Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 104

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.

See the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Country data New Caledonia#Template-protected edit request on 23 June 2016. --Theurgist (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Youth squads at tournament should not be covered in tempalte like this. We did agree on that, or? Kante4 (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. The main issue is that many of the players on them may not be article-worthy. Number 57 15:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems they all have articles though. Do you include Olympics teams in youth squads? It is technically U-23 (exception of 3 players). --SuperJew (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe we deem Olympics players notable through having played at the Olympics (it's a bit different to youth internationals, as you say). Qualifiers don't count though. Number 57 15:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

So, TFD? Kante4 (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There are a bunch of those templates, here. Kante4 (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Olympics templates are notable but youth tournaments are not. I have already informed the creator about this. If somebody has the time please can you TFD? GiantSnowman 10:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Can someone please tell me whether we should we add UEFA Europa League, UEFA Champions League and UEFA EURO under international leagues in the infobox of a football referee's page? Please help! And also what about the domestic leagues section - should only the premier first-tier home country league be mentioned it or even the 2nd and 3rd tier teams are to be mentioned as well? Someone if please tell me! Cricket246 (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Five different places (in two countries!) mentioned so far - any help welcome... Talk:Robbie Wakenshaw#Place of birth. GiantSnowman 19:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I started a discussion about removing the assists on Euro 2016 and would appreciate your input there. Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The following pages

I have PP'd where there have been recent edits for 2 days. This needs to be discussed on the talk page and is widespread enough to be a bit disruptive. Fenix down (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enuff! Talk page has a section about this is issue. The proceeding started with creation of unnecessary pages where forking off stub pages for new clubs and inconsistent name referrals to teams confusing all concerned. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Question to Fenix down. The correct names of clubs are
  FC Metalurh-Zaporizhya. That clubs were renamed, they play with new names. See the sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] What is the reason of reverting of my edits? 46.200.26.232 (talk) —Preceding undated
  comment added 17:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

From my talk page: I am not convinced that

WP:COMMONNAME is met here. For example this may use "-", but the badges here and here on the same site does not. Additionally, plenty of English language sources such as this and this for example do not. Please keep the discussion in one place. Fenix down (talk

) 17:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Your second link is about

FC Arsenal-Kyiv, see the official site [10] 46.200.26.232 (talk

) 17:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

1. I know the second link is about a different team I am trying to illustrate the lack of consistency on the PFL website not just for Arsenal Kiev, but other clubs. The purpose of this is to highlight the lack of
   WP:COMMONNAME
   .
2. Third link does not use "-". Please re-read I am referring to the badge, click on the second tab on the page. This comment is again about the inconsistency being shown.
3. Fourth link - you are incorrect. This is from December 2014. This clearly states the club were reformed in January 2014. Fenix down (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Again. PFL site wrote in the title:

FC Arsenal-Kyiv. [12] And what is the reason to keep the old name now? 46.200.26.232 (talk

) 18:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You are also wrong that the link of how PFL provides the name of the team. They call the team "«Арсенал-Київ» Київ" which translates to Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv where Kyiv is in the name twice. How inconsistent is that? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The link that you provided to Arsenal Kyiv is full of naming conflict and inconsistencies. For instance and this has been pointed out before in Talk:2015–16 Ukrainian Second League 1) Logo: FC Arsenal Kyiv (no dash) 2) Banner: FC Arsenal (no Kyiv or hyphen Kyiv) 3) Team: "Arsenal-Kyiv" (no FC). You ask why keep the old name? Well, for historical links like on their website (История киевского «Арсенала») for History of "Arsenal" Kyiv which they acknowledge they are a part of. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Design features for logos or banners are not relevant here. Standings section clear says: FC Arsenal-Kyiv [13]. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If standings are relevant then here is an English reference for this

WP:English since we want English language source which is clearly Arsenal Kyiv [14]. No hyphen, no double Kyiv just the common name. Brudder Andrusha (talk

) 21:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Soccerway uses old names of many clubs. They write Real Pharm, but club was renamed to

FC Nikopol-NPHU. They write Arsenal Bila T, but club was renamed to FC Arsenal-Kyivshchyna Bila Tserkva. So, that source have many errors. 46.200.26.232 (talk

) 10:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In the case of "Arsenal Kyiv" they have not made an error because they are well aware of the historical link of the team. As pointed out by @

WP:COMMONNAME which is more than appropriate. Both the registration name of Arsenal Kyiv and Metalurh Zaporizhya is a ploy used by the PFL so that the administrations of the clubs can keep the historical ties to previously defunct clubs while at the same time allowing the clubs to enter the professional league without legal ramifications. Brudder Andrusha (talk

) 15:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Is {{Copa América Centenario Team of the Tournament}} notable? SLBedit (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Should

The only qualifiaction article that has been split is UEFA first round (being 260 matches), while this is only 60 matches and less than other rounds. The creator of the group articles has been asked but keeps on editing without response.

Keep, merge or delete? AfD? Qed237 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If there are people willing to give there time to keep all the group pages updated, I don't see a problem in all the group rounds to be split. That way the round page gives a broader view, and if the reader is interested in a specific group they can go to that page. --SuperJew (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@

2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round is now in group articles. Qed237 (talk)

16:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That's the new content. For an overview of the round I don't think it's necessary to have the matches with all their details (if at all). --SuperJew (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

And of course there can be goalscorers and discipline sections. --SuperJew (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not? Seems like a good idea to me. Kante4 (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion: separated pages for

CAF. They are the same. I think: need merge in one page (originally was in one page until one user splitted it). GAV80 (talk

) 17:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm in favour of merging these articles.

Jay

17:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there aren't enough matches to give each group its own article;

2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round had 132 matches, and groups were not given their own articles. UEFA will have 270 matches, so giving each group its own article is necessary to prevent the article from becoming so large that it cannot be maintained easily. I am in favor of merging the articles back into the main article. — Jkudlick • t • c • s

09:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I actually think that the splitting into separate pages makes the maintaining harder. From personal experience, a couple of seasons back in the

A-League we had all of the matches on the league season page as well as season pages for each club. The more well maintained page by more people was the main league page by far. After that season it was decided by the task force to not have matches on the main league page, but only on the club season pages, and the maintenance of the pages is in freefall since then. --SuperJew (talk

) 09:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Milovan Rajevac was manager of a Slovenian club side for just under 2 weeks before leaving to become the new Algeria manager. He never took control of the Slovenian side for a competitive match. @Panam2014: believes that that role should not be reflected in the infobox; I disagree. Bringing this here as it has ramifications wider than this article. GiantSnowman 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Should be listed in my opinion- after all, he's listed as playing for FK Borac Čačak and Lunds BK despite not appearing to have ever played for them? Why should it be different for his managerial career. Technically, he was manager after all. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Should be listed. Managing, especially a club, is beyond taking control of competitive matches. It's also the tactical preparation for matches, training, scouting for and signing players, managing the players between games etc. etc. --SuperJew (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, agreed, as above. –

Jay

17:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

He never participated in a press conference the club nor the trainings. When not playing in clubs, he trained.--Panam2014 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Firstly, You're talking very specific about this one (about Rajevac). I think the discussion here is more general. Secondly, even for Rajevac, there is notability that he was chosen to manage the club and it should be reflected in the article. --SuperJew (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I surprised that a note was not made in the article indicating that he did not manage any games for Algeria. Why not have a clarification? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

On the general point, we list clubs for players as soon as they're contracted to them, whether they play or not. I don't see why it should be diferent for managers. On Rajevac specifically, the image on this page shows him on a training pitch with players. As does the page where the club thanked him for his good work..... Or a man that looks very much like him, anyway... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Should be listed. Number 57 20:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if he trained the team, it should be listed. Even if it was only "two weeks", he'd still get paid for it. So if he was in the club's employ, why omit the info? Jared Preston (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

So I was going over Fb team templates, specifically Australia and some of them are a serious clusterfuck (especially Japan and South Korea). I started nominating for deletion some of the templates which don't even link to a football team, but rather a suburb. I've seen two other cases which I'd like your guidance on: 1) Team names which link to a suburb/city. 2) Teams which link to non-existent article (usually I doubt they'll be created as they are lower tier clubs). What would you think to do with them? --SuperJew (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There are also many templates which link to the same club with different names, for example Manly United and Manly Warringah Dolphins both link to Manly United FC. My question with these is if to delete the (I guess old) name template, and if we keep it, which name to sort it by? --SuperJew (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(pinging @Matilda Maniac: as I saw you created a bunch of them back in the day) --SuperJew (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Started doing a whole lot to use through Fb cl team until someone showed me how to use Fb cl2 team.

If they both point to the same link - and its a football team not a suburb - then maybe just leave them . . . different keys to the same lock.

