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.
 

RE: Nationality of Ashley Barnes on Burnley F.C[]

It has been confirmed on many external sources[1][2][3] that Ashley Barnes cannot, and is ineligible to represent Austria internationally under FIFA eligibility rules. The source[4] from Burnley FC's website is therefore incorrect when it says Barnes is an Austrian international. Unless additional sources are provided showing that he can represent Austria in international football, please refrain from repeatedly changing his nationality to Austrian on the Burnley FC page.

Multiple senior users such as "Mattythewhite" and "Iggy the Swan" have accused me of ' warring' and/or have been constantly reverting my correct s; which I believe is an abuse of power. "Mattythewhite" has also threatened me with a potential user account block.

Swazzer30 (talkcontribs)00:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a similar situation to Aaron Wildig who represented Wales at one youth level until it was discovered he wasn't actually eligible. Since then, he has been listed as English throughout his career on Wiki. This is obviously doing the opposite. Kosack (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I think you have a point about the other 2 ors: the Burnley site is a primary source, WP policy is to prefer reliable secondary sources. (Though you are probably in breach of 3RR). Spike 'em (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Ashley Barnes Austrian call up denied". Sky Sports. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
  2. ^ "Ashley Barnes Austrian dream over". 101greatgoals via Austrian Council Minister for Sport. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
  3. ^ "Ministry of the Interior decides: Barnes does not become an Austrian". Tiroler Tageszeitung via Austrian Ministry of the Interior. Retrieved 7 June 2019.
  4. ^ "First team". Burnley F.C. Retrieved 15 May 2019.
On the subject of reverts, this one by Matty is utterly inappropriate. The summary is utterly ignorant, nevermind being factually incorrect. I'd expect significantly better from him. I know he does a lot of busy work, but blanket reverting and effectively piling on is the same issue GS got partly pulled up about a few months back. You need to check the reverts and your summaries Matty.
The removal of sources provided by Swazzer to try and prevent continued reverts is also completely stupid. We have had this with Dan Potts and many other players in the past and it has always come down to an official sanctioned competitive match being the deciding factor - not playing in a friendly for which the entrance criteria are basically non-existent. Koncorde (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
That's the sort of reaction I'd expect had I cursed or been similarly disrespectful. All I did was express an opinion, whether you agree with it or not doesn't justify you describing my actions as "inappropriate" or "utterly ignorant". And could you *explain* where I am guilty of "blanket reverting and effectively piling on"? Accusations like that need substance, I wouldn't dream of doing the same to you without backing it up. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Then you should realise how inappropriate your revert and summary was. There's a series of s, reverts and counter reverts between users and IP's. You did not seek to resolve the issue, you blanket reverted with an inaccurate and incorrect "opinion",

and then later still pushed it to WP:FOOT after you again reverted not only the removal of sources, but also reinstated the wrong nationality. You need to check what you are reverting. Declaring an " war" while contributing to it isn't appropriate either. Koncorde (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC) ───────────────────────── He should be listed as English. GiantSnowman 09:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Why? His most recent international representation is for Austria. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Technically anyone can play a friendly for any nation, and in today's game numerous players switch allegiance and / or represent more than 1 nation in some fashion. Using it as the criteria for establishing a players nationality is liable to come unstuck. It also would raise obvious spectres for players who, perhaps, last played for the British Olympic team (such as James Tomkins) or similar countries that do not hold official FIFA representation and so allow dual representative players (such as Aritz Aduriz) and I am sure there are other instances.
This again comes back to WP:FOOT's stance regarding nationalities Vs representative nationalities in general which causes 90% of the issues because of the common mismatches. Koncorde (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree he should be listed as English, as he does not have any Austrian nationality, in spite of his U-20 friendly appearance. SportingFlyer T·C 19:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, yes the player's article does say about the part where Barnes has one Austrian grandparent however, at the end of the same section, he is not eligible for Austria when confirmed on February 2019. At least in this case the closest generation of the descent nation is only the grandparent compared with Aaron Wildig which is too far away. What I've also seen on Soccerbase is the Austrian flag but the match between Austria and Switzerland is not included. Iggy (Swan) 06:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Coach performance timeline[]

Do you think this is overkill (even if sourced)? I have removed Jorge Jesus' performance timeline. SLB (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the "Managerial record" section is more than enough. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Overkill, way too much information. The managerial record section is enough. Kante4 (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed with the above. GiantSnowman 08:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Should that be the same with Jürgen Klopp which also has the exact same structure as the mentioned article above... Iggy (Swan) 06:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Tom Hadler height[]

