

Oltrepier (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Oltrepier: Mostly likely an untrue IP edit. Edits stating a player joins a club always need to be sourced, and if it isn't it should be reverted. Mwiqdoh (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh Right. Since there hasn't been any update on that so far, I'm going to revert the edit right now: then, we'll just wait and see. Oltrepier (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh I think the article needs a slight intervention: some users were adding details about new transfers, but there hasn't been a single official announcement, so far... Oltrepier (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Jules Koundé

Hi folks. Jules Koundé could use another set of eyes or admin intervention. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on Does it involve vandalism or other specific issues? Oltrepier (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Oltrepier: 2804:14c:7f80:81fa:b1fd:5c1c:a85a:c891 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly re-instating their edit in violation of MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:SLASH. I don't want to edit-war. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Jorge Cabezas Hurtado

Hello everybody!

I just wanted to let you know that I've opened a new discussion on the article's talk page, since I need to know which title is the most suitable in this case.

Any type of advice, especially from people who work frequently on Spanish/South American people that use both surnames publicly, is really welcome and appreciated!

Oltrepier (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif @CodeMars04 I think you could be the right people to ask to in this case... : D Oltrepier (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I've left my feedback on the relevant talk page. CodeMars04 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Connor Wickham

Has apparently signed for Cardiff City (?). I've reverted 2 lots of nonsense in the last 5 mins and don't have time to 'stalk' the page. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added a source. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Nigeria Football Federation

Hello! Does anyone know what has happened to the formatting at the bottom of this page?

I've never seen anything like that before...

Oltrepier (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

someone removed a 'div col end' --Echetus Xe 15:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@EchetusXe Right, thank you for fixing it. Oltrepier (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Echetus Xe 18:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

1896–97 Southern Football League goal ratio

I've just noticed in the tables there is a column for goal ratio, is there a point for that? Seems unneeded to me. Govvy (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The correct term is goal average. That's what was used to separate teams on the same points at the time. Goal difference wasn't introduced until the 1970s -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Did you have goal average back then? I wasn't sure. I always thought that came a lot later. Govvy (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Good question, I'm not 100% sure now you ask the question. But there were teams level on points who must have been separated somehow, and in each case the team with the higher goal average is higher in the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Govvy: Yes goal average was used at the time as the tiebreaker after points. After goal average was goals scored. Mwiqdoh (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for James Milner

James Milner has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Mixed naming on South American Youth Football Championship

The main article is titled South American Youth Football Championship, some tournament articles are named 2023 South American U-20 Championship, others 2013 South American Youth Football Championship. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 11:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@DatGuy Given the current Spanish name (which is used as default by CONMEBOL), I think the main article is the one that needs to be renamed first, and we could start cleaning up the various pages from there.

I've never conducted these operations, though, so this is just my proposal... Oltrepier (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It depends what name was used at the time of the competition. Look at the Commonwealth Games, not every edition was called the Commonwealth Games so we don't retrospectively change the older editions. The main article would need to move if the name has changed since 2013 though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland Actually, it seems like the name has changed since the 2019 edition.

Anyway, you're definitely right. Oltrepier (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Stevie is right, the article title should reflect the name of the competition at the time. Giant Snowman 22:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Nathan Jones (Welsh footballer)

I've started a discussion on the linked page immediately above - someone could get into danger for some sort of edit warring and I've noticed this has been recurring for a few days. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you - I suggest all comments are made there, rather than here, to avoid two parallel discussions. Giant Snowman 22:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Categorizing players from defunct teams/teams with new names

So, here's Uwe Bengs. He played for BSG Turbine Neubrandenburg, however that team became 1. FC Neubrandenburg 04 and he technically never played for 1. FC Neubrandenburg 04. There's no current article for BSG Turbine. There maybe could be someday, but who knows.

Would it be better to categorize him as BSG player (which would require making a new category) or making him a 1. FC Neubrandenburg 04 player in the categories? KatoKungLee (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Each club has one category only. Did BSG simply change its name to 1 FC, or was there a merge? Giant Snowman 17:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

GiantSnowman - It seems like the government forced clubs en masse to cease operations and restart under Soviet style names.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know the exact situation with this particular club but in cases where a club has simply changed its name I would not expect there to be separate categories. I would not, for example, expect separate categories for Clapton Orient players, Orient players, and Leyton Orient players, when they're all the same club -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes Chris, that is standard practice. In this situation, given we have one article covering BSG/1 FC, there should only be one category at Category:1. FC Neubrandenburg 04 players. Giant Snowman 21:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Cesena F.C.

Given that Cesena Football Club asserts they have inherited the legacy of the dissolved A.C. Cesena in 2018, I think it is reasonable to merge the two articles. The Italian Wikipedia even affirms that Cesena is the successor to the defunct club. Sakiv (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? Giant Snowman 09:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed: it.wiki is not a reliable source. If that has any useful references to help guide us then feel free to use them. Spike 'em (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Though how can they possibly claim to be the same team, given it was founded in 1973 and coexisted with the "other" club for 45 years (assuming that our article is accurate on that point). Spike 'em (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Their official website state that Cesena F.C. was reborn to keep up the tradition of a club founded in 1940 and which, in the 78 years of its existence, played for 13 seasons in Serie A - the first time in 1973/74 and the most recent in 2014/15 - also qualifying for the Uefa Cup at the end of the 1975/76 season. Their twitter account also states Cesena FC (re)born in 2018 in continuity with AC Cesena founded in 1940. So it is not a completely new club, they play with with same kit colours, in addition has the same stadium, logo etc. ([9]). The same thing happened with Parma Calcio 1913, ([10]).--Sakiv (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The club claiming it is true does not make it so, which is why we need reliable secondary sources. How does the club explain the 1973-2018 part of its history, or do they just ignore that? Spike 'em (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

And "keep(ing) up the tradition of" is not the same as "is the same thing as" Spike 'em (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

So you are saying that they belong to distinct entities even though they have the same colors and pitch. Why did Parma, which went through the same process keep the history of the collapsed club in 2013. I provided two sources. I don't know what you want exactly.--Sakiv (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they are different clubs. Many clubs have changed strips over the year, some to imitate other teams. A club proclaiming that 40 years of its own history doesn't exist and that they are suddenly part of another club that existed at the same time does not make it true. Please provide some reliable sources that say that they are the same, and not just parroting a press release from the club. Spike 'em (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

What I see is that you do not understand what I am saying, and I have cited two other sources (ilfoglio.it and ilovepalermocalcio.com), in addition to the French, Italian, German and Spanish wikis, confirming that Cesena FC is a continuation of the club that declared bankruptcy in 2018. It would be nice to hear what the Italian editors (@Angelo.romano:) have to say about it.--Sakiv (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I am going by Google translate here, but ilovepalermocalcio does not come across as a reliable source, and the article is just repeating what the club says. The other makes it clear that an existing club was taken over and renamed and precludes the old team from reforming.

It does not say that the old and new teams are the same. As mentioned already other wikis are not reliable sources. Spike 'em (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

And I believe the current situation, where we have 2 separate articles with each mentioning the other and the circumstances of the originals club's demise is the correct thing to do. Spike 'em (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Good thing I've found this discussion on time!

@Spike 'em I just wanted to confirm that Il Foglio can be used as a reliable source (it's a national newspaper), and I've just found another article by La Gazzetta dello Sport, which also clarifies that the club took over the sporting rights of another team ("Romagna Centro") in order to restart the activities in Serie D.

To be honest, I agree that it's probably better to keep the two articles separate at the moment, as it's a similar case to the ones involving clubs such as Novara and, if it isn't a stretch, Beerschot over in Belgium. Oltrepier (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we should leave it as two articles because they did play as two separate teams at the same time, meaning that the Cesena F.C. existed before it became a continuation of A.C. Cesena. Mwiqdoh (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

From your post, it seems that you do not know what the discussion is about. What do we do with the history and achievements of Cesena? Sakiv (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You keep saying others don't understand the discussion, yet you are the one who is refusing to listen. They are two separate teams, and the article about the old club can remain where it is and continue to detail its history. The new club can continue to link to the old, so readers can findv or about it easily. There is no need to merge here. Spike 'em (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You are the one who personalizes the discussion and gets angry unnecessarily. Also, you do not answer my question about Parma. Regarding Novara's example, this is not accurate at all. The two clubs were merged into Novara F.C. Sakiv (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You are the one who said From your post, it seems that you do not know what the discussion is about and you do not understand what I am saying, not me. They are two separate clubs, and the articles should remain separate. Spike 'em (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Spike 'em. As much as they claim to be a continuation, in this case it seems more appropriate to keep the articles separate as they are now. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

They're clearly two different teams. Muur (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

As somebody correctly pointed out above, the new Cesena acquired the sporting rights (logo and trophies) of the old Cesena, and is therefore to be considered as the rightful heir. Source for the logo: [11]. Merging them is just the right thing to do in this case. Angelo (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Buying the rights to use a logo doesn't make the 2 teams the same entity. What should we say happened between 1973 and 2018 in the article then? Spike 'em (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

mk dons were supposedly teh same team as wimbledon until they werent. if you existed at the same tiem youre not a continuation. they prob even played against each other. at any poitn they can just say oh were not the same team actually. this isnt some video game character with a voice recast. if bolton, the team i support, died, and some other nearby team were like hey lets say we're bolton wanderers id lagh at them.Muur (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The old Cesena went bankrupt and folded. If you know a bit about Italian football, you will probably realize this is much more common than you'd think. There's a large majority of Italian teams that went through that process (Fiorentina, Monza, Cremonese, Salernitana and Spezia in the current Serie A; Ascoli, Bari, Benevento, Como, Cosenza, Modena, Palermo, Parma, Perugia, Pisa, Reggina, SPAL and Venezia in the current Serie B), some of them more than once and also quite recently. There are different ways a continuation of a club is guaranteed, and the two most common ones are the Article 52 of N.O.I.F. (where applicable) or the relocation of an existing team who merges with the original one, or acquires its own logo, sporting rights and/or awards. What the new Cesena did was to rename an already existing team (as the Mayor of Cesena could not apply for Article 52 due to a Cesena-based team already playing at Serie D level at the time) and successively acquire the sports rights of the original one once they were auctioned (that took a year or two due to Italian bureaucracy). The continuity is guaranteed by the fact the new Cesena owns the assets of the old Cesena, represents the city with the same club name, logo and colours, and has the same supporter fanbase as the original one. Hope that explains. Regarding the history of the club before Cesena (as Romagna Centro), I would recommend to just turn it to a passing mention in the club's history (it might be argued about Romagna Centro's actual notability in fact) or make a separate article for Romagna Centro specifically. Angelo (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe now the old article should be continued. And the Cesena Football Club be discontinued. Think that is the cleanest. -Koppapa (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Empty club season articles

There are many club season articles that are not updated since its creation and sections of the matches are just sitting there empty. It makes you wonder what is the point for these articles to exist. I suggest making them redirects to the club page but deleting them is another option. Here are a few examples of out-of-date articles that haven't been updated in many months (if we can agree that these articles shouldn't exist, I can give a full list of all of the articles):

Mwiqdoh (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I'd redirect them. Makes it easier for someone to comeback in future and update them should they wish. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Why not update them? The status of a page as uncompleted isn't a reason to delete or redirect. --SuperJew (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Because there are more than a hundred articles just like these 4, can you imagine trying to update every single one? I completely agree with what Stevie fae Scotland said we could redirect and someone to comeback in future and update them should they wish. Mwiqdoh (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

there are more than a hundred stub articles too and articles which can be expanded, yet we don't redirect/delete them for that reason. --SuperJew (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@SuperJew: This gives people a reason to create articles like these. These articles do not give the reader any information about the season. People that make these articles just want to boost their article creation count and don't have any actual intention on informing the reader about the club's season. Imagine you were interested in one of these clubs and you checked out their season article, what information would you get??? 1 match that they played in the beginning of the season? How is that valuable in any way? Mwiqdoh (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

we don't delete/redirect according to quality of article. It's a question of notability, not quality. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. --SuperJew (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If you don't want to update them, fine. But no reason to delete/redirect. --SuperJew (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

My thinking is that someone will probably take articles like these to AfD because they haven't been updated and are unlikely to be updated. The likely decision (as has happened in previous AfDs) is either delete or redirect. Mwiqdoh is only trying to cut out the middleman with this discussion. If someone does update any of them, brilliant. We can tick that one off the list and move on. Stevie fae Scotland (talk)

@Stevie fae Scotland - The season isn't completed yet. It makes sense to wait until after to update it. I updated the Saarbucken article, but they have more games left so it can't be completed yet.KatoKungLee (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand that the season isn't over but it doesn't make sense waiting six months or however long to update them. That doesn't help readers who are looking for as complete a picture as can be provided on the day they are looking at the article. It looks silly having articles on any topic that are months out of date. If editors are unwilling to update the article until the season is over, it should serve as a redirect until someone can do so. Thank you for updating that one though, it is appreciated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The state of completeness of an article is not an argument for it's deletion. At most to move it to draft space. --SuperJew (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why you should redirect then, someone might come along and update them. Govvy (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

They're not article space worthy articles, so they should all be in draftspace. If someone wants to fix them, they can do that to the draft, and then move it back to article space. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

