Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 119

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

Archive 115

←

Archive 117

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

→

Archive 125

Hello dear fellows. After watching yesterday a game between a club from my country, Red Star, against SLovak champions Spartak Trnava, today I was curious to see Slovak results in Europe over the years. So I went obviously to Slovak football clubs in European competitions. I expected to see gaps in the seasons before 1993 because Slovakia was part of Czechoslovakia until that year, and, obviously, the gaps mean it was a Czech club that represented Czechoslovakia those seasons. OK, but then I noteced at Slovak_football_clubs_in_European_competitions#Active_competitions in Champions League section a gap between 1993 and 1997, which has no logic as Slovakia and Czech Republic separated peacefully in 1993 and started participating separatelly since then. So I went on to the seasonal articles of each edition, for instance 1993–94 UEFA Champions League, to see if there is any mention of the reason why there was no Slovak representant those seasons, but found nothing about it. I remembered seing in those seasonal articles mentions when countries were banned or didnt participated for some reason, and that is something I fully support and find crutial to have that info in the article of each European club competition edition.

While seing that I will be left without knowing why Slovakia had no representatives in those 4 editions of the Champions League, I do know why FR Yugoslavia didnt had them, because between 1993 and 1997 was under UN sanctions that included exclusion from international sport events as well. That is mentioned in the article 1993–94 UEFA Champions League, but not in the other editions. So I thought it would be helpfull to have in each a sentence just mentioning it as reminder, as, readers often dont read this seasonal articles by order, but rather go to the one they are interested at, so we cannot expect someone reading 1995–96 season knows what was written in 1992–93. I think each season should always have mentioned, as complete as possible, all particular situations with all countries, like new participants, participants that desapeared or were broke-up, or united (as Germany), and, obviously, the ones missing in that edition and mentioning the reasons. That is directly related to the context and, in my view, important information. A reader going to article 1995–96 UEFA Champions League should have available the information that Yugoslav clubs are under sanctions and cannot participate, without having to guess that info, which affects the season he is reading, is found in an article 1993–94.

So, I added a simple sentence mentioning Yugoslav clubs are still out of the tournament because of UN sanctions in two of the seasons the info was missing, when, not long after, I receve notifications that my edits were reverted. The two reverts have these edit-summaries:

• (Undid revision 855038558 by FkpCascais (talk) for the typo as much as anything, but really, who cares?)
• (Undid revision 855038689 by FkpCascais (talk) so what?)

OK, so, probably older ones from here know me, and know I am not a sensitive guy, but this time, this two edit-summaries did touched me in a very negative, prejurative, way. I know my country, Serbia, Yugoslavia back then, is surely no match to PeeJays UK not even in dreams regarding popularity, but sugesting no one cares Yugoslav clubs were missing in those editions is wrong and absurd. Specially having in mind that Yugoslav Red Star had just been European champion by winning European Cup in 1991. Just as I went searching to see if I could find a reason why Slovakia had no representatives those years despite already being independent and member of UEFA, and found none about it, I think our mission here contributing to this encyclopedia, is preciselly making information easily accessible and available. I honestly don´t want to go the way of judging which country´s abscense is "careble" or not. In my view any UEFA member abscense at any edition is always worth mention, specially in cases of members being banned. In those seasonal UEFA competitions articles, besides the lists of results, we don´t have much prose anyway. Listing the representatives missing and the reasons, seems clearly valuable information, and repeating it in every edition, as well, since each season is a separate article.

I really can´t see how that is irrelevant information and I would appreciate very much thoughts on this. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I would support mentioning the sanctions against FR Yugoslavia in those season articles as much as mentioning that English teams were banned in the late 80s after Heysel. It might not even have to be in the lead, it can be in the section on the first round. Tagging

User:PeeJay2K3 for right of reply. Harambe Walks (talk

) 17:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems logical to mention the countries eligible, and those omitted somehow. Like the qualification criteria of each team from each UEFA league. Koncorde (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Correcting some misconceptions: lower-ranked countries were excluded from the Champions League from 1994 to 1997, with their champions playing in the UEFA Cup instead. Slovakian teams were playing in the other European competitions from 1994-95 onwards (the first chance they had to qualify, as separate Slovakian league only introduced in 1993-94). Yugoslavian clubs were allowed back into Europe from 1995-96, but were also excluded from for two more years purely due to low ranking. Jellyman (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Jellyman, Yugoslavia was 7th in 1992, (prove 7th place low ranking?) and was excluded because of UN sanctions between 1993 and 1997, certainly NOT because of low ranking. They were allowed to return in 1995–96 obviously having zeros as points in their previous seasons. Anyway, if the case was the ranking it should be mentioned in the corresponding articles, and by time it isnt. FkpCascais (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, my mistake about Yugoslavia year of return, it was 1995–96. FkpCascais (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, case now seems solved, Slovakia didn´t had teams those years because in 1994, when the format changed, it had zero points, and that is why at 1994–95 UEFA Champions League we see a Luxembourg participant but not a Slovak one.

About Yugoslavia, it was allowed to return in 1995–96, and the 3 seasons which UN sanctions unabled them to participate, obviously made them have a low ranking at time of return.

I want to thank Jellyman for going straight to the point. That is the right way to solve a question. I still find incorrect the judging at edit-summaries on behalve of PeeJay, hope he doesn´t make these more in the future. FkpCascais (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the reason for the revert was that the sentence "FR Yugoslavia was still under UN sanctions, fourth edition in a raw" makes no sense, not because of what it was trying to say. This discussion gives context so I now know what it was meant to say, but that wouldn't have been clear to PeeJay. I suspect something like FR Yugoslavia was under UN sanctions for the fourth season in a row would not have been reverted.   Jts1882 | talk  06:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I honestly think that this doesn't belong in the lead section of the article. How about in the "Teams" section? –

Jay

10:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The format should probably mirror the Qualification sections that exist on other competitions. This can demonstrate a list of qualified teams, and isolate changes in entry format. Koncorde (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I am OK with any solution, I just want readers to have hat information available in all affected articles, for all cases at all editions, without any disctimination. I do think people do care about all partcipants. FkpCascais (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Please dont change my content or title. I made a title with a purpose, and please ask me first before a change of my content, thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

In order for this chapter to be closed, I would like to suggest if we could agree on the following aspects:

First, that we make an effort to have bans, exclusions, or any particular cases of participants in any season of any European competion, mentioned in all related articles. For me it is irrelevant if it is at the end of the lede, or in a section of its own, or in a section dedicated to first round (can even be in bottom of the article), all that matters to me is that we provide that information. Being ourselves contributors of an encyclopedia, the inclusion criterium for participants, and cases of bans or exclusions, are worth being added in the prose of each season of each competition. Any reader questioning why aren´t clubs from country X present in that edition, should have the answer right there. I am not asking no one to dedicate to that particular issue, just that our community here acknolledges the importance of that aspect in that group of articles.

Second, I would like

to acknolledge that the reasoning behind his edit-summaries of his reverts were wrong. Althought this is an English Wikipedia, the scope of this project is wider than just English-language societies. As editors, we should not go into the subjective field of imposing our own preferences onto the community. I did felt insulted and discriminated. That should have not happened.

Best regards to all, FkpCascais (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you've taken those reverts out of context. The way that the original posts were written didn't improve the article and were rightly deleted by

User:PeeJay2K3. Reread what User:Jts1882 posted. This has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. Also, this really should have been posted on that page's talk page first. Jay eyem (talk

) 21:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

PeeJay was directly refering that FR Yugoslav participants being excluded because of sanctions is a matter no one cares. That should have not been a reason for revert in any circunstances. PS: Since this is an issue that has to do with many articles, it is obviously more convenient to be posted here than just in one of the articles. FkpCascais (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think they were. At the very least those edits needed additional details and a source explaining why said UN sanctioning meant that these teams could not compete in the UCL. It was an entirely reasonable thing to delete, in both instances, and should have been brought up at the respective talk pages rather than coming here. There was absolutely no reason to bring this to the project talk page, and your inference about

User:PeeJay2K3's motives seems to be in bad faith to me. Jay eyem (talk

) 21:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

And that is exactly what he should have said in the edit summary. Bad faith was to delete it by saying no one cares... FkpCascais (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I can see that the nuance is getting lost in translation here. Next time something like this happens, just post on the articles' talk pages or preferably on the user's talk page, please don't post it here. Jay eyem (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

In my area of editing I often find editors making good faith edits which are full of grammar errors because are made by people who don´t have good level of English. I usually try to help and improve. And if the case is that is a wrong edit, I certainly provide a valid reason which is never ever "You club/country is irrelevant and no one cares about that"... No man, cannot excuse it...

Another thing, I am certainly too long here to know where to post issues, so, ok, thanks for the advice. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I know my country, Serbia, Yugoslavia back then, is surely no match to PeeJays UK not even in dreams regarding popularity, but sugesting no one cares Yugoslav clubs were missing in those editions is wrong and absurd is the very definition of bad faith. Yes, the edit summaries could have been written more delicately, but you were wrong to bring this here first before even posting on the other talk pages. You are very clearly in the wrong here and this issue should never have been brought here. Please stop posting about this here and take it elsewhere. Jay eyem (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, thank you. regards. FkpCascais (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cray Valley Paper Mills F.C. has been relisted. Comments welcome. Cheers, Number 57 15:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Those certainly not pass NSPORT, how about GNG?

• Youth League U15
• Youth league U13
• 2017–18 Youth League U13
• Nike Premier Cup
• 2018 Nike Premier Cup

etc., by Abhishe78 (talk · contribs)

––Matthew_hk tc 19:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope, should be deleted. Kante4 (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. Could someone do me a favour and monitor Nicolas Senzemba? I removed unsourced and poorly written content earlier this month (diff). Since then, different IPs – but presumably the same user – have been trying to re-instate the content and remove sourced content. These are the IPs in question:

• 86.198.120.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 86.218.37.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 80.215.227.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 90.35.128.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 90.61.79.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 83.200.96.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

One of the IPs, 86.218.37.209, was blocked for issuing a legal threat in their edit summary (edit) after I reported them to AIV. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Latest IP blocked and reverted. Let me know if they re-appear. GiantSnowman 10:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I will. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Can we reverse User:Paine Ellsworth edits, it's clearly a no-consensus vote, I hardly see any clear arguments. Govvy (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

This was a

WP:MR. Number 57

22:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

This move is about as ridiculous as when

Jay

10:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Inter Milan was a fair bit different situation regarding using the Common Name for the club, but I do look back at that and question myself over whats correct. A.F.C. Bournemouth was about what English language rule we should apply to the name title. There simply wasn't enough of a clear consensus to move Bournemouth. I am going to a birthday party in a bit, don't really have time to push this to AN. Govvy (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

While there has been some discussion recently as to whether it's really a requirement,

WP:MR currently still reads in part Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the requested move on the closer's talk page. And I see that's under way. Andrewa (talk

) 16:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

No discussion underway, discussion closed, less than a week after starting it. And 'please attempt to discuss the matter', I read as 'try to find people to discuss the matter with - not push ahead with changes regardless of what the majority say. No consensus reached, majority against, even, discussion closed before many had the opportunity to respond to a change that could have consequences for a lot of articles. We can do better than this. Domeditrix (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. No consensus at all reached, and the discussion was rushed through in under a week, making it tough for Wikipedians to even make reply. Domeditrix (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Bad close; there is no consensus - it should have been left open for longer, and not dealt with by a non-admin. If somebody formally challenges it please notify us here. GiantSnowman 10:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion was actually open for 23 days, not "closed less than a week after starting it" or "rushed through in under a week". There may be reasons to dispute the close, but the length of time the discussion was open isn't one of them. Dekimasuよ! 16:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The use of the full stops is a bit of an affectation. It's not used for societies like the

OBE, FRS or OM (e.g. Dorothy Hodgkin OM FRS). If it's not used for formal names of societies and titles, why use it for football clubs when they rarely use it themselves? It seems strange to refer to Sir Isaac Newton PRS FRS and Bolton Wanderers F.C..   Jts1882 | talk

  12:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

NATO, laser, FIFA may be OBE is acronym, which is not the exact same thing with just FC affix . Matthew_hk tc 16:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Of my examples, only NATO is an acronym in the strictest sense. FC is the abbreviation for football club justs as FRS and OBE are abbreviations for the titles. If you look at older publications you will see that the dots are usually used with titles and honours (e.g. scientific works with authors using F.R.S.). Over time the convention changed. The dots is the archaic form, which used to be used for football clubs, but rarely is now (except for English Wikipedia).   Jts1882 | talk  16:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: @Jts1882: OBE is not an acronym, it is an abbreviation just like FC. (Otherwise it would be pronounced "obe", rhyming with "lobe"). I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect the main reason people are surprised by the removal of dots in FC and AFC, is simply that we've always done it that way, not for any other reason. But looking around the interweb will demonstrate that almost nobody else in the football world includes those dots, and it's probably time for us to also take that leap and remove them.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I added a Move review for this to the AfD list of project page, for those that are interested. Govvy (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Here the "|other=" sequence is used to indicate when players are there on loan but nothing is showing in the article?--EchetusXe 19:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I've made an amendment to Luke McCullough in the table, is that what you were looking for? Kosack (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The close code is a bit different when adding the loans. Looks fixed now. Govvy (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

LTFC has fixed the remaining players now, the other code was being included in the brackets for the sortname parameter which was causing them to not appear. Kosack (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I started editing without realising the first amendment had been made and fixed the remaining ones. I hope this is what was intended. LTFC 95 (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well done guys.--EchetusXe 20:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding onto a discussion I started on the Man Utd talk page, which infobox is preferable to use on the more well-known teams? Obviously a uniform style is preferred but isn't always practical - what's the official word? Coventryy (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Good afternoon. Could someone in the project please provide guidance in a content dispute that cannot be resolved depite talk page discussions? The articles concerned are

. In a nutshell, Preston North End have a club nickname which is "The Lilywhites" and that applies to all teams representing the club. In the 1888–89 season, Preston's team was unbeaten in all matches and won both of the major competitions it entered. As a result, that team (i.e., not the club) became remembered as either "The Invincibles" or "The Old Invincibles". Both versions of the nickname have long been in use but, as you might expect, the shorter form is the more common, especially nowadays. Obviously, this information is material to both of those articles but it must be reliably sourced.

On 9 August, I made this edit, adding material information that is reliably sourced per

, adding the same information to the club's article. I realise I made a couple of errors which I later rectified: (1) I didn't add the source to the second edit; (2) I didn't make it clear that there are two versions of the 1889 team's nickname (with and without "Old").

On 15 August, both my edits were reverted by DaveG12345 who said: "No they weren't, and no they aren't" and referred me to the club's own website which uses "The Invincibles" as the 1889 team's nickname. As I subsequently pointed out to him, Paul Agnew's book is an independent source and the club website is not.

Paul Agnew is an award-winning newspaper editor and broadcaster whose book is a biography of Tom Finney, certainly Preston's greatest-ever player and arguably England's. In 1991, Agnew became the chief executive of Preston North End for three years. The book includes passages written by Finney himself and both Agnew and Finney refer to the club's 1889 team as the "Old Invincibles", as per the quotations I have provided. Agnew and Finney are unquestionably authorities on the club's history. The original edition of the book in 1989 was a best-seller in the British sports book category and it has been widely praised in media reviews. For some info about Paul Agnew, see this report.