If its pointing to a suburb, make a list on your user page - or somewhere in the Task Force pages - and I'll help to refresh them when i can. Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There is past consensus at TFD that they are not required and should be deleted. GiantSnowman 17:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see a link to the discussion if you have it? --SuperJew (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There are definitely more recent ones, but one off the top of my head is Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 20#Unused fb team templates. Search the WT:FOOTY archives for numerous discussion saying they should be subst and deleted. GiantSnowman 19:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

So it seems there was a massive consensus then for the deletion. This was 3 years ago. Is there a reason a bot hasn't been tasked with this yet? --SuperJew (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the last time I managed to get around 2000 deleted, someone came around and created about 5000 new ones in their place. Unfortunately, this is a mammoth task, albeit, one that needs to be done some time. Jared Preston (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that many table templates use them, for example Template:Fb in2 player or Template:Fb out2 player, and these tables syntax is easier to use than a regular table. Maybe if a module could be created to replace these kinds of tables then we can be in business. --SuperJew (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I've made the following changes:

• The original Cape Town City (a 1960s football club) article has been moved to Cape Town City F.C. (NFL), NFL being the name of the league that the team played in.
• A new article has been created at Cape Town City F.C. (2016), for the newly created Premier Soccer League team. I'd like to move this to Cape Town City F.C. but don't have the necessary admin privileges to do so.

I've also updated the following:

Links on articles

• Cape Town City F.C. - > Cape Town City F.C. (NFL)

Categories on player articles

• Cape Town City F.C. players -> Cape Town City F.C. (NFL) players

TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Was a page move needed? Probably not, given the history of the original team it's a clear PRIMARY. But what's done is done - so if you want to move over then I suggest a

WP:RM, though keeping it as a disambig is probably best. GiantSnowman

19:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I would think the new club would be primary, as it is the club which will be in the media and is current. Honestly, the old team doesn't seem to have so much history - hardly any info on the page and a handful of sources. --SuperJew (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, can someone help me and User:Debarghya89 on this page. We have an anon user and a new user (who I am pretty sure are the same) who keep adding in two foreign players who have yet to be signed officially, adding in random sponsors which have yet to be confirmed, and a bunch of other useless things. I don't want to be caught up in 3RR and neither does Deb so a little help would be appreciated. Cheers. Already submitted a protection request as well. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Page is now protected for a week. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Bury have had 3 points deducted retrospectively from last season in Football League One, dropping them two places. I've updated the table template, as well as Bury, Southend and Swindon's infoboxes and list of Bury and Southend seasons (Swindon's hadn't been updated yet, and I'm just off out so don't have time to update it myself). Just a heads up, and to see if anyone thinks of any other articles that might need updating accordingly. - Chrism would like to hear from you 12:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

One month ago, I enhanced the {{

|penalties1=[[Stephan Lichtsteiner|Lichtsteiner]] {{pengoal}}<br />[[Granit Xhaka|Xhaka]] {{penmiss}}<br />[[Xherdan Shaqiri|Shaqiri]] {{pengoal}}<br />[[Fabian Schär|Schär]] {{pengoal}}<br />[[Ricardo Rodríguez (footballer)|Rodríguez]] {{pengoal}}
|penaltyscore=4–5
|penalties2={{pengoal}} [[Robert Lewandowski|Lewandowski]]<br />{{pengoal}} [[Arkadiusz Milik|Milik]]<br />{{pengoal}} [[Kamil Glik|Glik]]<br />{{pengoal}} [[Jakub Błaszczykowski|Błaszczykowski]]<br />{{pengoal}} [[Grzegorz Krychowiak|Krychowiak]]

|penaltyscore=4–5
|penalties1=
* [[Stephan Lichtsteiner|Lichtsteiner]] {{pengoal}}
* [[Granit Xhaka|Xhaka]] {{penmiss}}
* [[Xherdan Shaqiri|Shaqiri]] {{pengoal}}
* [[Fabian Schär|Schär]] {{pengoal}}
* [[Ricardo Rodríguez (footballer)|Rodríguez]] {{pengoal}}
|penalties2=
* {{pengoal}} [[Robert Lewandowski|Lewandowski]]
* {{pengoal}} [[Arkadiusz Milik|Milik]]
* {{pengoal}} [[Kamil Glik|Glik]]
* {{pengoal}} [[Jakub Błaszczykowski|Błaszczykowski]]
* {{pengoal}} [[Grzegorz Krychowiak|Krychowiak]]

Both are supported, but which one should be recommended? –Sygmoral (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I had the same problem when I first used it. People reverted. As editors get used to the new format, they will see that it's easier to implement. The accessibility issue may be lost on them though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It's beautyfull. -Koppapa (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It certainly does look better. Direct any poo-pooers over here. Jared Preston (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thought I was going to hate it cause it's new and all that, but decided to give it a go and I like it :) Cheers, --SuperJew (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

After a lot of thinking, I can see it used for penalties. But what about regular goals? With 1 goal it semms unnecessary to make a new row and one item in the list. How about when it is 2 goals? Should this only be used for penalties or both penalties and goals? Qed237 (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I used it only for more than one. For only one it indeed seems unnecessary. --SuperJew (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess the criterium is whether there is actually a list. Penalty shootouts always have two lists, so there's little argument there, but regular goals are of course often limited to just one (or zero). There is no 'technical' reason to use the listing syntax then. I could come up with an argument though: to create full consistency. That could be beneficial in the long run: I could imagine a future where people are used to just always put a * in front of any goal, as if there's no other way to create them. I.e. goals are always listed, even if there's just one; that would make for a simple rule at least. But I'm just thinking here... By the way, you can actually use it inline too, if there's only a single goal: |goals2=* [[Robbie Brady|Brady]] {{goal|2|pen.}} (although I'm not sure whether that should be recommended).

One final thought: an extra row is not necessarily a bad thing. I used to compress my code in the past, but I've learned that it's much more important to have maintainable code than it is to save a few bytes by obfuscating things. Not sure whether there's a Wikipedia style / rule about this, but it certainly is a 'best practice' for any high level programming language. –Sygmoral (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Qed23: The code is used in the goals section as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

A lot of information on the page, but one issue kept surfacing, which is the current squad section was moved to the top of the page by some editor which is not complying with the style here. I'm currently in the process of reorganising and updating the page with the latest squad info, but will do with some help to reorganise the page since the items are all over the place and consistently watch the page to prevent the current squad section from being moved again. Frankie goh (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I have seen an editor adding links to worldofstadiums.com so I opened a discussion about the site at

Could you please keep am eye on Nampalys Mendy, maybe an Admin can protect? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Article seems okay for now. But might need semi-protecting if too many IP vandals continue. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a minor dispute regarding player club in "recent call-up list" and I would like some input. Should we show the club the player is currently at, or the club he was playing for at the time he was called? Qed237 (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I've always edited under the assumption of club the player is currently at. --SuperJew (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I've always edited under that assumption too. As a reader, I think it's more interesting to know the current club than knowing the club the player represented 10 months ago. But there are pros and cons for both sides, of course... // Mattias321 (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there has been a widespread practice troughout articles to update the teams whenever a player changes club. I understand what you mean Qed237, I also thought about it, if the club should indicate the club at time of the last call or the current one. Seems there has been preference for the currrent one. FkpCascais (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the argument for last club is that it is more relevant on that particular page. Let's say Watford were to sign recent England regular John Doe from Liverpool, and Doe does not receive further call-ups following the transfer. I know which club I would prefer to see next to his name, but which would be the more relevant? In those circumstances I'd say the former club.

StillWaitingForConnection (talk

) 23:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

What the Watford bloke said. We're recording who was called up, and if "Fred Smith of Foo FC" was called up, then that should be what we record. There may be a grey area in the rare case of the player moving between call-up and match, but in general, it has to be the club they were at when they were called up because that section of the page is about the player when they were called up. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree completely, that's the only option that makes sense. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a good argument, but I still think that the current club is a better option. I think that it might be confusing for readers when Player X actually is retired but the article says he's playing for Liverpool, Player Y plays for Manchester United but the article says Arsenal and Player Z plays for Chelsea, but the article says he's unattached. // Mattias321 (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

But the article doesn't say Player X is playing for Liverpool, it says that when he was last called up, he was playing for Liverpool. A standard note at the top of each recent callups table to clarify the meaning would stop both editors and readers getting confused. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Is the club he was playing at when he was last called up relevant? --SuperJew (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

To a section of a page that records players' last call-ups, I'd have thought so, yes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Another point regarding this I thought about, the age column is current age, not age when called-up. --SuperJew (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

All of the data presented should be accurate as of the date of the call-up - age (which you can set with {{Birth date and age2}}) & club. Recent call-ups for national teams should not go back more than 12 months IMO. GiantSnowman 07:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, so do you mean that also caps and goals should be accurate as of when they were called up? And does all of this go for both "Current squad" and "Recent call-ups"? Rather confusing to me. If we take Nolito as an example, should his age say age 29 or aged 29, his caps/goals 13/5 or 9/4 and his club Celta Vigo or Manchester City? // Mattias321 (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It'll be a real bother to editors to change everytime a player is dropped/called-up from {{Birth date and age}} to {{Birth date and age2}} and back. The effort isn't worth the return on this IMO. --SuperJew (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to notice occasions where editors are updating the |updated parameter in Infoboxes when they've only correctly updated a subset of the facts in the infobox. This leads to wikipedia making a factually incorrect statement that: All statistics are correct as of (timestamp) when they categorically aren't.

