Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

WikiProject Football (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Positions by round table[]

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

Many league season articles have a table which shows the changing positions of teams in the league by round. The 2018–19 Premier League article does not, and periodically people attempt to add it as they see it for other leagues. There is a discussion on this between myself, Formulaonewiki, Govvy, Spike 'em, TB Chigz and PeeJay on the Talk:2018–19 Premier League page where the majority opinion from a small group of people was not to add it per WP:NOSTATS. The problem is that users periodically add the table in again after seeing it on other league articles, and then it is removed again. I would suggest it does not make sense to have a different policy on similar pages, and it will continue to encourage people to the table. Therefore I suggest one of three scenarios

a) The table is included in all season articles, if someone is willing to create it

b) The table is removed from all articles for all leagues

c) It remains on non English leagues, but is barred from English leagues, and we add a specific comment in the article code telling people not to add it (which doesn't show up in the actual article)

Does anyone have any comments, should we put it to a vote? --Jopal22 (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Just because a table is statistical on its own doesn't mean it violates WP:NOTSTATS. Secondary sources showing progression should be available, and the table is provided within the proper context. I'm not sure I see the problem. I would vote d, in which it's able to be included if there's a link to a reliable secondary source. SportingFlyer T·C 23:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Position by rounds should be written in club season articles. If we can update in every club season articles in each league, it is unnecessary to list it in league season articles Hhkohh (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
If not all club season articles in a league were created, we can write in league articles Hhkohh (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
So I think it is unnecessary to list Position by round in 2018–19 Premier League and 2018–19 A-League where all club season articles were created Hhkohh (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
OTOH, the league article is usually more up-to-date than the club season article. And anyways I think it is useful to see the differences in positions of clubs in relation to other clubs, which you can't see on the club season article which only shows the specific club. --SuperJew (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Many readers are focused on their own teams. So they do not mind these in 2018–19 A-League. They should prefer their own club season article. See also Wikipedia:Content forking Hhkohh (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
And I could argue that many readers focus on the whole league. That's a factless, baseless argument. Point is that the two things (position by round on club page and position by round on season page) give different information (one is focused and one in context of the whole league) and therefore no problem having them both. I fail to see how the guideline you linked is relevant. --SuperJew (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
So? I think we should we discuss this matter on each talk page. I think people in England usually focus on club while people in Australia focus on the whole league Hhkohh (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This again? Often ppl go on about WP:NOTSTATS, however I see position by round as being WP:TRIVIAL. I am not sure we should be having analytical data like this either. Govvy (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way another option is to add it as a collapsable table (example below), therefore those who want to see it can unhide it, but for those who don't like it, it won't add "clutter". The only thing is that functionality will have to be added to the current template, and I don't know how to do that. Jopal22 (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Positions by round
example example example example example
adding content as hidden just to get round people's objections is a fudge and is the worst possible option. Spike 'em (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Well lets put it to vote.

  • Show table in all leagues. Enough people find it useful to warrant its inclusion. Jopal22 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Show table in all leagues. --SuperJew (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No position by round excessive statistics, only the league standings and scores are necessary. Many leagues also do not have a rigid schedule which causes issues (including with sourcing the information). This has been discussed previously (example here). Wikipedia is not a sports statistics database, this information can be found through external links on articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No position by round adds to clutter of stats in the articles. Spike 'em (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No results by round how many people pay attention on this? neutral on position by round per above Hhkohh (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Show table provided a table can be reliably sourced and is not WP:OR. The information would not be uncommon to see in a sports encyclopedia, and I'm not convinced it's "clutter." SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No position by round Not needed, previous conversations are against it, also you are not suppose to have collapsable content, it often violates WP:ACCESS. Govvy (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No position by round Much as I like the idea, because the positions of each team will be in their respective seasonal pages, I don't think it's necessary to add that table.TB Chigz (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

So think it is time to close this. The result was 4 against, 3 for, 1 neutral. In a surprise turn of events, TB Chigz, the user who kept updating the table in the premier league talk page had the deciding vote and voted against! So, my aim here was not primarily to push through getting the table in the article, but to make it so the table wasn't constantly being added and removed. I will leave it to other people to decide what to do in other leagues, but in the Premier League I will add a specific note not to add the table, because new people repeatably come in and spend time creating the table, which I want to avoid. Jopal22 (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Motherwell LF.C. name change[]

Motherwell L.F.C. have gone under a kind of rebrand: "Going forward, Donald Jennow’s side will simply play under the banner of Motherwell Football Club, with reference being made to the team as women only when needed for clarity."

It might cause some issues in the future. Should the article be moved to Motherwell F.C. (women) or similar? TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I would go with Motherwell F.C. Women in the same way, for example, Juventus F.C. Women is called. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Darren Kelly[]

Can someone help keep an eye out on Darren Kelly? There's been a long-term issue with an or(s) adding unsourced statistics, removing seemingly inconvenient sourced content and making dubious changes to the managerial statistics tables. @Xenomorph1984: and I have been monitoring this for a while but it's escalated over the last few days. And going by this summary it seems the subject himself is involved in guiding these s, making this a WP:COI issue. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect if it is not the subject himself, it is a close friend/relative and WP:COI issue. The current user appears to also have been using another login in the past (Malibobs) and also previously being anonymous, exactly same the changes repeatedly and claiming personal facts without source. They also never anything other than Darren Kelly. Xenomorph1984 (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

What counts as a silver goal?[]

The template {{Silver goal}} Silver goal exists to denote silver goals, which were briefly used by UEFA in their competitions between 2002 and 2004 (explained here). However, it is not always clear what "counts" as a silver goal, so I was hoping for some clarification.