Later on 15 August, I restored my edits in both articles and corrected my initial errors by explaining that both versions of the nickname have been in use and I added the source to the club article. See here and here. Incidentally, at this point, neither article provided independent sourcing for "The Invincibles" version as DaveG relies on the club website as his source. Another minor issue is that DaveG insists on using two nicknames in the infobox and this has twice been corrected, here and here by Eckerslike. The club's nickname is "The Lilywhites" and that applies to all teams representing the club; "Invincibles" and "Old Invincibles" apply only to the 1889 team. DaveG is either ignoring or misunderstanding the difference between the club as a whole and the individual teams that represent it.

Since then, a tug-of-war has developed with messages on both our user talk pages. I contend that I am adding material information to both articles and I have provided a reliable, independent source in citation as required by

) that the information is wrong as he has never heard of it? In another message, he says that I am "factually incorrect on this matter - and your source, being the biography of a player, is not an authority on the subject under discussion". The biography of Tom Finney, I should add, is in effect a history of the Preston club through the several decades in which Finney was involved with it. Finney and Agnew are authorities on the club's history. The club website is not an independent source.

Sorry this has become quite a lengthy piece. I look forward to seeing your views on the matter and will respect consensus if I am wrong. Thank you.

) 11:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I think both names should be mentioned as both have been used and can be sourced. However, I think it unlikely that they were called the Old Invincibles at the time. Why would they add the old? A half century or so later Tom Finney may have called them the Old (or old?) Invincibles because it was a long time beforehand. If he did it suggests that he was thinking he needed to distinguish them from another team. Agnew's book came out well before Arsenal's invincible league season, so it can't be them, which suggests there might be another team with that nickname. This is pure speculation and I can't guess who it would be.   Jts1882 | talk  12:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Other possible sources for Old Invincibles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and Finney's autobiography. These suggest that the they were known as the Old Invincibles well before Finney's time. Finney suggests it was by the following season. I wonder why they added the old tag. Many teams were Old Somebodies, but its was usually because they were a team of school or university old boys, which wouldn't apply to Preston.   Jts1882 | talk  12:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Jts1882. Do you know, I've got Finney's autobiography and I had looked through it to try and find a reference to the Old Invincibles but obviously missed it! As you've shown us, it's there on page 113. I'll cite it in the two articles. I think there was a tendency in olden (groan!) days to use "Old" in a sort of affectionate way for anyone who had achieved something out of the ordinary. There were a lot of nineteenth century nicknames that included "Old" for no apparent reason. One I know of is Andrew Jackson who was first called "Old Hickory" when he was still a soldier and only in his forties. In a more generic use, "The Old Man" was often applied to a leader or senior regardless of his age.

I have heard "Old Invincibles" since I first started supporting PNE and I've always known it was "Old", part of the name, and not "old", adjective. I must admit I did not know that the name was coined within a few months of the exploit. I assumed it had started much later when that team was long gone and had become legends.

Anyway, thanks again, Jts. You've been a great help. All the best.

Izzat Kutebar (talk

) 15:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

It was used in the press in their second season, not as a nickname but as a descriptive, neither word was capitalised. See this. The usage just meant "former" or "no longer". Couldn't say when it became a "nickname" of the sort that has capital letters. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting,

Izzat Kutebar (talk

) 15:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm the editor who reverted

Izzat Kutebar

's edits on this subject. I haven't been online since this discussion began.

The nickname used by Preston North End F.C., its fans, and the press is "The Invincibles". I provided several sources for this on the user's talk page (since deleted marked "matter closed", before I'd even responded).

There are literally hundreds more, since it's genuinely an undisputed fact that this is the nickname.

On the subject of the existence and use of club nicknames, the club's own view is obviously highly relevant. The suggestion above that the club cannot be a source for its own nicknames because it lacks "independence" is ridiculous. The club's nicknames are in the same category of objective fact as the stadium capacity, record transfer fee, biggest victory, etc. It is not the task of Wikipedia editors to engage in

and give undue weight in football club articles to alternative nicknames not recognised by the club. Otherwise, fans of rival clubs could potentially start assigning inappropriate nicknames to any rival club article they liked, provided they could find a few Ghits or a mention in a player biography.

There is a particular problem with "Old Invincibles" as a nickname for Preston North End, which arose after Arsenal had an unbeaten league season in 2004 - namely, that Arsenal fans preferred to assign the nickname "Old Invincibles" to Preston North End, so that they could appropriate "The Invincibles" all for themselves.

It's in this context, which is post-2004 and contentious, that "Old Invincibles" becomes obviously inappropriate as a nickname for Preston North End, since it has been used in this diminishing/derogatory manner.

Club nicknames are not fluff and trivia, they are sources of pride and fiercely fought over, as recent cases involving (e.g.)

can testify.

We obviously cannot have a situation where football club articles are compelled to preserve derogatory nicknames used by rivals as if they have parity with official nicknames.

This is why "Old Invincibles" must be removed from these Preston-related articles. DaveG12345 (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, you are correct that a PRIMARY source can be a reliable source for facts. However, this doesn't make them the only source, nor does it mean that their source is the only authority. I am not aware of anyone using "The Old Invincibles" in a derogatory manner, nor do I think that this is intended or inferred by the term. The use of a lower case 'old' might indicate that they are referring to the ancient team as no longer being the invincibles, but it just as likely refers to the fact that there are often multiple of such invincibles at any time.

However, in most cases, "The Old Invincibles" is utilising "Old" not in the term of time, but instead as a measure of familiarity in the same way Juventus refer to their club as "The Old Lady" and in the same way you might refer to your father as "my Old Man", or your boss as "the Old Man" to indicate seniority, affection, or familial link. It's why some people are known as things like "

Ol' Blue Eyes for Frank Sinatra., or WW1's use of "Dear Old Blighty" etc. Koncorde (talk

) 11:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there is an important category difference between a club nickname (on the one hand) and just general ways that people might refer to this or that football club to avoid monotony (on the other). Appending "old" to a pre-existing club nickname falls (I would suggest) under the latter category, not the former.

Because, for sure, there are lots of generic and ephemeral ways of referring to this or that football club (Preston have had several) - but the fact is, none of them is a club nickname, in the enduring sense that the name has relevance for inclusion in a football club article on Wikipedia.

And what we're taking about here is very specifically the club's nickname. Which is where (I think) the club itself comes into play as the authority on what qualifies as its nickname. Otherwise, we potentially get category errors such as above, because not everything is a club nickname. DaveG12345 (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The article simply states that the PNE team of 1888–89 were known as either "The Old Invincibles" or "The Invincibles". The statement is true and verification has been provided from independent sources, including one who was Preston's greatest-ever player and another who is a former chief executive of the club. Hence, both are authorities on club history. Are you really claiming that Tom Finney didn't know what he was talking about?

Wikipedia rightly requires independent sources. Obviously, if a nickname has two variations, then one person will use one and someone else will use the other. The Bolton News report confirms both versions.

As for Arsenal, I have a friend who is a long-time supporter of theirs and he says he has never heard of anyone using "old invincibles" in a derogatory way. He says Arsenal fans tend to say "our invincibles" about their unbeaten team as if they tacitly acknowledge that Preston got there first. Obviously, this would be WP:OR in the article but so is everything you are claiming about Arsenal above. If you think "The Old Invincibles" has been used in a derogatory way, provide reliable sources. I have heard the nickname used countless times but I needed to provided sources before I could add it to the article. The site's rules are clear on that.

One thing you do not seem able to understand is that this nickname in each of its versions is applicable to one TEAM only, not to the CLUB. The club's nickname is "The Lilywhites", just as Arsenal's is "The Gunners". You are effectively saying above that only club nicknames should be in the club article so, okay, then only "The Lilywhites" should be there according to your argument. Except that "The Old Invincibles" or "The Invincibles" is the nickname of A TEAM, not THE CLUB.

Izzat Kutebar (talk

) 15:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Can I first request that you stop reverting my edits on the Preston North End F.C. article. Thanks.

The club itself has two nicknames. Both are described on the club history link that you persist in removing from the article, before slapping on maintenance tags.

As I explained on your talk page, it is not unusual for English football clubs to have multiple nicknames, and I believe half the Premier League clubs have more than one.

However, as I just stated in the response above yours, and as is surely obvious, not everything a club might be called is a club nickname.

Adding "old" to an existing club nickname does not make a new club nickname, any more than saying "The Whites" instead of "The Lilywhites" makes a new nickname, or adding "Super" to "The Whites" to form "The Super Whites" makes a new nickname, or taking "The North End" from the full club name makes a new nickname.

All of these names have been used, but none of them is a new club nickname. In each case, what is formed is just a trivial and ephemeral derivation from the actual nickname. These trivialities don't belong on Wikipedia precisely because they are trivial and ephemeral, and to include them would give them undue weight in a context where

Wikipedia is not

just a list of things.

This being the case, when differences of opinion on the subject of "what is a club nickname?" arise, such as this, I would suggest the club itself makes a useful and neutral arbiter of what should count as a club nickname and what should not.

After all, in what way could the club not be neutral on such a subject?

Which is where the club history link becomes relevant.

Hence, in the section labelled "The Invincibles" (note - there's no "old" here):

However, next season 1888/89 not only were they founder members of the newly formed Football League, but they won the FA Cup and were the first team to achieve the double, doing this at the first opportunity, without losing a game or even conceding a goal in the FA Cup.

In 1889/90 North End were again Football League champions and were runners-up in the following three seasons.

A limited company was formed in 1893 which was the end of the Sudell reign, but the genius of a man who could build such a team and which justly earned the name the ‘Invincibles’ is fully recognised today.

And, in the section "The 1960s", "The Lilywhites" is cited as the second nickname:

Sir Tom Finney’s retirement at the beginning of this decade marked the end of an era for North End in one sense, yet the next generation of the Lilywhites’ own talent was very much on its way. (etc.)

Two nicknames recognised by the club - and likewise (I would suggest) two nicknames that should be included in the club article on Wikipedia. But I think anything more than that would be Whites/Super Whites trivia territory. DaveG12345 (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You are simply expressing a personal point of view and I have found an interesting little essay called

which summarises your actions and attitude exactly. You began your last message above by asking me not to revert your edits, but the dispute began because you persistently reverted my edits although they are reliably sourced. I don't believe you are in any position to ask anyone not to amend a page if they have good reason to do so. It seems as if you regard that page as your property and it is not to be touched without your approval. Surely there is a policy somewhere which forbids you from claiming a page as your own? After all, as I understand the site's philosophy, "anyone can edit".

I have made considerable improvements to the club article because it was a mess. It badly lacked citations and most of the sourcing that was there came from the club website which is not an independent source as required by Wikipedia. Okay, I will agree to leave the introduction as is for the time being unless any additions should be necessary, bearing in mind that the introduction is supposed to summarise the narrative. I will also agree to leave the tags off for now unless another editor should express concerns about the sourcing. In return, I think it is time for you to accept that "The Old Invincibles" has been one version of the 1890 team's nickname, apparently since c.1890, and that it belongs in the article. I'll agree to place it in the narrative only where the citations are appropriate.

) 19:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Pryce (footballer)

Apologies if this is not the correct place to raise issues with specific footballing articles, but I have noticed that an edit today (23 August 2018) to the article Ryan Pryce (footballer) has partially overwritten the exiting article relating to Ryan James Pryce, a goalkeeper, with the details of Ryan Edward Pryce, a (younger) defender. I have no particular knowledge of nor association with either player and this is not something that I would attempt to correct myself, however it seems that separate articles are required and the name Ryan Pryce requires disambiguation.86.174.7.152 (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC) MR

Thanks, I've reverted it to the original player/content. As far as I can see, Pryce the defender currently fails

WP:NFOOTY so there is no need for an article on him. Number 57

21:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

An external link was added to the article Colin Rolfe, but seems to be irrelevant to the article.

It's labelled "Twitch" and links to https://www.twitch.tv/swayzeebb .

I don't know anything about football or football players myself.

Could somebody please take a look at this and see whether it really belongs in this article or not?

Thanks - 189.122.52.73 (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. Link removed and user warned for 'spam'. Eagleash (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Having seen the first instance of the use of the module sports rbr table I must say it is not very user friendly with the stings of slash separated valued for the arguments. It is difficult to count up which one is to be fixed/modified. The numbered parameters of the previous method was much easier to handle. Any thoughts before this is deployed more widely? Keith D (talk)

Note: Previous discussion:WT:WikiProject Football/Archive 118#Proposed round-by-round module Hhkohh (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

One appearance then keep for Ben George? He still fails GNG, should we review NFootball? Govvy (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Why? Mattythewhite (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia". If a person does not meet GNG, then the presumption of notability given in that guideline obviously does not hold. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs

) 23:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess people are too stubborn to review this then... I really think we should update it to say a player that has played a significant number of games to qualify and not just a singular game. Govvy (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally my view is that if Wikipedia endeavours to be a complete encyclopedia, then there needs to be consistency in what we have articles on and what we don't – if you look at (e.g.) Neil Brown's A–Z or Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939, these sources do not exclude players because they only made one appearance. The best way to do this (IMO) is to be clear about where the lines are drawn and accept that there may be a few articles whose subjects barely register. I think far, far too much time (especially recently) is being spent on arguing marginal GNG cases instead of creating or improving content. Let's focus on what really matters here. Number 57 18:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I think same as Number57. We been here so many times and until now no one ever came up with an idea for the new criterium that would be logical and widely accepted. I would like to point out another perspective which has been unmentioned until now, which is the nature of Wikipedia as a project. Lets not forget that the criterium for creating articles here at WP:FOOTY is low, and it is low intentionally with reasons. Jimbo (Jimmy Wales) could have made a choice of creating a pretentious encyclopedia turned only to academical stuff in which football would have limited space as found usually in old encyclopedias. But Jimbo´s idea was opposite, he wanted an encyclopdia that would involve and be interesting to as much people as possible. Having that in mind, football as the most popular sport in the world, is obviously a great tool to archive it. We often ignore and forget that our project brings substancial number of visits, edits, new articles, and atracts new editors. To keep it allways high, the project needs to have criteriums which will prevent saturation to happend. One pro appearance archives this because every week we have enough new players whose articles can be created.

Now, obviously I think most of us have the awareness that our project has much lower criteriums than others. We all see that very often great doctors, journalists, lawyers, etc. cannot have an article, while a teenage guy who just debuted in some pro league, can. But that happends because Jimbo and the team are giving us extra space because we contribute immenselly to the popularization of Wikipedia as a project. FkpCascais (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Is

) 14:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree to remove itHhkohh (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Dito, removed it. Kante4 (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I've protected the article for a couple of weeks to stop Motuna repeatedly reinserting the material. Number 57 14:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Now has been added to the main UEFA Euro 2024 article... S.A. Julio (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I've left them a final warning and request to participate here. Let me know if they reinsert it anywhere else. Number 57 15:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Where do you recommend me to add this content? A new topic possibly? Cause I couldn't find somebody else has done it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motuna (talk • contribs) 15:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Not on wikipedia. It is covered at his article. Kante4 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

As Motuna added the material to yet another article, I've blocked them for 48 hours. Number 57 15:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, would like to divert your attention to this GTC →

) 17:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Highlights on YouTube

Can I bring to everyone's attention: this table. The table is fine, but notes what games are available to watch on YouTube. Seeing's YouTube wasn't established in 1989, should this be mentioned? I thought broadcast information was for contemporary coverage, unless specifically notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You're quite right, also this information is unsourced and I'm willing to bet the videos are all copyright violations from people's old videos rather than having been uploaded officially. I'm going to remove it. Jellyman (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Any link it generates now leads just to https://www.fifa.com/fifa-tournaments/ --Theurgist (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's an issue with the template, more that clicking a player profile on the website redirects there. Not sure if a bug, or an update, or they've simply been updated Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the "players and coaches" section of their website seems to be broken (example archived match report where all player links are broken). Hopefully this should just be temporary (a few months back they broke their entire match archive for around a day). S.A. Julio (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone lend a hand here, some IPs are intent on restoring an uncropped version of an image which includes the subject holding a fish... Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week and the cropped version restored. However, I'm wondering whether even that is really appropriate for his article. Reminds me of the occasion when we had an article on a Mansfield player where the photo was of him rather worse for wear on a night out. Number 57 23:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Rhys Weston in his Christmas jumper is another that springs to mind... Kosack (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn´t knew we had a category People with fish...