This appears to be prevalent in season articles, for example at 2016 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, where (an|some) IP editor(s) are extremely eager to update result and goalscorer related statistics, when attendance related statistics take a little more research.

Some editors here are notable for their insistence on updating timestamps, so I guess the positive point here is at least the timestamp is being updated. I would like to see some sort of consensus, though, that in doing so a factual error should not be introduced. Maybe this means guidance (or stronger) that the infobox should not be updated unless you are doing a complete update of stats? Would appreciate hearing other thoughts... Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Guessing this genuinely doesn't annoy anyone else as much as me. I've asked the IP in question on the article in question to stop, but I would really like to have pointed to consensus here. Oh well. Gricehead (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that IPs have recently been changing player articles to have the infobox table in seemingly random orders? Such as:
year1
club1
national team1
national cap 1
club-update
year 4
club 4
youthyear1
youthclub1
For example. Is there some kind of tool going wrong?--EchetusXe 13:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I've noticed it - I wonder if there is some tool/script they are using but it's not working properly. GiantSnowman 13:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That's caused by the visual editor. I've tried to fixed it whenever I saw such an edit. --Jaellee (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

How do you know it's the VE? Is it worth raising at

WP:VPT to try and get a fix? GiantSnowman

14:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Because each time when I saw such an edit, it had the tag Visual edit. See for example [15] [16], [17] [18], [19] etc. Even if these edits are no proof, they strongly suggest that the visual editor causes this random ordering. I'd really appreciate a fix because it is very difficult to see the differences. --Jaellee (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's because the TemplateData stuff isn't set up properly. The infobox entries seem to be mangled arranged by VE into the peculiar order in which they appear in the TemplateData section, and any infobox entries for fields not explicitly specified in that layout, like club4 etc, come afterwards. On the basis that there must be a better way to fix it than having an individual entry for every possible parameter up to |caps39= or whatever, we do need some input from someone who understands the thing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

How can we find such an expert? --Jaellee (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

We should

WP:VPT. GiantSnowman

09:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@EchetusXe, Jaellee, and Struway2: - see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Template:Infobox football biography. GiantSnowman 11:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jaellee (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The mass moving of categories relating to, and rewriting of subjects relating to, Segunda División is coming [20] '''tAD''' (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Almightey Drill: True that. And did you notice that La Liga is also partly wrong? According to them, it's now called LaLiga (uglier enough, IMO) with Segunda being named LaLiga2 (all "glued up" too?). MYS77 ^✉ 03:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@

ChievoVerona. IHopeThisDoesn'tBecomeAFashion. '''tAD''' (talk

) 21:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

LeoC12 (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Both nations should be listed in the infobox, with separate entries. GiantSnowman 07:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I've spotted an issue in the template: this new way of listing manager instead of adding another template works perfectly, but only for active clubs. I mean, UD Salamanca folded in 2013, but its template lists José María Hernández (the last manager) with the dash after the year.

Should we add a parameter in the template for folded clubs, or should I simply add 2013 to 13 to the last manager in the template? MYS77 ^✉ 22:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a good catch :) Seems relevant for folded clubs whose last manager was less than a year in the job. I think 2013 to 13 won't work because it would give 2013-13, which looks silly. I'd suggest adding a parameter to the template. --SuperJew (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@SuperJew: That's what I thought too, but as the source code is blocked (at least for me), I can't elaborate more on an answer or at least analyze if this parameter creation is too hard to be made. MYS77 ^✉ 23:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It's now as a Module, written in Lua (if you know it). Try here. --SuperJew (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: (pinging the writer of it :) ) --SuperJew (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please work out what syntax should be used and I'll fix it. I recommend editing Template:Football manager history/doc to document the new parameter before it gets added because documenting something often shows it should have been done slightly differently. Once a decision is made, I'm very likely to fix it within 24 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

SuperJew, @Johnuniq: I know nothing about Lua :( Although, what needs to be fixed is: we should allow the user to input a param if the club is folded or not (it could be a | folded = yes with the default in no). Then, when this param is set to "yes", and if (that's the main part of the problem) the last manager only managed the folded club for a few months in the same year, we should change the last line of the managerlist to a list without the –.

From what I could understand in the code (pardon me if I'm wrong, one and a half year without programming), we should change the make_list function with two if's in the part after the third if not name then line, like something which would be captured from the param (folded). Cheers, and thank you both. MYS77 ^✉ 03:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's decide on the parameter name. Is "folded" going to be understood by editors? Is it memorable? Could it be confused with anything else? I'm neutral as my only involvement was to write the module to speed up the old template because it was failing on some articles and putting pages in an error category (well, one article, but it was obviously going to be more). Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I think dissolved = would be a better option, like appears in the infobox on the club's page. And of course a note about it should be added to the documentation :) --SuperJew (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

No parameter would be best. So just "2013" in the template works, thats intuitive and same code for previous managers that have been there only a yeas. If you want to see 2013- one should use "2013 to" in the template (though probably all current inclusions would have to be modified). -Koppapa (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That raises a question of what's more common. Obviously dissolved clubs aren't as common, so would seem the common would be the one with just "2013". --SuperJew (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Koppapa: I think you didn't undertand the problem raised here. Did you see the template? Did you know that Salamanca was dissolved in 2013? Either you didn't express yourself very well or either I didn't understand your point properly. MYS77 ^✉ 18:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Koppapa's proposal is that "2013 to" should be entered if "(2013–)" is wanted for the last entry. I think that has a couple of problems. I have converted 1400 navboxes to the new syntax and many of them had dubious wikitext, and having a dangling "to" would be unclear—every editor looking at that would wonder whether something has been accidentally removed. An example of strange wikitext was at {{USM Alger managers}} which used {{Football manager last}} 52 times. Another problem can be seen by considering {{Uganda national football team managers}}. It has six entries like "Ssali 1983" where there is no "to" year. That includes the last entry which is "Sredojević 2013" and which displays as "Sredojević (2013–)" in the navbox. That automatic behavior of adding a dash would be better than requiring that every future adjustment to the hundreds of active navboxes must have "to" with no number on the last line. I think having an unambiguous parameter such as |dissolved=yes would be best—it only has to be added once, assuming a club is not undissolved. I need some help at my sandbox (permalink) where I put a list of navboxes that might need the new parameter. If someone can confirm what is needed, I will do it. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I implemented |dissolved=yes and added it to three navboxes, including {{UD Salamanca managers}} mentioned above. I found there were a handful of navboxes that did not have the new syntax, so I converted them. In doing that, I noticed that Dynafen11 had removed the incorrect dash in a navbox and my edit had inadvertently restored it. Therefore I didn't wait. If something else is wanted, that can be done instead, however "dissolved" sounds good because it is used in {{Infobox football club}}. Johnuniq (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Great. I went through the list and removed a bunch of teams who are not dissolved. --SuperJew (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thank you very much mate :) Problem solved in Salamanca's navbox, works perfectly! MYS77 ^✉ 14:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all, I think it's done. There are probably a couple of glitches, but they can be fixed later. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Some users at

I think that this began as editors wanted to replicate for continental tournaments the tournament rankings that FIFA slightly bizzarely produce for World Cups. Without sourcing, though, I agree that we cannot state 'positions' beyond 1st, 2nd and sometimes 3rd and 4th. I suggest we need to remove this from all continental competition and national team articles as a Wikipedian invention. --

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 21:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree, delete them unless UEFA/CAF/CONMEBOL etc. publish them. World Cup ones are fine (I guess) if FIFA publish them. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, with the exception of the world cup rankings, unless, as in the instance of this year's Copa América, all such rankings should be removed from tournament and national team articles unless a reliable source can be provided or a specific match was played to determine a finishing position. Where this creates gaps in tables the ranking should simply be replaced with "N/A". Until this time I wasn't aware how widespread this was. Fenix down (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The tournament ranking at this year's Copa América is also unsourced, only a table of results for teams is given, not a ranking. There are no places given in this table. One can look in the tournament regulations if rules are given for ranking teams overall or not.--2003:5F:3E0B:EF5B:649C:518C:1EF5:D394 (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this edit which led to

As far as I'm aware, yes. I don't really see it being a big problem for the categories. However, it should probably remain as the Football League Cup in the honours lists (until a club wins another under the new name). Number 57 12:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is standard practice, although I'm also not sure the

List of Football League Cup finals to List of EFL Cup finals without mention of 55 years of previous name isn't either standard practice or (IMO) desirable: alternative models include List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers and List of winners of the Scottish Championship and predecessors. And we'd normally stick to historically accurate names in honours lists or prose.