Here are all the matches (which I am aware of) during the silver goal era which had goals in extra time:

# Match Second half ET goal? Multiple ET goals? Both teams scored in ET? Tied AET? (Went to PSO) Notes
1 UEFA Euro 2004 – Semi-finals – Greece v Czech Republic
2 2003–04 UEFA Champions League – Third qualifying round – Ajax v GAK
3 2003 UEFA Intertoto Cup – First round – Marek Dupnitsa v Videoton
4 2003–04 UEFA Cup – Qualifying round – Debrecen v Ekranas
5 2003–04 UEFA Cup – First round – Basel v Malatyaspor
6 2003–04 UEFA Cup – Fourth round – Valencia v Gençlerbirliği
7 2003 UEFA European Under-19 Championship – Semi-finals – Austria v Portugal Yes In 1st half of ET: Portugal scored 3 goals
8 2003 UEFA Intertoto Cup – First round – Narva Trans v OFK Beograd Yes In 1st half of ET: OFK Beograd scored 2 goals
9 2002–03 UEFA Cup – Final – Celtic v Porto Yes
10 2004 UEFA European Under-21 Championship – Third place play-off – Portugal v Sweden Yes
11 2003 UEFA Intertoto Cup – Third round – Brno v Guingamp Yes Yes Yes In 2nd half of ET: Brno scored 2 goals, after which Guingamp scored 1 goal
12 2004 UEFA European Under-17 Championship – Third place play-off – Portugal v England Yes Yes Yes Yes Match was 2×40 minutes, extra time was 2×10 minutes
In 2nd half of ET: both teams scored 1 goal, match decided by PSO

As a side note, for two-legged ties, the away goals rule did not apply in extra time.

While there is no confusion with matches 1–6, matches 7–12 are are not as clear. My two questions are:

  1. If a goal is scored in the second half of extra time, should this still be indicated as a silver goal? (This is no different than a normal goal in extra time.)
  2. If there are multiple goals, how should these be indicated? What about matches 11 and 12, where both teams scored (the latter which was still tied AET and went to penalties)?

Pinging PeeJay2K3, who I had discussed this with a while back. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I understand, it's only called a silver goal if it's in the 1st half of ET. That's when it's counted as "special". In 2nd half, it's just a regular ET goal. Um, not sure regarding the multiple goals in 1st half of ET (seems also the 2 pages mentioned mark it differently). --SuperJew (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding match 12, I'd def say it's not a silver goal (either of them) as the silver goal is when it decides the match, what didn't happen here as they were still tied. Also according to the page, the goals were in the 1st half of ET. --SuperJew (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree, match 12 clearly wouldn't need a silver goal. To add though, both goals were in the second half of extra time, as the under-17 matches lasted 80 minutes with 20 minutes of extra time. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
According to [1], the Porto goal over Celtic was still a "silver goal" since it wasn't a "golden goal." Neither goal here is called a "silver goal" by the commentator. [2] Here doesn't refer to the Portugal-England goal as a "silver goal," either: [3] I would call the Porto and Greece goals "silver goals" since the media refers to them as such and ignore the rest. SportingFlyer T·C 05:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
A golden or silver goal is a match deciding goal that stops the match prematurely. Thus a silver goal cannot be scored in the second half of extra time as the game still goes to the completion of extra time. When two or three goals are scored in the first half of extra time then at least one must be a silver goal. It's not clear whether such a match is determined by three silver goals or one silver goal followed by two regular goals or even if only the last one is the silver goal. Unless there is some clear FIFA/UEFA statement, it's impossible to tell as it wasn't used very often so little precedent was set.   Jts1882 | talk  09:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Can we remove the silver goal all together? Yes, if the regulation of the tournament was using silver goal, then it should be mentioned in the tournament wiki article. However, except it was well-sourced (primary source e.g. match report AND secondary source), it seem need a lot of interpretation it is silver goal or not in individual match by just looking at the time of the goal was scored. Matthew hk (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd say it is worth noting, especially in matches 1–6 where the situation is obvious. Regarding the 2003 UEFA Cup Final, I believe the mention of a silver goal is more related to the fact that at the time teams were accustomed to the match being immediately over with a golden goal, so the silver goal rule let the match play out the last five minutes (not that a silver goal was actually scored). Therefore I'd agree with Jts1882 that matches 9–12 should not be indicated as silver goals. The only question is with matches 7 and 8, where the silver goal rule applied, but the winning team scored more than once. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
To add, The Independent state "The first so-called Silver Goal ended Celtic's hopes". Though elsewhere there is a distinction between "silver goal" and "silver goal rule". For example, UEFA's archived match report states: "FC Porto became the first team to win a trophy on the 'silver goal' rule". However, under the scoreline they note: Porto win on "Silver Goal". The current match page states "Porto win after extra time", along with the post match report. Also this UEFA press kit states "lost 3-2 to FC Porto on the silver goal rule". S.A. Julio (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Think Matthew just mean the silver icon. The color differnce is hard to make out anyways even when directly above is the normal icon. Thus I'd also go for just using the general goal icon. -Koppapa (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I would say if it was stand-alone article or somewhere it have a short description of the match, then use silver goal if it was verifiable by citation, but the template, may be no need for the ambiguous case. Matthew hk (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree regarding use of secondary sources. No point in trying to define it ourselves, especially if the Celtic/Porto goal was considered a "silver goal." SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Chinese nationality[]

First of two queries today, but I notice that the two recent signings for Beijing Sinobo Guoan, John Hou Sæter and Nico Yennaris, are both being listed as having a Chinese nationality in their player tables as well as having the Chinese names that they have taken. Given that it is a Chinese club I don't have any problem with the latter, but I feel that the nationality is a tad disingenuous, given that both are youth internationals for their birth countries and neither seems to expressed interest in actually playing for the Chinese national team. What are other peoples opinions on the matter? Asterixtintin (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Use their POB if no cap (or sometimes POB did not grant nationality in some case), and use their last nationality they represent internationally, including youth national team. In theory became Chinese need to renounce other nationality, but in some case the previous nationality cannot be renounced , or there is bureaucratic process to restore the nationality. And the consensus of this project, use "sport nationality" instead of real nationality. To sum up, remove them as Chinese. Matthew hk (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
And make it more complicated. Chinese League have foreigner quota, but as Messi had Spanish nationality, we don't change him to Spanish, it should use other way to indicate who was occupied foreigner quota (which quota have 2 categories, Asian foreigner and non-Asian foreigner ) Matthew hk (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I've changed the nationalities to their represented sides and added a footnote to say that they took Chinese citizenship. Asterixtintin (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
They should have Norwegian and English flags respectively, and be listed using their common (ie non-Chinese) names. GiantSnowman 14:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Lists of English football transfers[]