But indeed, it is questionable if the pic is adequate for the context. FkpCascais (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

BRING BACK THE FISH !!! Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I would doubt this particular uploader has permission for any of the images he has uploaded. Two others have already been deleted. The remaining three are dubious. One looks like it has been scanned in from a book, a second is also a scan, probably from a newspaper. The one with the fish looks very similar to others of Bradley with fish from his Twitter feed. All uploaded without permission and thus copyright violations.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

If it was a picture of a female footballer in a bikini, with or without a fish, I doubt the inappropriateness for an encyclopedia article would be questioned.   Jts1882 | talk  13:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

That could depend on which female footballer it is! I won't name anyone, but.... (shudder)

Izzat Kutebar (talk

) 16:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

What the heck is with Richard Brindley's legs in the picture of him "by" that user......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Just spotted this topic. Have to applaud the caption for the uncropped image: Bradley (right) in 2013, the character on the left being the fish. :D. Crowsus (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have recently created the article for Juventus' second team now playing in the Italian third division (

as "Cuneo"). In the same way, Juventus Under 23 is listed as "Juventus U23" meaning that U23 is just an abbreviation of Under 23, which I feel is the correct and full name.

What should the article's name be? Juventus Under 23, Juventus U23 or even Juventus F.C. Under 23? Nehme1499 (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

official website used "Juventus Under 23" and Juventus U23. http://www.juventus.com/en/news/news/2018/juventus-under-23-coaching-staff-announced.php Matthew_hk tc 06:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I feel the title should be

Arsenal F.C. Under-23s and Academy, Motherwell F.C. Under-20s and Academy, etc). Juventus U23 is fine for the short name in tables etc. Crowsus (talk

) 12:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you on the naming, should we change the name now or would it be best to wait for other people's opinions? Nehme1499 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with

Juventus F.C. Youth Sector. Matthew_hk tc

04:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This honour

Is this really considered an honour? [1] Govvy (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Who can tell, there are so many "honours" these days. But this team award is listed in the FIFA World Cup awards section on All-Star_Teams, although without any explanation. The Castrol team for 2014 is also listed there, with the explanation that FIFA didn't release an official team of the tournament. However, the FIFA team appears in the table. If the Castrol and McDonalds Fantasy teams belong there, then the award is might be valid, but I suspect they don't. The McDonald’s FIFA World Cup Fantasy is a game for fans on FIFA's web site (2014, 2018). I'd lean to removing it from Kane's article and from the FIFA awards article.   Jts1882 | talk  15:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• 2017–18 Carlisle United F.C. season
• 2017–18 Forest Green Rovers F.C. season
• 2017–18 Lincoln City F.C. season
• 2017–18 Morecambe F.C. season
• 2017–18 Scunthorpe United F.C. season
• 2017–18 Southend United F.C. season
• 2017–18 Stevenage F.C. season
• 2018 Eliteserien  Fixed
• 2018 J1 League  Fixed
• 2018 Superettan
• 2018 Úrvalsdeild  Fixed
• 2018 V.League 1  Fixed
• 2018–19 Cheltenham Town F.C. season
• 2018–19 Morecambe F.C. season
• 2018–19 Persian Gulf Pro League  Fixed

A number of pages are now in Category:Pages with script errors, displaying errors in place of the invocation of Module:Sports rbr table. I don’t know if the problem is in the module or pages since both have recently changed. pinging Frietjes who has been working on this. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Frietjes and JohnBlackburne: I have fixed some, see:[2] Hhkohh (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Tried it here and it works just fine. Kante4 (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kante4, Frietjes, and JohnBlackburne: All  Fixed after module updated Hhkohh (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hhkohh, the module should be insensitive to whitespace around the / delimiters and insensitive to having different number of entries in the various rows. I don't think your initial fixes were necessary, but instead, it was the error corrected by Johnuniq that fixed the problem. let me know if there are still some other problems that need to be addressed. Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

In reference to Ethan Ampadu but relevant to hundreds of others, GiantSnowman insisted his youth spell at Chelsea did not apply as he already played a few senior matches for Exeter at a very young age. The previous discussion referred to is, I believe, this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 93#Youth careers in Infobox from 2015, which did not actually establish consensus, the final comment from Koncorde being "How wikipedia reflects the shift from Youth to Senior is based on editor preference at the time." However if there was a more difinitive discussion, please point me at it to read (doubt I'd agree though).

On my talk, GS added this table:

"If we go with your stance, the infobox must look like this:

John Smith GiantSnowman

Youth career
2010–2016	Youth Team
2016–2017	Youth Team
2017–2018	Youth Team
2018–	Youth Team
Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2016	Senior Team	1	(0)
2017	Senior Team	1	(0)
2018	Senior Team	1	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

"That looks ridiculous!"

... I agree that table looks ridiculous; but I never suggested going back and forward with youth and senior spells at the same club. What I actually want it to display is this:

John Smith Crowsus

Personal information
Date of birth	(1998-01-01) 1 January 1998 (age 26)
Youth career
2012–2014	Youth Team A
2014–2018	Youth Team B
Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2014	Senior Team A	3	(0)
2016–2018	Senior Team B	7	(0)
2018–	Senior Team C	1	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

... using a fairly common example of a player brought through the youth system at Team A, plays some games for them aged 16, signed by top division Team B as a future prospect, sits in their youth teams (for which he is still young enough to play) for four years, making sporadic appearances for the senior team in the latter two seasons, then gives up on breaking through and moves to the less glamorous Team C aged 20, going straight into their first team. To me, that's not difficult to follow either in words or in the infobox timeline. Even if we remove Team A from the equation and he just remained with the same club, its fairly common for players too make senior appearances but remain with the youth team (example: Jack Aitchison scored on his debit for Celtic in May 17, but still played for the U19s in the 2017–18 UEFA Youth League and was definitely still considered a youth player who filled the bench occasionally, rather then a young first team member). I don't see why senior and youth careers which in reality exist in tandem cannot and shouldn't be reflected in the Infobox, applying to common sense so that it is doesn't get out of hand (e.g senior players back in the youth team), once the youth spell has ended, it's ended but for some it hasn't ended when they play a senior match. Crowsus (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE applies here - a player cannot be considered a 'youth' player by us if his senior career has begun. We cannot - nor should we - track players as they move back & forth across senior and youth teams at the start of their career. GiantSnowman

12:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Claiming that a 16 year old's youth career has ended the second they step foot on the field in a senior match is patently untrue, and where there is verifiable evidence to support their continued status in the youth setup as opposed to the first team, as there is with most high level clubs, then it's just being unnecessarily selective with the facts based on personal opinion about how it should be presented. Say there are two teammates at Team A from the age of 14 to 18, Player Y happens to play two minutes as a sub in the first team due to an injury crisis at the age of 16, but otherwise they remain solidly in the youth team together until both are released. Player Z would have only the youth spell in their box, but in your version Player Y would show two years less with the youths and two solid years with the first team without getting a game. A truer reflection of the situation would be for their youth records to be of identical length but player Y to have a senior appearance in the middle. I can't see how that would be difficult for anyone to understand, and to me, that is the common sense approach. Crowsus (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

There's so much fluidity between senior and youth that we cannot display it properly - hence why the long-established convention that when a senior career starts the youth career ends. What about senior players who play for the youth team as disciplinary/injury recovery? GiantSnowman 17:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The rare anomaly of a senior player appearing for the youths can be ignored, we are talking about youth players playing senior games, not the other way around. With Ampadu I can see your point as he was soon involved with the first team, although he also appeared for the youths which can be verified so I don't see why both can't be shown, it isn't quite accurate that he went straight into the main squad either. But there are many others whose projection more closely follows the hypothesis I have given of a very young player popping up once or twice in the senior team but spending their whole spell before and after attached to the youths only. Can you please direct me to the longstanding consensus on this, as I mentioned I had a look but the most obvious match for the term was very much open-ended. To be honest I think that's how this should be anyway - applied on a case by case basis so it at least broadly represents the true trajectory of the player without becoming unreadable in the detail and cyclical timelines. Crowsus (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

My original comments are a bit more nuanced than presented Crowsus. The reality is that the "youth team" aspect usually only reflects where a player was registered prior to making their first team appearance. That they may return to the youth team, or transfer to another club and never make another senior appearance is irrelevant. The only time that it seems plausible to me to have multiple instances would be if a 'youth' version of the club played in some other format of recognised football. Fortunately most teams in that case are wholly separate entities or similar. Koncorde (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I just follow sources and add to infobox whatever sources say. If sources say a player was registered in youth team in season X, I add it to the infobox. If it says he was then registered to both, senior and youth team, I add the club and years to both youth and senior career. I usually add the club to senior career as soon as a player gets registered with the senior squad in the league, cup or Europe (even if it doesnt debute). I see no problems in having both, youth and senior careers, overlapping with years in the infobox. We dont necessarily have to have a rigid cut point. For me it is more important that we provide correct, sourced, complete as possible, career story of the player. FkpCascais (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, how can you play for the youth team and the senior team at the exact same time? GiantSnowman 08:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Obviously you can't play for them at literally the exact same time, but you can play for them both during the same period..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but displaying it as some have suggested (ie having a back-and-forth between the senior career and youth career) causes confusion for the reader. GiantSnowman 09:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I made some player bios with those cases of back-and-forth between the senior career and youth career, and hoenstly, I don´t think many readers will be confused. Maybe I am wrong, but at least the better familiarised ones wan´t, specially if we have a good prose in the article. FkpCascais (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

As an encyclopaedia, we're not supposed to be writing articles for those familiar with the topic, it's for Joe Bloggs. GiantSnowman 10:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

But GS, notece that we have more and more cases of those of players debuting for senior squad very young and then returning a season, or two, to youth league, to get more playing time. Also, with the UEFA Youth League getting more highlight, often clubs include in that competition their younger players from the senior team. I see no problem in displaying that correctly with overlapping or back-and-forth time periods in the infobox, actually, the opposite, making a cut point and then ignoring the later youth career, would create much more confusion in my view. FkpCascais (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, as it's exactly because there is fluidity between the senior and youth teams that means it's going to be near-impossible to accurately summarise the career (remember, that's what the infobox is for - a summary) if we have overlapping careers. GiantSnowman 10:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

But fluidity cannot sacrifice truth. Lets see an exemple. What would you suggest doing in a case similar to quite a few I alerady had which looked something like this: A player is formed in Corinthians and in season 2013–14 is registered as senior and debutes in the league. He doesnt impress and is released and his menager finds him a contract in Europe and he signs with OGC Nice in summer 2014. But Nice registers him only for youth team and he plays just in youth league first half of 2014–15, and by winter he is released. He returns to Brazil and signs with Sao Caetano where he plays as senior in 2015 and from then on.

So, for fluidity you would have to sacrifice the truth either by ignoring his spell at Corinthians in 2013 or you would have to ignore his spell in OGC Nice as youth team member. I cannot see how to do it without the back-and-forth. How would you do it? FkpCascais (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You would class his time with Nice as 'senior', to avoid confusion. GiantSnowman 12:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If he is listed/registred as youth, he should be displayed like that. Kante4 (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

But how can you tell - look here, there are 25 senior players for each team and then a whole heap of 'under 21 and scholars' - which are considered youth and which senior? We avoid such difficulties if we continue with the existing rule that a youth career ends when the senior career starts. GiantSnowman 12:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I am totally against that falsification of career just because of eventual confusion. I really don´t read any valid reason not to stick with reliable sources and transpond to the infobox players correct careers even if we have periods overlaping or going back-and-forth. Many other editors also seem unconvinced that we need by force to have a strict cut between the two. FkpCascais (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

GS, don´t take me wrong, but I think you don´t have a "rule" here. You are proposing that we should ignore sources and add wrong information in the infobox just based on an argument that someone, somewhere, sometime, may feel confused with overlapping or back-and-forth years in infobox. I think most people disagree, and its crazy because goes against the rules. FkpCascais (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I side with FkpCascais, it seems to rely on the reader knowing what the conventions are to interpret whether a player is really a senior player or not: I think a bit of leeway / discretion is possible here. Has anyone ever said that they are confused if a player has overlapping spells? Spike 'em (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Same. Robby.is.on (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

What about players like Josh Gordon, who had a lengthy non-league senior career before being signed by a Premier League team and spending a year with their under-23 (technically 'youth') team? GiantSnowman 10:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I am looking for advice on someone I believe has created a second account. I say this because the new account edits in a very similarly frustrating way as the previous account. The reason I haven't reported this yet as a Sock situation is that I can't be sure it's definitely the same editor. Any thoughts? Equineducklings (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Generally you have to compare the edit by edit unless well known sockmaster. Matthew_hk tc 04:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you report it now, so that it can be investigated properly. An investigation doesn't necessarily assume guilt. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Put forward a

WP:SPI, if it comes back clean, apologize. That's how I see it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs}

) 10:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Flags usage in players' second nation(ality)

Is this use of flags allowed? SLBedit (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Why do we even have that listed in the column? It's going to be a magnet for people like the IP who claims half the footballers in Europe as being Albanian. Number 57 21:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I strongly feel this should be avoided. This has happened before occasionally in Australian articles where people are pushing the (generally south-eastern European) heritage of players because of their parents' nationalities. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with above - remove ASAP. GiantSnowman 10:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Just the flags or the second nationality as well? SLBedit (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Both. GiantSnowman 15:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. This is for the people who place images in all the football season articles (especially major football clubs). Do you really go to those matches and take those images or are there any websites who keep free images (without any copyright issues) which can be used in Wikipedia? If yes (for website), can you name any? Thanks. Sagavaj (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

There are some photographers who freely license their images for public use (i.e. place them in a public domain, with the appropriate tag) or via the Creative Commons license. Websites like geograph.org.uk tend to be good for locations and places (such as grounds, or features) but actual football match action tends to be more restrictive. Some Flickr.com users do tag their images appropriately. Koncorde (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I used to go to Upton Park and take loads of pictures which I uploaded. The London Stadium is an athletics stadium and awful football experience so unlikely to be uploading again soon but yes, as above, there are some very good football images on Flickr.com which can be used here.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I am finding some images on Flickr.com as mentioned above. But, how to know if I can use them for Wikipedia or not? Can I use any of them or is there any other issues(do I need to look for anything before using them to avoid any possible copyright issues)? Thanks in advance. Sagavaj (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:REQUESTFLICKR.--Egghead06 (talk

) 05:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Elliot(t) Watt

Looks like we have two articles for the same player, who made his first team debut for Wolves last night (

) 13:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the spelling with one T is correct, so the other one should be merged in -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I've merged the two, at Elliot Watt as that is the earlier version - no comment on correct spelling. However perhaps @Hildreth gazzard: (the creator of the later article) you will check more carefully in future before duplicating articles? GiantSnowman 13:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Is

) 16:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No. GiantSnowman 16:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No. although interesting how it's called off every year due to pitch invasion! Coventryy (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Redirected it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I am currently involved in a dispute with another editor about how

) 14:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should match his article title. Number 57 16:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Alisson for me. Kante4 (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree it should just be 'Alisson'. GiantSnowman 17:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Concur. Should just be 'Alisson' to match the article title. NotAdamKovic (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Since the 2011 GA nomination, I feel like that this article is struggling to be what a GA article is meant to be for today not back in 2011. Basically my thought is, does this still deserve GA status that it currently has at the moment.

03:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:GAR if so inclined. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs}

) 07:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Is a redirect necessary?

I am curious that someone created a redirect (

) 22:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Take to

WP:RFD. GiantSnowman

07:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Posted to today RfD, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 30 Hhkohh (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This article

) 16:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Football at the Summer Olympics - participating nations

I improved the article Football at the Summer Olympics#Participating nations in my draft page User:Faycal.09/Draft 5. I suggest to replace the present article. You can vote by agree or disagree in the page here.
Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

What changes have you made? Except the flags in host countries and the red boxes (what do they even mean?) Coventryy (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there a guideline for club notability so I can avoid getting PRODded again? This team reached the last 32 of the Coupe de France. That is the national stages. I would not support a page for every team in the competition because before the last 32 it is geographically grouped.

If the rule is "pack as many sources into a non-professional team or they're not notable no matter the cup run", then many other articles should be PRODded because they are stubs about non-professional teams. Also in the last 32 of last year's Coupe de France are Canet Roussillon FC, FC Saint-Lô Manche, (just to name two) which are as referenced as the article on ASC Biesheim. Harambe Walks (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:FOOTYN doesn't work for France because of the huge number of teams entering the Coupe de France. However, a club reaching the last 32 is clearly going to be notable. I've removed the speedy deletion tag. Number 57

23:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, does anyone have an idea of what would be an appropriate cut-off point for French clubs, perhaps in terms of league level and round of the cup reached? Cheers, Number 57 00:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:FOOTYN says nothing about qualifying rounds or regional rounds not counting. Passing GNG is the decider anyway.Dougal18 (talk

) 07:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, passing

WP:GNG. Matthew_hk tc

15:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

As there's no written rule, and as someone who does a lot of editing in the French Footy space, I try to make sure there is an article for clubs in the "National" leagues (i.e. tiers 1 to 5), however in reality the churn at the 5th tier is too much for me to keep up, especially as I prefer not to simply create stubs. I'm sure people will happily delete these if they feel they aren't notable enough. As far as Coupe de France is concerned, reaching the last 64 (Round of 64/Ninth round) where the Ligue 1 teams enter is usually notable enough for a team outside the top three tiers, in that there will be significant independent media coverage. Gricehead (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed certain editors reverting club updates when editors do not update the timestamps such as such as this one. Now, it would be appropriate to supply an edit summary when doing so, but it's clear what the well-meaning anon was doing so wouldn't it make sense to simply supply the timestamp of the edit rather than reverting? What is the benefit of reverting? You'll notice that the anon wasn't even supplied with a welcome. I would argue that if there was a welcome template that explained that the timestamp should be updated, we could potentially convert a lurker into an editor (not to mention that we would be

) 00:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I absolutelly agree with you. Despite undestanding how annoying is to go after newbies which just update the stats without touching the date, it is allways much better solution to just open soccerway, or any other reliable website, and confirm the stats, and just correct the date, rather than just reverting.

I persoally also find important to let editors know that the date is the day of the day they are updating the stats (by date X he has made X apperances and scored X goals), rather than the date of the last game, which is something I have seen even some already established editors thinking it means that.

An efficient solution may be just adding next to the stats a hidden note remembering them to update the date as well. FkpCascais (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you're already aware, but it's common courtesy to notify editors when bringing them up in a discussion; while you did not mention me by name, I am one of the "certain editors" you allude to above in the attached edit.

The "benefit of reverting" is that we don't present factually incorrect data: it is wrong to say that Mr Kamara had played 21 matches at the time supplied. I agree about implementing a template explaining timestamps, and I often do write a short explanation on editors' talk pages.

I was actually heading here myself, to ask for opinions on you reverting me for adding the correct timestamp to Kei Kamara (see here and here). The infobox documentation quite clearly lays out the preferred method for updating the relevant parameters: "A timestamp (~~~~~) at which the player's infobox club statistics are correct (not needed if the player has retired)." Mattythewhite (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Walter, why did you reverted Matty there? FkpCascais (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite and Walter Görlitz: I have no comments (currently) in the etiquette-related aspect of discussion, but I've restored a timestamp at Kei Kamara, and posted my rationale at the article talk page. We should not be showing our readers incorrect information. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The date preference assumes it's happening shortly after a match, not days or hours after a match. I assume the documentation should be updated to clarify that fact. It's also incorrect to use four tildes when the article's date format is mdy. So the documentation needs to be updated for that as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Certainly the five-tilde thing should only be used if we're bringing the stats up-to-date as of "now" on a page that uses dmy format. If the stats aren't up-to-date as of "now", then we should use a date or date/time at which they are unambiguously correct. Dates should indeed be formatted appropriately for the article. And yes, the documentation should absolutely reflect that. How about something like

A date- or timestamp at which the stats are unambiguously correct. Note that:

• dates should use the same format as the rest of the article;
• the bare date of the last match played is not unambiguous;
• five tildes ~~~~~ may be used to generate the current date/time in dmy format.

or clearer words to that effect. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That works for me. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Matty's removal of incorrect stats updates. GiantSnowman 10:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I weakly support removing infobox/stats table additions without time/date stamp updates, but if and only if the person rolling back either includes a meaningful edit summary or updates the talk page of the user in question. There's no excuse at all here for not at least giving an edit summary. I'd much prefer a forwards move, by confirming the data and adding the date. That way we avoid any

WP:BITE and can actually weed out the true vandals from the potentially productive editors. Gricehead (talk

) 11:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Apropos of this, I have created a template in my userspace to use on the talk pages of editors that have not updated timestamps:

• User:Nzd/iu1

I actually created it a while ago but then forgot about it, and have just revised it, incorporating some of @Mattythewhite's standard text. It's based on one of the 'general note' templates but there is no warning level so this is more of a notification. As with other templates, article title and custom comment can be added as params.

I intend to use it myself and am happy for others to do so. I am also open to any suggestions for improvement. If other editors think it (or a variation of it) should be in mainspace, then I'm fine with that too. Nzd (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Are

13:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It certainly seems that way, unless

Diables Noirs had two players with near identical names born 15 November 1982. (DoB referenced on the Kevine article by [3] and on the Kevin article by [4]). Kevine appears to be the correct spelling, per the CAF doc. Nzd (talk)

17:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

current_club param - proposed change to documentation

I have proposed a small change to the documentation of the |current_club= param of {{Infobox football biography}}, to account for unattached players. Please comment on the template talk page. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I saw discussion, but seems IP is back [5] [6] Hhkohh (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Kante4: @HiLo48: @Jacknstock: @Lee Vilenski: to comment 16:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Hhkohh (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest putting some detail on the Talk Page, with links to the previous discussions around this matter, to explain clearly why this level of detail is now no longer considered necessary for these articles. Some explanation may cause a cessation of the reverts and reposts. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree, will do Hhkohh (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It seem a mess on phoenix club in Italy. They either re-founded by claiming

. Thus no doubt put them under the same article.

However, in some case, such as FC Como, it is different. New owner acquired the assets, but the share capital or other financial reason making them failed to become a real successor and admitted to the league. In Como case,

Calcio Como

under the same article, with a brief mention of FC Como.

But not all case 2 were typical non overlap case.

S.S.D. Viareggio 2014

(they both existed in 2014-17) still under the same article?

Case 3 even worse, another team just rename (and relocate to another city if needed), without buying the assets. After a wall of text on the talk page of

A.C. Ancona

.

Case 3 was observed again in Cesena this year.

A.C. Cesena

. So, how to deal with such self claim "successor club"? Still put them under the same article if it just a relocation of another club?

Case 4 is more similar to case 3.

Piacenza Calcio and Piacenza Calcio 1919

, the latter acquired the rights to use the brand despite it was actually known as "Libertaspes" before acquisition of the use of the brand. But since no overlap post dissolve of the old club and they did acquiring the assets or rights, it also seem fine to put them under the same article.

Case 5 was the reverse of case 3, after the owner relocated

S.S. Rende

was founded. It was not under the "art.52" and may be not under the process of acquiring assets, but merely the old football club is gone to another city, thus founding a new one?

Any thought to deal with such overlapping history of clubs? Matthew_hk tc 13:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Óscar Rodríguez Arnaiz

What about this draft? The guy already made his first-team debut for Real Madrid, and is now loaned to another

WP:GNG... MYS77 ^✉

14:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's widely agreed that a cup appearance for a team from a fully-pro league equals a

WP:NFOOTY pass. Number 57

15:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Yep, but when I created this guy in the past years, the article was deleted. Same happened with Francisco Feuillassier... That's why I'm asking. MYS77 ^✉ 15:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

To meet NFOOTBALL you have to play for a team from a fully-pro league against a team from a fully-pro league in a competitive game. I don't think that happened here, based on Soccerway. GiantSnowman 15:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

SR Croatia and Independent State of Croatia

See

Template talk:Country data SR Croatia#Edit request and Template talk:Country data Independent State of Croatia#Edit request. Could someone fix them, because I can't quite figure out how? I initially filed edit requests because I assumed they were fully protected like the templates for countries generally are, and didn't check that. --Theurgist (talk

) 19:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

But why would you want one for

SR Serbia. It was not like if it was some sort of national team. Nazi-puppet Independent State of Croatia on the other side did pretended to be a national team during the years of WWII. FkpCascais (talk

) 19:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Why not? Many of the teams in

an article

on the SR Croatia vs Indonesia match.

In fact, it first

played 4 matches as Banovina of Croatia before becoming the Independent State of Croatia, so Template:Country data Banovina of Croatia will need the functionality too. And now that you say it, so will Template:Country data SR Serbia I think, although I didn't find the SR Serbia vs SR Croatia match recorded anywhere I checked. --Theurgist (talk

) 21:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I managed to work out a solution.

• {{fb|Banovina of Croatia}} →  Croatia
• {{fb|Independent State of Croatia}} →  Croatia
• {{fb|SR Croatia}} →  SR Croatia
• {{fb|SR Serbia}} →  SR Serbia

Certainly feel free to elaborate, criticize, and use them. --Theurgist (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Underage team stats in table EFL Trophy / Scottish Challenge Cup

Hi, I have been in a debate with user:A Well Fan over which format to use for the above. They are senior apperances so should be tallied, but not playing for the club's first team. I'll just post the examples below as a comparison between them (player is Allan Campbell (footballer)):
____________________
A Well Fan version

As of 4 September 2018 ^[1]

Club	Season	League			National Cup		League Cup		Other		Total
		Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Motherwell	2016–17[2]	Scottish Premiership	7	1	0	0	0	0	2[a]	0	9	1
	2017–18[3]	Scottish Premiership	29	2	4	0	3	0	1[a]	0	37	2
	2018–19[4]	Scottish Premiership	3	1	0	0	4	0	0	0	7	1
Career total			39	4	4	0	7	0	3	0	53	4

1. ^ ^{a b} Appearances for Motherwell under-20s in the Scottish Challenge Cup

____________________
Crowsus version

As of 4 September 2018 ^[5]

Club	Season	League			National Cup		League Cup		Other		Total
		Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Motherwell	2016–17[2]	Scottish Premiership	7	1	0	0	0	0	—		7	1
	2017–18[3]	Scottish Premiership	29	2	4	0	3	0	—		36	2
	2018–19[6]	Scottish Premiership	3	1	0	0	4	0	—		7	1
Total			39	4	4	0	7	0	0	0	50	4
Motherwell U20/U21[a]	2016–17		—						2	0	2	0
	2017–18		—						1	0	1	0
	Total		0	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	3	0
Career total			39	4	4	0	7	0	3	0	53	4

1. SPFL Premiership
   clubs compete against senior clubs.

____________________

References

1. ^ WikiProject Football/Archive 119 at Soccerway
2. ^ ^{a b} "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 119 in 2016/2017". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
3. ^ ^{a b} "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 119 in 2017/2018". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
4. ^ "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 119 in 2018/2019". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 17 July 2018.
5. ^ WikiProject Football/Archive 119 at Soccerway
6. ^ "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 119 in 2018/2019". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 17 July 2018.

The upper version certainly looks neater, and A Well Fan made the comment "Don't think any layout was agreed upon" which I think is totally correct (if not, could you please direct me to the previous consensus). I do think it would be beneficial to establish a preferred format for these, since it looks like the underage teams will be staying in these competitions at present and it would be good to have somewhere to direct editors who are adding the stats incorrectly.

To me, it has to be stated more clearly than a note that these are not appearances for the senior team, as it could really screw up calculations as the player's careers progress and these obscure cup matches become lost in the numbers but still count towards totals. It hasn't happened yet, but it's feasible that one of these teams could get to the final of the competition which would increase the totals, and if we take an exaggerated hypothetical example of a 16-year-old left back playing for Celtic, a great propect but he's not going to displace Tierney currently. He could play 20 matches in the Challenge Cup over 5 seasons for Celtic U21s (and get a Wikipedia article after playing in 1 SPFL match), and someone looking at the career table who isn't familiar with the rules could assume incorrectly that the boy has played over 20 times for Celtic, unless the U21 appearances are split off.

My layout doesn't look great, so if there's another preferred way altogether to show this I'd obviously be fine with that, as I would be if the upper version above gets more approval than the lower. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I know it's a senior competition, but why are we including youth-team stats in career stats tables? We do not put them in the infobox... GiantSnowman 09:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Because they have played in the EFL Trophy / Challenge Cup. What if a colt team wins the cup, do we just ignore that, or falsely list it as a youth trophy due to the anomaly? Crowsus (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

What about listing goals scored in this way, in the notes themselves, and do as table one? no statistical issues, and the information is kept. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Would another column help? The following keeps the senior appearances separate, while keeping the table more compact.

Club	Season	League			National Cup		League Cup		Other		Senior total		U21/U23 [a]
		Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Motherwell	2016–17[1]	Scottish Premiership	7	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	9	1	2[a]	0
	2017–18[2]	Scottish Premiership	29	2	4	0	3	0	0	0	37	2	1[a]	0
	2018–19[3]	Scottish Premiership	3	1	0	0	4	0	0	0	7	1	0	0
Career total			39	4	4	0	7	0	0	0	53	4	3	0

1. ^ ^{a b c} Appearances for Motherwell under-20s in the Scottish Challenge Cup

None of the solutions seems ideal.   Jts1882 | talk  10:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 119 in 2016/2017". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
2. ^ "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 119 in 2017/2018". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
3. ^ "Games played by WikiProject Football/Archive 119 in 2018/2019". Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 17 July 2018.

Another column or a separate table are the best solutions proposed so far. GiantSnowman 11:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The modified version as proposed at the original discussion is already widely used: e.g. Harvey Barnes#Career statistics, Alex McCarthy#Career statistics, Harry Souttar#Career statistics, Charlie Adam#Career statistics, James Collins (footballer, born 1983)#Career statistics. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Think that's the version I was using. Kinda bloats the table unfortunately, but makes it clear what team and what competition is being played. Crowsus (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Since I was involved in the original debate, I'll give my reasoning for my preferred layout. To me these players are registered for their club and that's it. The age-restricted sides aren't seperate teams in the way that B sides in Spain are for example. In England other than a handful of matches in the EFL Trophy the under-23s are just playing basically non-competitive matches and in Scotland now, these under-21 or colts sides only exist for the Challenge Cup due to the new non-age restricted reserve league.