One category change that bothered me was Category:English Football League representative players, for people who played for The Football League XI. Technically, the category should reflect the parent article title. And particularly as that article says it was a representative side of the Football League; if the team's defunct, it has nothing to do with the EFL. cheers, Struway2 (talk

) 13:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Category-wise, I don't see any problem with saying any club has won the "EFL Cup" despite the recency of the renaming. In club articles, however, I would say stick with "Football League Cup" or "League Cup" until they've actually won the renamed tournament. –

Jay

16:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree fully with PeeJay. GiantSnowman 17:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a wider issue. A large number of 'Football League' categories have been speedy moved to EFL or English Football League. See 2 July at this page. Whilst it is appreciated there is some (further) renaming by the FL is it appropriate for all of these categories to be renamed? Eldumpo (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Could any admins about take a look at the recent contributions from 175.100.59.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They've copy/paste moved a few articles on Cambodian football clubs. The name changes appear to be appropriate, but need to be done as proper page moves. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do we still have Template:Football box collapsible and Template:Football box as separate templates? Shouldn't they be merged into one template? They mostly serve the same purpose. TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well one is collapsible and one isn't. The collapsible is used for pages where it's summaries (like season pages), while the non-collapsible when it's less matches. --SuperJew (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

What we could do, I guess, is merge it into Template:Football box but add a parameter collapsible, and Template:Football box collapsible could then 'forward' to the other template with that parameter on. This would un-duplicate some code which is always good, but be quite a bit of work to ensure everything still looks as it should. –Sygmoral (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

We know that penalty shoot-outs are recorded as draws, so is then the previous record of Germany never beating Italy in a competitive match broken or not? There seems to be a dispute with User:Canon 108 on the Italy national football team page. In my view, even though it is recorded as a draw, the technicality of it is that they won the game in order to progress, so the record is technically broken. The other user seems to think otherwise. I'm fine with either way as long as we stay consistent on the other pages. What should it be written as? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Canon 108: In my view you can't count a draw as a win. Yes, they eliminated the Italians for the first time in their nations history. But the score was 1-1 after extra time, so in the eyes of UEFA, Germany, and Italy it goes down as a draw, even though a team was eliminated via penalty shootout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, UEFA may record the result statistically as a draw, but the UEFA match report says it's Germany's first victory over Italy in a major tournament. If you asked anyone if Germany beat Italy yesterday, obviously the intuitive answer would be yes. –

Jay

17:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

^ Exactly. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That's why I worded my edit as "the Germans eliminated Italy for the first time in a major competition." It got the point across without conflicting with the point that it was a draw. My whole family is German, I'm happy they advanced, but if you post it as a "Win" on the Italian page, people are bound to disagree. The way I worded my response was in a way they wouldn't be able to argue with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

But that makes it sound like Germany might have beaten Italy in a game that wasn't a knockout game (e.g. in the group stage). –

Jay

18:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Not when I edited that the result was 6-5 in a penalty shootout for Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You've misunderstood my point. I'm saying that the way you've worded it makes it sound like Germany might have previously beaten Italy in a non-knockout game and that the special thing about last night was that it was the first time they actually knocked Italy out directly. –

Jay

18:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Canon 108: Please stop making it sound better than it is. Italy lost, that's it. We can't make Wikipedia biased, we must tell it as it is and not make it more complicated than it needs to be, AND how PeeJay even pointed out that UEFA even recognizes it as Germany's first win. Should we not say that Italy won the 2006 World Cup just because it was a shootout win? No, they won it. It's the same thing here. Please stop your reverting. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

My exact edit was "Italy then faced off against rivals Germany in a quarter final which ended 1–1 after extra time and 6–5 after penalty shoot-out in favour of Germany. It was the first time the Germans had eliminated Italy in a major tournament." I'm keeping it like that, it gets the point across clearly, doesn't conflict with the fact it was a draw, and if need be, you can get in touch with someone higher up to settle the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You can't say "I'm keeping it like that", it doesn't work that way.We go off of consensus, and the way it stands right now, you are against the consensus. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

No, we go off of facts. And what I posted doesn't conflict in any way with how the game played out. I love the fact that Germany advanced, but they advanced on penalties with a final score of 1-1. That's why I edited it initially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The match itself was a draw, but Germany was still victorious over Italy - it just means that the victory came in the penalty shootout as opposed to the first 120 minutes. -Gopherbashi (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That's why following the shootout result I posted it was the first time they eliminated Italy, instead of posting they flat out won. This way everybody wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

But the fact of the matter is isn't that it's the first time Germany eliminated Italy in a major tournament, it's that Germany won, yes won, it's first ever game in a major tournament over Italy. UEFA records it as a draw, but has acknowledged the fact that Germany did win. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

No, this way everyone draws. :/ -Gopherbashi (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

^Haha. It's the same thing in that should we not say Italy won the World Cup in 2006 since it was on penalties. No. It's the same thing here. Did Germany not advance yesterday? Someone must have won to advance. It is simply Germany's first victory over Italy in a major tournament and should be stated as such as even UEFA recognizes it as that. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Could an acceptable compromise be something along the lines of "It was the first time Germany defeated Italy in a major tournament, albeit requiring a penalty shootout to do so."? This simultaneously describes that Italy was the team who was eliminated, while specifying that Germany was unable to make that happen within a standard match. -Gopherbashi (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Germany get to advance, but on the head to head record with Italy it'll say draw on July 2, 2016. It was the first time where Germany eliminated Italy however, it doesn't change the fact that it was a big day for the team. I simply wanted to make it as clear as possible without any Italian fans coming in to dispute it, since we're posting on their team's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the match itself was drawn, but the overall contest (encompassing the match and the penalties) was won by Germany. Germany defeated Italy in the overall contest even if the match portion of that was a draw. -Gopherbashi (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That's true, I'm just trying to save the trouble of more edits later on. Italian fans would claim the match ended 1-1...and they would be right in saying so. My edit simply said the shootout ended 6-5 in favour of Germany. And it was the first time the Germans eliminated Italy in a major competition. Gets the point across, and is exactly what was proposed above as a compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The last thing I'm going to add on this is from the 2016/17 FIFA LOTG, page 71.
"When competition rules require a winning team after a drawn match or home-and-away tie, the only permitted procedures to determine the winning team (emphasis mine) are:
• away goals rule
• extra time
• kicks from the penalty mark"
Yesterday's match was drawn, yet required a winning team. Kicks from the penalty mark was the procedure used to determine the winning team. Germany, having won the kicks from the penalty mark, is therefore the winning team. -Gopherbashi (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I like Gopherbashi compromise. States that it was the first time Germany beat Italy in a major tournament as well as encompasses the penalties. The fact is, as Gopherbashi said, the match portion ended in a draw, but there must be a winner with the penalties. Myself being an Italy fan, want to give accurate info. We cannot give info that sounds better than it is. Even though it ended as a draw, there was a victor and again, even UEFA recognizes it. "beat Italy in a major tournament for the first time" or something along those lines must be included. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to get to as well. I didn't want to say they beat Italy since technically the match ended 1-1. But I wanted to emphasise that it was the first time Germany has eliminated Italy in a major tournament, I just wanted to make sure I mentioned the shootout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