My second query is about these lists. I last ed on the '17-'18 winter list, when the standard was to only include a transfer including a Premier League or Championship club, however the next list (summer '18) includes any Premier League or EFL club. My problem, barring the lack of consistency, is this - which is a better format? Of course a more comprehensive list is better, but at any time (both in and out of the window, given that the rules are different lower down the pyramid) clubs are loaning out players to non-league teams, either this results in a very incomplete list or a very lengthy list. What is the preferred format, and where is the cutoff for a notable transfer? For example Cody Prior moving from Doncaster Rovers to Nuneaton Borough for a months loan, whilst interesting to a fan of either club, seems a bit superfluous for this compilation but should technically be included. Asterixtintin (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It should include transfer that involved at least one club from/to Premier League or Championship . Adding the whole transfer of EFL would make the list very long. Also, i think there was a consensus to not adding youth transfer. (Well, top club may signing 10 youth players a season that not even single one of them turn pro) Matthew hk (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Only first and second league. Kante4 (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
You mean only transfer from and to first and second league? Some transfer from Serie A to Serie C looks notable. Matthew hk (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
How would you define a youth transfer? I'm curious because the example I gave has a player who has made his senior debut, but it is for him to gain regular first experience.Asterixtintin (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Anyone young enough (15, 11? 9?) and without any senior debut. Actually some transfer were re-inserted in Italian list in the past, as the transfer was reported by media, and the wonder kid made his debut during the season. Those list usually had citation for each entry, or at least appeared in the transfer list prepared by media (in English case, e.g. BBC). Matthew hk (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Page moves by User:Chanheigeorge[]

Chanheigeorge (talk · contribs) has been moving a number of page names without gaining consensus. I noticed the move of 2018 Zambian Super League to 2018 Zambia Super League earlier today, which I disagree with. They have also been renaming a bunch of Central American leagues to their Spanish common name as opposed to the English common name. Typically our naming convention for leagues is the English country demonym followed by the English league name, for instance Croatian First Football League instead of Croatian Prva HNL. I'm posting here since there were a number of moves done on a number of different leagues without even trying to establish any sort of consensus. I personally think the moves need to be reverted, with the exception of the US Virgin Islands and Sri Lanka, which were actual competition renames. Examples below:

Thanks. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

May be a SPA or sock? I opened a thread in ANI for another user. Typically those accounts did not have much outside move and c&p move. Matthew hk (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Also for the name, we use common name in English if they have one. We invent some article title such as Argentine Primera División and Austrian Regionalliga by just adding demonym. Matthew hk (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd be shocked if the user were a sock based on the contribution log. SportingFlyer T·C 22:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The Guatemala and Zambia moves were correct, as they brought the season articles in line with the main article Zambia Super League/Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Guatemala, a page that they were not responsible for moving. The Nicaraguan one looks good to me; the Salvadoran one is a bit of a mouthful now, but probably better than the original; the English/Spanish hybrid titles were rather awkward. Also worth noting that WP:BEBOLD is a policy; they do not need to gain consensus to move articles. Number 57 23:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I noticed the Zambian one since I had a recent talk page discussion here: [4]. I think "Zambian Super League" should be the article title. Should I just go ahead and revert those moves? SportingFlyer T·C 23:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
If you disagree with bold page moves, then move the article(s) back (WP:BRD). But no idea why someone would suggest Chanheigeorge is a sock, it would only take a brief check of their contributions to realise that they are one of the most experienced and helpful contributors to football on Wikipedia. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I just checked their contributions, but they seldom used a formal RM discussion in the last five years. By the way, Matthew hk why you suspected whose account was created in 2005 is a sock? Hhkohh (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
SportingFlyer, why not just revert move if you contested? Hhkohh (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Hhkohh: done, for Zambia. It was easier than I thought it would be. I started a discussion here in case the scope was large, or if it could be easily undone. SportingFlyer T·C 01:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: That was not helpful; now the season articles have a different title to the main article. Number 57 14:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Number 57, why not open a RM discussion? Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Number 57: I merely reverted the move. I'm of the opinion the league article title should be "Zambian Super League" and will start a RM soon. SportingFlyer T·C 19:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
seems Zambia is going to move warring unless we have a RM discussion. Hhkohh (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Hhkohh: I haven't seen anything since my revert, is there a link I should be aware of? SportingFlyer T·C 02:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
No currently, but I just saw someone moved to that title before. Hhkohh (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
And these kinds of page moves are controversial and these should use a formal RM discussion. Hhkohh (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
For Chanheigeorge, i did not check the log in detail (midnight near morning at my local time) but the thread i started in ANI, it looks SPA when the user lack of other contribution (counting bold move divided by recent , plus just counting warning on his talk page about move) There is quite a lot of SPA accounts for football article, such as FCSB suffered from WP:tag team to wipe the history and CU-proof sock on war on IPA (Ragaricus). Matthew hk (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, many of my page moves are based on what I find as "official" names of the tournaments. If you have any disputes of these, of course you can raise them, but seems odd that the first line of opposition is to assume that I'm a sock. Anyway, here are some of my supporting evidence:

The Zambia is tricky, I have seen variations of the name, from "FAZ Super League", "FAZ Super Division", "Zambia Super League", "Zambian Super League". I think the official name may actually be "FAZ Super League". Chanheigeorge (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chanheigeorge: We use common name that English user would use, instead of official name in foreign language. Moving to official name are controversial move. Certainly i would against totally invented and unheard on media term " Austrian Regional League", but not against Austrian Regionalliga, adding demonym . For El Salvador, not sure other sport are notable or not, but i would start a RM with nomination of Primera División (El Salvador) or Salvadoran Primera División or other term that appear in English language media , unless there is lack of such material. For the record, i doubt Croatian First Football League as a common name. It seem a translation but not commonly used. Anyway, moving those league, i think most of them are controversial and require full discussion. It would be counter productive to nominate all to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests under Requests to revert undiscussed moves. Matthew hk (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Chanheigeorge, I agree with Matt. Also, I think you had better use RM discussion instead of moving directly or explaining here (instruction:WP:RM/CM) Hhkohh (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Hhkohh: @Matthew hk: There is scantly any coverage of the above Central American leagues in English media. And why "Salvadoran Primera División" and not "Salvadoran Premier Division", which is the actual full English translation. The Guatemalan and Honduran leagues are previously already at "Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Guatemala" and "Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional de Honduras", so I was merely moving to conform the individual season articles more closely to the league articles. And "Liga Primera de Nicaragua" (or "Nicaraguan Premier League" in full English translation) is the current name, so my move from Nicaraguan Primera División to Liga Primera de Nicaragua actually conforms more closely to the current name. I have also moved Sri Lanka Football Premier League to Sri Lanka Champions League, and U.S. Virgin Islands Championship to U.S. Virgin Islands Premier League, which both conform to the current tournament name. Again, if there are oppositions to my moves, we can discuss and revert, but I don't think I have done anything that does not follow Wikipedia policies. Of course, since people have reservations about these moves, I will discuss first next time before moving similar articles. Chanheigeorge (talk)
The problem is people have other view of the name of the league, not your proposed name is c&p from foreign language site, thus the spirit of starting a discussion thread as RM process. Person name are less controversial (except people with diacritic in the name or source material are conflicted on the order of the name Western name order for non-Western or other problem) Primera División (El Salvador) isn't a translation and more concise name, and i doubt is there any other league to challenge the status of primary topic for "Primera División" the football league in El Salvador. Just like La Liga and Serie A, it did not have the sport in it as it was too notable. There is some case which Bangladesh Premier League may be more notable as the cricket league in the country, but according to WP:official name, we don't use official name usually, instead by WP:CRITERIA, the title need to fit Recognizability , Naturalness , Precision , Conciseness and Consistency . Using common name directly is one way to fit all the criteria. Or by case by case basis, we adding bracket or demonym instead of invent a totally new name by full translation. Matthew hk (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Alfredo Di Stéfano[]

Can someone review the current IP war over the piping of Sao Paulo FC at Di Stefano's article. I have only ever known the team by the short name, but also see no issue with the use of the long name to ensure we differentiate between the club and the city (and potentially any other historic Sao Paulo). However a specific IP is pushing the and multiple are reverting. Ta. Koncorde (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove all FC or other affix (FK, CF, CA for sure, A.C. someone contested before) unless need to disambiguation to other football club. The lede also said footballer, so redundant to call the club FC again per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams). Matthew hk (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Association football scouts[]

Category:Association football scouts

Is this category (and future sub-categories, such as by nationality and league worked in) notable? If so we can expand, if not we need to delete. GiantSnowman 14:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I created the category, Because other sports scout categroy already existed. For example Category:National Football League scouts, Category:Major League Baseball scouts
Association football scouts are not notable. But Are Baseball scouts and American football scouts notable? If delete the Association football scouts category, I think all scouts categories are shoud be deleted.Footwiks (talk)
Just because football scouts are (generally) not notable, it doesn't mean they aren't in all sports. See WP:ALLORNOTHING -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I think it's rare a scout in and of itself is notable. There may be 1 or 2 who are independent notable as scouts for finding a specific player, others who are notable for working as part of a boot room or similar organisation with an equally famous manager (Peter Taylor of Cloughie fame was notable for spotting talent, but his notability was established by other successes). In the end they would need some significant reliable source notability for a stand alone article, or a category. In US sports however a scout is an official position, and as their sports are built around draft systems the scouts often achieve notability (or notoriety). Koncorde (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I think football agent may notable, but scout seem rarely get enough GNG attention. Also, it is a position that suggest the club to sign a player, but there were many other managerial position that have a say in the transfer. For example, may transfer were cred to the football manager (Moggi) or the President (e.g. Genoa which negotiate directly by himself). Matthew hk (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Not notable. Kante4 (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the category is of any use (for football). An individual scout may be wiki-notable, but it is not for being a scout and I'm pretty certain that there are many ex-players out there acting as scouts who have no mention of it on their articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good enough reason to create this category. Spike 'em (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A bit of a tangent, but I can't see the notability of Category:Association football player-coaches either. The criteria is for those players doubling as assistants, so it doesn't even cover player-managers. Who cares? Jellyman (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST i agreed Category:Association football player-coaches should be deleted, since it was defined it was different from Category:Association football player-managers. Matthew hk (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Paul Scholes[]

More eyes welcome at Paul Scholes; numerous ors adding his brief spell coaching at Man Utd into the infobox (whereas we have always only used that for full management roles). GiantSnowman 15:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I may agree to add to the infobox managerial career if he was the head coach of the reserve team, given some match have media coverage. Just no for other younger ladder team, it otherwise it just made the infobox became a list of routine job position . Matthew hk (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Part of the problem here is the woolly wording in the infobox instructions, saying we shouldn't include assistant roles "unless that position is a significant part of the person's career" This requires hopelessly subjective judgement as to what qualifies as "significant", and should be changed to unambiguously say manager / head coach roles only.Jellyman (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Players representing a nation different from their birth[]