I see it as, to continue using Allan Campbell as the example, in the matches he played in the Challenge Cup he was playing for Motherwell, yes it was an age-restricted side but it was still Motherwell who as the table shows were his club for the relevant seasons, with the note underneath the table explaining those matches. However I'm happy to go with the majority opinion. One thing I would add though is that whichever layout people think best, the note that User:Crowsus has used saying "Matches in the Scottish Challenge Cup, in which age-restricted teams from the SPFL Premiership clubs compete against senior clubs." or a version similar but including what level the age-restricted team is depending on table layout is probably better and more informative than simply "Appearance(s) in EFL Trophy" or "Appearances for Motherwell under-20s in the Scottish Challenge Cup" A Well Fan (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Soccerbase; publisher or website?

Soccerbase is covered in a subsection of the Racing Post article; it's not italicised there, but it is italicised in the External links section. The description says that it's a betting website, and a glance at the website shows that it has a publisher - CenturyComm. So how should it be characterised in citations - publisher or website? Colonies Chris (talk

) 21:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Website, with Centurycomm as the publisher. See Template:Soccerbase season. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, well, good to see some attempt at gaining community consensus instead of rolling out thousands of AWB changes! Whatever the outcome, Wikipedia needs to be consistent here, see {{Soccerbase}} (which is used thousands and thousands of times), {{Soccerbase manager}}, {{Soccerbase referee}} etc. In fact, the "season" example given above appears to be the only time Soccerbase is italicised. Finally, if we're here to ensure swaths of AWB edits are correct, if italics are selected, should the parameter used be work or website? Might as well get it all sorted out before literally tens or hundreds of thousands of articles are affected. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The documentation for the {{cite news}} template states that 'work' and 'website' are synonyms. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Your semi-automated edits were changing more than just the {{cite news}} template, as you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I also changed {{cite web}} citations. The documentation for that template says the same thing: "website: Title of website; may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work". What is your problem? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

My "problem", as you well know, is your continued and continual use of semi-automated tools to make erroneous or non-consensus-led changes to masses of articles. So it's a pleasant surprise to see this discussion to determine the veracity of at least one such decision via a community consensus. And until you instigate a "stop bot" button on your page to get you to stop making erroneous or non-consensus-led semi-automated changes, anyone is entitled to

do what is needed to protect Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk

) 10:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Your problem is one of attitude. I will happily continue this discussion, or any other, with other editors. However, I will no longer respond to you in any form. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Good to hear, but a sadly non-collaborative approach. Just be aware that I will gladly IAR to ensure you are prevented from continuing to roll out errors and non-consensus-led changes with your tool. Whatever it takes to defend Wikipedia from such disruption. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The {{

MOS:ITALICTITLE). Nzd (talk)

07:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the whereabouts in the article of the mention of the source of the reference is irrelevant, all instances of Soccerbase across all of Wikipedia should either be italicised or all instances of Soccerbase across all of Wikipedia should not be italicised. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Issue with the FIFA player template

Hi, I was editing Ysis Sonkeng, and clicked on the FIFA player link at the bottom of her page. Unfortunately, it lead to this - https://www.fifa.com/fifa-tournaments/- webpage instead of her player page (which is here https://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/players/player=353724/index.html). The number in the template is correct so I don't know why the link doesn't work. Red Fiona (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Redfiona99: This was brought up recently, it seems as though FIFA's "players and coaches" browser is currently broken (though player profile links still work for the most recent edition of tournaments), hopefully it will be fixed soon. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you 17:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a draw in the EFL Trophy!

Or is there? The group stage of the EFL Trophy has a particularly funky format – if a match is tied at full-time, it automatically goes to penalties. The winner of the penalty shoot-out claims two points, while the loser claims one. So did the match end in a draw? Or was there a winner and a loser? Just asking for clarification for club seasons articles. Domeditrix (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Where about would this make a difference? Should be denoted as a draw in tables; and stated as a draw in regular time in prose. Not sure how this is different from penalties in any other tournament Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Stats convention for the penalties seems to be record it as a draw, so I'd suggest doing the same and then you could consider the shootout an extra bonus thing with the winner getting a point, but don't see any need to record that any differently from the norm in match report boxes. Haven't checked, but I presume it's already accounted for in the table layouts etc? Crowsus (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No different from historic examples in Norway or Hungary. It's a draw in prose and an extra column is added to the table. Valenciano (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The tables in the NASL seasons (e.g. 1982) would benefit from that approach with the extra colums.   Jts1882 | talk  06:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Oran Kearney

Could some kindly admin please re-create this article, now that he has been appointed manager of a fully-pro club? [7] Thanks in advance. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Juventus F.C. Women

According Italian LND, who organises women's football at national level, the team's official name is "Juventus Football Club" just like the men's team and in the matches documents is often called just "Juventus". Is this the case to change the article's name to "Juventus F.C. (women)"?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Common name was "Juventus Women", but the naming convention of "Juventus F.C. + suffix" for sub-articles, the current article title is fine. Matthew_hk tc 10:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Agami Hando

This player, Agami Hando, seems to be making himself a promotional page. Is he even notable? For the part playing in the Balkans, he doesn´t pass notability. FkpCascais (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look like he passes

WP:NFOOTY. I will prod. Number 57

19:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The article's author has created two other articles, one of which also fails

WP:NFOOTY, and one of which (Maheep Riar) appears to pass at first glance, but on closer inspection, seems to be a hoax as there is no record on Soccerway of him playing for the clubs listed (at least as far as I can find). Number 57

20:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh I remember that Maheep Riar, he appeared in transfermarkt a few years ago with a totally made up career. I checked at time some of the clubs he allegedly played for, and there was no record of him. FkpCascais (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Alieu Darbo seem more notable to hire journalist to make up the transfer news for him. Matthew_hk tc 04:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. How does Darbo pass notability? FkpCascais (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure the debut in Finnish Cup counted as notable or not. The coverage of Darbo's scam in Sportsbladet and La Gazzetta seem passing GNG. But any trace of that scam was removed by an admin with edit summary "remove negative info sourced entirely to tabloids". Seem off-topic but verifying transfer and debut, it seem both primary and secondary source were important. Caught one or two Nigerian footballers draft with fishy content. Matthew_hk tc 13:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about this removal of information largely sourced to Sportbladet. I'm struggling to see why this source is deemed unreliable. Most of it is repeated in the Times of Malta and this article also mentions that there was a scam (in the bit that is cut off to non-subscriber). I think this should be readded to the article. Number 57 13:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Me too. That seems to be actually the most interesting and covered by media issue related to him. FkpCascais (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC) FkpCascais (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The prod was removed, so the article on Hando is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agami Hando. Number 57 15:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

For Darbo i am not sure about the wording to avoid NPOV, may be including Darbo's explantation: don't know / harassed by reporter who want to destroy his career? Matthew_hk tc 09:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Usually the solution is to say who says what. For instance: "Reporter of the Foo Newspapper, Joe Doe, reported Darbo blabla. In response, Darbo gave an interview to Foot-balls.com, on Monthember 3, 201x, saying Doe is a dick." ... well, obviously not this wording, but the idea is just to say who did and said what without giving any further opinion. That way we avoid taking sides, or breaking

Wikipedia:OR. But since much was written about it, the controversy should stay mentioned. FkpCascais (talk

) 11:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: Agreed . Matthew_hk tc 10:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Denmark national team strike

Just a heads up (if you aren't aware of it) that the Danish national team seem to be in a bit of a state. The normal senior players (Eriksen, Schmeichel, etc.) haven't agreed a contract with the Danish FA to play in this month's matches, so they won't play. The Danish FA don't want a massive fine or risk being kicked out of competition(s), so apparently they are going to use a bunch of semi-pro and futsal players in tonight's friendly with Slovakia (and possibly on Sunday v Wales). Looking at the squad section of the Danish national team article, none of these geezers have English WP articles (a few have Danish WP articles). Presumably appearing in either of these games will make them notable? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If it does happen, would these players actually fall under Wikipedia's

famous for one event definition? Perhaps all such players would be covered in a single article - title could be something like 2018 Denmark men's national football team strike? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk

) 09:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I think they would still be notable. It's just a bit unusual, that's all. England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales often had one cap wonders back in the 19th Century, when the players were all amateur and matches were infrequent. Some people have been pointing out another (very old) precedent. Wales had to pick players from Welsh clubs only for a 1930–31 British Home Championship match against Scotland because English clubs had refused to release their players. See Fred Keenor (the goalie) for more details. Nine players made their Wales debut that day. As it happens, only one of the players (Elvet Collins) never played for Wales again, and he played a bit for Cardiff City anyway. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Our

WP:1E, but I've never seen it brought up before regarding players with only one professional match call-up. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs}

) 09:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with the Danish lower league players, after all some smaller national teams (San Marino for example) rely entirely on amateur or semi-pro players for every match and they all have articles and would all pass notability guidelines. There could be an argument with the futsal players perhaps but I would certainly favour them having their own pages, a national team cap is quite a big achievement, dictated by circumstance or not. Kosack (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Subject-specific guidelines only provide a presumption of notability, it does not replace the need for the article subject to actually meet the standard of

verifiable, it is unlikely to be appropriate to have individual articles for most of the players in question. Basically, if all we can say with reliable sources are that XYZ has this one/two caps, and some career statistics, then we shouldn't be having the individual articles. If because of this strike, multiple sources do in depth bio of the players and we can actually say more than one or two lines, then that would be different. -- KTC (talk

) 11:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If we can have an article on

someone who is presumed notable for competing in one event at the Olympics but about whom so little is recorded that we don't even know his first name then I don't see why we can't have articles on these players...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk

) 12:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Different AFD on the same basis can end with different result depending on who take parts. It's been 12 years since the previous AFD, I wouldn't be suprised if there's a different result if it were nominated today. And while they're both enough to meet subject-specific notability guideline, I would say an appearance at the Olympics is quite a bit more notable than an appearance at what is effectively an international friendly tournment. -- KTC (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Subject-specific guideline or not, we have plenty of one sentence articles on national team players that have one cap. These players would be exactly the same, even better perhaps given that we may have enough info to build a career history. Kosack (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of a single article if much of what can be said about several players amounts to the same information and little else substantial can be found. Then have redirects to the single article, so we aren't repeating the same information several times. But I would think natural curiosity would lead to human interest stories being published about some of these players, at least in Denmark. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

- These seem similar to Sogelau Tuvalu, who was a shotputter, who is only notable, for attempting to qualify for the 2011 World Athletics championships... in the 100 meters. I'm pretty sure all of these people will recieve a lot more press than some other players, simply due to the circomstances (As well, as the match reports) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

BBC article about it. GiantSnowman 12:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The idea underpinning the subject-specific notability guideline for bios are that they have reached the top of their chosen sport. The cut off set differs based on the sport in question, but these people we are talking clearly wouldn't otherwise meet the standard we've decided. They have this unique opportunity purely because of the dispute the top players have with their FA. These players haven't reached the top of their sport in their country on merit, and if they are notable, would only be of this one event. -- KTC (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me of something that happened last year with the CTFA International Tournament. The Philippines Football Federation's team selection was limited by the 2017 Philippines Football League finals, so they sent mostly under-23 players. We did not create separate articles for the players who participated, or even list them in the tournament article. Some of the Laotion and Timorese internationals also don't have articles even though they are senior players (I'm not sure about the players on the Chinese Taipei team). There was an objection to listing players in the article, even those who were already considered notable, except in the goalscorers section. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think we should have articles. These players will have won a senior international cap and any other player winning a Danish cap (even one) would not be considered for deletion. This is a consistency issue for me. Number 57 20:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Should we also create articles for the Filipino, Laotion and East Timorese internationals? Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Number 57 22:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm just going to

WP:REDLINK the goal-scorers for now. Jack N. Stock (talk

) 09:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel like we shouldn't go out of our way to create these articles, but I can't see them being deleted, due to our guidelines. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

17 (largely identical) articles have now been created for the players Denmark used last night. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

My feeling is that these articles should be merged, either into an article on the match or the squad itself; we do not need 17 articles that will likely become outdated and may be prone to vandalism in the future. We should consider

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 20:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

BBC Radio were saying tonight that the Danes have come to an agreement of some sort, so the regular players should be back in for the Wales game. Presumably leaving these 17 players with their one international appearance. I think that strengthens the "one event" argument. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That would make sense, but maybe wait til after that game to see what the final outcome is? Just a PS, the one player I looked at at random out of this group was Simon Vollesen who played league matches for Lyngby so may be notable anyway? (although I know they're not as strong as they once were and have been in lower divisions, so maybe not). So that aspect should be checked for each player before merging them all into an event article. Crowsus (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Vollesen looks notable regardless of the international appearance. He played in games last season, while Lyngby were in the top flight (Superliga). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There is also the question of what would link to these articles. At the moment they are linked to by the current squad in the Denmark national football team article. This will change after the Wales game. There might be a short comment on the controversy in the Danish national team, but this wouldn't list the players. A single event article would be more useful that 17 almost identical articles that wouldn't be linked by other articles.   Jts1882 | talk  07:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

What about every other player over the course of history who has made one International appearance? Would you propose getting rid of those articles and merging/redirecting to A N other article? GiantSnowman 08:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Not a 100% accurate comparison, as most players with only one cap are notable for other things i.e. their club career, whereas the majority of these Danes have not played club football at a high-enough level so are notable only for their caps. There are other such players with articles, though, for example A. H. Savage - notable for nothing other than one appearance for England, which may well have been because he was the only half-decent goalkeeper who happened to be free on that day, and we don't even definitely know his name! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, figures such as Savage are partially notable because of their anonymity: it is unusual for the identity of a capped England player to be so mysterious. By contrast, these players are all notable through one connected occurrence. I also come back to the fact that we need to consider

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 09:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

These are not one-line stubs though. The articles are detailed. GiantSnowman 09:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

But most of the text is identical describing the circumstances of their selection.   Jts1882 | talk  09:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, the comparison isn't appropriate. Here, there is an obvious topic that is notable and deserving an article. The players are secondary to this story and mostly not notable in themselves. As for other internationals with one cap, if there is nothing to say about them apart from the one cap we can question whether they meet

WP:GNG

and ask whether the articles should be deleted. The choice is slightly different here, though. If these articles are deleted there will be no mention on Wikipedia. In the case of these Danish players they would be covered by an article on the player strike and their unusual call-up, which makes up most of the text in each individual player article. Notability isn't completely objective or black-and-white. The best choices depend on the circumstances.

That said, the articles already exist because some editors think they are sufficently notable. I wouldn't have created them, but there isn't a clear cut case for their deletion.   Jts1882 | talk  09:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have created {{Denmark 2018 replacement football squad}} but not added it to the articles yet. I suggest doing it. A squad template for a single friendly is very unusual but it's an unusual situation. Most or all of the players will never get a navbox for a normal accomplishment and may never get normal incoming links. This match is their main claim to notability and ties them closely together as article subjects. Maybe the navbox should omit the redlinks who were in the squad but didn't play. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Done it for you. Good idea, PH. APM (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Captaincy templates

Entering Ivo Pinto article, I saw this template there, and removed it because I thought it was no longer in usage (saw it removed from tons of articles some years ago). Was reverted, so I let it be of course.