IMO, the match was not a draw. The rules of elimination indicate that the penalty kicks are part of the match and there has to be a victor. Sure UEFA, bookmakers and statisticians look at the certain parts of the contest, but in an elimination tie there are only two outcomes - a win or a loss. WP should focus on the result including graphics and wording and not add to the confusion of what the outcome was. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Brudder Andrusha: Thank you for your input, I agree. It seems that Canon 108 is on the other side of the consensus. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I like Gopherbashi's compromise, too, and I personally believe the Germany beat Italy. As a side note, I don't know a single Italian (and I am one myself) who considers that outcome a draw (if any, a honorable defeat). --Tanonero (msg) 18:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tanonero: Thanks for your input as well. I've communicated this on Canon's talk page as well, but refuses to listen to consensus or compromise. Canon has suggested going to an admin, which I have now done. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: I want also to add that stating that it was just the first time the Germany eliminated Italy (namely the version proposed by Canon 108) can be open to disagreement, because in the last group match of Euro 1996 Italy needed to win against Germany to qualify, whereas they drew. As a result, Germany advanced to the next stage and eliminated de facto Italy. --Tanonero (msg) 20:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tanonero: Good point. I've now talked to admin User:Number 57 on his talk page, where he will close the discussion in 2-3 days if this thread remains inactive for users in favour of Canon's wording. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Germany did not beat Italy. The match ended 1-1. It was a draw. Penalties are used to see which team goes through to the next round, not which team wins the match. Hashim-afc (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Yes, we know penalties are considered draws on paper, HOWEVER, did you see the source above released by UEFA that states that it was the first time Germany beat Italy in a competitive match? This situation is really about the record that was broken, NOT the technicality that it was a draw. The main thing is that there was a victor, Germany, and UEFA even supports this. Also, the point made by Tanonero in that using Canon's wording of "eliminated" instead of "defeat" causes problems as Germany eliminated Italy in Euro 1996 without defeating them. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Well, the record is not broken because Germany did not beat Italy. However I guess that source is reliable seeing as it's from UEFA. In my opinion, we should use words like 'Germany overcame Italy for the first time' rather than they 'eliminated them for the first time', because 'overcame' doesn't necessarily have to mean that they actually won the game, rather that they simply knocked them out. Or, we could say it was the first time they eliminated them in the knockout stage, or something like that, if the word 'overcame' is not enough for whatever reason. Hashim-afc (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Overcame isn't specific enough though. I, as well as User:Tanonero really liked User:Gopherbashi's suggestion saying that they defeated them (as it says in the UEFA article), although requiring a shootout to do so. If UEFA, the very tournament they played in classified it as the first defeat in a major competition, then we should too end of story. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: I like that idea too, but I still prefer the use of overcame as opposed to defeated. "Germany overcame Italy for the first time, although requiring a penalty shootout to do so" would be the ideal wording for me. Hashim-afc (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Okay, I guess I could live with that. It beats what we have right now (eliminated), which is factually wrong. I'm going to implement the wording you suggested with the imput of "in a major competition" ti have "Germany overcame Italy for the first time in a major tournament, although requiring a penalty shootout to do so."; if anyone has any concerns with this let us know. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Canon 108: And Canon still insists on edit warring but is now absent from the discussion! He claims to be "in line with consensus" when he is not. Using "eliminated" is not the appropriate wording as we have all pointed out to you since they eliminated them in Euro 96 without beating them. What don't you understand?? It's factually incorrect. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

All we need to do is change "eliminated" with the compormise "overcame" and we're good. Again, eliminated is factually incorrect. We've made compromises, Canon, why can't you. If you continue, I will have no choice but to report you. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Germany eliminated Italy for the first time in euro 16...euro 96 Italy left the group stage because of two other performances that contributed to their exit in the round...Germany eliminated Italy for the first time this year, that's factually correct. Eliminated is the accurate term since Italy were eliminated on penalties — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Canon 108:. Ok. So, does, in your opinion, the record of Italy never been beaten by Germany in a major tournament still stand? --Tanonero (msg) 14:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically yes, the match is recorded as a draw. The consensus on the discussion page was to emphasise the penalty shootout however, so I edited it appropriately. I edited it to state they defeated Italy 6-5 on penalties, and that it was the first time they've eliminated Italy in a major tournament (which is correct since it was an elimination game and one team wasn't going to advance)...but now Vaselineeeeeeee is contesting that eliminated isn't the correct term to describe the outcome of an elimination game... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, it really doesn't matter what Canon, or I , or anyone thinks about if Germany defeat Italy, because the source released by UEFA saying that the record that Germany first defeated Italy in a competitive match is broken. That source trumps anyone's opinion. Now, eliminated is not the best word since the euro in 96 which still eliminated Italy in the group stage, largely because of that last Germany Italy match. I get what canon is saying that all the group matches were a factor for Italy's elimination, but the final game is the biggest. We cannot expect our readers to be an expert on this matter and there is always room for improvement and so there can be a better word. I thought hashim's word of "overcame" was s good compromise for everyone, but obviously not for canon. There must be s better word we can think of Taft everyone likes to avoid any potential confusion. Canon, you can think there is no confusion all you want, but the truth is, you don't know that, and we must make it the simplest way possible for our readers who may or may not be experts on the matter. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee You're literally the only person taking issue with this. Italy were dependent on more than one factor going into their match with Germany in 1996. They either needed to beat Germany and have Czech Republic lose or draw, or draw with Germany and hope for a Russia win. Their fate was out of their hands as soon as they lost to Czech Republic in the second game. There's no confusion however, Germany eliminated Italy for the first time in 2016 after defeating then 6-5 on penalties. It was an elimination match and Italy did not advance, they were eliminated. Where in 1996 their fate was dependant on more than one factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

As you can see by Hashim's edit, I'm not the only one. Your wording of "eliminated" is also a factual error since the UEFA source states it's the first time Italy were defeated (or overcome) by Germany in a competitive tournament, NOT eliminated. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Canon 108: I really don't see the problem here. The use of the word 'eliminated' = a tiny bit of confusion may arise. The use of the word 'overcame' = no confusion arises whatsoever. So why should we use 'eliminated' when it would be more sensible to use another word? You're the only person taking issue with the use of 'overcame'. Hashim-afc (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically speaking, you're the only person for it. Vaselineeeeeeee said he was indifferent in the matter. And my reasoning is that in an elimination game, a team is eliminated. I clearly stated in my edit that "The score remained 1–1 after extra time and Germany defeated Italy 6–5 in a penalty shootout. It was the first time Germany had eliminated Italy in a major tournament." There's no confusion, the statement is clear as day and lets the reader know the match needed to be resolved via penalty shootout, and that Italy were eliminated as a result. It doesn't need to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Canon, when did I say I didn't care? I don't see that I have, unless I missed it and must have been before I was reminded about Euro 96, if I did. I 100% agree with Hashim's wording. You're really the only one for your wording. ALSO may I add that how you have it makes it seem like the record was that Germany eliminated Italy for the first time, which is factually incorrect since UEFA acknowledges it as Italy's first defeat (overcome) works here as well. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Once again I will add my few cents and responded that the Germany defeated, eliminated, beat, overcame choose whatever word you want but the describing the contest as a draw is oblivious to the fact that one team went home as a loser while the other team advance to play another game. If a draw is like kissing your sister then the Italian Team will tell you that it far from that - For them it was a bitter defeat. The contest did not stop after added extra time with the teams going back into the locker rooms and calling the game over and replaying the match. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Brudder Andrusha: Good point about the defeat. However, using "eliminated", as you've probably read, can cause some issues, and it would just be better to avoid it for any potential risks. No matter if Canon thinks there are none, we can't expect our readers to be experts on the matter, so we should choose the word with the least possible confusion. He seems to love that word though, meanwhile we are giving plenty of other better suggestions. 15:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• User:Canon 108 has agreed to use "beat" after a suggestion from User:Number 57 on his talk page. @Brudder Andrusha:, @Tanonero:, @Hashim-afc:, etc. does this work? Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I used beat when referring to the shootout win and defeated when referring to the first time making they eliminated Italy, does that work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It works for me. Canon confuses me a lot though. This whole discussion is about how he did not agree with the use of 'defeated' because the match ended in a draw, and now all of a sudden he is fine with it? Strange. Hashim-afc (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: I guess he just wanted to hear it from an admin I guess... Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Would appreciate if someone could takle a look at

Yes, sure, they are all in the first team squad, really. Sources were shown: [21] [22] All listed players are in the first team squad now, and play in the games, after the "bancrupcy" of the club, read the recent news. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said those "sources" only say what players played a recent match and went to training camp. NO evidence that they are in first team squad. In pre-season it is very common for clubs to have test players and young players who are not in the first team when season starts. The source in the section contained an official list of first team players, and that is what we should follow in our list of first team players. Qed237 (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That source [23] were not updated very well (for example, listed Jan Laštůvka, and Papa Gueye, which both leaved the club already). The squad was updated almost all after the club owner had stopped funding it, see [24] 46.200.26.232 (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed the red-linked players without squad numbers who aren't on the official team squad page. They are probably youth players or trialists, and as Qed237 said pre-season rarely reflects the starting squad. There are however a few who I'm not sure about... there are 3 players on the team's website who appear there but not on the Wiki-squad, but their pages say the played at Dnipro until 2016 (recently released and not yet updated on official site?). Also there are 4 players on wikipage but not on official site which I'm not sure about as they seem to have been playing for Dnipro for a while, including the captain and 2 returning from loan. --SuperJew (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Not trialists, but first team players already. Red links and no numbers are not a reasons to remove them. Try to read another official page links: [25] and last game: [26] Again: "official team squad page" were not updated well due to financial problems of the club. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I read them. It's a training camp and a pre-season match. Not a basis for senior squad list. If you have a source for them signing a senior contract with the club, then that'll be different. As it stands the most verifiable source we have is the squad listing on the official club site. If that's not completely updated yet, patience,

there is no deadline. --SuperJew (talk

) 22:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I have added the "new" players to the different section. They all were in the U-21 team squad last year (the link does not available now in the league site [27]).