I was under the impression that players born in one country who switch alleigance to another through parentage etc. are described in the lede without nationality ("is a professional footballer. Born in X, they represent Y at international level"). But see this from @Walter Görlitz:, saying that isn't standard. Comments welcome, as ever. GiantSnowman 17:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, for example in Soony Saad in the first line of the lede I don’t specify and nationality. But in the following line I explain his nationality situation. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
We have, in the past, stated the nation that he most recently played for. The archives here are littered with requests for just such a guideline and I have been told was not the case. [10] [11] [12] are three of the times I attempted to discuss it. Lack of progress in any way is one of the reasons I stopped discussing it. If we do gain a consensus, I will help to enforce it. Please ping me when the discussion concludes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Born in X may misleading, Edon Zhegrova, according to citation, born in Germany as a refugee and move back to Kosovo at age 2. I may add POB to lede for Eduardo da Silva as he was born and raised in Brazil. Matthew hk (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
See Eduardo is one of those fine examples. He is much more than Brazilian born, he is a Brazilian with dual nationality. Which, for some nations, isn't even a requirement. Residency will qualify you without the need for nationality. "Brazilian born" implies something has happened, but it is very unclear. Koncorde (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The problem remains that Wiki Football (and several other sporting articles) break the normal wiki rules on nationality. We should, strictly speaking, reference someone such as Alan Shearer as "a British footballer who plays for the England national team" which would enable us to deal with both the legal nationality and footballing representative nationality (and then for duals or otherwise mention both). However for whatever historic reason it was decided football / rugby would use the representative nationality, which leads to clear instances were this does not match or is subject to very confusing outcomes particularly dual, inherited, assumed, or a change in sporting nationality. Where the nationality matches the representative this isn't so bad, but when you get immigrants, or asylum seekers, or overseas territories it gets very convoluted. We also very rarely have any sources for their nationalities, and being "born" in a country may be notable enough for the narrative but does not always convey any actual legal status to the person. Koncorde (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
We're not talking about somebody born in one country who we have no evidence they ever held that citizenship. We're talking about a player who would be considered eg French in every way, until they elected to play for eg Senegal because their grandfather was from that country... GiantSnowman 09:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I know, I was merely expanding that there is a lot of confusion about what is standard or not. Are we talking about his legal passport nationality, or his citizenship nationality, or his representative nationality (for example)? It is very clear that Arfield is not Canadian. He is British, he has a Canadian father through which he qualifies to represent Canada (based on footballs rules). In any situation other than football we would not indicate his nationality as being Canadian. The rules that apply for the football federation may not even apply for the purposes of citizenship, or even equivalent sports. For instance, if Arfield happened to play Rugby or Cricket, would those Canadian federations also acknowledge paperwork submitted to FIFA? The answer is obviously not. So what if he represented different nations at different sports based on elligibility? Would that mean his article would say "Scott Arfield is a Canadian football player and Scottish Rugby player and English cricket player" based solely upon who he represented? The whole situation is messy. Koncorde (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
You need a passport or legally have that nationality in order to play for that country. Just we need some sort of standardization for people such as Eduardo da Silva and Cristiano Cordeiro, who start as Brazilian footballer and then naturalizated , or in Scott Arfield case, hold dual nationality at birth (A and B), raised in country A (or C the UK), and then switch to B at senior international level . It was used to have a list of those dual internationals, but i forget the name of the list or may be deleted. Matthew hk (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
That's inaccurate - see Grandfather rule. Nzd (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
What is inaccurate? In the source linked to in Grandfather rule, it says permanent nationality of country is needed to play for them, and if a player qualifies for more than one then they need to: be born in a country; have antecedents who were; or to qualify by 2 years residence. Spike 'em (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
At least for Lebanon, in order to represent the national team the player needs to gain nationality. The two things (FIFA and nationality) aren't separate but related. For example, Felix Michel Melki had to obtain Lebanese citizenship before being able to be called up for the national team; I'm not sure about other nationalities though... Nehme1499 (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
That is also untrue (although I do not disagree with your wider point). There are several examples where nationality and representative nation are different, and distinct. This is particularly common with the British isles and Commonwealth citizens, but also exists in several other regions (the Balkan states in particular).
In fact FIFA doesn't care whether a player does or does not have a passport or not, or has even applied for dual nationality etc. Residency and citizenship are distinct from passport and nationality. Koncorde (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Spike 'em: Yep, fair enough. Misunderstanding on my part, probably stemming from the rather convoluted British/Irish nationality laws. Cheers, Nzd (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I am OK with both options, leaving the first sentence without specifiying nationality and then pointing out details next; or, pointing out in the first sentence the national team the player plays for. I have an exemple of Svetozar Popović, a Serbian/Yugoslav player and coach that just happened to accept a call from Romanian national team and played one game for them while he was playing in a Romanian club. Later he became coach and even coached Yugoslav national team on 3 occasions. The article actually wrongly points to place of birth as Yugoslavia, and Yugoslavia was formed in 1918, 16 years after his birth, so the country of birth should be corrected to Kingdom of Serbia. FkpCascais (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── According to the regulation, you need a passport or other form of document to prove you have that nationality. For those Argentine born Italian footballer, they are eligible to Italy nationality at birth, but need actual bureaucratic process to register as an Italian citizen, but in simplicity, they are dual nationality at birth. The actual wording in the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes, clause Eligibility to play for representative teams:

Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the association of that country."

There was a long false urban legend of player X who got permanent residence status in the UK can represent UK, which is wrong. You need full BC nationality AND residence for 2 years (6.1(d)). Matthew hk (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggest you re-read that Matthew. 5, 6 and 7 cover different situations. What qualifies as "nationality" is different dependent upon both the FA of the country. The UK has its own sub-rules that are more strict than FIFA's to maintain the integrity of the home nations.
FIFA's clauses about "having the relevant nationality" can be achieved through several naturalisation processes. Clauses 6 and 7 apply restrictions to those naturalisation processes when they happen to try and prevent mass migration/import of footballers to countries that allow you to purchase a nationality, or offer them as a gift or enticement. In many cases a person may hold a "permanent nationality" through blood relatives or association, but they themselves do not hold a passport or similar documentation. As part of the process of declaring for a country they usually engage in gaining some paperwork and/or proof of ellligibility for nationality. The ellligibility criteria for having that permanent nationality may be more loose on a country by country basis (or tighter). FIFA's guidance refers only to their own thresholds. Koncorde (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
permanent nationality is the clause 5 called "Principle", clause 6 explained that on top of having a permanent nationality, they need 6.1.(a),(b),(c), (d). It does not mean having 6.1.(a),(b),(c), (d) but did not need a passport. Back to 1960s, Hong Kong footballer are granted one-off ROC passport to represent ROC, which in the past they effective control the whole China but in the 1960s ROC only effective control Taiwan. There is some bizarre case that East Timor granted passport to Brazilian footballer but they actually not yet eligible to 6.1.(a),(b),(c), (d) yet. And then those footballer were kicked out of national team after the scandal was exposed. It is more bizarre on claiming no passport check at all. Anyway, "sport nationality" must be a sub-set of player's real nationality, which player can hold multiple nationality. Even Bora Milutinović, a Serbian coach who naturalized as Mexican, we still call him Serbian. For tennis player Naomi Osaka, we call her represents Japan and omit nationality from lede. For Scott Arfield, we can use "is a footballer who represented Canada national team and previously Scotland youth team", but it is insane (and may be racist on self-defining who is not Canadian) to call someone represent Canada not Canadian. Matthew hk (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
And here is the regulations for FIFA competitions : [13][14], both have clause to requires to submit "passport number " and even birth certificate. e.g. \

Before the start of the Competition, all listed players must prove their identity, nationality and age by producing their legally valid individual passport with photograph (stating day, month and year of birth). Any player who fails to submit his passport shall not be allowed to take part in the Competition.