We have stub articles in main space! Just because it's not finished is not a reason to send to draft space necessarily. Govvy (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Govvy - I updated the Saarbucken article, but the season isn't finished yet, so it can't be completed. KatoKungLee (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Some 2022–23 empty club season articles
Country	League	Articles
England	National League (5)	~~Southend United~~
Spain	Segunda Division (2)	Burgos Cartagena Eibar Granada Huesca Las Palmas Leganés Levante Lugo Málaga Mirandés Oviedo Ponferradina Sporting Gijón Tenerife Zaragoza
Germany	2. Bundesliga (2)	Holstein Kiel Hansa Rostock Sandhausen
Germany	3. Liga (3)	Dynamo Dresden SV Elversberg ~~FC Ingolstadt~~ Waldhof Mannheim VfL Osnabrück ~~1. FC Saarbrücken~~
Italy	Serie B (2)	Ascoli Benevento Brescia Cagliari Cittadella Cosenza Frosinone Modena Parma Perugia Pisa Südtirol SPAL Venezia
Netherlands	Eredivisie (1)	Emmen Fortuna Sittard Go Ahead Eagles NEC Nijmegen RKC Waalwijk SBV Vitesse
Netherlands	Eerste Divisie (2)	ADO Den Haag FC Eindhoven De Graafschap Heracles Almelo MVV Maastricht NAC Breda PEC Zwolle VVV-Venlo Willem II
Portugal	Primeira Liga (1)	Chaves Estoril Praia Gil Vicente Marítimo Portimonense Rio Ave Vizela
Portugal	Liga Portugal 2 (2)	Académico de Viseu Benfica B Estrela da Amadora Farense Feirense Leixões Mafra Moreirense Nacional Oliveirense Penafiel Sporting da Covilhã Tondela Torreense Vilafranquense
Belgium	Belgian Pro League (1)	Cercle Brugge Charleroi Eupen ~~Genk~~ Gent Kortrijk Oostende Seraing Sint-Truiden Zulte Waregem

Looking at the contributions by Sakiv, the creator of some of these pages, there are a lot of edits that are filling in the details, which makes the accusation that they are just boosting their article creation count rather unfair. The intent to complete them seems to be there, but perhaps the task was underestimated. Logically no season page can be complete before the end of the season so my suggestion is keep them for now. If they are not completed before next season begins, then that would be the time to raise the delete/redirect question again. — Jts1882 | talk 12:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I think waiting until the end of the season is fair enough. Mwiqdoh (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

List of FC Seoul players

List of FC Seoul players is entirely unsourced, and I can't find any reliable sources on the internet to support it, suggesting it might be original research. What should be done about it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Most of these kind of lists are mostly of not enitrely unsourced. It's not hard too source to stats databases etc. Question is notability of this kind of list, and that's a general question (not sure if it's been brought up in the past or not). --SuperJew (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

St. Louis City SC away team uniform

We do not have an image for the St Louis City SC away team uniform. Can somebody add that? Thanks in advance. LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Egyptian Super Cup

There is confusion about the title of the Egyptian Super Cup, for example, in this official logo it appears 2020-21 for the Super Cup match that was played on 28 October 2022, while the current title refers to 2021-22. The next cup will be held on 5 May 2023, and it will be between Zamalek, the league champion in the 2021-22 season, and the Egyptian Cup winner between Al-Ahly and Pyramids. Additional source. What should we follow? Sakiv (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no date logo you linked? And i don't understand whats consusing here? That 2020/21 cup and league winners play the 2021/22 super cup? Maybe. Googling some images makes me think they changed the naming to single years. Al-Ahly won the 2022 super cup (not named 2021/22 super cup). -Koppapa (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Koppapa: Here, you can see ۲۱-۲۰ ie. 2020–21 not 2021–22 as the current title. In my view we should follow the official body and move all other cups,

2016-17, champions of 2016-17 and 2016-17 – 12 January 2018
2017-18, champions of 2017-18 and 2017-18 – 20 September 2019
2018-19, champions of 2018-19 and 2018-19 – 20 February 2020
2019-20, champions of 2019-20 and 2019-20 – 21 September 2021
2020-21, champions of 2020-21 and 2020-21 – 28 October 2022
2021-22, champions of 2021-22 and 2021-22 – 5 May 2023.--Sakiv (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Ideally it should be the name that was used that season, even if it was inconsistent. CRwikiCA talk 16:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Proper Article Naming for teams with same name

I created a RM for this, but I probably should've asked here first, since I wasn't sure what to name the articles. The articles in question are:

The first article is from Australia, while the latter two are from England. Normally with 2+ teams, we put the country name in brackets, but not sure what to do when two are from the same country (plus another country for a third team). Any thoughts? RedPatch (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I think based on the founding date? --SuperJew (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

If one of the 3 is more notable than the other 2, that club should probably have the main article and link to a disambiguation page at the top.CRwikiCA talk 16:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about coverage of defenders vs forwards/midfielders/goalies

Defenders do not get the coverage that strikers and forwards get since it is often hard to know how much they contributed to a game. Defenders rarely are in position to score goals, defenders are not given as many oppurtunities to shoot free kicks and corner kicks, and unlike goalkeepers, they do not make saves. There's not many records they can chase since they don't contribute to a lot of stats and there's not a lot of awards they can win because it's so hard to figure out what they actually contributed. This makes proving notability a harder task than with forwards. And in general, I'm not sure the average person can really name other teams defenders the way they could name other people's strikers and such, despite defenders being as important to a game as strikers are.

I think this is something that should be looked into and should be discussed. There's an unintentional bias towards defenders.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense, pointless, useless. Giant Snowman 12:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

if anything with goalkeepers you can include things like clean sheets and/or penalties saved in important matches. like, theres scoring a winning goal in a big derby match or cup final but no reason you cant also say the goalkeeper in the match saved a penalty and got a clean sheet in the match too.Muur (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

GAN

Hi! I just nominated 1919 Copa del Rey Final for GA and would appreciate a review :) — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Jimmy Greaves

Why on earth are we keeping this dispute here, [12], numbers don't lie! Govvy (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you ignoring the previous discussion on this? There is disagreement in recent reliable sources as to his final Spurs tally, and therefore whether he is (joint-)top scorer for them. Spike 'em (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Spurs is a Primary source, all secondary sources contradict it. :/ Spike you really are making my skin crawl! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Many other recent sources report the 266 as well, which is why the discussion at the start of the month began. Spike 'em (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

In another week or two or so, this won't even matter. We can just write he is the second leading scorer and there will be no issue (don't even need to write the 266/268 in the opening) RedPatch (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to suggest removing the total from the lead. Spike 'em (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I actually have a feeling that Spurs realizes that they messed up and named Kane the all-time top scorer early (but they just don't want to admit it). Once Kane hits 269 goals, they'll probably silently update their record book adding the two goals to Greaves' total in a couple months to fix it, but not draw attention. RedPatch (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure, but the guy who was their media historian actually retired not that long ago, so it would have been the new media-historian guy at the club to deal with this. Could be that the new guy messed up! :/ Govvy (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

its more amusing that the debate has been going a month during which kane has only scored one extra goal. like god damn harry are you dragging this out on purposeMuur (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I was checking Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_159#Jimmy_Greaves_goal_count including my responses there, which includes both BBC sources [13][14]. I still think he needs to score in March for the latter link to be 100% correct, which might happen tomorrow when checking the fixtures. There should hopefully not be any dispute about Alan Shearer's current Premier League record. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Which is the correct spelling Hanna Lundkvist or Hanna Lundqvist?

The English version of Hanna Lundqvist is different to the spelling used on the Swedish and Spanish versions of the Wikipedia article it's Hanna Lundkvist. Which is the correct spelling? Dwanyewest (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Her instagram uses a K not a Q, so I'd say the K version is correct. RedPatch (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

RedPatch (talk) so Hanna Lundqvist should be changed to Hanna Lundkvist.Dwanyewest (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say so. It's even spelled with a K on the Atletico website. So are the mentions in the sources and the entire page uses the K excpet for the Title (only soccerway seems to have the Q) RedPatch (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually Soccerway has Lundkvist with a K, while Lundqvist is a different player. Google gives 63,800 for Lundqvist and 12,600 for Lundkvist, but that could be due to the other player. If you search for News, then Lundqvist has 316 (out of the first 5, 2 aren't about her and the 5th I'm not sure as it's paywalled) and Lundkvist has 418 (top 10 are about her, including from the Swedish Football Association). I'd support moving to Lundkvist per her social, Soccerway, her club website, Swedish Football Association, as well as the Google data --SuperJew (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

~~I've been BOLD and moved the page, based on the above....~~ Actually this page needs a de-merge, as it has been hijacked from the original Hanna Lundqvist (born 1990) to Hanna Lundkvist (born 2002) Spike 'em (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If you look the history of the article, there has been a confusion about which Hanna it was. First Lundqvist/1990, then Lundkvist/2002, back to footballer born 1990, and changed again to 2002, and to 1990, and back to 2002 again. DenSportgladeSkåningen (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that, so have moved page back. I guess we need an admin to separate out the two versions. Spike 'em (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this is a situation where it just needs a WP:TNT, delete the page and then create two new ones. There's very little in the article anyways, that there's not really any history to preserve (especially since the history is an incorrect merging of two people). RedPatch (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I've split them out as best I can, but as you say, maybe just blatting everything would be best move Spike 'em (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to delete anything now. Everything on Hanna Lundkvist currently is related to the player born in 2002 who is at Atletico Madrid and the sentence and infobox on Hanna Lundqvist (definately needs expanding) is related to the player born in 1990. Regarding the history maybe needs some merging somehow. --SuperJew (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

ahhh that explains the confusing infobox. What a clusterf* --SuperJew (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I've sorted out and updated the infobox :) --SuperJew (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

For the footballer born 1990 you can find more info on the Swedish Football Association. --Fredde (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Mass draftification proposal on Olympians

You may be interested in this village pump discussion on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

How much coverage is to be expected of non-superstar players particularly from smaller, poorer and less stable countries?

For example, Kareem Mitchum of Saint Kitts and Nevis is up for deletion due to a lack of significant coverage. I and many others didn't even know that country existed nor would I be able to spot it on a map. I don't know if a single player that ever came from there while any soccer fan could list dozens of names of players from European countries. It doesn't mean St. Kitts has never had any good players, it just means there's a general lack of any knowledge. I looked to see how many newspapers Saint Kitts and Nevis has and it's a grand total of 2 newspapers. Maybe there's more, but even if we double that, it's not a lot. Meanwhile, in a country like the US, you would have thousands of newspapers where there would be infinite more chances of coverage.

Additionally, unlike other countries, Saint Kitts and Nevis does not appear to have a heavy internet presence. Newtown United FC, Village Superstars FC and St. Paul's United FC of the top division SKNFA Premier League do not even have websites, just facebook pages, which is unfathomable for MLS teams. There's rules here that discriminate against sources from social media websites, so those wouldn't be allowed to be used and sites like Blogger.com, which is a free platform to publish websites on, are also discriminated against.

This isn't a one off situation either. North Korea has a league, but I don't think anyone here would say anything newsworthy from that country is a reliable source due to the government. The same things could be said about places like Saudi Arabia, China and so forth. And other countries like Montserrat and Grenada would also have a limited internet presence due to the countries being small.

Kareem, for example, played for the top division in his country and played for the national team. What more could someone like Kareem really do to be notable? Nobody knows him and maybe he's not interested in moving overseas to play in other leagues where he might get more coverage like many players get. He can't control what the 2 newspapers choose to write about, and since there's only 2 newspapers, they are going to have limited content anyway (and likely even less that someone outside the country can access for free). His team has no website and if they don't even have a website, it's unlikely that they are going to be publishing a lot of books or magazines that would provide additional information. I would assume St. Kitts has magazines that might talk about soccer, but those things are likely not getting sold outside of St. Kitts, so people like me would never have access to those sources. Finding older magazines and newspapers would be an even harder task especially in countries where they speak a different language.

I think some kind of exception and general common sense ruling needs to be made.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The large scale deletion of articles on international players from the global south, and particularly female players, was always going to be the obvious outcome from abolishing WP:NFOOTY. Ironically, many of those who repeatedly called for the guideline to be scrapped claimed it was biased against such players... Having no standard of notability beyond GNG has only served to increase the bias towards the global north (where coverage is easy to find), not decreased it. Number 5 7 17:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

KatoKungLee just out of interest, if you don't agree with using WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG, what would you suggest as an alternative? Do you suggest we have articles on all footballers that have played for North Korea, St Kitts and Nevis etc. even if they have basically no significant coverage and likely never will? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Spiderone - The problem with WP:SPORTBASIC is that soccer was not covered. It's arguably the most popular sport in the world and produces the most player articles per sport on this site, yet Orienteering was deemed to be of more importance in that discussion. It was either intentionally done for unknown purposes or it was a major screw-up. That should have been settled before making it some kind of rule, but it wasn't, so we are here.

The media covers and doesn't cover topics for various reasons, not always based on interest. Porn is watched worldwide by likely billions of people, yet there's almost no coverage anywhere on it from "trusted" English speaking sources. We know it's not because there's not enough interest, so we know other factors play a role in the lack of discussion. Unfortunately, because of that, there's never going to be a lot of porn biographies on this website.