The deadline is now. Is it Ok now? 46.200.26.232 (talk

) 23:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. --SuperJew (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you're using

WP:NOW, you should be aware of more than just it's title: When an article contains unverifiable content, it needs to be corrected now before someone reads it and is misled by it. - as in the unverifiable content being the players you added originally to the senior squad list, which also misled Qed237. --SuperJew (talk

) 23:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

There was no any unverifiable content in this situation. The subtitle was "Current squad" (not "First team squad") before your edit [28]. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

An editor has been going around the UEFA Euro articles (and some others) adding wikinews, for example see this version of

I'd say keep. It's the same as having a link to wikiquote on a movie page or a link to wikicommons on a page. --SuperJew (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember sincerely if I have ever filed out a report on this (I think I have, not sure), but if I have i'll try it again, for the last time,

after a difference of opinions at Adrien Silva, the following: Portuguese sports broadcasters have this idiotic custom (and I am also Portuguese, so no racism accusations please) of addressing 99,999999999999% of the players by first and last name 99,9999999999999% of the time (and sometimes even three names), they even go as far as to "make" name/nickname compounds (Nuno Capucho, Pedro Pauleta, Pedro Mantorras, etc); I once heard in disbelief as a commentator from Sport TV said, over the course of a La Liga match, "Radamel Falcao García" 40/50 TIMES.

Now, translating this to the example I spoke of before. This chap is mostly known as Adrien but, of course, with the "professionalism" of the broadcasters, he is also often referred as "Adrien Silva". But I think in his intro we should have only "commonly known as Adrien", that would suffice 100%. The fact that the ref provided displays him as Adrien Silva is not enough to back the "he-is-known-as-Adrien-Silva" up, as most players in the world have first name and surname displayed on their respective club's official profile; plus, in the biography immediately below his vital stats, he is referred to as Adrien.

Speaking of Sporting players, Silva's teammate Marvin Zeegelaar: last time I checked SOCCERWAY.com there is only ONE PLAYER in the world with this surname. Well, the Portuguese broadcasters could not care less about this fact, and refer to him as "Marvin Zegeelaar" 100% of the time. I rest my case, inputs please.

Attentively --

You mean Sport TV. It happens because most Portuguese commentators are attention ******. Ignore them. SLBedit (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, correct, SPORT TV and not SPORTV. I could not care less about them (or all in general), but what about the issue at hand (Mr. Silva's intro)? --

A primary source should not be used. SLBedit (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what your point is but whilst we're on the subject I'd appreciate if you look a minute to check out Port Vale's new Portuguese signings: Bruno Ribeiro, Kiko (footballer, born 1993), Carlos Saleiro, and Paulo Tavares. Kiko is named differently because everywhere is calling him Kiko instead of Francisco Manuel Geraldo Ros or whatever. For club names I went with what appears at the box of the club's infobox, so Vitória Setúbal, Académico Viseu (or Académico de Viseu?), União de Leiria, Beira-Mar, Santa Clara, GD Chaves, Farense, Moura, Pinhalnovense, Académica de Coimbra, Oriental, Sporting B, Sporting CP, Olivais e Moscavide, Fátima, Leixões, Padroense, Ribeirão, and Estoril.--EchetusXe 12:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• My point? Thought I had explained myself thoroughly, I see I have not... Silva should NOT be "commonly known as Adrien Silva", much as "Wayne Mark Rooney" is known as "Rooney" not "Wayne Rooney" and "Iker Casillas Fernández" is known as "Casillas" not "Iker Casillas"! The Port Vale stuff, regarding your question: I never write the "de" in infoboxes (and NEVER the humungous Académica de Coimbra, "Académica" suffices, only one club in the world like that to my knowledge), only in storyline, where I write the club names in full not compressed (and by the way, in box it's "Chaves" not "GD Chaves") 2 - the players, what do you want me to check there? But I must point out that I don't intend to ever edit there again after taking care of Saleiro/Ribeiro due to the approach having been completely altered (safe for Kiko and Tavares, they had nothing but a box), out of respect for you I must leave it be; but i'll assist in what I can. --
  talk
  ) 17:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated. Thanks.--EchetusXe 18:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

An editor has created season articles for Algeria national football team

• Algeria national football team 2012
• Algeria national football team 2013
• Algeria national football team 2014
• Algeria national football team 2015
• Algeria national football team 2016
• Algeria national football team 2017

All they seem to contain is list of matches for that year and stats.

Are they notable? Qed237 (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I also wonder about

• Algeria national football team home stadium
• Algerian Cup Final referees
• List of All-time appearances for USM Alger
• List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 players
• List of Algeria national football team managers

Qed237 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the

WP:GNG, their notability seems very doubtful. Calistemon (talk

) 23:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Would like to mention a number of Australian equivalents here (e.g. 2015 Australia national soccer team season). My understanding is that these 1-season national team articles shouldn't exist, but should instead be merged into single articles which cover longer periods of time (around two decades). Macosal (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they should be merged into a period of time (10/20 years, depending on content). GiantSnowman 07:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Could you as an admin do that? Or do we have to to a merge request? Qed237 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Merging the histories of 20 aticles is not feasible; you'd have to merge content and create redirects. GiantSnowman 07:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Now I also found List of foreign Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 players, which is not notable? Qed237 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is it not notable? It's a fully professional league. --SuperJew (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously the league is notable, but there's been a consensus for a while (if I recall) that laundry lists of foreign players in a given league are not encyclopedic..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Although having said that, I've just noticed the contents of Category:Lists of expatriate association football players, so clearly I misremembered the consensus...... :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject, is there a reason the list for foreign Ligue 1 players is divided by letter? I reckon it should be merged into 1 article like the foreign Premier League players. --SuperJew (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that is obviously notable. But could someone merge the season articles and then we can nominate the other for deletion? Qed237 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@

There are already results page that follow the normal 10/20 year lists such as

Algeria national football team 2013. An article like that doesn't really follow convention. Maybe info like that can be put into a page like 2015–16 in Algerian football. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★

02:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've had a bit of a discussion lately on footballboxes with another user regarding Vietnamese naming conventions. s/he claims that the full name should be used while I went according to the conventions here. After discussions between us on our talkpages, at my advice the user opened a discussion on the talk page of the conventions page. If anyone here is knowledgeable about this I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there a consensus as to whether we should be naming trialists who score in preseason friendlies? I'm guessing the right thing to do would be to name them only if the reliable source (i.e. match report) names them? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean to name them in general or to specify that they're triallists? --SuperJew (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, should have been more specific. If a trialist scored, should we identify them as "Trialist" or by their name if quoted in the match report? Gricehead (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

By their name surely if it is reliable sourced?--EchetusXe 10:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. If we can reliably source who they are, even if they have to go down as "A. Trialist" in the official match report, we should use their real name. –

Jay

14:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we have a rule about the date from which summer transfers apply to the new club on a player's bio. Are we past that yet? --

I think consensus has moved more towards updating the club as soon as it's a done deal, as long as the "old" club has finished its season, rather than trying to rigidly enforce a "threshold" date which people other than contract lawyers generally aren't aware of. But from what I recall, even when we did use a date it was 1 July, so we are well past that.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, splendid, thanks --

old fashioned!

14:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dweller: It all depends on when the different Transfer windows opens (note that the article is not updated). When a window is open, the clubs in that nation can buy players. For example the English window opens the night a team has played their last match, so they can buy players right away, while in Sweden it opens on 15 July (for this season). There is one "exception" do this rule and that is players with ending contracts. All contracts officially ends on 30 June, so they can not be signed as free agents (per "Bosman rule") until 1 July 2016. For example Manchester United could not officially sign Zlatan Ibrahimović until 1 July when his contract with PSG had expired. Qed237 (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ta. --

old fashioned!

15:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It's what Qed237 wrote. Also, players must pass medicals before signing a contract. Many people change a player's club even before medical. SLBedit (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The medicals though are usually just a formality, and when a club doesn't sign a player because of a medical it's important and notable to put in the article too (so the article should be indicated after a "failed" medical anyway), as per the recent case of Chris Naumoff. My point is clubs will often announce players before the official medical, but won't make an announcement after the medical saying the player "passed" the medical. --SuperJew (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not "just a formality". Usually clubs announce that a player passed the medical, and only then it's official. Wikipedia is not

WP:NEWS. SLBedit (talk

) 19:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have some examples? --SuperJew (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty. Search for them. SLBedit (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand you don't have then. As someone who edits the

A-League clubs, almost every time it'll say a club signed someone pending medical and then after that never mention the medical again, or they won't mention a medical in the first place. --SuperJew (talk

) 19:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You are assuming that I don't have, but the reality is that there are plenty of news confirming that, and I'm not a search engine. SLBedit (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Great way to run a discussion mate --SuperJew (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Medhi Benatia is an example. He under went his Juventus medical today, however, it is getting held up and although it is expected he should pass it, the club hasn't officially signed or announced his signing, so we don't add it yet. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to examples of announcements of players passing medicals. --SuperJew (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, when a player passes a medical, the next step is to sign them, that's why there is not usually an announcement solely on passing the medical. So in the article announcing the player's signing, it will probably mention "after passing the medical Juventus have official signed, etc etc", but obviously the medical is not the focus; the signing is. The main thing is that signings are usually not official until the medical is complete and passed. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, most signings in the A-League don't mention a medical or the signing announcement will say pending medical and then never mention signing/medical again. --SuperJew (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Just as an example: Demba Ba failed the medical at Stoke City and subsequently they didn't sign him [29] So a medical is not just a formality. --Jaellee (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, I said that is the exemption and when it happens it's notable and important enough to put on player's wikipage --SuperJew (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Where a player has not played (or even featured in squads) in any/many Continental club match, do we need a 'Continental' column in his career stats table? Certainly not if there are zero apps, and I think that until he has made a decent number of appearances, it's fine to absorb any appearances into the 'Other' column. FYI @SuperJew:. GiantSnowman 17:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I think there should be a separate. As per the Manual Of Style and to keep consistency between players. --SuperJew (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

By that logic we should have 'College career', 'International' and 'Management' entries in the infobox for players who only played at club level - and just put 'BLANK' or something in them?! The MOS is a guide for what stuff, when it is included, should look like - but not everything has to be included if it's not relevant. GiantSnowman 17:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I think if a player was eligible to appear in continental matches during his time at a club, then the 'Continental' column should be included regardless of whether he actually played or not. –

Jay

17:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@

PeeJay2K3:- and how do you determine eligibility (thinking of players in pre-internet age)? GiantSnowman

17:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

For the pre-internet age, I would suggest that if a player was with a club at the same time as they played at least one game in a continental competition, he was probably eligible, which is good enough for me. –

Jay

18:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Even as a reserve player? GiantSnowman 20:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's why I said "probably eligible". But then if a player is in the reserves, he's probably not playing for the first team, and if he's playing for the first team he's probably in contention to play in a European game. –

Jay

20:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I would also say that the first row in the stats table should be the first season where the player makes an appearance. Any seasons with zero appearances before that should not be included, but any seasons with zero appearances after that should be, even if the player is on loan to another club. –

Jay

20:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

So for Ashley Fletcher, the article in dispute that led to this discussion - would you include a 'Continental' column? GiantSnowman 20:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. He was eligible to play in any of Manchester United's Champions League matches before he went on loan to Barnsley, so I reckon including a "Continental" column would make sense. –

Jay

20:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

But he was a reserve player with zero appearances in any competition for Man Utd... GiantSnowman 20:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

But if you leave out that row altogether, it doesn't indicate from whom he was on loan to Barnsley. –

Jay

20:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Leave the Man Utd row - just remove the 'Continental' column. GiantSnowman 07:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

So should we remove the "goals" columns for most goalkeepers GiantSnowman? --SuperJew (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope, that would be technically impossible, whereas removing a column from a table is not reliant upon an infobox in use on thousands of articles. GiantSnowman 17:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about in the club statistics table. Definitely possible. --SuperJew (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

But then it'd look significantly different to the vast majority of articles, and not "keep[ing] consistency between players" which you want - whereas the 'Continental' column is not present in many at all. You need to differentiate between something which is key/core, and something which is optional. GiantSnowman 17:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think the removal of these columns as opposed to the remove of these other colums makes a table look significantly different? If you want it to be consistent, they should either be the same tables (and what is filled with 0 is filled with 0) or it should be with whatever is optional is optional for all of them. --SuperJew (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

"Whatever is optional is optional for all of them" - err that was my point exactly, namely that the 'Continental' column is not required on every table! GiantSnowman 20:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If so, surely the goals column isn't required on every table too (most goalkeepers). --SuperJew (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

But 'goals' isn't optional. Every player has the chance to score goals (even keepers!), not every player plays for a team in a Continental competition. GiantSnowman 20:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yet you suggested dropping continental column even in cases where a player played, but only a few matches. He obviously had the chance to play and even played! But yet a goalkeeper with zero goals you want to keep the goals because he has a chance to score? You're applying one logic to one case and another to a different one. --SuperJew (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine including it if and only if a player actually plays (though I think it's overkill for someone who makes 1 appearance). Simply not needed when he makes zero. GiantSnowman 07:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

As goals column is not needed when he scores zero goals in his career --SuperJew (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

As the MOS states, these tables can (and should) be formatted specifically by player. I think that while a player who has never played top flight football, for example, should not have a "continental" column, those who have played for clubs participating in Europe certainly could, regardless of whether or not they actually played. As to whether they should, I don't think it is too important whether that final column is "other" or "continental" (although I don't think both should be used if a player has played in neither). Macosal (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Out of interest (and since I have not been that active in this project lately), what is the current consensus on the visual appearance of navboxes like

Nobody here to enlighten a poor soul? –– Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone working on this? I mean since they just won the Euro's I figured it could be updated. It only goes up to 2014 world cup qualifiers. I'm willing to do it myself, but I wanted to know if there's anyone else working on this. I'm Portuguese so this means more to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therolder (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Go for it! --SuperJew (talk

) 20:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Sweet I'll get on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therolder (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it ok if I get rid of the qualifying results tables? They don't seem to fit with the rest of the article, and other ones like this don't have qualifying results, and those group tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therolder (talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Compare with some highly rated other articles: for example Peru which is Featured Article, and Belgium which is Good Article (and close to getting Featured). You could use them as guideline / inspiration for Portugal's format! (by the way, add ~~~~ at the end of your comments on Talk pages, that way they'll get signed :) ) –Sygmoral (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the help, :).2001:1970:575F:F000:4809:8F9C:929C:7070 (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)<nowwiki>

There is an IP repeatedly changing Mr Puyol's nationality to "Spanish/Catalan" without consensus. Just a request for people to help keep an eye on this. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, shirt numbers used by players during pre-season are not official. Is there consensus about this? SLBedit (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Now Besteirense (talk · contribs) is reverting me on 2016–17 S.L. Benfica season. SLBedit (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, the club have announced the official numbers. SLBedit (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been emailed by a journalist from Four Four Two magazine, who wants to interview me for a piece he's writing about people who edit football content on WP. He asked if I knew of any other footy Wikipedians who would agree to being interviewed so that he can include content about more than just me. I said I'd ask the question. So if anyone else fancies it, email me and I will pass your details on........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Aye, I'm up for it. –

Jay

09:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you want to email me your email address and I'll pass it on to him........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

He emailed me separately a few days ago, I thought I was special! </3 GiantSnowman 17:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should start allowing people to email me from Wikipedia again! –

Jay

17:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

He should now have the contact details of me, GiantSnowman, Number 57, PeeJay2K3 and EchetusXe. Now we just wait and see what he does with them........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I've just done my interview. It's shaped up pretty well, if I do say so myself. Just the photoshoot ahead now! –

Jay

16:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Very good (I'm not doing mine as they wanted name and photo), please send us the link when it's published! GiantSnowman 17:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Are the interviews in the issue released today? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

They didn't say when the issue in question would be published and I wasn't aware that one came out yesterday but as I only had my photo taken on Wednesday night, I would say it is unlikely to be in that one............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I asked and was told it would be the August one. @ChrisTheDude: How was your photoshoot? They were determined to make me look as geeky as possible (dressing me up like Moss from the IT Crowd) – the remit was apparently that "you're not a normal football supporter"... Number 57 11:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The photographer that did mine didn't do anything unusual, he just had me sitting or standing in different places in my house with a laptop or tablet in my hands, in my normal clothes. He did tell me I couldn't wear a football shirt for some reason............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, mine was the same. Just a polo, jeans and trainers for me. However, I was staying with a mate, so none of the stuff in the background of my photos is mine. –

Jay

10:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been active in the Wiki community for quite some time and every once in a while I visit and/or make edits but I'm curious to read the interviews when they come out. :^) Cheers, --MicroX (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

My photoshoot took an hour. Sitting up, standing up, with laptop, without laptop, sitting on the stairs, sitting on a chair, kneeling, close ups, long shots, laughing, chin up, smiling, always smiling, bigger smile! I dunno if they wanted fill the magazine with just pictures of me or what. I had it done at my office so he put up a white background screen. I forgot mention I was going into my office so he originally turned up at my house and found that I wasn't at home. It was in the back of my mind all the time that he was pissed off about me messing him around like that so he was secretly planning to make me look like a total mug. He didn't try to dress me though, must have reckoned I already looked abnormal enough.--EchetusXe 20:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Recently, I've came across an issue within articles involving players who are from Nation A (say England) and are registered as a domestic player, but then at a later date choose to represent Nation B internationally (ie Canada) between the 2013-14 and 2014-15 season. While there's no issue showing the player as Canadian in the season articles of his club starting from the 2014-15 season onwards, my question is do you guys think these players should being listed within previous season articles retroactively as Canadian, rather than English?