Simple question: well, is it in use currently or not please? Sorry for any inconvenience, thanks in advance --Quite A Character (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed another succession box from a former Napoli captain. Did the project member agrees that no such box in footballer articles? Matthew_hk tc 15:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I remember something, but not sure. Kante4 (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

As far as I remember, there is consensus not to have templates/succession boxes for captains. GiantSnowman 15:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well, like I said, there's dozens if not hundreds of them still around on articles and still notes telling you to add it, so if there was consensus, no-one seems to actually be consistent about it.Skteosk (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Watford F.C.

Can we drop the GA rating? I feel there are a few holes in the article and the history of the club, for instance, Jack Petchey owned and ran the club from 1987 to 1994 and his name isn't mentioned on the article once. Govvy (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It would need to go to

WP:GAR first. Jmorrison230582 (talk

) 10:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't assessed the article so I'm not saying it should remain or be dropped but, if you feel there are holes in the article, why not see what you can add rather than seek to demote the article first. A GA rating does not mean the article is the finished object and GA criteria only requires that it "addresses the main aspects of the topic and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail." We also have History of Watford F.C. which should be used to cover the club's history in more detail, cheers. Kosack (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems such a big hole to me, I really don't know how this passed GA last time. The whole era needs to be be rewritten in my opinion. WP:GAR seems a little imposing, I better get back to work, don't have enough time atm to review GAR, or update the article right now. Govvy (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Gazza shot the old Cockerel

[8] Thought I share this story as I thought it was funny that Gascoigne had access to an air rifle at White Hart Lane! Govvy (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Bautista Cascini

Could someone please merge

talk

) 01:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 14:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

talk

) 14:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Fiji national football team

So I have gone and expanded the

is developing

02:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Felix Götze

User:S.A. Julio seems to think that the Felix Götze should have a "Continental" column in the article's career statistics table despite not making any appearances in the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League. In addition to not making any European appearance, he hasn't even been an unused substitute in either competition. This is according to the source for his career statistics table. Do we really want columns that show zero (0) appearances throughout his career to-date or are we going to put columns in just because they were part of the club's roster? Another issue with the article is that it has a row for the senior team of Bayern Munich. According to the source, he was only an unused substitute eight times. He didn't make any appearance in any competition for the senior team. Do we really think it's needed here? Kingjeff (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

IT would make more sense for the column to say 'Other'.--EchetusXe 08:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree the column should be 'Other'. GiantSnowman 08:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:FOOTYN

discussion

A discussion had been started on the NFOOTY essay with regards to some additional wording. Input is welcome. Cheers, Number 57 23:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Just flagging this up again as it's now been suggested that the section on club notability be deleted entirely. Cheers, Number 57 15:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

So, as virtually no-one from the project has commented there, the text has been reinserted based on the comments from non-members. @Govvy, Pharaoh of the Wizards, SportingFlyer, Fenix down, Smartyllama, Kivo, and Rillington: You've all cited FOOTYN in recent discussions so thought you should be aware that based on the new wording, you're apparently no longer allowed to. Number 57 08:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

N%7, only just seen this as have been busy IRL recently. To my mind, that discussion changes nothing. I don't cite FOOTYN as a guideline, merely as a means to describing a long standing consensus that is supported by a lot of AfDs. I'll continue citing FOOTYN for shorthand, but just point people to recent AfDs illustrating the consensus described. Fenix down (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It could be worth adding a few AFDs to FOOTYN that support that viewpoint. GiantSnowman 09:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Historical logo and NFC

Since

F.C. Bari

), or comply with the concern:

"The NFCI#2 allowance for logos only applies to the use of the logo on the infobox or lede for the stand-alone article about the entity, and should reflect its most current logo. The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of critical commentary about that historical logo. "

Matthew_hk tc 10:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this essentially means that if there is prose that describes the development of the logo, then it's fine to include, but not if it's only there for decoration. There are plenty of articles that contain historical logos, so it should usually be fine, as long as there is something useful to say about that specific logo. If in doubt, I'd post at WT:Copyrights or WT:Non-free content to get input from editors more au fait with these issues. Nzd (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll add (as such an editor) that commentary needs to be referenced and it needs to be about the appearance of the logo (i.e. not "the old logo was adopted in 1960") to necessitate an image. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bundesliga article you mentioned suffers from this. Despite having a commentary, it's hardly relevant to the article. The information regarding the 50 years logo could be made into something important, or at least non-trivial, but I can't see how 5 logos meet this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

For whatever reason the old logo in

Jiangsu Suning F.C. were deleted (Special:Diff/859041822). Originally they only displayed as a gallery without commentary. Matthew_hk tc

10:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

2018 International Champions Cup

User:Walter Görlitz is taking the context out of the ICC tournament page and at the same time was harassing my talk page. Can someone fix this stupidity please. Govvy (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

No. I'm responding to the actual state of the event. They want it to appear as though it's a tournament but it's not. Hotspur played Roma, Barca and Milan, but not Dortmund who somehow managed to place "second". It's not a tournament. It's a series of friendlies that the organizers have for years tried to make it appear as though it was a tournament. One year, the "winner" played four more matches than most other teams, lost two of them and "won" the tournament on wins, even though they didn't play the majority of the other teams.

I'm not harassing you, I'm warning you.

The only way for someone to fix the stupidity is for you two stop editing the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

And yet, we have the world Cup, England didn't play Brazil, and it's still a tournament, your logic is floored!! Govvy (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

And yet a team that was declared winner in that actual tournament played teams that defeated both England and Brazil. That's how an actual tournament works. the "winner" of a tournament either defeated all others (Round-robin tournament), or in the case of the FIFA world cup, came out of a group and then won in the next round. This doesn't follow any tournament rules. It's play three teams at random and whoever has the highest number of wins in the random group is declared the winner (with some tie-break rules). I won't comment any further on your logic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The ICC meets the definition of tournament, and regardless of that media are seeing it as one too. -Koppapa (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Media are selling it as one. I assume that next year's event will be sold as one as well, hence present tense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is our place to judge how meaningful a tournament it is. If sources describe it as such and report the winner, then that makes it a tournament.I support Govvy's version of the page. Spike 'em (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, the main International Champions Cup page describes it as a competition and refers to individual tournaments, so for consistency this one should too, or the wider set of articles will all need to be edited. Spike 'em (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the remarks from Spike 'em - that this is clearly a tournament (no matter how imbalanced it is or has been in the past) - and so support Govvy's version of the page. I only disagree with the rhetoric from Govvy that there was harassment involved on Govvy's talk page. Different opinions exist, fair enough ! But the comments on Govvy's talk page were appropriate. Matilda Maniac (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Not a tournament like it "normally" is but still a tournament. Kante4 (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"Top foreign goalscorers"

Is this type of record notable, or is it

WP:FANCRUFT? Why differentiate Portuguese scorers from foreign ones? SLBedit (talk

) 19:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not specifically notable, IMO . Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

But it is supported by many sources, mostly in Portuguese. SLBedit (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently association football is a common term and does not need to be linked in team articles

According to

WP:OVERLINK, but not sure that it's being applied correctly as national and professional teams do have a strong association with the term. Any concern with the suggestion it's an overlink? Walter Görlitz (talk

) 17:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to summon those football (soccer) or soccer or association football

WP:ENGVAR edit, it seem leave those link "as is" are the best option. Also in the past i linked them to Football in Italy, so may be good to link to football in foo, e.g. Football in England for English footballer, English football club. Matthew_hk tc

17:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree to remove link to such as

WP:OVERLINK Hhkohh (talk

) 23:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

And this edit seems overlink to Chicago Hhkohh (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Fenix is wrong. 'Soccer' is an abbreviation. It is not 'overlinking' to direct that to "association football". It is a common courtesy. The MOS on COMMONWORDS is very clear. Soccer as a term is strongly regionalised, per Names for association football. Koncorde (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Toshack at Tractor Sazi

Can anyone read Persian? IP editors have been changing his and the club page to say he's gone, without providing any sources. It's not really clear via Google Translate whether this article confirms it. Nzd (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

IP editor inventing

The 103.234.7.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is inventing players at several articles. Can we do anything for avoiding it? Thank you. Asturkian (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:AIV to let admin block IP Hhkohh (talk

) 11:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Asturkian:, assume good faith on updating squad list (even they did not provide reliable source).

But in that ip user case in specific, quick sending warning from level 1 to 4 (or quick sending level 3 for questionable edits after unblock), and report to

WP:AIV after passing the 4th warning. Matthew_hk tc

12:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I must learn this way of work. I was just going to mention him at

WP:AIV. Asturkian (talk

) 12:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Just reported. It rather need clean up crew for articles such as A.C. Milan seasons , Valencia CF seasons and many articles. Matthew_hk tc 12:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Likely the same person as Special:Contributions/49.143.151.98 who caused havoc between blocks in 2016/17. Same Korean ISP, and the 49 address was static for a loooong time. A long block may be in order here. Gricehead (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems all cleaned up now. I caught one, but others have done most of the week. Pinging @GiantSnowman: who seems to have caught a lot of the stuff over a week ago. Also pinging @Widr: who blocked the 49 address several times. Gricehead (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gricehead and Matthew hk: let me know if they re-appear, I'll mass revert and block. GiantSnowman 09:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

, @GiantSnowman: just now around 9:30 (UTC) Matthew_hk tc 10:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 10:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Frändefors IF

Hi – can anyone tell me if the Swedish team

WP:GNG, so they look like a candidate for AfD. I don't know anything about the history of this club, or what level a club has to achieve for this WikiProject to be considered notable, so I am hoping someone can answer. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk

) 17:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Elo ranking

Hi, what is the consensus regarding the Elo ranking increase/decrease on the national football team infoboxes? Should it be based on the previous month (as per the FIFA rating) or on a yearly basis (which is explicit in the World Football Elo Ratings' table).

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehme1499 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

UEFA honour

Should this be listed as an honour?

• The 10 Greatest Coaches in European football history: 2016

..which was recently changed by @Виктор Не Вацко from:

• The 10 Greatest Coaches of the UEFA era (1954—2016)

Both of those descriptions mischaracterise the source, which doesn't present the list as an 'honour' and doesn't actually say these managers are the best 10, describing it as "a series of articles tracking the careers of ten of the many coaches who had made a major impact on football since UEFA's foundation in 1954".

Might be worth a mention in a legacy section, but IMO I don't think these should be in Honours. Nzd (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not worth even mentioning. The source clearly states that it represents "a series of articles tracking the careers of ten of the many coaches who had made a major impact on football since UEFA's foundation in 1954". So in essence UEFA's web team simply decided that it would be nice to pick ten top coaches (apparently at random) and profile them on the website. They weren't voted the ten best in a poll or anything like that. This doesn't merit any sort of mention anywhere -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

When the source first came out, it was named as 'The 10 Best Coaches of All Time', and the same goes for the articles of the coaches. Then the website slightly changed the context of the project for some reason (Pretty sure the original has been archived). On top of that, the current article ends with "Read our detailed profiles to discover what made each of them special". So it's really on reader how he interprets the context. Виктор Не Вацко (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC+2)

The Clough article from August 2016 is archived: The best ever coaches: Brian Clough. Similarly in Sept 2016: The best ever coaches: Johan Cruyff. I can't find the original introductory article for the ten.   Jts1882 | talk  10:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the title of the articles, unless there is evidence that the coaches were voted the "best ever" in a poll or named as such by some sort of respected football authority figure, rather than just an unidentified member of UEFA's web media team, I don't think it belongs, and certainly not as an "honour" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident UEFA's official website represents UEFA and not just some random guy/group of people in the organization. This isn't Bleacher Report, we're talking about a serious organization here. Plus, writing articles about all those managers for months and putting it together suggests that the writers put some effort into the project and the list has some meaning. Виктор Не Вацко (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC+2)

I am still of the opinion that these should be removed from the Honours sections. If this really was a notable accolade, I would expect more coverage. As it is, all I can really find is mentions by SportsKeeda and GiveMeSport (

tabloid), none of which can be used to confirm the list's status IMO – the SportsKeeda article actually uses the same quote I did, yet they still titled it "UEFA announces 10 best coaches in European history". Do I have consensus to remove them? Nzd (talk)

14:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I would support its removal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I would support its removal : it is a media profile for a website, not an official Award. And therefore just an opinion. Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Nzd (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Divisional movements for Italian clubs

Editor

WP:NOTSTATS umbrella. So many football club articles have too many tables and too many needless statistics, and I reckon that this sort of thing is unnecessary and detracts from the prose of the article. Does the project have an opinion on these tables? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk

) 08:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you.

Jay

08:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I also think they are not needed and should all be removed. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't hugely object to them, but qualifying for Europe should 100% not be listed as a "promotion" from Serie A -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

List of goalscoring goalkeepers

Couple of queries on this:

1. Should we include keepers who scored when playing outfield (e.g. Jorge Campos, Alan Fettis, Tony Read), or perhaps have a separate list on the same article for them?
2. Should we limit it to two goals or more? I'm sure if every professional keeper who had scored one goal at some point was included, the list would be far too long for an article.

Thoughts? Cheers, Number 57 12:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Short answer - no and yes respectively.

Long answer - no, simply note in the text that they sometimes played outfield; and yes, goalkeepers with only one goal can remain in the related category.

Also - de-bold it and stop with the 'currently active' element. GiantSnowman 13:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

New Articles

Hi, I've just noticed there's a page listing new Football related articles. How are pages added here? Is it a manual job the article creator needs to do, or are they picked up based on a template in their talk page (if so, which one)? Also, as the new pages I've created/seen don't have anything in the talk page with regards to importance/quality, how can I get the articles rated appropriately - is there a defined process for this? Thanks, --Philk84 12:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding to the 'new article' list is a manual addition; as for rating please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment. GiantSnowman 13:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This one is done automatically and is more comprehensive (although it has the occasional 'miss' in terms of picking up non-football stuff): User:AlexNewArtBot/AssociationFootballSearchResult. I'd highly recommend watching this page for anyone interested in reviewing new articles. Number 57 13:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Philk84: Yes, this is a manual process. Just add *{{la|ARTICLENAME}} within the relevant date, per the instructions at the top of the page. When you create articles, you should add the relevant project tags to the talk page. Feel free to use this as a template. When adding the WPFooty tag without the ratings, the article will be added to Category:Unassessed football articles and Category:Unknown-importance football articles, meaning someone will come along and rate it. Nzd (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks GiantSnowman and Nzd - I've added the pages and the appropriate talk page templates  Done. --Philk84 13:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

European Cup updates - need checking

Hi all, I've noticed that the IP user 178.758.29.45 has been updating some European Cup and Italian stats and figures. Can someone take a look and confirm if they are all vandalism? I've reverted one, and I've seen that @Shellwood: has reverted some more, but can someone double check that they've all been corrected? What's the procedure for reporting people like this? I see their talk page already has some warning about nonconstructive/disruptive edits. --Philk84 07:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

England under 23s?

Writing up the remarkable story of Kevin Beattie's life, I came across the rather brilliant story of how he 'went missing' on international duty (almost as good as the injury caused by a large poo).

It seems from the sources that this happened while on call by

England national under-23 football team

. As you can see, that's a redirect to the under 21s article, which other than mentioning that under 23s are eligible, doesn't mention its predecessor, which is a bit of an omission.

Any ideas for best fix?

Two articles? A history section in the under 21s? --

old fashioned!

10:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Two articles seems fair. The under-23 national teams were a regular feature for a long time until UEFA basically rebadged it as an "under-21" tournament after 1976. 23 years old used to be a hard limit for the "under-23" team, whereas now you just need to have the 21st birthday in the year that the European qualifying starts to be eligible for the "under-21" team. e.g. qualifying for the 2019 Euros started in 2017, so anyone born after 1 January 1996 is eligible. Hence why you often get 23 year olds playing for under-21 teams in the tournament finals. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a small side point from reading the Beattie article, it mentions "Beattie was also told that Celtic had shown an interest in him, but had been erroneously told that he was not a Catholic.[8]" I'm quite sure that's what the book says, and also expect that may be what Beattie was told. However, I inferred from the phrasing that Celtic did have such a sectarian signing policy, however this has never been the case (many were, but Tommy Gemmell wasn't, nor Dalglish, McGrain, Moyes etc) so it's kinda presenting a false picture of the situation (again, I'm sure there was no malicious intent on any part). Crowsus (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Leander Dendoncker

There's a rather interesting and confusing piece of news about Dendoncker that I found in the French Belgian press but hasn't made it to BBC Sport or even the Express & Star as far as I can see on Google News. Per RTL, "Selon nos confrères de la DH, la fédération anglaise a refusé la location avec option d’achat obligatoire. Wolverhampton a donc dû acheter le milieu de terrain belge directement et non pas en fin de saison (comme désiré au départ)" "According to our colleagues at DH, The FA has refused the loan with obligatory buying option. Wolverhampton has therefore had to buy the Belgian midfielder directly and not at the end of the season (as was wanted when he left".

The sources are reliable, even if this isn't in the UK news yet. But how should this be presented on the Dendoncker article? On loan at Wolves with zero games and then permanent? Harambe Walks (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

If that source is correct, and the 'loan' element of the deal never went through, then no - just show him as permanent from the beginning. GiantSnowman 16:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up on infobox timestamps

Following on from this discussion on infobox timestamps, I have now moved the template I created into mainspace. This is now titled {{

Footyiu

}}.

I'm not precious about the wording ('incomplete' may be be better than 'not quite right', for example), and moving this to mainspace gives other editors the opportunity to make any changes and makes it more accessible for use (it can now be added as a

Twinkle

).

I had been holding off from using it myself as I wanted to address the issue of MDY dates. Based on the previous discussion, I have created a template to use instead of 5 tildes in articles where MDY dates are in place. {{

substituted

.

I have proposed that this be added to the documentation of {{Infobox football biography}}, along with the suggestions made by @Struway2 in the previous discussion. Please comment on the template talk page.

Thanks, Nzd (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

In the wording.....One or more "were"....--Egghead06 (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Amended. Cheers, Nzd (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of editors like Saksapoiss (talk · contribs) who change timestamps without updating goals/caps. SLBedit (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this should be in a separate thread, as it's only tenuously linked to this topic. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Like I have previously stated, I take an example from Mattythewhite (talk · contribs) who surprisingly happens to be a Wikipedia administrator, so I believe he must know the best. Saksapoiss (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

He reverted me for not explaining the revert. Please stop changing timestamps just because. SLBedit (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

If you are "surprised" by me being an admin, why would you take an example from me...? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It was meant as an emphasis that I would rather take my example from an admin. Saksapoiss (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Being an admin doesn't necessarily mean what I say or do is gospel, it means that I have been trusted with a few additional technical tools. Back to the issue, I don't see what the problem is with the timestamps you've used. They're in line with what the template documentation recommends, and with the proposed wording linked above. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

What's the point of updating timestamp when the stats don't change? Unless timestamp wasn't properly updated when stats were changed, there's no reason to change it. SLBedit (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I would say if a timestamp update is the only change made, then that would be pretty pointless and I've seen blocks issued for such things on the assumption of editcount-rigging. I'm not seeing that this is the case here though. If timestamps are updated as part of a broader edit, there's no real harm in that. Nzd (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait! What is wrong with updating the timestamp? I often do it to indicate that the article stats are correct despite a player not having played for long. It is usefull as often if you see a date from long time ago you may wonder if the stats are updated. This way, if someone updates the time stamp, it helps readers know the stats are updated and correct. See absolutelly no problem with it, rather the opposite, it is welcomed and usefull. (PS: Thanks NZD for pinging me). FkpCascais (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. The timestamp should just be updated when a match was played. Kante4 (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with FkpCascais. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This issue has been setled long time ago. It was decided the timestamp would indicate that the stats are correct as to the date, rather than indicating the date of the last game. Once this was decided, updating a timestamp with correct stats is allways beneficial. Having an old timestamp is unproductive as it leaves readers wandering if stats may have changed by now. Opposing this is actually challenging the consensus that the timestamp doesn´t indicate the last game. FkpCascais (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be useful to get some more comments at Template talk:Infobox football biography#club-update and nationalteam-update params - proposed changes to documentation. Currently, I don't feel there is sufficient consensus to make this change (pinging @Walter Görlitz, FkpCascais, and Gricehead as participants in the previous discussion). Thanks, Nzd (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Association footballers not categorized by position

There are still nearly 36,000 articles in Category:Association footballers not categorized by position - any help clearing them would be much appreciated. It's a boring task but needs to be done... GiantSnowman 15:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been making some ground with this, but a quick question. I've noticed a few futsal players in there, e.g.

talk

) 14:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@

R96Skinner: Futsal players are not meant to be categorised, this usually has to do with a categorisation mistake. For example, Bácaro was in Category:S.S. Lazio Calcio a 5 players, which was mistakenly categorised under Category:Footballers in Italy by club instead of Category:Futsal players in Italy by club. Once any mistakes are fixed, players of other variants can be removed from "not categorized by position". S.A. Julio (talk

) 04:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Right, got it! Thanks, S.A. Julio!

talk

) 01:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Season overview, draw / win or loss representation

I wanted to ask, I think we have been over this before, but when a game goes to penalties, should we record the the colour down as a draw or a win or loss? Cup games are different to league, so I was wondering about the colour representation. Govvy (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Draw. The result of the game is the score as at 90/120 minutes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think it always looks funny for cup games to see the draw colour, even know technically one team wins and one team looses after penalties. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It may look odd, but it is technically correct. The team that wins the shoot-out does not actually win the game, they have effectively won an additional separate tie-breaker to decide which team progresses -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Tomás Guidara

Can anybody clear this up for me, I'm not so well versed in these type of things. @

talk

) 16:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Having a surname of certain origin is not indicative that the person is - the name could have been changed, they could have been adopted etc. GiantSnowman 16:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Could also be like another of those IP's/editors from Albania who change article because of names or whatever. Have been done before without proof. Kante4 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to find the sock account - they added spurious claims of Albanian descent to players like Sergio Ramos IIRC... GiantSnowman 16:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It's Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Biar122 GiantSnowman 16:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thought so. Always seeing categories being added to suggest descent of certain players on articles, odd. Appreciate both of you helping!

talk

) 16:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Categorising people by place of birth?

Had a question following a disagreement with GiantSnowman on Simon Bloch Jørgensen (discussed on the talk page). Bloch Jørgensen is Danish but was born in Flensburg, Germany. It was my understanding that biographies can be categorised by a person's place of birth, as well as other places where they spent significant parts of their life? I don't see an issue with this as long as the information is sourced. Also pining ArbieP, who was participated in the discussion. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

In my view, where someone is 'from' is a selective judgement. I don't think there's anything wrong with having categories for where a person is born and where they are raised, if different, then the reader can examine that info and decide where they thinks the person is from, it could be seen as both. On a local level, my town had a maternity hospital for 30 years so there was a disproportionate spike in people born there, quite a few of whom (e.g Aiden McGeady, Craig Bryson) grew up in other towns. It would be accurate to state that they are 'people from Rutherglen' to some extent, but also false to have that as the only category for their origin when they grew up in Glasgow / East Kilbride. Definitely in favour of multiple cats in these situations. Crowsus (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a wider wikipedia issue; people are almost always categorised as being from their place of birth, but as you say, it doesn't necessarily match where they are from (I was born in a town I have never lived in or near as it was the nearest place with a maternity unit). I wonder whether this perhaps should be raised at the Village Pump as a wider policy discussion and the categories are perhaps renamed "born in" and we do away with the "from" category, which is quite subjective. Number 57 12:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

There was a MoS that suggests to omit POB in the lead unless relevant. While in cat counterpart, most of the time such "People from foo" cat actually did nothing but trivial sorting, which most of the article did not have much (even trivial coverage) of his early childhood or any specific tie to any place such as coverage on schooling, uni or have some statute in some place due to specific tie. But some user chose to diffuse the American scientists by city and field, and also attempted to do so on English footballers. As "people by religion" cat was mostly removed from article unless there was strong relevant tie and short paragraph in the article, i would suggest go to the Village Pump on adding those POB cat as a kind of trivial content. Matthew_hk tc 02:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Results by matchday/matchweek

Many team's season pages such as those at

talk

) 04:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The idea of a "matchday" on a club-by-club basis is a total fabrication. If one match on one "matchday" is postponed, it affects the entire league such that two clubs could conceivably occupy the same position on the same "matchday", which isn't possible, or is at least quite confusing. These tables should be removed. –

Jay

07:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree - get rid. Say Liverpool win their fourth game of the season to go top of the table on Saturday at lunchtime, then Arsenal win their fourth game of the season to go top in the late game on Saturday evening and then Chelsea win their fourth game of the season to go top on Monday night. Do we show all three teams being top as at "matchday 4"? Absolute nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's not really a proper concept in English football, particularly later in the season when some teams have games in hand due to cup runs, weather postponements, etc. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I think these tables or equivalent graphic are useful to show the progression of the season. Updating the table when the match ends is stupid, though. Normally the result is that according to the PL table at the end of the "matchday" (e.g. after the Monday game for a weekend matchday). This means teams will sometimes have played a different number of games (due to postponement etc) but the tables can be unambiguously sourced. The loss of statto is a shame and this time it appears to be for good. The PL site has the information as a graphic (by club) or a table (filter by matchday, e.g. after 7 matches last season), although the latter doesn't seem to work for the current season.   Jts1882 | talk  12:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately the link doesn't contain the filters. The season and matchday filters need to be set manually.

Get rid of all. Original research half the time. While the concept of "Nth round" and "Nth matchday" are common in continental leagues, it's not so much in England. As said above, postponements because of weather and cup fixtures mean that it's never truly symmetrical, and it is completely possible for Team X and Team Y to both occupy Position Z after N games because of this. Harambe Walks (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Overview table

Okay, on overview table for season pages you have {{fb overall competition footer|u=27 September 2018}} with a link Source: Competitions which loops back on it's self, I don't know how to edit this, I really don't see a point with a link that loops back. Can someone fix this thanks. Govvy (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It has been like that for 7 years, so I'd be a bit wary of changing. It links to [[#Competitions|Competitions]] which will go to a section called "Competitions" on the source page. If the table is at the top of that section then it will do as you say. How widely used is the overall competition table? Spike 'em (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

lol, has it, still, seems a pointless loopback, and sources should be external from wikipedia not a loopback. Govvy (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You can easily add another external link. Kante4 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

If I knew how to view the template, like I said, I don't know how to edit it!! Govvy (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I can remove it if that is the consensus. When at or near the top (e.g. 2016–17_Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C._season) it seems rather pointless, apart from indicating that the section as a whole is the source for the summary table. But is this always so? It is used in 765 articles so there might be cases where the link makes more sense.   Jts1882 | talk  15:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

{{

Fb overview2}} seems like a better option. Kante4 (talk

) 15:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That template has the same issue. Is the source link to the top of the Competition section of the article where the table is placed helpful? A quick survey of around twenty pages using {{

WP:RS).   Jts1882 | talk

  15:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I know, it seems strange, it's like it's citing wikipedia itself and we are not suppose to do that!! Govvy (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Or, source it with soccerway (or similar). Kante4 (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the source should be a variable. All existing uses seem to be a circular link to the same article (effectively unsourced and relying on the information in the articl. Removing that circular link doesn't really change the sourcing. But adding a source varible would provide a means of providing a source within the templates.   Jts1882 | talk  16:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

In the other template you can add a source if you want. Kante4 (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that hidden option. I've added the option to the documentation.   Jts1882 | talk  10:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I was looking at the code for this footer, wasn't sure what I was doing to it, anyway, that variable sounds good, however I would have no idea how to start coding that!! My coding skills are very basic!! Govvy (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I've added a source parameter s as with the other template. The usage is {{fb overall competition footer |s=My source}}.   Jts1882 | talk  10:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Regionalliga

Can I ask, is this a fully-pro league or not? I Was just trying to established notability for a player. Govvy (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not, the leagues are semi-professional. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Problems at

Székely Land national football team

We have problems at article

Székely Land national football team maybe you can read and help. Skyhighway (talk

) 06:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skyhighway: You appear to be the one creating the problem there. Just stop trying to add the text that you've been repeatedly reverted on, and the problem will disappear. Number 57 15:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Before anyone else wastes time on this, Skyhighway has been blocked for distruptive editting. Spike 'em (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Further to my exhortations to ignore this above, there is a move discussion about the article which is now relevant and (should) include a number of other "national" teams at

Talk:Székely Land national football team#Requested move 30 September 2018 Spike 'em (talk

) 08:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Reo Griffiths

He really doesn't qualify for an article, doesn't pass GNG or NFooty, however instead of AfD was wondering if an admin could moved the article to my sandbox at all. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Why your sandbox? Move it to Draft if you think it is savable in the future. Spike 'em (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Former English Football League clubs

I just saw a bot go through this category and change it slightly, but I am not sure I get what this category is doing. I mean, there are teams in this category that are still in the English football league structure, non-league and Premiership is still the English football league. So at the moment this category is making no sense at all. Govvy (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

"non-league and Premiership is still the English football league" - no they aren't. The category is for clubs who were previously in the English Football League (not the overall English league structure) and aren't any more. Any club that's in the Premier League or non-League is by definition not in the EFL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You do realise that EFL is the brand, English football league is also a term for league structure, The Football Association controls the structure!! The category is a misnomer. Govvy (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What would you suggest an article for clubs who used to be in the English Football League be called, if not "Former English Football League clubs"? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Actually, I think the fault is that there is no explanation for the category explaining why clubs are in it, what the category is about!! Govvy (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Problem solved by adding an explanation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I assume it means clubs that have played in the four divisions of the Football League or the three since 1992 and are now lower down or in the PL. There is a Category:Defunct English Football League clubs category for clubs than no longer exist. I've no idea what the purpose of the category is. Logically it should have current Premier League clubs as a subcategory to reduce clutter at the bottom of the club articles. However, I've no idea if there is a structure to the football categories.   Jts1882 | talk  09:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

List of former English Football League clubs

Lol, I just looked at and read through the list article. I don't know why, if it's me or not, but this article seems pointless, I don't see how it adds anything to wikipedia and feels completely

WP:OR. Govvy (talk

) 09:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's not OR to say that these clubs used to be in the EFL, but no longer are. Jmorrison230582 (talk

) 09:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) how on earth is it OR to say that these clubs used to be in the EFL but aren't any more????!?!?! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It is a

WP:FL so will have been through review by experienced editors and any OR / Notability doubts dealt with. Of course it may have fallen into disrepair but I don't think you will get anywhere with this. Spike 'em (talk

) 09:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

So check out Peer review and FLC discussion Spike 'em (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

LOL, guess it's just me, I don't see the point of the article, it just telling you what you can easily work out from the league season pages. I wonder how many people view the article, but I really Don't like it! Also when I applied OR, I meant that the article, even know citing sources (mostly Football Club History Database) seemed to not match anything else on the internet, no other website or publisher has ever made an explanative former EFL clubs list. This seems entirely wikipedia own brand of a list and nothing else matches, hence the OR! Govvy (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Spike, that PR/FL was done in 2008, it's ten years later, we have a much stricter criteria now. Govvy (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Two things of note

• If the article should no longer be FA, then it should be peer reviewed again. I personally don't see too much of an issue with it's writing or suchlike.
• I don't really see an issue with this article, and I'm not sure how you can say that nowhere mentions this as, there are 4 general sources (two books) that go into details regarding this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually those books don't go on about the franchise of the EFL, they go into detail about historical clubs that once graced the football league as a whole.