For a person from St. Kitts who has no interest in moving to another country, playing in the SKNFA Premier League and playing for the national team is the highest level of play possible, just as playing in La Liga and on the Spanish national team would be the highest level of play possible without leaving the country. Yet the Spanish player will get more coverage for factors he had nothing to do with like the countries population, the money that is spent on the team and the interest from the media.

I think playing in a top division, playing on a national team, being the captain of team, being part of a championship winning team, being awarded various awards or holding various records could all be factors in determining notability. Additionally, as we've seen, off the field endeavors have granted people coverage like Brandon Miller (basketball, born 2002) and even people who are related to sports athletes have gotten coverage Lavar Ball. it's sad, but the best move for someone like Kareem Mitchum to get coverage would be to commit a crime of some sort to earn a wikipedia page. I don't think Brad Young (footballer) or Dilan Markanday gets his own wikipedia page if he's from St. Knitts.

And as I've said on here already and other places, smaller countries have smaller media circles, smaller internet participation and smaller everything. St. Kitts has 2 newspapers and a couple of websites to pull information from. The US has thousands of newspapers and likely millions of websites to get information from. It's not a fair comparison for coverage. KatoKungLee (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

As you can see here, football has featured in WP:NSPORTS for years but was correctly removed because the criteria were not a good predictor for GNG. They were similar to the criteria you suggested above. In fact, according to your above criteria, a footballer that came on for the last minute of a Bhutan Premier League in an inconsequential match after the title has already been decided, would be notable because of 'playing in the top division' even if they never kick a ball ever again. That's actually an even lower bar than what we had previously. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Those rules you linked to are better if for nothing else than they actually exist, though still have biases. Did Kareem ever play in a league in the list? No, so he can't be included. Meanwhile Fritz Neumayr, did, yet is currently being set up to be deleted. There's no relying on the media who does not cover things or lies about things for various reasons nor is there debate over whether sports databases can be used, it's just a simple yes or no. People don't have to spend large amounts of money or time while needing know other languages to track down various pieces of media in other countries to prove notability and the rules don't end up contradicting each other or leaving it up to judgment calls. There's much less debate to be had, which is good for everyone.KatoKungLee (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The key word in "could all be factors" was could. I could become the King of Germany tonight. I may not become the King of Germany tonight and I am currently not the King of Germany.KatoKungLee (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The biggest issue with the old guidelines was that people basically used them to inflate their article creation numbers with limited effort. The sheer number of articles that consisted of the words "XYZ is a footballer who plays for ABC", with nothing else was (and still is) way too large. When I create an article, I try to ensure that there's a good amount of prose and multiple different sources. I still use the old abolished guideline as a guide, then I make sure there's a good enough amount of GNG sources before making the article. I've even done it for those smaller island nations you mentioned (including some SKN players). Here's an example of female St Kitts player articles I updated Kayla Uddenberg, Cloey Uddenberg, and Kyra Dickinson. I was able to find a couple references, then topped it up with some that mention the player in passing detail, but I tried to ensure that it was more than just a one line article with stats only sourcing. The first one was even able to survive an AfD. I'm all for including those smaller nation player articles, but they still need some amount of sourcing and prose. The problem was always people putting zero effort and just making an article because they played one game and making an article without even trying to google to add even just a single source with even a passing mention of the player. RedPatch (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I would agree that a full bio is probably better. However, if you have little information, there's less that can be challenged. If you have a lot of information, there's more information to challenge. I had a 3 day argument over whether Fritz Neumayr was a captain. If I had wrote more for him, I believe it would have just been more ammo to use on me. All the sources don't really matter though if someone wants to have another deleted article to add to the trophy case. Unfortunately, people here enjoy the credit for getting something deleted and as much as people enjoy getting credit for getting articles created. The person going for the deletion always has the advantage as well, even more so with the current rules that prioritize a source over achievements. It's hard to doubt Player A scored 2 goals, but it's real easy to say, "That source isn't good" since that's an opinion. KatoKungLee (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It is no longer an active proposal but there was Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/Association football, which had a lot of suggestions on the talkpage for a new WP:NFOOTBALL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you phrasing our conversation this way, as I'm certainly not looking for another deleted article to add to the trophy case or credit for getting something deleted. As I said, I absolutely want to be wrong about the notability of Fritz, but there is a lack of sources and those that do exist are just passing mentions or sports database entries. The nomination and discussion were in no way personal so I'll remind you again to assume good faith. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Similar issue exists for older historic players, and not even necessarily that long ago, from other countries as Number 57 noted. Túlio Maravilha for instance I only ever remembered as Tulio - but there we have an article with his nickname and so on. Any supporting articles are often from sites with user created content, or tabloid and likely reliant on wikipedia in the first place. I can't even be sure if I search for the player on Brazilian news if I would be finding the same guy. His international career and actual noted single season performances are routinely covered in some historic press or player profile - but honestly the majority of the content on this page (as much as even more obscure footballers) is minimally referenced to a standard that might meet reliability standards in other cases (particularly more obscure footballing nations). Koncorde (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@KatoKungLee: The same things could be said about places like Saudi Arabia, China and so forth. Are you sure? Saudi Arabia and China are one of the biggest leagues in Asia and they get plenty of coverage. Mwiqdoh (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Will Still nationality

Please see Talk:Will Still#Nationality. Giant Snowman 20:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

David Meechan

This guy played for a few league clubs, but nothing online for him, don't know if anyone can safe it from an AfD demise! Govvy (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"Played"? Seems more like he was contracted to them. The only club he actually played for, according to Hugman's at least, is York City and his appearances for York City amount to a measly six. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Tranmere Rovers player lists

I noticed that List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. players exists and lists all players with 100+ appearances for the club, which is fairly standard, but (apparently uniquely) there's also List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. players (1921–1939) and List of post-war Tranmere Rovers F.C. players, which purportedly contain all players from the respective periods, which means that some players appear on one of those lists and also on List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. players. Should we do anything about this unusual set-up or just leave it? As an aside, both the "main" list and the post-war one are TEN YEARS out of date..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no issues with a series of lists which detail every player to have played - but there should not be lists in which players appear multiple times. Breaking up by date is, respectfully, ridiculous - what if somebody played in 1938, 1947, and has over 100 appearances?! Giant Snowman 21:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it problematic that a player can appear in all 3 lists? They are different criteria and they fulfill all of them. What if an Argentinian midfielder plays for PSG? He can appear in List of Argentinian PSG players, List of foreign players in PSG, List of foreign Ligue 1 players, List of PSG midfielders. Sometimes information is duplicated as it is relevant to more than one place. Doesn't the goal Vinícius scored on 28 May 2022 appear in all of the following articles: 2021–22 UEFA Champions League, 2021–22 UEFA Champions League knockout phase, 2022 UEFA Champions League final, 2021–22 Real Madrid CF season, 2021–22 Liverpool F.C. season? --SuperJew (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

What if a player is deemed to be non-notable and people want to redirect - to which Tranmere list article? It is totally not the same as your silly PSG example, and the Vinícius example is entirely unrelated. Giant Snowman 20:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Listing all of the players that have ever played for one club seems like overkill to me. Surely breaks WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

That's the set-up for quite a few clubs, though. See, for example, List of York City F.C. players, List of York City F.C. players (25–99 appearances) and List of York City F.C. players (1–24 appearances), all Featured Lists -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Listing every individual game

See Adrián Guľa#Career results. This cannot possibly be a desired level of detail. Wikipedia is not a directory et al. Lists of every individual game is therefore fansite or Wikia material. Agree? 89.11.168.228 (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree, should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, remove quoting WP:NOTDIARY : Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person Spike 'em (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 10:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I just acquired a copy of Vereinslexikon by Hardy Grüne

For anyone interested in German soccer, I purchased a copy of Vereinslexikon. If you don't know about it, it's a massive book that has information for over 3,5000 German teams down to Division 3 and 4 teams. It's probably the most sourced book in German soccer and I think it's going to provide a lot of use for this project. I also may be the only person in the English speaking world who actually has it. If anyone needs anything from it, feel free to contact me. I'll add it to the book list. KatoKungLee (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Fantastic! If you need help with translation, I'm happy to help. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@KatoKungLee Nice! Is it just about men's football, or is there information about women's football, too? Oltrepier (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Oltrepier - There's information of about 3,500 clubs ranging from the first division down. Some of the bigger teams have more results or season by season listings than others. Some of those clubs may have women's teams, but that's about it on that front.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@KatoKungLee That's fine, thank you for clarifying it! Oltrepier (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Notable?

Is 2023 CAF African Schools Football Championship qualification notable? I don't think so but wanted to check back before sending it to AfD. Kante4 (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't think so. Giant Snowman 08:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Will send it to AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kante4 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Golden Foot

Kosovare Asllani has received the first Women's Golden Foot, not the Golden Foot Legends award ([15], [16], [17]). This should be clarified. Besides, Gabriele Gravina has received the Golden Foot Prestige Award in 2021. Dipralb (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I co-sign this request: here are two more links from Swedish sport sites, fotbollskanalen and Aftonbladet. Oltrepier (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Split her into a women's table. -Koppapa (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you fix it, @GiantSnowman?--Dipralb (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

What needs doing? Giant Snowman 16:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman @Dipralb I've just fixed the section.

Thanks to @Koppapa for creating it! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

PEC Zwolle 13-0 FC Den Bosch

Hello! As I've just reported on the club's article, yesterday PEC Zwolle equalized Ajax's previous record for the largest win in the history of Dutch professional football, which is made of Eredivisie (the top flight) and Eerste Divisie (the second tier).

Do you think this achievement is worth a full article on its own, or is the information I added sufficient to cover this bit of news?

Oltrepier (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I vote no to a separate article, it's trivially significant. Ortizesp (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you create a draft and then we can take a view on sourcing. Giant Snowman 08:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman @Ortizesp Fine, thank you for your suggestions.

I don't know if I'll have enough time to write a draft, but at least the essential information is already available for now. Oltrepier (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Found Spanish sources, early 20th Century

Hi! I've added a number of Spanish sport/general newspapers with football coverage to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Links#Spain. Thought I'd leave a note here in case any one not watching that page would find them useful. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Those sources should be very helpful. Jogurney (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcome, if you want me to translate any Spanish for you do let me know, Jogurney. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Robert Chase

Former Norwich City FC chairman Robert Chase died recently. Expect the Eastern Daily Press will be a good source to flesh out the article once a full obituary is published. I've added a brief note about his death to the article. Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Ahn June-hyuk

Hello! Can anyone help me improve this article, please?

I think the player meets WP:GNG, but his page is currently down to just the bare bones...

Oltrepier (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Should Anastassia Pustovoitova into Anastasia Pustovoitova?

Does anyone think Anastassia Pustovoitova should be redirected into Anastasia Pustovoitova. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:RM. Giant Snowman 18:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If it's an alternate spelling/common mispelling, there's no harm in setting it up as a redirect to the main article spelling like how MacDonald's is a redirect to McDonald's RedPatch (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

RedPatch let's make it a redirect then. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You can just do that yourself, you know... – Pee Jay 16:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Pee I don't know how to. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest:, click on the redlink and then type "#REDIRECT ((Article Name))" (but use square brackets [[ ]] instead of the regular brackets (( )) and type it without the quotation marks) and click Create. RedPatch (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone explain what happened here?

I wrote https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Torre_(football)&action=edit&redlink=1. The article was deleted because Pablo Torre had not played a pro game. The same article was then put up a year later https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Torre_(footballer) and was not marked for deletion even though nothing had really changed.

What happened here?