A good example of this is both Tim Cahill and Paul Ifill. Cahill, whilst having played internationally for Australia for longer than a decade, originally represented Samoa's youth team in the 1990's and is listed as Samoan on the 2002–03 Millwall season page. Paul Ifill was playing in England (wherein he was born and raised), but decided to represent Barbados in 2004.

Should inconsistencies like these be made retroactive or chronological? - J man708 (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It should be nation at that time. If the player plays for Nation A before 2001 and Nation B after, then they should have flag of Nation A in club season articles until 2001. Qed237 (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Qed237, I think it should be the nation they were under at time of that season, as the page describes that season. If they do change nationality, especially in more famous cases such as Cahill a note could be added retroactively (as I've seen on some English season pages), but I don't think it should be a "must do it" issue. --SuperJew (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, these articles should be historically accurate. Nationality at the time. GiantSnowman 07:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there an admin around? there is an IP edit waring at Template:2015–16 Premier League table. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody know what the hell happened

Looks like they were moved into line of what they should be, how those articles had high class status I don't know. Govvy (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

No no no, the

WP:FOOTY importance rating didn't change. In this case, I'm talking about the task force rating. That's not showing up. – Michael (talk

) 00:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

We've just started to use it. In WPfr, more than 5,000 articles of football players display in the infobox information from Wikidata (with fr:Template:Infobox Footballeur). Yellowcard told me he is also testing what could be done for WPde. There may be other tests elsewhere I do not know...

In my opinion, in a domain like sports, Wikiprojects of every languages would benefit greatly to share the work of updating the data in a tool like Wikidata. In WPfr, we have (tens of ?) thousands of articles of footballers which have never been updated since their creation ... I think the problem is the same everywhere.

Today, football projects in different languages can try and see. To those who are worried that this makes 2 websites to monitor, you must know that scripts exist today to show Wikidata changes in WP watchlists (fr:User:H4stings/wef-watchlist.js / ru:MediaWiki:Gadget-wefwatchlist.js) and history pages (fr:User:H4stings/wef-history.js). It is now quite easy to see what is happening in Wikidata without changing (too much…) its proper habits in WP.

If interested, please contact me and / or go to d:Wikidata_talk: WikiProject_Association_football to discuss with other interested people. :) In my side, I intend to import manager data now... Cheers. H4stings (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

If someone have some extra time could you take a look at 2018–19 UEFA Nations League? Some IP persistently adds news article to External link-section. Qed237 (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if the IP has a valid point, as this news article is where you end up when navigating the "All sections" main menu on uefa.com. So no idea if the article qualifies as some kind of "official site" for the time being. –– Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much any bio article worth its salt includes in the lead a summary of the player's international career, including their tournament picks. However, I have run into a user at Cyle Larin who is telling me that this is a pointless exercise, as the CONCACAF Gold Cup is no more important than World Cup qualifiers. I am not North American so I do not know, but if he is right would we have to rewrite the leads for the hundreds of players which have this tournament mentioned in the lead? '''tAD''' (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm from Canada (not that it really matters I guess), but I agree with The Almightey Drill. The Gold Cup is a significant tournament, unlike World Cup qualifiers, which are worth mentioning in the lead. For Europeans we don't write that they participated in Euro or World qualifiers, that would be silly as they aren't even a tournament; instead we do write that they participated at X Euro or X World Cup. I disagree with your additions to Larin's article being reverted. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

As it is the main continental competition of CONCACAF nations I would say it's worth the mention in the lead. In general I think the lead should mention World Cup and main continental competition. --SuperJew (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

^ Not qualifiers though, right? I've never seen that; I don't think they would be necessary. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say qualifiers no and the main difference is that the main competition has a set squad of around 23 player (changes by tournament), while during the qualifiers the squad can (and often does, especially in the early stages) be switched completely between games. --SuperJew (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Just because these two things came up closely timed, what do you people think regarding the upcoming UEFA Nations League? Should it be in the league like a continental competition (which I guess it is sort of) or not like qualifiers (which I guess it also is sort of)? --SuperJew (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Closer to qualifiers I'd say, if not below! As with qualifiers, there's not a set squad so I can't see a reason for including it in the lead for a player. It will be interesting to see how FIFA categorize it for World Rankings purposes. --

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 13:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Also we have on Independence Cup (disambiguition) other articles like Independence Cup (Albania) and Lesotho Independence Cup. Should we not be consistent in the naming? Qed237 (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Just looked at Category:National association football cups for other cups and perhaps we should just call it Armenian Cup? Either way, I am all for consistency. Qed237 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Consistency would indeed be nice. For what it's worth, the English version of the Football Federation of Armenia website lists the competition either as "Armenian Cup" or "Armenian football cup", both versions have their fair share on the page. Soccerway simply lists it simply as "Cup". Provided that there is not a majority of other publications that suggests to use the "Independent" moniker, the proposal would be to either move the main article to Armenian Cup, which currently is a redirect, or move both the main and season articles to Armenian Football Cup if disambiguation would be necessary. Side note – the title of the Armenian article title is translated by Google as "Armenia's Independence Cup", other Wiki languages mostly use a variant of "Football Cup". –– Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Need some help/input from the WikiProject Football community. Some time ago we held a discussion for

I wasn't saying to change La Liga. The arguments made to retain it as La Liga convinced me. I was referring to the other Primera División leagues. Also, why is it called

Belgian First Division A and not "Belgium First Division A" like Belgium national football team (and not Belgian national football team). I'm really curious as to when to use the name of the country and not the demonym. --MicroX (talk

) 03:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

So in the Premier Soccer League of South Africa, Mpumalanga Black Aces dissolved, and their franchise was relocated to form Cape Town City F.C.. What would you say we should do with their templates? Should Black Aces squad be deleted and a new template made for Cape Town or should it just be a move? --SuperJew (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest a simple move. The proper way would probably be to start a new one for Cape Town and list the Black Aces template for deletion under

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 08:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

As a general rule, if the page has been moved, the template and categories should as well, to maintain the page histories. GiantSnowman 19:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed a few inconsistencies with a few of this WikiProjects FA/FL/GAs. Many clubs have a XYZ in European football page. A few of these articles have reached FA/FL/GA status. This is where the inconsistency lies. Two of these articles are FLs (therefore could never be an FA or GA) and three (with one more at GAN) are FA/GA (therefore could never be a FL). Shouldn't all these articles be either eligible for FL or for FA/GA not a mixture of both. Here are the articles concerned:

FLs

• Rosenborg BK in European football
• Malmö FF in European football

FA/GAs

• Liverpool F.C. in European football
  (FA)
• Arsenal F.C. in European football (GA)
• Manchester City F.C. in European football
  (GA)

At

WP:GAN

• S.L. Benfica in European football

What does this WikiProject think? Articles or lists? - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever seen it. --SuperJew (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gonna change that. Utterly ridiculous. –

old fashioned!

09:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I've seen it here and there from time to time. Now we have a consensus here to point to if we ever cross with someone insisting on that. Thanks you all. FkpCascais (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

FC Salzburg

In UEFA competitions, the team referred as "FC Salzburg", according to UEFA regulations. In the articles, the team referred as "FC Red Bull Salzburg". Why? --IM-yb (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Because UEFA doesn't recognise sponsorship by any companies other than its own sponsors. Since Red Bull don't sponsor UEFA, they refer to Red Bull Salzburg as just Salzburg. –

Jay

16:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I ask about the usage of "FC Red Bull Salzburg" in the enwiki UEFA competitions articles. We should not use the name given by UEFA (FC Salzburg) in the enwiki UEFA competitions articles? --IM-yb (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

No, why would we? The team is called "Red Bull Salzburg". We aren't beholden to UEFA just because they don't recognise the sponsored name. The same applies to the

Jay 16:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Help with squad design

I need some help with the design of IFK Göteborg squad. As you can see there are some line break problems. The "captain)" in "(vice captain)", "Dalence" in "Martin Smedberg-Dalence" and "Leksell" in "Alexander Leksell" are all one step too low. I've tried to fix it with Nowrap, but it still doesn't work perfectly and it would be nice to fix it in an other way. Thankful for your help! // Mattias321 (talk)