Matthew hk (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The rules in 20XX are not always the same as in 19XX. Switzerland fielded two foreign players against Austria in 1929 [15] They were allowed to do that. Cattivi (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
For Alfredo Di Stéfano, may be he is not Colombian citizen. But Scott Arfield's cap is after the regulation that requires passport in force. Matthew hk (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
A passport is for the freedom of movement, it doesn't matter which passport you use if you have two different passports. Duel nationals will have passport of the country they were born and have a passport for their country of residence (primary taxation laws belong to country of residence.) Returning to sports, it doesn't matter which country the sports person is representing regarding the passport. You actually need the FA registration document of that country and that requires photographic copies of the passports of said relatives, of which you qualify. There is also a sports visa with a few other things.
But in essence, back to the lead of an article, you shouldn't write a lead like Walter has done, that looks like a miss-representation of the information. What GS said is a much better way. Govvy (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I had suggested something "For Scott Arfield, we can use "is a footballer who represented Canada national team and previously Scotland youth team"" in the previous comment, it just annoying people argue you did not need a passport as a proof or don't even need the nationality in order to play. In fact it requires parent passport as an additional requirement , but does not mean modern football eligibility are so free . In fact, some footballers refused to play for Hong Kong (post-1997) as they are foreign born with Hong Kong parent, they refuse to naturalize as Chinese (Hong Kong is a class of passport of PR China). Omitting nationality before footballer make more sense than "Scottish-Canadian footballer" or "Canadian footballer who represented Canada national team and previously Scotland youth team", but does not mean he is neither Scottish nor Canadian. Matthew hk (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

TheFinalBall nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheFinalBall[]

Hi all. At first glance, it looks like the article on the website fails GNG due to lack of (online) sourcing, however it is used as a reference by thousands of articles, so it would be appreciated if project members provided guidance at the AFD. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The site shouldn't be used as a reference as it's data includes user-generated content. Many of those results are due to the presence of the {{TheFinalBall}} template. Given the previous consensus to delete the Transfermarkt template, should be same logic not be applied to this one? Nzd (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest all comments in relation to the article are kept at the AFD - however, in relation to the template, yes I agree this is same as Transfermarkt and should be deleted via TFD (and not used in sources per RS). GiantSnowman 12:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I've started a TfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate categories related to Segunda Liga and LigaPro (same league/division/tier)[]

@Quite A Character, R96Skinner, Jellyman, and GiantSnowman: According to its article, the second division of Portuguese football has had the following names: Segunda Divisão de Honra (1990–99); Segunda Liga (1999–2005); Liga de Honra (2005–12); again Segunda Liga (2012–2016); LigaPro (2016–present). Segunda Liga article was renamed to LigaPro in 2016, and currently there are the following categories for the same league: Segunda Liga players, LigaPro players and LigaPro managers (cat "Segunda Liga managers" never existed). This begs the question (here again): shouldn't these categories be merged, e.g. for coherence with Primeira Liga categories (Primeira Liga managers, Primeira Liga managers)? If so, shouldn't "LigaPro managers" category be renamed to "Segunda Liga managers"? SLB (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

If the league has just rebranded/been renamed (as opposed to being completely re-organised like in Belgium) then we should only have one category, using the current name. GiantSnowman 15:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The most significant change has been the progressive decrease of the number of teams (22 in the first season, then 20, and now 18).[16] SLB (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the merge, the new categories being named SEGUNDA LIGA PLAYERS and SEGUNDA LIGA MANAGERS (for aesthetical purposes, looks similar to PRIMEIRA LIGA PLAYERS/MANAGERS). --Quite A Character (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Per C2D of WP:CFDS it should be Category:LigaPro, Category:LigaPro managers and Category:LigaPro players etc. to match the parent article name (LigaPro). GiantSnowman 16:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The only issue is that the league's current name is "LigaPro", despite the fact that "Segunda Liga" was used for a longer period. SLB (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Irrelevant; we always use the current name (non-sponsored, of course). GiantSnowman 16:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so we need a bot to move all "Segunda Liga" players (more than 2,550) to Category:LigaPro players. SLB (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The request should be listed at WP:CFDS. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. SLB (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There are also two articles under "Segunda Liga players" category: SJPF Segunda Liga Player of the Month and SJPF Segunda Liga Young Player of the Month. SLB (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:RM, unless you want to be BOLD and move them yourself. GiantSnowman 18:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Squad templates notability[]

Please remind me, do we allow such templates as: Template:New Zealand Squad 2015 Pacific Games and Template:Beşiktaş JK 100th Year Champion Squad? AFAIK, both of these templates should be deleted, by the current guidelines. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

There is historical consensus that for international tournaments, only the World Cup and then top-level confederation tournaments (eg EUROs, ACN etc.) should have templates. There is also consensus that 'champions' squads are not notable. GiantSnowman 13:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
What about participation/victory at continental club tournaments, like the Champions League or the Europa League? Nehme1499 (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
No aswell. Just the mentioned once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kante4 (talkcontribs)
I've listed the national team squad navboxes at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 13#National football team squad navboxes. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Maximiliano Meza, transfer years[]

No biggie, but over at the Maximiliano Meza (footballer, born 1992) article myself and User:Fcbjuvenil had a disagreement about Meza's infobox years, namely when the player left Independiente and joined Monterrey. It was a direct transfer, with the latter paying a fee for Meza. It was announced in December, but the transfer window opened in 2019. Fcbjuvenil believes the infobox should show: left Independiente in 2018, but joined Monterrey in 2019. Whereas I believe it should be left 2019/joined 2019 - or at least 2018/2018, not odd years.