ThanksKatoKungLee (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No one watches every page. So it got deleted, but then someone remade it and it wasn't noticed. Since he signed for Barcelona, that typically happens. A player signs for a big club (even just their B team) and less frequent editors (who are less familiar with the creation process) get excited and create an article. Looking at the article creator, it's just that, an infrequent editor. But also, since he signed for Barcelona, lots more articles got written after the original deletion since then which got added to the article and could qualify it as meeting GNG., which it may not have before. (I don't know the state of the article in the original deletion. was it just an unsourced stub, who knows) Also, the old article qualifier FPL was applicable back for the original deletion. In 2022, that qualifier was removed and GNG became the determinant. RedPatch (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.KatoKungLee (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@KatoKungLee: Building an article is always about source population, my suggestion is collect as much as you can because I've noticed on a lot of your creations that you really do not add enough citations to the articles. Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Govvy:The issue was that it was initially deleted due to the player not playing pro games. The player still hadn't played pro games when the article was recreated, however it wasn't marked for deletion. The player has gone on to play pro games since, so it's nullified, but it's disheartening to see rules ignored/applied sparingly. It seems like it was redirected to note that.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

(ec) @KatoKungLee: - I doubt it was a case of "rules [being] ignored/applied sparingly", it's more than likely just that nobody noticed the new article being created. I doubt that anyone who supported deletion the first time round saw the second article and thought "meh, let's let it stand this time". As mentioned above, nobody watches every single article, and new page patrollers aren't necessarily experts on every subject area and may well not be aware of every notability criterion. I bet there are loads of cases where an article has been deleted but then re-created in pretty much the same state and people simply haven't noticed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisTheDude, articles deleted at AfD are often recreated by new editors, and the people who participated in the AfD don't get automatically notified, so it's little surprise when the new articles (which are often substantially similar to the deleted version since we have an ongoing problem with editors creating poorly referenced stubs even after WP:NSPORTS2022) stay in the mainspace for months or even years before their notability is questioned. Keep in mind that we have tens of thousands of biographies about footballers which are non-compliant with WP:SPORTBASIC; it's little wonder that editors don't notice when new ones are added to the mix. Jogurney (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You can find some of the non-compliant biographies in Category:All sports biographies lacking sources containing significant coverage and I started a footballer-only tracking list at User:Jogurney/Association football BLP cleanup. There are more than 50,000 football articles that are assessed as low-importance stubs, and based on my experience easily 50% of those aren't SPORTBASIC-compliant. Jogurney (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It was deleted the first time by WP:PROD (which is for uncontested, uncontroversial deletions) not WP:AFD (which gets a proper consensus to delete): log. If people think it still doesn't pass WP:GNG, then AFD would be the correct procedure. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, it's worth noting that the re-created article was at a different title. The original was at (football), the re-created at (footballer) with the -er added. So even if people had added the original to their watchlist to prevent re-creation, because it was created as a different article title, those people wouldn't get notified because it was a different title. RedPatch (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jogurney: I created a list of undersourced BLPs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/BLPs lacking sources containing significant coverage/Full list. I had been working on and off on football articles tagged with {{BLP unreferenced}} but it looks like use of that template has almost disappeared. Hack (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Hack. That's a really helpful sort to limit it to footballer biographies. :) Jogurney (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 FIFA Club World Cup#Teams in contention

Having a list of every single team that "could qualify" (which at the moment lists 108 teams!) even though only 7 of them will qualify is just a waste of space and time. For the small amount of people that would for some reason want to know every single team that could qualify to the Club World Cup, could check the articles of the competitions. Mwiqdoh (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this is unsourced OR, and even if it wasn't, we shouldn't be speculating. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, way too much. We can wait until the teams are confirmed. Kante4 (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the links to the continental championships is enough if people are really interested. CRwikiCA talk 17:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, not needed - I have removed. Giant Snowman 20:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Has this been discussed in the past? I know I've seen it in some other competitions articles over the years. Personally I'm not sure which side of the issue I come down on, there's pros and cons to it, so I would like to know if this has been debated previously or is there an established guideline to point to? I tried looking for a few key words in the archives index, but the archives of this project are huge. Gecko G (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It is bordering on WP:OR, as no one ever publishes these kinds of overviews. CRwikiCA talk 21:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Given how frequently these get added, I'm surprised those editors in favor haven't come by to make any arguments for it. Instead there's only been arguments against. Gecko G (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Categories (and sub ones)

Good afternoon,

taking Ricardo Quaresma as an example, which of the Romani-related category/categories is/are the main one(s)? We have "Portuguese Romani people", "Romani footballers" and we had "Portuguese people of Romani descent" which i removed (the third seems to be excessive in presence of the first, but could be vice-versa).

I admit i still get a bit confused regarding the subject seen in title. I'll be reverting myself now, until i get some feedback on the subject. Attentively, sorry for any inconvenience. RevampedEditor (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The first and the third are surely identical? Giant Snowman 18:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thanks for the input! In that case, which one do you think i/we should remove? --RevampedEditor (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably worth taking to WP:CFD to merge them, but I'm not sure what the correct name of the category should be. Giant Snowman 08:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure they're identical, IMO the first is for people who themselves identify as Romani, and the other is for those who don't, but are sourced as having ancestors of that background etc. But maybe CfD would interpret it differently. Crowsus (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Better communicating uncertainty in unconfirmed sports transactions

I've started a discussion that could use this project's input at the idea lab village pump. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Spurs season articles

Draft:2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season needs deleting, 2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season needs shifting to draft space, I don't know why all these are created so early. Govvy (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

No reason to delete the draft - you'd be better off telling Mwiqdoh to move to draftspace, or if that doesn't happen, AfD. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

If it's too soon it can stay as a redirect and then the redirect can be removed when the time is ready. No need to delete. Mwiqdoh (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I have made the redirect in that case. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

And I have deleted all the (hidden) article content that replicates what is in draft space, which is where it belongs. Spike 'em (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Mwiqdoh - Special:Diff/1144253425 is not an acceptable way to deal with drafts. Draft space is for drafts. Please do not edit it into mainspace like this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Then you should've deleted the whole text and not just the lede. I was just adding the lede back because I thought you mistakenly removed it. Mwiqdoh (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

What's with all the dodgy editing going on? I asked for something simple I thought an admin could do! lol. Mwiqdoh You should remove the redirect and move the article back into your users space sandbox. Govvy (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to delete the page. Again, if it's too soon the content can sit in my userspace and the page can stay as a redirect. No need to go out of the way to delete a redirect. That would be pointless. Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

To be fair to Mwiqdoh, you did leave the redirect with a bunch of article text to start off with. I suspect you hit the wrong edit link and just deleted the lead section rather than the whole article. Spike 'em (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Aye, my mistake. Mobile editor decided I wanted to only delete the lede. Apologies. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Presentation order of the teams in league season results grid

Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season#Results, I have two questions concerning the presentation order of the teams in the results grid.

for seasons that are completed, should the teams be presented (a) in the order of their final league table position, or (b) in alphabetic order?
If the answer to question (1) is (a), then during an ongoing season, should the teams also be presented in the order of their current league table position, or in alphabetic order?

If these questions have already been answered, please indicate previous discussion, and ideally update the League season#Results section. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Alphabetical order makes the most sense. – Pee Jay 18:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Kante4 (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

When it is a stand-alone table, alphabetically makes the most sense, as it is easier to look up teams. When it is appended to a standings table and called from within it, the ordering should match the rows of the standings table. CRwikiCA talk 19:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with that. – Pee Jay 00:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@CRwikiCA: When it is appended to a standings table and called from within it - please give an example so that I can understand this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

CRwikiCA is refering to tables such as at 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group C#Standings which can't really be done any other way. Agree with alphabetical order for cases outwith these as well. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Redrose64,Stevie fae Scotland, yes indeed. CRwikiCA talk 13:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so this is where the results grid is not generated by {{#invoke:sports results|main|...}} but by {{#invoke:sports table|main|...}} so that the standings table and results grid sit side by side.

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

user:Skyerise

Skyerise (talk · contribs) is going through articles of players born in country X but who played for country Y, and removing the Y-related categories from articles. I have reverted and warned but they are still doing it. Can somebody else please have a word? Giant Snowman 15:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:CONTEXTBIO, we should have a single nationality at in the lead sentence. Unless the article suitably documents a change of citizenship supported by a reliable source, this should be the players birth nationality. There are two types of Y-related categories: in some, Y is a nationality, in others it is nation or team related. Unless there are supporting sources for immigration, the player is playing as an expatriate. No one should be in a nationality category unless their citizenship in that country is verifiable. We have expatriate categories for just that reason - to use when a change of citizenship is unverifiable. Skyerise (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

As you have been told - CONTEXTBIO is a guideline only, the phrasing says "usually" (not 'always') and we have developed a different guideline. In any event a player cannot play for a nation without being a citizen, see FIFA eligibility rules. Giant Snowman 16:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Then the dual citizenship variant of WP:CONTEXTBIO (example: Arnold Schwarzenegger) should be used to avoid confusion. Skyerise (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that reads well, and we have a well established, tested, and widely used guideline for footballers. Giant Snowman 16:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It also doesn't deal with representative nationality vs passport and so on, which is the issue we have in footballing articles. Koncorde (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Whilst I sympathize, sportsmen(and women) do have a different case in this regard as someone's citizenship or nationality doesn't necessarily mean they represent that country in the sport they play. It is a rather complex matter, because when you talk about a sportsman you are talking about what national team they would play for, rather than the potential place of birth, where they live or citizenship. To make things a bit more confusing, some players can represent more than one national team during the course of their career. I think how we handle it now is the best of many bad ways. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This is where it gets complex. Such as when a player stops playing and becomes, for example, a pundit or social activist. A fine example of the complexity of this is someone like John Barnes. Nominally "English" by WP:FOOTBALL standards, but British by commentator / pundit / media / author, but Jamaican by literalist interpretations of birth, but British citizen by Commonwealth passport and so on and so forth. I note at the moment "English" has been removed from Barnes article without actually dealing with it at all. Koncorde (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise is back and removing DOBs from numerous footballer articles; can somebody else please step in and try and get through to them? @Koncorde and Lee Vilenski:? Giant Snowman 19:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

They're just being incredibly silly now. Koncorde (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"capped"

I have come across the term "capped" in articles on footballers. When used as a verb in the United States, the term has the slang meaning of being shot. For example, Urban Dictionary offers the following example: "I capped that bitch's ass." See here. When using the term in the sense of appearing in an international match, it would be best to use a wikilink to Cap (sports). Cbl62 (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

True, but that is not the most common use of the term. Felixsv7 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Felix - see cap (sports). Giant Snowman 15:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Slang words are always being created and changed. "Cap" is also now a slang word meaning "lie". Like "That's a cap" means "That's a lie". But words also have multiple meanings. Like "present" can mean a gift, the current time, or to 'present a presentation'. Wikilinking would help, but context usually suffices. Someone looking at a football player's page likely would know that cap means an appearance in football context. RedPatch (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone familiar with association football would likely now, but in the USA I had no idea what it meant. Wikipedia is intended for a general audience, and wikilinking helps people in a more general audience who aren't familiar with English sports jargon. Cbl62 (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Capped in football is a common term, whereas cap = shot is not in most of the world. This is a worldwide encyclopedia, which means we shouldn't be doing something just to suit one section of the world, in this case the US. Linking it seems to violate MOS:OVERLINK, and why would anyone think that all football/soccer players are shooting each other? Urban Dictionary is a trash site, we shouldn't be defining how to use an encyclopedia based on that. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it violates OVERLINK, but nobody is reading an article that says 'John Smith was caped 15 times for the United States between 1975 and 1982' and thinking 'oh gosh that guy must spend a lot of time in hospital'. Giant Snowman 16:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The real issue is whether a non-UK-sports-fan would read that and understand that "capped 15 times" is English sports jargon for playing in 15 international games. Very few would. A wikilink to Cap (sports) very easily solves the jargon issue and makes the article more accessible to a non-specialist reader. Cbl62 (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Moreso I'd say the issue is where is the line of what can be expected to be understood by a general reader from context, versus what is "Insider specialized terminology"? Obviously you're not going to link each and every single sports related word, let alone every soccer/football one, but only those likely to be misunderstood. Which ties directly to the first bullet point of MOS:OVERLINK.

So, if you are making your original argument based on "in contradistinction to the slang meaning of 'capped' for 'shot'", then your argument easily fails. But if you are asking the broader question of: "On which side of that line does the specific case of 'Cap/Capped' fall?", then I'm more on the fence since I would have to question my own potential bias as a long term & semi-knowledgeable fan and follower of the sport. Gecko G (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

As others are saying, I doubt anyone would mistake it for the slang, but a non-sports fan might only think of the head covering, so I'm not opposed to a link, but I also wouldn't expect it to be there for example to meet GA status or anything of the sort. Gecko G (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm all for linking "cap" and "capped". I think it's mostly British readers who will know that the terms refer to making international appearances, while many other readers will not know the meaning. And even for those that do know the meaning, the etymology is interesting. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I should mention that in American sports, "cap" is understood to mean the soccer term, though we don't really use "capped" as often. It's a non-issue, as a reader should understand from context that it does not mean the other "capped". Sounder Bruce 07:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

List of Turkish football champions

Hi all, can somebody keep an eye on this page and maybe even lock it (for the time being)? During the last couple of weeks, a lot of vandalism has taken place (mostly from Galatasaray fans, presumably). To top it all off, a banned user Ahmetger has returned using an IP Address to push his own research, adding Turkish Cup wins in a list of league champions. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The page has been protected for three months now, but it wouldn't hurt to have some more eyes on this page I think. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

2024 FIFA Club World Cup

Is the 2024 edition going to take place? This edit was done by S.A. Julio, implying that the 2024 edition won't take place. If the 2024 edition won't take place, then something should be done about the 2024 FIFA Club World Cup article. Mwiqdoh (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The FIFA source [18] says that the current version of the FIFA Club World Cup will be discontinued after the 2023 edition, and the new 332-team cup will start in 2025. That seems to confirm that there isn't a 2024 tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure it's so cut and dry as that. https://www.fifa.com/fifaplus/en/articles/saudi-arabia-to-host-club-world-cup-december-2023 states the 2023 event will be the penultimate version with seven teams, and that was written last month. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Both are from the same source (both FIFA) so I would place more confidence in the more recent one as being up-to-date (I don't actually see a date on Lee's link but he says it was written last month, meanwhile Joseph's link is dated as of today {March 14}).