Even known footballsite.co.uk has over 3,000 articles, I feel this is a fan site. If you read the footer on the front page, "This site isn't complete. Given the rich history of football in this country alone it probably never will be! My intention is to base this site on the Football League clubs and provide information that is comprehensive, interesting and accurate. Already the site consists of over 3200 pages and new pages are being added on a very regular basis so if the info you are after is not listed now it hopefully will be soon." Well, I don't about it, but people like the site.

I don't know about Hyder Jawad's book, Ghosts of the League. But amazon has written in it's production description, "Stories and analysis about the clubs that lost their Football League places from 1946-1992. The author interviews players who appeared for New Brighton, Gateshead, Accrington Stanley, Bradford Park Avenue, Barrow, Workington, Southport, Newport County, Aldershot, and Maidstone United, plus from Third Lanark. Rare anecdotes."

So again this isn't about the EFL brand. I think we are crossing two parallels, the term of football league as a whole and the EFL brand. This is my problem with the category and the article. Information should be precise and before without the description that category wasn't precise at all. My major concern is providing correct detail to make sure the reader understands the different between the brand of EFL and the league structure. I am glad that Chris added a description to the category which should help clarify that. But the article doesn't make this clear enough for foreign readers or dyslexic readers in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

That first sentence should read "they go into detail about historical clubs that once graced the Football League" (with caps). This was the name of the EFL 'brand' before they renamed it. The book description makes it clear that the subject is former Football League teams. Many of these teams are still within the English league system but no longer play in the League (note cap). The lead of the article also makes this clear, and also describes the change in branding. I really don't see an issue here. Nzd (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean when you keep talking about the EFL "brand". The EFL is the modern name for what was previously called simply The Football League. This article is about clubs that once played in that league. What's the issue, exactly? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

"don't go on about the franchise of the EFL [....] the football league as a whole." - those are the same thing! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I am just a colour blind dyslexic guy who gets confused by so many things, I try to understand stuff then feel like I get shot down and still don't understand half the time what the fuck is written on some articles. I really don't know why I bother trying to point stuff out, just feels like ppl are against me!! Govvy (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with wanting to help, but don't take it personally if people disagree with you. –

Jay

15:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

New ip vandal

• 2405:3800::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Well i can't online for 24/7, but this ip range was quite active in vandalism, by good faith still i can't tell which edit is not vandalism. Matthew_hk tc 18:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this the guy who keeps changing articles to say certain people are/aren't Malaysian? I'm pretty sure it's all vandalism, and I'm getting sick to death of this guy IP-hopping. –

Jay

19:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Lee Jeong-min

I am a bit confused here, I couldn't see if this guy actually passes

WP:NFOOTBALL or not, maybe someone else can have a look. Cheers. Govvy (talk

) 19:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

He does, yes. Per Soccerway, he has played for Global (an

talk

) 22:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Griezmann - penalties

While adding Griezmann's 100th La Liga goal (April 2017), I noted from the FourFourTwo source "Well-documented problems with penalty kicks are highlighted by the fact Griezmann has only scored once from the spot in LaLiga". A Marca source from February 2017 includes "Yet he must surely be worried that Griezmann has now missed half - five out of ten - of the penalties he has taken for the capital city club." I find other sources and decide it will be appropriate weight to add to Griezmann's style of play that he is weak on penalties - just like the one well-documented hole in Shaquille O'Neal's game was his free-throws - but then I find "He is also accurate from penalties and set-pieces" backed up by references from 2014 and 2015.

Surely something's gone wrong here if he scored one penalty in his first 100 goals up to 2017, missed half for Atlético up to 2017, and he's called "accurate from penalties"? Harambe Walks (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

One thing wrong is that none of the three references after "He is also accurate from penalties and set-pieces" actually mention penalties... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

African Nations Championship (CHAN) international status

At what point did African Nations Championship matches start to be full international matches? Hack (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

In 2014. See here: 1 2 -BlameRuiner (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Changing the jersey does not work

Hello, I would like to change the second jersey for SFC Opava. I've uploaded my own jersey pattern, I want to apply it to the source code but the change will not be reflected.

Team - https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/SFC_Opava (same problem on czech or english version).

Patter is here - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blackstripesnike5.png

Thanks for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfc 1907 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

My understaning is it needs the name File:Kit body blackstripesnike5.png. I've tried to move the page and there is a page move request in place. I hope I've understood the system and haven't messed up.   Jts1882 | talk  11:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - sorry, I had the exact same thought, and processed the move request. Had no idea how these works, but the other files are in this naming convention. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I checked the template code and it seems the right move. Now I see that the documentation has a description: Template:Football_kit/doc.

One issue it raises is the use of the Nike logo. The documentation says "Club badges, sponsor logos, and manufacturer logos should never be included". I don't know if the guidance has changed, but a quick look at some PL clubs show Nike labels for several clubs, but not main shirt sponsor or club logos.   Jts1882 | talk  12:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I actually thought we should probably have some information at Template:Infobox football club. That would have solved some effort with me searching to find out how these work. I agree that they should be completely standardised, only the club patterns are notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi thank you, i try upload new file, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jerseyblck5.png. I've tried change and it still does not work, i do not know why. I tried the almost identical set in another color and it works - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kit_body_bluestripes5.png

I add it this way - vzor_těla2 = _jerseyblck5

But I want it to work first in black, is there someone I can contact with this? Thanks Sfc 1907 (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Read the answers above. The file should be File:Kit body blackstripesnike5.png, as described in Template:Football_kit/doc. If you are patient, someone will change the file name on Commons and it should then work.

Also please be careful when you edit and don't delete comments by people who are trying to help you.   Jts1882 | talk  13:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:edit conflict. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs}

) 13:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Sfc 1907 The file name has been changed on commons and I've made the changes for English and Czech wikipedia club pages. Not sure how the commons and language wikipedia images interact. I had to view the image file on the English wikipedia (does this trigger the transfer) and make a dummy edit on the club page for the new pattern to appear.   Jts1882 | talk  09:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I expect Jts1882 editing the page on the Czech wikipedia simply purged the page, and it looked for the changed image file. Not really sure who is the one updating this sort of thing, tbh. Seems like not many people know a lot about this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Iran men's national football team

I noticed that the Iran national football team page was recently moved to

Iran men's national football team. I can't find any discussions whatsoever that led to the consensus to add "men's" into the page's title so I have brought it to attention here. Thanks. Hashim-afc (talk

) 15:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Fs2 / Template:Fs2

For the dual-purpose squad list navigation boxes (that once edited, update the main article squad list and squad template automatically), how do you avoid a red link for players that aren't notable; that are therefore not needing a red link? I looked at Template:Fs2 / Template:Fs2, which has an example for 'no link' but I've put that into a squad nav box but it just breaks it. Can anyone help? I'm probably missing something incredibly obvious, but I have no idea.

talk

) 20:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I've been looking around WP in a bit more detail - I could be wrong - but seems it isn't possible in nav boxes. Which, given the name, is obvious, but with WP Football I assumed it was possible; given if you do it the 'long' way (separate squad lists for main article and nav boxes), you can have link-less players.

talk

) 23:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

A quick look at the template suggests |nolink=1 is supposed to be the answer. Can you give an example where the issue arises.   Jts1882 | talk  06:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The key template where the nolink parameter would be used is {{Fs2 player}} and it is not used. It doesn't appear to be used in older versions in the history, so perhaps it was something intended but never added. The change to add it looks simple enough if desirable. Is the redlink wanted to flag potential need for an article? Even if a player is not notable when added to the squad, (s)he could be after playing a few games.   Jts1882 | talk  07:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I've made a sandbox version with the nolink parameter. Use {{Fs2 player/sandbox}} instead of {{Fs2 player}} to test.   Jts1882 | talk  09:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like it was just added for squad lists rather than nav boxes. I tested your sandbox with Template:Universidad Católica squad, the nolink worked but it seemed to interfere with a few other things - the Primera División de Chile template seemed to have trouble with it. As well as the manager, as that's part of Template:Fs2 manager? Could be of my own doing, I'm useless with this side of Wikipedia! It's no biggie though - it just takes a little extra time to edit both sets of squad lists. Thank you for helping, very much appreciated!

talk

) 14:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

What was the issue with Template:Universidad Católica squad. My sandbox version seems to be behaving Template:Universidad_Católica_squad/sandbox correctly in table and navbox versions. Or am I not looking in the right place for the problems?   Jts1882 | talk  15:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that works nicely! I obviously did something wrong on my end, as I thought I might have. What would need to be done to get that to be ready for the main space?

talk

) 15:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

A bit more testing. I've looked through the pages called by {{Universidad_Católica_squad}} and tested the sandbox version in both table mode and as navboxes on player pages. All seems to behave properly. The template code change is relatively straightforward once you work out the template coding (it would be far easier in a Lua module). Perhaps you could try and test the sandbox version ({{Fs2 player/sandbox}}) on another squad template for one of the South American clubs you work on. If that works then it just needs copying the new version to the template space. I've only changed {{Fs2 player/sandbox}} so a similar change could be made to {{Fs2 manager}} if that is useful.   Jts1882 | talk  16:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I will do so, all should be fine but worth checking first for sure. Thanks!

talk

) 20:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

A parameter for coaches for {{football box collapsible}}

That template has optional parameters for things like 4th & 5th officials, goal-line assistants, and men of the match, but not for coaches. The coaches might be a good addition to lists of a team's results over the years for example. Do you think the template should have this (optional, obviously) parameter? --Theurgist (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Why on earth does that template have parameters for the irrelevant match officials? I'd say coaches shouldn't be added and those other extraneous parameters should be removed. If people want to know who the coach was at a certain time, they need to look at the relevant list on the team's main article (or the list sub-article where present). –

Jay

21:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd ask why they were added in the first place and where they are used? The parameters don't have to be used. They would certainly be overkill in articles on Plymouth Argyle seasons (e.g. 2001-02, where they aren't used). For major international tournaments there could be a case, although when the match is important enough there is usually a seperate article.   Jts1882 | talk  07:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

If the match is important enough for information on the assistant match officials to be included anywhere, I would say that we should follow the example of

Jay

07:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is certainly odd to have minor officials and not players (I wrongly assumed that there were parameters for the teams). The template creator added the extra officials in 2010. Your deletion of these parameters in 2013 was reverted soon after, but there appears to have been no discussion. In July there was a suggestion to add VAR and assistant VAR parameters. I don't see the need for any of these parameters in this template, but they have been there a long time and I don't know all its uses. The problem with deleting parameters from a template is that it makes changes to existing pages that are not reviewed by an editor, which is something that should be avoided where possible.   Jts1882 | talk  08:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The lists of Croatia results make excessive use of these parameters. In a discussion, I suggested removing them and adding the coaches instead. Pinging User:Governor Sheng as the main contributor to the lists. --Theurgist (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that the parameter for coaches should be added IF the parameters for fourth official, goal-line assistans etc exist. If the latter parameters would be removed, then the parameter for coaches is unuecessary. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

All of these parameteres should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It will take an admin to do that as the template is protected. But first, maybe a bot should remove all instances of using the parameters from the articles. --Theurgist (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Cromwell Bradley

Hi all. Just over from

WP:CRIC. Cromwell Bradley played minor counties cricket for Cornwall, but his football career seems far more significant. According to his CricketArchive page (sorry it's behind a paywall) he played for the likes of Norwich and Sheffield Wednesday. I wonder if anyone could shed some light on this and kindly expand the info on his football career? Suspect he might be related to this guy also, as they share the same surname and town of birth, and were born 12 years apart. He was also apparently more commonly known as Cecil Bradley. Thanks in advance. StickyWicket (talk

) 12:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: - his football career actually wasn't much more notable than his cricket career. He played four games for Norwich and was on the books of Wednesday without ever playing a game - that was it for his involvement at professional level. I'll add a bit to his article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC

@ChrisTheDude: cheers, much appreciated. I was beginning to think CricketArchive had the wrong guy after an hour of finding next to nothing on his football career. Thanks for filling the blanks. StickyWicket (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

1925–26 Carlisle United F.C. season

Would you say this passes or fails

WP:NSEASONS? Govvy (talk

) 14:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

At first glance, I would say it fails, but considering they participated in the First Round Proper of the FA Cup, that might be enough. –

Jay

07:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, the FA Cup potentially provides notability (although national cup participation is usually used for club notability). The main issue is lack of text describing the season, which applies to a lot club season articles. A question is whether each season must pass the test if it is part of a whole series of articels on seasons. Or should it be marked as a stub on the expectation that more will be added later?   Jts1882 | talk  08:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It clearly fails: Carlisle weren't playing in a "top professional league", and there's not a word of sourced prose on the page. Obviously, it the article demonstrated enough independent media coverage of that club's season to pass

North-Eastern League got a decent amount of regional coverage in the papers, so it might be possible to satisfy GNG, but notability can't be presumed for a subject that fails the relevant subject-specific guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk

) 09:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I only came across the article when looking through the assessment list, there are a load of new stub Carlisle season articles added by User:Pete Davis, I would think it would be better to combined a load of seasons together to create a collective history that could pass GNG, but as it, not sure if we should go through and delete the ones that fail NSeasons. Govvy (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to prod it. Reaching the first round of the FA Cup is a very low bar for season notability – hundreds of non-League clubs have managed that at some point. Number 57 15:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

This suggests a wider question - should we have articles on professional clubs' early seasons prior to playing in the Football League? I mean, we have the likes of this article, which does at least have some prose (albeit not sourced), but if the Carlisle one is going to be PRODded solely on the grounds that the club was only playing non-league football, then why should the Man U one not be also.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It's unreferenced so difficult to be certain, but I'd be very surprised if the Newton Heath/early Man U seasons didn't pass GNG. I'd actually been planning to do one or two of the earlier West Ham seasons (of the

WP:NSEASONS. I would assume the same of Man U. Nzd (talk)

21:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure I could expand the articles on the early Man Utd seasons, but I wonder whether I should. Per Struway2, the only seasons that really matter are the ones when the club was playing in a fully professional league. –

Jay

22:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Football wasn't a professional sport in its early development. At the time of the Newton Heath season article there was only a small group of professional clubs in a regional league. Notability has to be based on the sources, not not an arbitrary standard such as professionalism. In the modern game, professionalism might be a simple test to assess notability because professional football gets a lot of coverage and we can be sure there will be sources, but it is still the sources that determine notability. If professionalism is the standard we should scrap the early FA Cup articles.   Jts1882 | talk  06:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Think Struway2 actually said that the Carlisle season fails WP:NSEASONS because they weren't playing in a "top professional league" – not "fully" professional – and because there's no sourced prose. I also said that there's no problem with creating an article for a non-league club season so long as multiple independent sources provide enough coverage to pass GNG. Whether it's Carlisle, West Ham, Newton Heath or Footown-on-Sea United.

There's too much crap on here that owes its existence to the dubious concept of full professionalism and ignores what ought to matter more: notability demonstrated via sourced prose. Perhaps we should start following the recommendations of

Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created." cheers, Struway2 (talk

) 07:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)