Thoughts? Could you class Fcbjuvenil's s as vandalism? I assumed good faith so didn't but I feel like they are. I was going to change it back to 2019/2019 today, but felt a discussion here was the right thing to do. R96Skinner (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Mexico international transfer window opened on 1 January 2019. https://www.fifatms.com/itms/worldwide-transfer-windows-calendar/ Yes you can argue he already trained with the new club before that date, but his transfer only effective after the window open, unless he is an free agent that did not restricted by transfer window. Matthew hk (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Left 2019/joined 2019. GiantSnowman 15:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
For the record, if the transfer was domestic transfer in China , and the transfer was happened between the end of 2018 Chinese Super League and 2019 Chinese Super League, i don't mind to state left 2018, join 2019. (or between any other league that the season was ended along with the end of the calender year; China's international transfer window opens on 1 January 2019.)
In the past, Mexico football and Argentina football was also split into half-season (most recent: 2018–19 Liga MX season#Torneo Clausura; last Clausura was in 2011–12 Argentine Primera División season, but that season Apertura ended in February 2012), which may applies above logic on post-season/pre-season transfer. Matthew hk (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
For players who play in leagues which run to calendar yuears (eg USA, China) then it would be leave 2018/join 2019. That is standard and well-established. For this player, the two leagues don't run that way. GiantSnowman 15:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes i did not state clearly. Meza's previous club was an Argentine club and Argentine had abolished Apertura/Clausura. Even in the past, the end of Apertura can delayed to the first month of the calender year, so Meza should use 2019/2019. Matthew hk (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I thought so, I will change it back to 2019/2019. Appreciate your input. R96Skinner (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

2018 FIFA World Cup statistics[]

Can someone look at the bottom of the page? Some templates do not display correctly. This page is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded Hhkohh (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The total transcusion size for the page (i.e. the size of all templates transcluded) was exceeded. The reason was that the discipline section was trying to transclude the whole 2018 FIFA World Cup article because the translcusion went to a a redirect. I've fixed it to transclude just the desired section, but now a reference isn't defined properly. : : : : Perhaps the discipline section should just be copied to this page. Thoughts?   Jts1882 | talk  15:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Jts1882, we should reverse transclude. Hhkohh (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Jts1882, Fixed Hhkohh (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible changes to WP:NFOOTBALL[]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Proposal - NFOOTY#2 - raising the bar. GiantSnowman 15:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia name change[]

I want to update several articles using the fb templates to show the name of the country at the time of the matches. Does anybody object to the following changes on multiple articles ?

{{fb-rt|MKD}}→{{fb-rt|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbu-rt|17|MKD}}→{{fbu-rt|17|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbu-rt|19|MKD}}→{{fbu-rt|19|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbu-rt|21|MKD}}→{{fbu-rt|21|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbu|17|MKD}}→{{fbu|17|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbu|19|MKD}}→{{fbu|19|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbu|21|MKD}}→{{fbu|21|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbw-rt|MKD}}→{{fbw-rt|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbwu-rt|17|MKD}}→{{fbwu-rt|17|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbwu-rt|19|MKD}}→{{fbwu-rt|19|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbwu-rt|21|MKD}}→{{fbwu-rt|21|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbwu|17|MKD}}→{{fbwu|17|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbwu|19|MKD}}→{{fbwu|19|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbwu|21|MKD}}→{{fbwu|21|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fbw|MKD}}→{{fbw|MKD|name=Macedonia}}
{{fb|MKD}}→{{fb|MKD|name=Macedonia}}

In the coming days I imagine {{fb|MKD}} will become  North Macedonia and it could lead to confusion. Now (or soon) is a good time to make these changes.

I had made these changes already using the name from UEFA's website ("FYR Macedonia") but apparently that opens a can of worms. TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a reason that {{fb|MKD}} displays  Macedonia, not  FYR Macedonia (WP:MOSMAC was derived from a past discussion involving Arbcom). The name "North Macedonia" should not be used until the (soon to be opened) RfC is closed. However, adding |name=Macedonia right now to historical articles in preparation for the (likely) retargeting of Template:Country data MKD is a good idea, I already did so for the Euros. However, it only needs to be added when referring to a specific point in time, i.e. competitions prior to 2019. It shouldn't be added to places such as UEFA#National team rankings or List of FIFA country codes, which is not relating to the past. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Can't we avoid "name" parameter and simply use {{fb|Macedonia}} to show Macedonia (piped to North Macedonia), like we do with FR Yugoslavia (which is piped to Serbia and Montenegro)? --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Staff member inclusion criteria for soccer/football team articles[]

Does FOOTY offer any specific guidance on mentioning individuals in staff/personal sections of soccer/football team articles? Generally, in lists such as this only those considered to be independently Wikipedia notable in their own right often get added per WP:CSC, but soccer/football team articles might follow more specific inclusion criteria. The example which comes to my mind is Utica City FC#Club staff. While I can see mentioning senior staff/executives and coaches, it doesn't seem really necessary to mention VPs or account executives, etc. by name (even if they are mentioned on the club's official website) and seems more like a bit WP:Namechecking instead. I also don't think these staff members need to have flag icons next to their names since unlike perhaps a player, their respective nationalities are again not really encyclopedicially relevant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

But yet these section was appeared in Manchester United F.C.#Personnel. Such bold remove not sure would cause boomerang keep voting or not.....So let the thread opening first. Matthew hk (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Chelsea also has a similar list, which could similarly be cut down. Do we really need to mention everyone who gets roped into wining and dining those in the corporate seats? Spike 'em (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Firstly if there is no citation for a staff member that should be removed. All flag icons should be removed also. I've tried hard to remove them before, but got reverted. I think notability applies to listing a staff member also. Govvy (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Y-League appearance[]