There's also this mention of agreement on the idea of a new, different, annual competition that would be similar to the current CWC format but with the UEFA team straight through to the final, so I could see any preexisting plans/agreements/negotiation for a 2024 CWC simply being seamlessly passed over to that. Gecko G (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The page was created based off the earlier FIFA article, though today's announcement confirmed it in fact will not take place. Instead, a modified competition will be held in 2024, which the 2024 CWC link now redirects to. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment I think this new cup would take quite a long time to complete given the fact I can see 332 teams in there! Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: It was a typo. I think Joseph2302 meant to say 32. Mwiqdoh (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll eat my hat if that competion is ever played out. It would be a direct competitior of the World Club Cup. At most it will only be played once in 2024. -Koppapa (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the Club World Cup is an every four years deal, so a yearly event of shorter magnitude makes sense. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be intended like a club equivalent of a mixture of the Confederations Cup & Artemio Franchi Cup/Finalissima, only held annually. Gecko G (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Assistance on Page

Hope you are well. Working on Italian/American professional athletes. Need some assistance in regards to the article on Professional Italian/American soccer player Andrea Pregoni. I have created a draft with notable references sites as well used in other professional soccer players articles references. Need some assistance in regard for the next steps. Also for the layout please let me know your feedback.

Draft:Andrea_Pregoni

Rocdre (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for San Marino national football team

San Marino national football team has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams: Current Squad information

If a player's date of birth or cap number is unconfirmed, do people prefer that it is listed as blank or with a question mark? I prefer a blank space for DoB and a 0 for cap number, but there is no best-practice listed at the moment. I have been prompted into this question following an edit on the Kenya national football team page. Felixsv7 (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd say either blank for dob or have "Unknown" so that it's a bit clearer for the reader. For cap numbers, I'd go with the number of confirmed caps which is quite possibly 0 for players in this category. If we know a player has had one cap but may have had 10, then it would look a bit strange to have 0. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not just have the cap number blank? If we don't know, it could be more than 0, which makes 0 factually incorrect. --SuperJew (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup, 0 would be wrong. Leave it blank as it looks like those players were not capped before but they may been. Kante4 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

100% do not put 0 to represent an unknown number of caps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Loanee Xavier Simons signs deal

Hello, loanee Xavier Simons signs a deal with Hull City. Should we change him to new status immediatly or should we continue with him as a loanee until the end of season and then switch for next season? Obviously what an IP has done is wrong removing the loan from stats. Keith D (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

he is a loanee until the transfer window re-opens, unless I am missing something? Giant Snowman 21:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Loans can be converted to permanent at any time during the loan: see e.g. EFL scroll down to Regulation 56.2, it says in the guidance after that regulation that A player registered on a Standard Loan at a Club may subsequently be transferred to that Club at any time during a Closed Period.. Seeing as the rules permit such a transfer to be made at any time, and there's nothing in the club's report of the move or in the BBC's to suggest it doesn't come into force until the next window opens, I'd assume he is now a permanent Hull City player. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected, thank you. Giant Snowman 08:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

EFL Cup Honours

Mattythewhite removed EFL Cup accomplishments from Wikipedia articles of Wayne Rooney (2009), Gerard Piqué (2006) and Yaya Touré (2018). His main reasoning is that they were not called up for the finals and did not get medals during trophy celebrations. Despite the fact that they gave their contributions in previous matches as their "career statistics" section of the articles indicate that. I think that EFL Cup triumphs should be included in their honours as they were active parts of their teams during given time periods with at least one appearances. I hope you can give us a solution for that argument. NextEditor123 (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources say a player won the honour, then so should we. Giant Snowman 22:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

you dont even need to be at the club any more, Jermaine Defoe got a medal for tottenham's league cup win in 2008 source despite leaving for portsmouth (jan 2008) before the final (feb 2008) due to playing in the earlier rounds. in regards to Wayne Rooney, man united state he won four league cups here which uh...shows they gave him a medal, yes? cuz wikipedia is now only crediting him for 3 but united say he won 4. for Yaya Toure, man city say he won three league cups here so theyre also saying they gave him a medal but wikipedia list him with only 2 now. the clubs themselves saying rooney won 4 and toure won 3 is a direct statement they gave them medals surely? in addition, The EFL rule 20.2 on the awarding of medals states: "In addition to the Cup, the Management Committee shall present thirty souvenirs to the winning Club in the Final Tie; and thirty souvenirs to the losing Club in the Final Tie. Additional souvenirs may be presented with the consent of the Management Committee but shall be at the cost of the requesting Club." did those teams use more than 30 players that season? 1 will obvioulsy be used for the manager, maybe another for the assistant. thats at least 28 for the players. even if they go above that the team can literally just buy more medals.Muur (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Fine. But what about Gerard Piqué in 2006? NextEditor123 (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

As per GS above : what do reliable sources say? Have you tried investigating this yet? Spike 'em (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

UEFA say Gerard Piqué won the english league cup in 2006 here. FIFA say he won it in 2006 here. sportskeeda say he won the league cup here. uefa and fifa saying it seem pretty definitive? in fact, the same source his wikipedia page is using to say he won the champions league in 2008 says he won the league cup in 2006 so its odd to use it to say he won the ucl but not the league cup when it lists both in his career trophy list.Muur (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Getting a medal on the field sounds like WP:OR to me. Using this as a criterion would mean that someone that is hospitalized during the game, even after scoring the winning goal, should never be listed as a trophy winner, which would obviously be nonsensical. CRwikiCA talk 13:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely OR, and also only applies to the era when we can easily check TV footage of players being handed medals...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Since when official websites of FIFA and UEFA are not reliable sources for that topics? It is not logical to dismiss the players' previous participations as teams in League Cup Finals used to call up less players for the match than now. By that logic, only players who were called up for the final can be included which is not right. NextEditor123 (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

3 questions arising from my reading the above discussion- Is the medal specifically for the final or is it for the whole tournament? Isn't a player who plays in an early round in the cup, and then transfers to a different team, considered "cup-tied" and not able to play in later round of the cup for their new team that same season? Is there something different about the league cup tournament than compared to other [non-league] competitions (like say the national open cup/FA Cup)? Gecko G (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gecko G: - the competition rules state "In addition to the Cup, the Management Committee shall present thirty souvenirs to the winning Club in the Final Tie". If the winning club wants to give one of those 30 medals to a player who played for them in earlier rounds of the competition but then left, they are perfectly within their rights to do so -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

ok, so it sounds like the medal is more connected to the final than the whole tournament@, and thus absence of a medal isn't saying the player didn't contribute to the overall winning tournament drive.

@= 30 medals, by the time you give to all the players and benchers in the final, the coach, asst. coach, the physio, one or two members of the front office, etc., is unlikely to leave enough medals to award those who only played in earlier rounds. As long as transferred players are indeed "cup-tied" I would consider them to have contributed if they played an early round and then transferred out. It is a team sport after all. Gecko G (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Except three names I named earlier did not transfer out at the middle of seasons in which their team won EFL Cup. Therefore, I suppose that maybe they have a right to receive the medals and be recognized as active parts of winning teams with one appearance at least. NextEditor123 (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not quite what I'm saying:

...have a right to receive the medals... no, they'd have no automatic right to a medal if they didn't play in the final, but they may or may not still receive one regardless.

...and be recognized as active parts of winning teams with one appearance at least Yes!

The distinction between the two (receiving recognition as contributing vs. receiving a medal) seems to be the crux of the issue as I am understanding it as presented in the discussion here. It is the former that is important here and though the later would imply the former, one does not need the later for the former alone.

Gecko G (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Fine. But can we explain it to Mattythewhite? He has removed recent edits about missing EFL Cup honours of Wayne Rooney and Yaya Touré and has threatened to block me. And we need better sources than given ones in the talk section as they did not mention exact years of triumphs in EFL Cup. NextEditor123 (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that none of your mentions of that user here have been a proper user link, so said user may be completely unaware of this entire discussion. Therefore, I am formally Pinging @Mattythewhite: Care to weigh in on this discussion? (I will also go to their talk page and invite the user to come here). Gecko G (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, @Gecko G:. I hadn't been aware of this discussion. If I were adding an honour for a player who wasn't involved in the final of a competition, I would expect to use sources that are a) explicit in saying that the player won the competition in a certain season/received a medal, b) be sufficiently independent, e.g. not a player's official website or their club's official website, and c) be an appropriate/reliable source for player honours. For example, Soccerway, while a great resource for appearances and goals, are known for listing honours for players just for being under contract at a club in a season, regardless of whether or not the player played any role in that competition. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Mattythewhite

Sorry that I didn't notice sooner.

I'll leave the discussion about sourcing to the other parts of this discussion, but I would like to ask if you can clarify why you believe the medal is necessary for listing an honor if the medal is apparently specific to the final but said honor listing is not specific to the final (ie it's "EFL Cup" not "EFL Cup Final")? Or has there been a misunderstanding as to your position in this matter since the discussion has gone on for 3 days without you?

Gecko G (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

We still didn't get answers on that questions. NextEditor123 (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a source mentioning a medal is necessarily the only verification needed to add an honour, but it feels like the most tangible way to demonstrate that a player won a competition. And just to note that I didn't receive a ping that time, @Gecko G:. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

OK. (Continuing to set aside the sourcing quality issues which are being discussed elsewhere in this section), - @NextEditor123: Does that satisfactorily put-to-bed the component of "final medals" for you (and that component only)?

aside- I wasn't trying to ping at that point (I don't think a ping is needed for a direct reply), rather I was attempting something else (but it didn't work - too off-topic to get into though). Gecko G (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Mattythewhite is doing it again. NextEditor123 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Pique played in Round 3 and 4 (i.e. well before the final) and in none of the remaining games. He wasn't even in the matchday squad for the last 3 ties. We would need a reliable source that says he received a medal. And that's not FIFA and UEFA, which are not reliable sources because they assume the entire squad for that season "won", and we know that isn't the case - Man United would have had a squad of around 40 that season. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

somehow, a club source isnt notable enough despite the fact theyre the ones who give them the medals. da fak.Muur (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with how notable it is. Clubs are considered primary sources and it is better to use secondary sources (ie- a source independent of the subject such as newspapers or broadcasters) where available. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there even a primary source for Pique? Sorry if I missed it above. Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

primary source is better than nothing and pretending there isnt a source.Muur (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That was my question. Is there even a primary source (i.e. Manchester United or the EFL?). We can't use FIFA and UEFA as even though they're technically secondary sources, they work off third-party squad data. If Pique received a medal there should surely be something usable that exists. Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I honestly think you're going to struggle to find secondary sources to confirm most of these "player didn't play in the final but may have received a medal" scenarios. I haven't got time to check YouTube to see if there's video footage from 2006 of Pique going up as part of the presentation party and getting a medal even though he wasn't even a sub. If he didn't, but the club decided to give him a medal anyway (as they are entitled to do) this almost certainly happened "behind closed doors" and I doubt it was publicised or written about in the press..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Which sources can be useful for that subject? NextEditor123 (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, it depends. Sometimes there aren't any, sometimes there are. I remember one of these a few years ago where a newspaper had reported on a rather weird situation where a player had received a cup medal despite playing once as a substitute (can't remember who it was now). But that's the sort of thing you'd need ... otherwise it's WP:OR. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Just commenting on the above, I know with Wikipedia we prefer secondary sources for notability reasons, but there are certain instances where a primary source would be better and a team themselves indicating who won to me is one of those. To me, we have to weigh common sense at times. For example, lets say a team listed a player's kit number as 23 and sold jerseys and the player wore it in games, but for some reason the secondary sources listed it as 32. Would it make sense to write 32 as the kit number because a secondary source said it? Obviously not. RedPatch (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how it concerns this talk subject. Can you give us exact examples of that? Did it occur to three persons who were mentioned there? NextEditor123 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

how about an rfc for if man united and man city are allowed to say who they gave medals to?Muur (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

List of Champions League winning players

Several months ago, a Wikipedia article about Champions League winning players was deleted. Can we put names of the winning players on CL records and statistics article or can we somehow re-create the article in Wikipedia? (Same thing with Europa League). NextEditor123 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like STATCRUFT to me. Do any third party reliable sources talk about this as a group of people to satisfy WP:LISTN? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The records page lists the 18 players who have won the competition on 5 or more occasions: I think this is more than enough. Sounds like the page was deleted with good reason. You'd need clear consensus to overturn this, otherwise any new page would face the same fate. Spike 'em (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

There are many list of winning players like from Premier League or biggest leagues of other sports in Wikipedia. Why can't Champions League have the same treatment there? NextEditor123 (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like something that would be better suited to a category than a list ... and that already exists (Category:UEFA_Champions_League_winning_players). Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree these are crazy and would better suit categories. On that note, should we also delete List of Premier League winning players? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, let's delete a featured list. Champion idea. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The same policies would apply, this ever-growing group of players is not covered as a collective in independent sources. There are eight independent sources in the article; one is discussing the breakaway of the Premier League, two and three are about medal eligibility, four and five are about special dispensation for getting a medal, six is about a miniature Premier League trophy, seven is a list of teams who have won the English title, eight is about Ryan Giggs' trophy haul. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, that's kinda the point - FLs don't have a right to never be deleted. The question with these lists are very much if they meet WP:LISTN. As many citations as that article has, there didn't seem to be many cites talking about winning players for the PL or CL. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The Champions League list seemed to have been deleted predominantly due to the difficulty in establishing criteria for inclusion and finding UEFA sources to establish who should be deemed a competition winner, which is not the case with the Premier League list.

I'm struggling with the idea that Premier League winning players are "not covered as a collective in independent sources". Given the attention the Premier League receives worldwide there is bound to plenty of coverage of the competition's winning players. Just because the list itself includes only a certain number of independent sources doesn't mean that there aren't more out there. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

"There is bound to plenty of coverage" isn't an argument. Ass Lee Vilenski said, "Do any third party reliable sources talk about this as a group of people to satisfy WP:LISTN?" All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Specifying the country of a league

As per the blatantly rude edit summary here, is it really a problem to state for clarity the country that a league is in, especially in a scenario like this one where you have a player from one country playing in the league of a second, on loan from the league of a third (and neither league actually has the name of the country in its name).....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem, especially for smaller countries and/or countries with similiar named leagues. You could claim to not neccesarily need it for the big leagues, but I don't think it harms having it. --SuperJew (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Considering the player in question is Argentine and playing outside his home country, there’s nothing wrong with spelling out that neither the Premier League nor La Liga are Argentine leagues. – Pee Jay 12:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

As a football fan, I strongly believe that mentioning the country name for well-known leagues is not necessary. Football enthusiasts around the world are already familiar with these leagues, and their respective countries are often omitted in media discussions. In cases where the leagues are widely recognized, we should focus on providing clear context within the article itself, making the content both concise and consistent with established media practices. This approach not only respects the knowledge of our readers but also streamlines the information presented. I appreciate that Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, and I am confident that my perspective adds value to this ongoing discussion, contributing to the continual refinement and improvement of Wikipedia content. Sartaj267 04:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for input

Please contribute to this discussion if you can. Thanks! Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Lionel Messi and Supercopa de España in 2005

Lionel Messi was not called up for Supercopa de España in 2005. I think that it should be removed from "honours" section of Wikipedia article about him. NextEditor123 (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The various sources attached to that part of the article all credit him with the award, so we should too. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Which primary sources say that? NextEditor123 (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

There was a discussion a couple of months back with consensus to remove such honours when not called up... Kante4 (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that but there are a couple of users who still protest there by edit warrings inside the article ( Alex Emeritus and Nampa DC). You can look at the talk section. NextEditor123 (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

When Uefa itself considers it that what, wikipedia should yield to that decision and do what is already mentioned, not act according to their biased self imposed conditions. Alex Emeritus (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The article is temporarily blocked now. Congratulations, genius. You could have just follow the consensus and not cause problems. NextEditor123 (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is the discussion which resulted in a convincing consensus that players should not be credited with Cups won in matches for which they were not called up for the squad. Therefore, Messi's Supercopa de España should be removed. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Alex Emeritus: The consensus is clear and editing against it is disruptive and can lead to getting blocked. If you disagree you are welcome to start a discussion about that again but NOT just reverting to your preferred version. Kante4 (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

My name cropped up here (I hadn’t got involved with the debate but merely requested the user @Next Editor123: seek a consensus in talk before changing contentious material). He was edit warring with another user :@Alex Emeritus: before either of them knew of any prior consensus. I wasn’t aware of this previous discussion in 2020 over this (minor) issue. While that is a consensus, I’m not sure on the merit of it due to the arguments given: No was not in the squad, No because he was not called up in the squad, No unless any photos can be found of him with a medal, he didn't play; also, there is no evidence of him receiving a medal, Not even on bench on either leg, no honour in my book, No, an exception can be made if there is photographic or video evidence of a player officially recieving a medal. All of these are subjective rather than relating to anything official regarding criteria in Spain. @PeeJay: (who voted in that) then chimes in with this today: Anyone who considers Messi to have won that title is a bit of a fanboy. More subjective analysis (and pretty silly). I don’t consider anyone debating this to be biased (not that it should need to be said, but given PeeJay’s comment, I doubt anyone cares if he won it or not). The goal here is accuracy. If he’s physically standing in front of eight SuperCopas (and all the rest of the 35 trophies attributed to him by the club, UEFA, and a plethora of reliable sources from the BBC, ESPN, Marca, newspapers of record in the U.K. The Telegraph and The Guardian, the latter article by Sid Lowe, etc.) who are we to argue against this? Nampa DC (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Who are they to claim that he won the 2005 Supercopa without even remotely being involved in it? Claims that he won eight Supercopas are just attempts to big-up a player who shouldn't need to claim titles he didn't win. – Pee Jay 22:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

More subjective analysis (“big-up a player”). This is not an argument as to whether he is attributed the trophy or not. I’ve yet to see anything that counters him winning it. Nampa DC (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

And “who are they”? Reliable sources that are used on this site. In contrast, Wikipedia editors are not a source. Nampa DC (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The fact that he wasn't involved in that competition in any way, shape or form should probably indicate to you that he didn't win it... – Pee Jay 22:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I've had a look at our article 2005 Supercopa de España and I don't find Messi mentioned at all. This is not a league or a season-long knockout, it's a single match (albeit one with two legs). If he didn't participate in either leg, he didn't win the Supercopa. That's about the end of it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Are there any contemporaneous sources saying he won it, rather than Barca saying he did 15+ years later? A picture of him standing in front of a set of trophies doesn't prove anything. Spike 'em (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I realise my position on this is in conflict with my argument on Jimmy Greaves above / below. I guess we should therefore do a similar thing, and mention what Barca / other sources say of the back of this and add a note that Messi didn't actually play in the matches. Spike 'em (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we now have a much bigger problem here than just an issue over a (minor) trophy. Right now, as it stands, we currently have some Wikipedia editors, using original research: which is to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources, trumping published, reliable sources. A cornerstone of Wikipedia has been breached here: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. This discussion needs to be taken outside the confines of those who follow the sport as the responses here are tainted with subjective analysis: “he didn’t play”, “wasn’t in the squad”, even further “wasn’t in the A squad”, “wasn’t pictured with a medal”, it’s “just attempts to big-up a player”. These all reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. @Koncorde: is one the editor from this previous discussion who nails it; the answer is to err on the side of reliable sources even if it doesn't appear right. Messi not being involved in the two legs (which was due to issues with his legal status until he acquired Spanish citizenship, nothing to do with status as a first team member which he was, not that this is relevant) and saying he didn’t win the trophy is reaching your own conclusion ie. original research. We don’t know the criteria for what constitutes the winning of a trophy in Spain. No-one editing on here (I’d like to think) could care less if he won 2, 10 or 254 Copas, the aim is accuracy, and right now we have a Wikipedia article, via subjective analysis not supported by sources, trumping a plethora of published, reliable sources (including from Catalan journalists, Madrid based journalists, the governing body of the sport in Europe, and even Messi physically standing in front of the eight SuperCopas attributed to him). Nampa DC (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

True fact: I am always right, especially in hindsight. Koncorde (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

so this is just an alt version of the discussion higher up about the efl cupMuur (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Though related, there's a sleight technicality of a difference- For the league cup the medal is specifically for the final but the question is (partially) about should the tournament be listed under the player's honours if they contributed in the teams effort in earlier part(s) of the tournament but didn't individually play in the final (plus some other questions about sourcing, which I'm staying out of); whereas for a Supercup there's only the final (albeit apparently a 2 legged one in this case) - no larger tournament behind it. Gecko G (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia editors are using original research, they're highlighting sources of the game itself to indicate he didn't receive a medal as he wasn't part of the squad. Contemporary reports differ from reports from when the game took place. Wikipedia editors are allowed to come together and make a set of universal rules regarding who does and doesn't get recognised as a trophy winner on Wikipedia. I think the discussion here seems fairly conclusive on the matter. And the recent discussion about the Greaves/Kane goals record shows that it can be demonstrated that reliable sources aren't infallible and may sometimes err on the side of recentism. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

If our analysis / interpretation of sources differs from the weight of reliable sources - that's beyond OR and into SYNTH. With Greaves the issue is one of there being actual documented secondary sources listing the goal totals, and then Spurs using their own criteria for deciding who they think is their top scorer. Our decision was editorial only. We are not saying Spurs are wrong (they can choose any criteria that they like for their own awards) but that other sources disagree as to who is the top scorer for Spurs at that time, and what goals are included (for the same reason we have issues when we try the "most successful football club" argument, numerous sources use different lists of trophies and they are free to create their own lists - but editorially we are free to count ALL the trophies and ignore their attempts at major and minor etc).

In contrast with Messi attempts to use anything other than the reliable sources (such as asserting he wasn't on the pitch, in the squad, wasn't photographed etc) is irrelevant to the actual observable sources. If we have sources that explicitly make the argument that he does not have that trophy then we have a dispute, but that still does not override the weight of sources. Koncorde (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Are there any actual reliable secondary sources that give a breakdown for Messi, or does it all just tie back to Barcelona making the assertion? Spike 'em (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

i do think its silly to try and give him winning a super cup that he didnt play in. but if barca say he won it, then id say to go with that. he did play in whatever competition to help them qualify...but then i guess that then goes oh that guy helped real madrid qualify for the champions league. he played 0 games the next year cuz he was injured but since he helped them qualify... iffy stuff. if barca say it, id count it i think because theyre then sayin they gave him a medal. same as the efl cup stuff.Muur (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

He played in seven matches in the league the previous season, all as a substitute. Playing in a different competition is irrelevant to whether or not he should be considered to have won this one. – Pee Jay 19:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

He wasn't even eligible to be in the squad due to non-EU regulations allowing three foreign players, who were Ronaldinho, Eto'o and Marquez - see here. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, this doesn't say he didn't win it or wasn't given a medal. Absent an article that actually refutes the claim, we're on SYNTH territory. Koncorde (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

If he wasn't eligible to even participate in the competition, how on earth has he won the competition? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That is the definition of Original Research. Even "if" he wasn't eligible, the question is are there any sources that say so, and do they say so in such a way that makes it clear he would not be eligible to receive a medal. Going back to an earlier point: unless we know the award criteria, or the source explicitly states it, we go by reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

He wasn't eligible, there is no if about it, it's in the source, and rules at the time dictated only three non-EU players could play for Spanish clubs. Can you explain how a player who was ineligible to play can win a trophy? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is an interesting tweet. Even the Twitter account of the "official stat supplier of messi.com" has doubts about whether Messi should be considered to have won the 2005 Supercopa. – Pee Jay 19:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Couple of issues there PeeJay. 1. He says 05/06 Supercopa... which would be the 2006 final. Obvious mistake aside, he also questions the CL that he definitely took part in. So, yeah. 2. We know public opinion will be divided, but we're not asking for opinion. We're asking for verifiable sources. Koncorde (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Huh? The 2005/06 Supercopa is the one that took place during the 2005/06 season, which is the one at issue. – Pee Jay 23:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the "2005 Supercopa" is the one that took place in "2005". The idea of an 05/06 Supercopa a misnomer. Koncorde (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Now you're just being ridiculous. It's quite plain what is meant here. – Pee Jay 23:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Best not tell him about this... - Template:2005–06 in Spanish football All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Jimmy Greaves#Club

How can we be "disputing" pure facts? What Tottenham says doesn't change the fact of how many goals he truly scored. We don't need to make a note on his factual stats saying "Oh but Tottenham say that these don't count so they don't". Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This all came about as Kane was nearing Greaves’ total and Tottenham held a different value to anyone else. Kane has now surpassed Greaves and Greaves total goals should include the Charity Shield regardless of what Tottenham think of Charity Shield goals.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Really, we've been through this twice already? Different sources give different figures, which is not changed by the fact that Kane has overtaken him. Spike 'em (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: The question is not about how many goals he has scored, that's undeniable regardless of what sources say. The question is whether we count FA Charity Shield appearances and goals or not, and guess what, if you go on any player page, FA Charity Shield/FA Community Shield appearances and goals are counted! Mwiqdoh (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 159#Jimmy Greaves goal count, a thread which you originally raised, and which Spike 'em participated in. Egghead06, you may not have been aware of that discussion. Towards the end of that thread, I offered a compromise solution, which nobody seems to have objected to. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Well that's about the disagreement of who was the top scorer. Surely we can't have a not on every single page that even mentions 268 goals! Again, nobody here can deny he scored 268 goals, it's whether we include FA Charity Shield goals are not (in his statistics section! If you go in every player article Charity and Community Shield goals are all counted, so why not?) and nobody even wanted to change the number he had on his page until Tottenham "claimed" he had 266! Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this edit [19] where the efn says Tottenham Hotspur only recognise 379 of his appearences, and do not include the 2 in the 1962 and 1967 Charity Shields and Tottenham Hotspur only recognise 266 of his goals, and do not include the 2 scored in the 1962 Charity Shield is complete distortion of information. Tottenham do use this information, they include it in their other statistics for him, which is included with the friendly appearances and goals. For some bizarre reason they don't want to add the Charity Shield apps and goals to immediate tally, but they do include them in a total tally. So not only is the information in the efn distortion, it's not using the other column correctly, where as Tottenham include friendlies in other column, wikipedia does not. All stats should be reflective, unfortunate a few people here are continuing to distort the tallies. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the dispute is about how many competitive goals he scored, which does not change now that Kane overtook him. All we are doing is mentioning what multiple reliable sources say about it, as has been agreed in previous discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

And no-one is suggesting removing the 268 figure, just adding a note saying that sources vary. You seem completely unwilling to compromise on this. As Redrose says, if there is a difference of opinion in reliable sources, we mention this and leave it up to the reader to interpret. An editors opinion on what is a "pure fact" may differ, which is why we follow the sources. Spike 'em (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: You really should consider your words carefully and look at all the information available. Your interpretation is distorted also from my point of view. Govvy (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, from my POV you 2 are both sticking your fingers in your ears, refusing to listen to anyone else, or come to any sort of a compromise. Spike 'em (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I know I missed the original discussion on this but did we decide on the wording for the efn?--Egghead06 (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing on "List of foreign [LEAGUE NAME] players"

What should be the sourcing for such articles? For example List of foreign Premier League players (which as an aside, shouldn't those flags in the headers be removed per MOS:FLAGS?), the only references are a general database which is hard and annoying to verify, a BBC report from 2009 which I doubt covers the whole list, and a source from 2012 which is permanently dead.