There is no promotion and relegation in Australia, so Y-League, a league that have age restriction, is a reserve league or not ? Someone claimed it is a senior men competition and reverted it in Anthony Lesiotis. However, we never listed Campionato Nazionale Primavera and Premier Reserve League to the infobox. Matthew hk (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW did they have any discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Australia task force? Matthew hk (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It does not look like a senior league to me. The reserve team page linked to in the article above states "Founded in 2011, it is the reserve and youth team of Melbourne City". Spike 'em (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be some slight confusion in the article - the infobox says he played for Melbourne City FC NPL, who play in the National Premier Leagues, yet it is piped to Melbourne City FC Reserves, who play in the Y-League. So which team did he actually play for..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The Y-League is not a senior league, but in the revert to article above, Simione001 says the npl is a senior mens competition. 2nd tier of australian football..Looking at Melbourne City FC Reserves, there is no mention of them playing in the NPL, but looking back, they are linked to in 2018 Football Federation Victoria season#2018 National Premier Leagues Victoria 2 / National Premier Leagues Victoria 2, which is described as a semi-professional level 2 of the regional league (and hence the 3rd level of Aus football). This does not seem to be a reserve or youth league as there are other (non-reserve / youth) teams taking part in it. If this is seen to be a senior league (is there a definition of this term anywhere?), then appearances here are valid. However, there is no source on the article to back the numbers up: the Soccerway ext link only lists A-League and Y-League appearances (Y-league appearances should definitely not be included in the figures in the infobox). Spike 'em (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
ping @Simione001:, you said Lesiotis played for Melbourne City FC NPL, however ,soccerway listed the caps as Y-League. We don't listed Y-League cap as it is reserves league, (likes Primavera, Premier Reserve League and A2 Ligi). Do you have any prove Lesiotis played for Melbourne City FC NPL? Matthew hk (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
This has been discussed many years ago. In any case every team in the A-League other than Wellington Phoenix FC from New Zealand has a team that plays in the National Premier Leagues. You will not find these stats on soccerway. If you click on the link [17] you will see Melbourne City placed 6th on the table in 2018. Also please see Australian soccer league system for more info.Simione001 (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
In addition please see Melbourne City FC NPL. Although all other A-League clubs do not have a dedicated NPL team article and therefore the "Reserves" team article doubles as both the page for the Y-League team the NPL team. Thanks.Simione001 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Where do you get the appearance stats from then? There are no references backing up the data on the article listed above, so it could reasonably be removed as unsourced BLP. Spike 'em (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Here [18]. Simione001 (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
You should add that as a ref to the article then to save this sort of discussion, though is this a WP:RS (looks like it may be WP:UGC)? Why does he have games listed in both West and East league for 2017 & 2018? Spike 'em (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
This website is the official website sanctioned by the Federation for collecting this data. Not sure about the east/west stuff. Some of the appearances are duplicates hence only 23 appearances. You know if you look at just about any australian player that has turned pro in the last 5 years, almost all will have appearances in the NPL listed in their infobox. This is no different than the apps DeAndre Yedlin made for the Seattle U-23 in 2012 for example. Simione001 (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The templates {{nft}}, {{nwft}} and {{nfa}}[]

Why must they always be substutited and never transcluded? --Theurgist (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

From the previous deletion discussions they are seen as confusing to ors when they appear in article text and transclusion is just a way of obfuscating a wikilink. I was thinking of doing something similar for cricket articles, so thanks for bringing to my attention! Spike 'em (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection for FC BATE Borisov[]

Yesterday's result againt Arsenal left many British fans unamused. Too much vandalism going on. --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Non-notable player recreated whilst draft exists[]

I tried PRODding Lucas Perri as he is not notable (yet), and Draft:Lucas Perri exists and has been rejected for move to article space. The prod has been removed, so I've now AfDed him, is this the correct thing to do, or is there a CSD or merge criteria that would better apply? Spike 'em (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I would have done the same thing. Unless there is a merge for draft/mainspace that I don't know about, this is the way forward. Potentially I'd think userfying the draft is the best way forward, as it may/may not be a while before the subject is notable. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Crystal Palace did have a keeper injury crisis at the time of his arrival, but they are all fit now, so it seems unlikely that he will make an appearance anytime soon. Spike 'em (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
If and when he is notable the (far superior) draft can be moved into main space, and the deleted history restored. GiantSnowman 15:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

South Korean Inventing IP Editor back[]

Hi, Following Special:Contributions/49.143.151.98 (discussed last at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 102#IP vandal) and Special:Contributions/110.35.10.122 (discussed last at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 114#Another IP adding nonsense) and Special:Contributions/103.234.7.72 (discussed last at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 120#Inventive IP Editor returns), all of which resulted in blocks of one length or another, our South Korean friend seems to be back at Special:Contributions/124.62.79.115 with the usual modus operandi of adding invented redlinked players to (often) historic squad lists - including the obviously wrong addition of a 24th player to international 23-man squads [19]. A rollback of all user s would be benficial as well as the obvious block. Hesitantly pinging @GiantSnowman: who dealt last time. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Give him level 2 warning. Those ip actually easily stack to final warning and then WP:AIV. May be in AIV link to this thread stating he is some sort of LTA in order to warrant a month or year block. Matthew hk (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Blocking is easy. It's the rollback of all s that needs most attention. Gricehead (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Dealt with by Struway2 (talk · contribs). Thanks, Gricehead (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Not just me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I've done the easy blocking. GiantSnowman 13:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Former players[]

Hi, quick question: is the section former/notable players valid? It seems pretty subjective to me, especially when unsourced. What are your opinions? Nehme1499 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not, mostly due to the subjectiveness you mention. The best thing to do is to provide a link somewhere in the club's article to their player category, where readers can find all the players, not a dubiously selected few. Number 57 21:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I think can be valid when properly defined. A list of club record holders, for instance. For smaller clubs, the section may be useful to note players who have won international caps after playing for the team, since these clubs are often known specifically for producing such-and-such a player. I agree just having a list of players without any sort of criteria should be avoided. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a template, {{famous}}, which can be used when there is no criteria. In general, I don't have a problem with these lists as long as the criteria is defined, although it would be good to have a standardised criteria across all articles. Players that have played internationally seems to be more or less the norm, which seems reasonable, although, as noted by @SportingFlyer, that probably only makes sense for smaller clubs (otherwise it's going to make the list unwieldy). I noticed that @GiantSnowman: recently deleted such a list on the BATE Borisov article. I don't think I agree with that. There will often be a club-specific list that can be used, e.g. the West Ham article has the West Ham dream team, which was taken from a book. Nzd (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Surely the criteria for who are a club's notable players should be set elsewhere - i.e. not by Wikipedia ors. Things like a "Hall of Fame", or "Greatest Team Ever" could be used. What constitutes a "smaller" club where a list of internationals could be used? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree that it should be an external list - Hall of Fame, book etc. - which determines 'famous players', not us. GiantSnowman 11:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The naming is what is confusing here. Surely all players that have a Wikipedia profile are notable. All these lists are are WP:FANCRUFT in my opinion. Anyone who is truly notable for having played there (club hero, in the hall of fame at a club, or record transfer) can very easily be placed into prose. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hall of Fame by primary source is not a FANCRUFT, others "famous player list", more or less are FANCRUFT (e.g. by number of appearances, by international call-up for the players who played for the club, even for those left the club when receiving call-up, or player who made top division appearance as a youth product of that academy.) Other article titles are survived such as Juventus F.C. and the Italy national football team, which specific enough and backed by citation. Matthew hk (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)