Should we have a sourcing for each player (something which shows his nationality and/or joining/playing for the team)? There seems to be a lot of work to do on these kind of articles anyway. List of foreign A-League Men players and List of foreign A-League Women players are quite complete, but same question about sourcing (referenced to general databases).

I'm asking as I'm trying to get List of foreign Liga F players up to level, and noticed that it's not very updated, but also that the sourcing is per player if it's there.

Cheers, --SuperJew (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's important to find significant coverage of the list topic as well. With respect to Liga F, there is a 2020 article at Grada3.com that is useful. More recently, the league is implementing restrictions on non-EU player licenses which would be useful to cover, Deportivo Mundo covered it in 2022. Jogurney (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@SuperJew: the only references are a general database which is hard and annoying to verify.... - that reference is also dead, so the Premier League one is essentially unsourced...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Not just MOS:FLAG, but also MOS:HEAD on the flags in the headers should be removed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude That database could be easily replaced with any other general database, such as Soccerway etc. (remember there was one really good for EPL, but can't remember currently... been a long day). Question is if that's enough sourcing or we should source each player with inline citation. --SuperJew (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

significant coverage of the list topic as well - that would be for notability and the prose sections, yes? Thanks for the links :) --SuperJew (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

While we're on the subject I would like to bring up the format used on some of the pages, for example List of foreign Premier League players, for example: Nabil Bentaleb – Tottenham Hotspur, Newcastle United – 2013–16, 2019–20[b FRA][c FRA U19]. I would think it would be more appropriate to use Nabil Bentaleb[b FRA][c FRA U19] – Tottenham Hotspur – 2013–16, Newcastle United – 2019–20 as the nationality notes are about the player, not the years he played and I think each timespan should be attached to the relevant club, as how it is makes it hard to understand when the player was at which club, especially when there are many clubs. --SuperJew (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Frankly to me those articles are overkill, to me they breach WP:NOSTATS and WP:OR. Govvy (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Govvy - these are hardly defining characteristics when the majority of the league is non-British. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You're referring specifically to the Premier League I suppose? Because say the A-League Men and A-League Women (and many more leagues) have a quota of foreign players each team is allowed. --SuperJew (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd also add that there are somewhere in the region of 2,500 players listed on the Premier League article, and this is only going to continue growing, probably by at least 100 players a year. Is there an argument to split the article in some way before it just gets insanely large.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Tip on finding foreign sources

I wanted to share something I noticed today. Maybe it's obvious, maybe it's not. Don't know, just trying to help. If you are looking for sources on various teams or leagues, I would figure out which city/country they are in. I would then go through the wikipedia search function and check out an article about local newspapers/magazines/websites in the area. I would then search for what you are looking for directly on those sites. The sites will often have tags which makes the search easier. You can do "Insert Team Here" from "site:Insert website here" and you will pull up a lot of results that you will not be able to find in general searches. Google and other search engines do not pull up many of those articles, and as many know, it only takes one article to save an article from issues. I would also recommend finding the city/town then finding the word for newspaper in their language and searching it, as that has also helped me. Maybe it seems silly, but for people who aren't familiar with various places, it can be a major help.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks mate! That's a great tip :) --SuperJew (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Newspaper of record also lists the most authoritative sources in countries, although they would not always report on sports, especially on the lower levels. CRwikiCA talk 18:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Denis Neville

For this individual, more famous as a manager, WorldFootball says he played for Fulham from 1932-1946, but he is not listed at ENFA. Any clarification? Giant Snowman 06:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Does ENFA (unlike Hugman) cover pre-WW2 as well as post? If so, and he isn't listed, that would suggest he never played a first team game for Fulham, although spending all that time at one club without ever playing a first team game (even with the caveat of the war taking up a chunk of it) seems mildly implausible..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If he ever featured in the EFL pre or post-war then he'd be on ENFA. Spending the ages of 17 to 24 at a club without playing a first-team game is vaguely plausible, though not likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EchetusXe (talk • contribs)

Best I can find is this snippet from the Harrow Observer that has a D.C. Neville, formerly of Courtfield and Wealdstone FC's and on Fulham's books as an amateur, joining Barnet in September 1936. Certainly never played for Fulham's first team, or as mentioned above he'd be on ENFA. There are D. Nevilles that might be him, kicking round West London/Middlesex amateur teams in the 1930s. Maybe he hyped his backstory a bit when trying to get started in coaching; there's a lengthy Dutch-language interview-based piece from 1964, linked from the de.wiki article, that contains a fair bit of name-dropping and states that "Denis was jarenlang een steunpilaar van Fulham", which Google translates as "Denis was a Fulham mainstay for many years". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Name dropping yes indeed. Maybe he once played against Ted Drake, but this was not in the league or in a major Cup. He also spent much time in the army. Cattivi (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

He became trainer of Berchem in 1952. He was also a member of their select committee. This article mentions him playing for Aldershot and coaching in the Army. In Italy he wrote a book. [20] He left the club after two seasons [21] Initially he intended to join Xerxes, but that never happened. Cattivi (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

He isn't in Michael Joyce's "Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939" or in Jack Rollin's "Soccer at War 1939 - 45" so no, he never played for Fulham's first team in Football League pre war or any of the Wartime competitions. Agreed with other posters - he was likely just a non contract amateur who may have had occasional reserve team or "A" team games ("A" team in this context being the 3rd team) ColchesterSid (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Worth looking at the Dutch WP introduction which translates as: Neville's past as a footballer is shrouded in mystery. He claimed to have played for Fulham but he does not appear in the archives. ColchesterSid (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing assistance

Saturday Football International is in dire need of sources, and I'm not finding anything in a Google search that I can actually assess. I'm fairly certain languages are going to be in some sort of Chinese, which I don't particularly trust translations of. Anyone able to help?

(Yes, I know this is ironic given the thread above, but this is an instance where I'm not finding anything in a language I can read or get a comprehensible automated translation for.) —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 05:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Russia in the AFC

This IP edited a lot of articles stating Russia has already joined the AFC. Maybe unroll everything? They have received some invitations for CAFAand SAFF but there is nothing set in stone yet. -Koppapa (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

New Sources Found

This person posted a whole bunch of old South American soccer magazines here - https://issuu.com/futbolsinpelota. Now the website just issued some changes, so it says there's restrictions. However, if you use - https://issuu.pdf-downloader.com/index.php, copy the link, press "download" then "download as PDF" and select "Print as PDF", you can see the whole thing. These magazines could be a great find for vintage South American soccer sourcing.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

East Bengal FC

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1146252954

this user doesnt know how departments infobox looks, but reverts his errors constantly 78.2.170.247 (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The versions in question are one and two. Two seems to have two department infoboxes, which duplicate the link to women's football team, and for some reason links to the current season for the men's team. Not sure why that would ever be needed, one department box linking to the team article is more sensible. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Julia Manning

Is it worth the trouble to make an article about Julia Manning she did represent the England women's team and was chosen for the 1972 Scotland v England women's football match . Are these sources good enough to create an article? Julia Brunton (née Manning) | History of the Women's Football Association (wordpress.com) and The first ‘official’ England Women’s football match - Brighton & Hove Museums (brightonmuseums.org.uk) Dwanyewest (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Generally, wordpress or blogspot personal links aren't seen as the greatest. I would check through newspapers.com (which you can access if you link up your Wiki account). One of the main problems you will run into is that her name is very common.KatoKungLee (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The British Newspaper Archive (which I believe is also available through the Wikipedia Library) would also probably be a good way to locate sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

russia

since uefa and fifa suspended russia but theyre still playing friendlies, are fifa/uefa even counting these as official caps for both teams in said matchesMuur (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the caps should still be counted. The Russian Football Union were not actually suspended as members of FIFA and UEFA, but rather their representative teams are suspended from participating in competitive matches. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

sounds like theyre not officially sanctioned competitive matches tho. i mean tbf we count stuff like those unofficial goals for lukaku, its just interesting if fifa count these friendlies as real.Muur (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Friendlies count towards stats as they aren't considered "competitive" (which is kinda where the name comes from). Russia are only banned from competitions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Lionel Messi (official name)

Leo Messi is not an official or full name of the football player. There is no official sources that confirm that this naming is formal. We don't write shortened unofficial names in Wikipedia for other players. Since when this article became an exception? NextEditor123 (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

With one exception, the only uses I can see of "Leo" in Messi's article are in the name of his charitable foundation, which is fine because that's what it is actually called, and in direct quotes from people, which are obviously OK because that's what they actually said. The one exception is that the lead does say "also known as Leo Messi", but given the number of times the short form is used in the aforementioned (perfectly legit) situations, I think mentioning it in the lead is fine, otherwise users could be confused who all the direct quotes about "Leo" are talking about -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Edition on UEFA article

Hi. I ask for your attention to [edition]. Maybe this edition is correct, but if so, shouldn't the other non-members be removed? Or should we kept this like it was?Rpo.castro (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally I can't see the point of the "non-members" section at all. Why would an article on an organisation list who isn't a member? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Cull that section. It's a trivia question as to what countries exist in Europe but don't have their national team associated with UEFA. Hardly helpful on an article about UEFA. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Disregarding UEFA Euro Qualifying's official Regulations

User:Pindrice seems to be disregarding UEFA's official regulations for tiebreakers on Template:UEFA Euro 2024 qualifying group tables, claiming that Rules can be well or wrongly interpreted. Here is the regulations for the tiebreakers from UEFA themselves. It clearly states that overall goal difference is used before away goals scored. Mwiqdoh (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Mwiqdoh seems to be disregarding of the whole goal of Wikipedia : giving information based on Source and references. In the following source : https://www.uefa.com/european-qualifiers/standings/#grp-2006665, UEFA give us the following rankings in group A : Norway

is 3rd and Georgia is 4th. Moreover in the the same official source, in the group D Wales is 1st and Croatia is 2nd. User:Mwiqdoh seems to not follow the officials rankings from UEFA and have decided the followig results and rankings from UEFA. If UEFA presents us this ranking, then it is official and we must follow it and not have an interpretatation of it. Sincerely. Pindrice (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

and have decided that the following results and rankings from UEFA must not be followed*

Pindrice (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

And when I say "Rules can be well or wrongly interpreted", I mean : Maybe you misread the rules ! Pindrice (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The regulations state "on the completion [..] of the group stage", UEFA has no regulations on intermediate standings and the way ties are broken. Personally I would prefer to use the tiebreakers for intermediate standings, but I don't know what the balance of the sources (including secondary sources as UEFA is primary) states. CRwikiCA talk 12:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

small, British sample, but BBC and Guardian both list Norway above Georgia and Wales above Croatia. They may just be reproducing the UEFA tables, but impossible to tell. Spike 'em (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If we use UEFA as the source for the tables, then we should follow the ordering that they have. If there is an inconsistency between their regs and their tables then it is not for us to decide how to deal with it, and I think we default to using the tables ordered as they present them. As above, how do other sources sort the tables? Spike 'em (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that UEFA don't say the tiebreakers that they are using on the tables, so saying that the head-to-head is away goals is WP:OR Mwiqdoh (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, delete the "Away goals scored ....", but in the other hand keep their official rankings Pindrice (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Just follow exactly what the source we are citing says. No more, no less. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

GAR for San Marino national football team

Hi! There is an open GA reassessment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/San Marino national football team/1 for the national football team of San Marino. Any thoughts or improvement would be appreciated. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Is footofeminin.fr considered a reliable website?

Is Footofeminin.fr : le football au féminin considered a reliable webstie to source regarding French women's football? Dwanyewest (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Level of detail

Regarding Oliver Hobgood#Youth international goals, is every youth international goal a level of detail that Wikipedia should have? Personally, I think not (which is also my opinion on the similar senior international goal statistics). 2A01:799:19A1:C100:60D4:797B:8A62:F4DF (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Senior goals are fine, but I think this section for the youth goals should be removed. Mwiqdoh (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 06:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Rasmus Højlund height

Many websites have different numbers for Rasmus Højlund: transfermarkt 191cm, soccerway 185cm, bold.dk 191cm, whoscored 185cm, fbref 192cm. FIFA the game have him at 187cm, even though they are ofc not a source that can be used, but it still shows how unreliable all of it is. His height doesn't even exist on the official website for the Danish football union as well. Seeing him standing beside players who are 185cm, he does seem a little bit taller. Besides players who are over 190cm, he seems maybe a little off from that as well.

Shouldn't it be one of the most easiest facts to state about a pro player? Why is this so hard to figure out? Speun (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. In the absence of any consensus amongst sources on height, either don't include it at all or use an official profile (league/club). Giant Snowman 06:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, GS. I see, I just wonder what sources are reliable? Soccerway is used to show his height on the article right now. IPs keep changing it to 191 cm lately Speun (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Licensing of teams in Germany

I've searched in vain for information on the licensing/"playing privileges" rules or procedures in Germany. Is it national or by region? Where might I find this material?-- Quisqualis (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Egyptian Super Cup

TBH it's really hard to follow what recently happened with all the page moves by @BilledMammal and comments and edits by @Sakiv. But one thing is for sure, the main page and the navbox are not matching every edition articles. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

IMO, the Super Cups are only 1 match each year, so the article title should only contain the year the match took place. AND the intro (lead section) should describe the participants and which season of competition they won to qualfy for the Super Cup match. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

There was a recent WP:RM discussion at Talk:2022 Egyptian Super Cup, and User:BilledMammal's moves were a result of that discussion. It appears that User:Sakiv didn't agree with the outcome and is trying to impose their own opinions. - Eureka Lott 03:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Egyptian Super Cup

Issue with Template:NFT player

It seems that the English language version of player profiles on NFT no longer exist. The template now links to a 404 error. This affects a large number of articles and over the last week editors have been updating international stats without checking that they are backed up by a source. A solution would be to change the template to link to the German language version of NFT (I don't know how to do this). Stuart1234 (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any info on what happened at the back-end? If it is due to too much traffic, it would also cause the same issue if switching to the German version. CRwikiCA talk 15:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I've contacted the site but it has been down for a few days - though is likely (hopefully) not a permanent error so there should be no need to change all NFT links to the German site just yet. Felixsv7 (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you heard anything from the site? Still not working and that's been over a week now. Soon I'll be going through the articles on my watchlist and linking to the German site. It's certainly highlighted the users who change stats without looking at the source... Stuart1234 (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The "old" English-language site is working: so https://www.national-football-teams.com/player/82843.html brings a 404, but https://www.national-football-teams.com/old/player/82843.html takes you to an active page albeit in the old format.

People updating stats just by adding 1 to whatever was there before and ignoring the idea of "source" has always been a problem here. Unfortunately, with the apparent need for all stats to be updated ASAP, it's becoming standard practice: websites take time to update, and adding 1 because the source will update sometime meets that need.

Must admit, I hadn't realise quite how long it takes for pages on NFT to be updated. Croatia v Wales from 5 days ago, not a particularly obscure fixture, isn't on there yet. Explains why I've been caught in the past, looking up a player's stats days after a match without realising that match still wasn't on the site.

I do think we depend too much on one man's site. I've been replacing it on player lists and suchlike, but it takes work, and it isn't always possible. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Struway2: Soccerbase is pretty good and it updates really quickly. It's used on a lot of player pages now. Mwiqdoh (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

No response as of yet. I've also emailed separately.

I'd agree that relying on one man's site has its issues, but its comprehensive list of the matches included makes it better / easier to verify than just a number listed on other sites. Felixsv7 (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Can we update the template formatting to link to the 'old' website? Giant Snowman 06:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

NFT is back. I have checked a few profiles and they're okay. The website has a news item from today addressing the outages: [22] Robby.is.on (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Tiernan Brooks

Hello! I was reviewing and fixing this draft, and I think it's generally fine. However, I'm not sure if this player already meets WP:GNG: he would definitely be eligible if he featured for an EFL team, but what about the National League? Is it a sufficient standard, too?

On a side note, Brooks' date of birth is not clear, either: his profile on Notts County's website states that he's born in 2002, whereas Soccerway and Worldfootball.net report 2003 as the correct year...

Thoughts?

Oltrepier (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

he would definitely be eligible if he featured for an EFL team, but what about the National League - the notion of a player being notable for having played at a particular level was scrapped some time ago. An article now stands or falls based on WP:SPORTBASIC..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude You're right, I articulated myself pretty badly...

What I intended to say is that I've seen several players (with Leslie Adekoya being an example) get an official article as soon as they made their debut, for example, in the EFL Cup or in the Papa Johns Trophy, competitions which mainly involve full-time professional teams. On the other hand, the National League still hosts some semi-professional clubs, so that was the main reason behind my doubts. Notts County do have professional status, though, so that might still be alright for basic criteria.

Anyway, I think the draft is generally in good shape, and the sources cited throughout it are fine, so we might be close to approve it, right? Oltrepier (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me, lots of independent third party articles with sinificant coverage. I think it's good to publish, although I'm sure there's a non-zero chance a rabid deletionist that would contest. Ortizesp (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Most of it is distinctly WP:ROUTINE, there only seems to be one article that gives any personal/background information on him. Spike 'em (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Spike 'em That's right. I think those might still be sufficient to report on his career, though...

Anyway, thanks to you and @Ortizesp for the advice. Oltrepier (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

1. FC Köln

Good afternoon! I've moved my original message to the article's talk page, as it might be a better place to discuss on the transfer ban situation. Still, any help would be hugely appreciated! Oltrepier (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliance on single source for pen profile details

Thoughts on recent additions to various footballers based on generic pen profiles in Shoot Magazine from 40 years ago? See here from KatoKungLee. The writing is incredibly poor as just a list of things, spelling mistakes and poor grammar, plus the source is obviously unverifiable barring getting a copy of a magazine described as being published "in the 70's" or 80's in some cases. A bit of information like this is sometimes included in player articles, but this seems a bit of a sledgehammer to insert a solid paragraph of cruft. Also have concern on COPYVIO as suspect these are word for word transcribed. Koncorde (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Every article I used is uploaded here - https://imgur.com/a/D106rnZ. I can't link to something like that though in a source. There's dozens more profiles that I have yet to transcribe. I don't own the magazines unfortunately. Some of the magazines did have the year posted that the magazine is from, and some did not. Since we know the articles are legitimate, I don't think it's a major issue. I'm not sure exactly why a players influences, favorite football moments and so forth wouldn't be relevant information, as that stuff is included in every wikipedia article. By the way @Koncorde, it's always better to ask people and WP:AGF than to assume things and accuse people of things.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

In theory I have no issue with using profiles like this as a source, but frankly content like "He enjoyed playing psorts (sic - presumably meant to say sports), listening to music and sleeping in his spare time" is trivial in the extreme -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I've checked a couple of the edits out and it is mostly meaningless trivia rather than encyclopedic content. Spike 'em (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That was my feeling. I think some of the content might be rescuing, i.e. "biggest influence" type comments are often useful for context of the clubs they were at, who helped them and so on but a lot of the profile content was likely only accurate for the period and if retained should be clear when the opinion was held. Koncorde (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of anything Kato, and if I wasn't AGF'ing I would have reverted for the lack of clear sourcing. I chose to ask a broader group of people for feedback on the use of 40 year old pen profiles for things like what their favourite music and tv shows are. These are obviously not current details, but are presented as if they were written today with no significant context. If they had context, i.e. "in a pen profile in Shoot! in the mid 70's he said he like Supertramp & Elton John" we'd realise how crufty the content is. Koncorde (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of others here, a lot of this information is meaningless. Details regarding marriage/children is fine for a personal life section, but most of the rest should go. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

.....and even those details should clarify the timeframe of the statement. Currently the article on David Armstrong states that "he was not married", sourced to a profile published when he was at most 25 years old. Armstrong lived to be nearly 70, so it's quite probable that he did in fact marry at a later date, but currently the article states that he was a lifelong bachelor -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

....and in fact here is an article from The Times which confirms that he was married to a woman called Maureen. So the article's current claim that "he was not married", with no timeframe/context, is misleading/untrue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

So we're all agreed on a broad revert? I think if anything may be added back that is sourced then it should be in context with their early life / early career, or similar if it's not cruft. Things like "most disappointing moment in career" may be a worthwhile addition, but it needs to be noted specifically within the context of the season / event i.e. "X in an interview with Shoot remarked that the failure to get promoted in '73 was their biggest disappointment of their career so far" - but it is pointless without some information about that season for context. Koncorde (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I would definitely support a broad revert. Listing a player's favourite band or TV show is utterly trivial, especially when what's actually being listed is their favourite band or TV show at a specific point in time FORTY OR MORE YEARS AGO. The only info sourced from those Shoot profiles worth mentioning in a WP article would be early career influences and wife/children, although the latter needs to contextualised with a date when it was true (see my example about David Armstrong above) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

On a more pedantic point, why do all the vague reference dates have an apostrophe : 1970's / 1980's? Nothing is being abbreviated and there is no possession. Spike 'em (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly why a players influences, favorite football moments and so forth wouldn't be relevant information, as that stuff is included in every wikipedia article is quite the statement. No, we should not be including info on someone's "favourite football moment". This isn't a trivia website. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Norwich City F.C. Hall of Fame redlinks

Hello. I was wondering if anyone was interested in making articles for the three redlinks at Norwich City F.C. Hall of Fame. John Howes (footballer), Denis Morgan and groundsman Russell Allison. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Howes might be John William Howes who co-founded Norwich City per this article but I'm not sure. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Database sources for honours section.

Can database sources (like RSSSF, for example) be used as the link in honour sections of footballer players' Wikipedia articles? Isn't considered as an original research? NextEditor123 (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

RSSSF is considered a reliable source. It is not infallible though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand if it is used for career statistics sections of Wikipedia articles. But I don't that they are suitable as links for honours section as they are not primary sources for that subject. In addition to that, it creates a possibility of an original research which is not permitted in Wikipedia. NextEditor123 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I think you've misunderstood what original research is. From WP:OR - The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. RSSSF is a reliable source and is listed at WP:WPFLINKS as a result. Using RSSSF to verify information, such as a particular trophy that a particular player won, would meet WP:VERIFY and would not create original research. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

RSSSF only indicate statistics. They don't mention directly who won the trophy among players or who did not. There are several cases when a player leaves the team in a middle of a season and the team wins a championship without him. Plus to that, why a Wikipedia article about Champions League winning players was deleted when it mostly relied on that source? NextEditor123 (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, don't use it to source things that it doesn't source. If it lists players that won something then great but if it doesn't don't use it. I fail to see the problem here.

For the reasons that article was deleted, see its deletion discussion. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

National Team Injury Status

I am asking for some guidance and a discussion on the PRE/INJ status of players on National Teams. I have looked at archives and seen their is consensus to get ride of logos being used, but it never appears there is a consensus on whether or not to do away with PRE/INJ status of players. I just have some thoughts

1. I understand why some people say it is a violation of the recentism guidelines, but I ask you, isn't a current roster/recent call up list of players on the national team the same thing? Doesn't it reflect recent changes? And if so why would having INJ within this table be something worse then the table itself?
2. Looking at multiple discussion, it seems as recent as August 2021 their isn't a consensus on this and it appears recent editors are more in favor of it than against it.
3. I know using the argument that it is on page X or Y doesn't make it a good idea. But at this point it is on multiple national team articles, so I feel like we need to have a discussion and attempt to finalize what should be done on recent call up tables within these pages.

Thanks for everyone's input! 15:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Demt1298 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

At least at Talk:United States women's national soccer team#Injury status there's long-standing practice now to not use INJ tag – it's too detailed, risks creating factual inaccuracies, and (IMO) unnecessary in most cases. Demt1298 revived this discussion after our discussion at User talk:Seany91/Archives/2023/April#Mallory Swanson, where I laid out my personal opinion. Seany91 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is the PRE should be used when a player is called up to the preliminary squad but is not included within the final squad, and INJ is used when a player is called up to the final squad but is subsequently injured, then withdraws. If a player is removed from a final squad for an alternative reason, or the reason is not specified, then WD should be used. Felixsv7 (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"Victor Nirennold" requests deletion

I've been e-mailed by someone claiming to be Victor Nirennold. They reckon they are applying for jobs and are being discriminated against by prospective employers who apparently see professional athletes as a bunch of thickos. How they would explain reaching the age of 32 without any kind of employment history and why that would be preferable to the truth I don't know... Echetus Xe 14:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Their LinkedIn profile lists their time at Motherwell, so I'm doubtful that it is indeed Nirennold who e-mailed me.--Echetus Xe 14:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Refer them to WP:OTRS. Giant Snowman 14:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Which is the correct spelling?

Is Michaela Catena or Michela Catena the correct is the correct spelling? On the Italian version of the article it is Michela Catena. So which is the correct spelling? Dwanyewest (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! As in all relevant sources I found it as Michela, seems Michela to be the correct spelling. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

CBS Sports Golazo Network

Thought it would be of interest to this wiki project that I created a short article for the new CBS Sports Golazo Network as part of a section of Soccer on CBS Sports. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

[1] 1 appearance and 2 goals in the 1962 FA Charity Shield and 6 appearances and 5 goals in the 1962–63 European Cup Winners' Cup.

[cwc-2] Appearance/s and goal/s in the European Cup Winners' Cup.

[3] 1 appearance in the 1967 FA Charity Shield and 4 appearances and 3 goals in the European Cup Winners' Cup.

[a]

[b]

[c]