We have two ors at Tom Hadler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) who claim to be the subject and his brother, changing the height (despite it being sourced to multiple reliable sources). Myself and another Admin (@ChrisTheDude:) have tried to discuss with them, including pointing them in the direction of OTRS, but to no avail. Raising here for further input; will also cross-post at WP:BLPN. GiantSnowman 10:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Surely if the guy is directly linked to the club he could get the club website to fix the height if he is so worried about that? Govvy (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
His contract isn't being renewed this summer, so his profile will probably disappear from the Gills' website shortly anyway. It will be interesting to see what height his next club lists for him......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The Gillingham's two giant goalkeepers narrative doesn't work well if Hadler is 6'2". The Sky Sports video tends to confirm that he is taller than listed, but unfortunately only Tomas Holy's height is stated. Unfortunately, the Gillingham FC profile doesn't look like it has been updated for some time and I suspect this is the source used by the other sources. So it looks like Wikipedia rules prevent us from correcting what is probably outdated information.   Jts1882 | talk  15:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Is it possible that this all derives from a typo (someone putting 6 ft 2 instead of 6 ft 2)? Of course. But in the absence of reliable sources - WP:VERIFIABILITYNOTTRUTH. GiantSnowman 15:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

2020–21 UEFA Champions League : too soon?[]

I redirected this earlier to the main article on the grounds that there is very little useful information available yet. We don't even have a host city or any dates. However an ip has asked me about it so I'm coming here for guidance. When would we usually create this article? I'm willing to self-revert if it's round about now, but I don't see huge value in having the article yet. Valenciano (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Create it at the end of the 2019–20 season, when there will be some concrete info on it. GiantSnowman 18:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The 2019–20 page was created in May 2018, but there were at least concrete dates at that point. SportingFlyer T·C 19:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Some of the leagues which Champions League qualification is to be determined finish in October/November due to the cold winters the countries have. The question is that would there be enough certain information to re-activate the article from the redirect position or wait until more nations finish their top divisions the following Spring... Iggy (Swan) 06:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I think late October would be fine, the decision on the host city will be made late September and the first qualifiers will be known then so it can be created then. In the meantime would be good if people had a look, there are ips appearing restoring the article without discussion. Valenciano (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive s in Footy[]

86.146.28.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Marc-André ter Stegen and Matthijs de Ligt:. This IP address has removed a content on ter Stegen's article without explaining why even though they were warned not to do so a few times. Reporting at WP:AIV resulted in @Dlohcierekim: suggesting that we seek dispute resolution. That was attempted on Talk:Marc-André ter Stegen#RfC on lede but the anon did not participate, so what is expected this time that wasn't achieved last? Meanwhile @GARY 809: has taken me to WP:AN3 and placed warnings on my talk page. Any assistance from an informed admin would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Anon has earned a short block. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Watford F.C.[]

I've asked for a reassessment, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Watford F.C./1, I hope I done it all okay. Not sure if I need to post about it anywhere else. Govvy (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Nav templates[]

Can I get some help please, Frietjes has been removing the Spurs navigation templates from the bottom of all the Tottenham season articles, I am finding it even worse to navigate between the articles I want now and have found the removal extremely inconvenient. It's made it really bad and I tried to restore the nav template only for Frietjes to removal them all again. I am shocked at this poor ing and wish for some help from someone to restored all the nav templates to the Tottenham season pages, cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Frietjes' removal of {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C.}} from season articles where the far more appropriate {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C. seasons}} is already present. GiantSnowman 14:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Yep agree with Giant here. Both shouldn't be on the same page and per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. -DJSasso (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
So for someone that wants to navigate to the statistics page, youth team page, honours, or one of the other pages? For comparatives you want to deny a reader this navigation? Very strange ors you people are... Govvy (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I also don't see an issue. Although I've never seen why we don't have these as one template with an expandable option for the seasons... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I most of read through WP:BIDIRECTIONAL five times now, I still don't get were it says removal a nav template. Govvy (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. which means that every navbox on a page should include that page as a link. The main spurs navbox does not include the individual seasons. Spike 'em (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C.}} and {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C. seasons}} templates provide links to different information. If WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is strictly adhered to a lot of navigation templates would be up for deletion. I note it says "should normally" so is not absolute. The {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C.}} is a directory for other related articles, which I find useful. Perhaps the {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C. seasons}} template should be embedded in it to provide bidirectionality.   Jts1882 | talk  16:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I would be supportive of football season navboxes being subsections (potentially collapsed) of the general navbox. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand, they are already collapsed, she is still removing all the templates, there is no direct policy to removal the template she is removing, and now she is removing saying consensus was to remove the template when no consensus has been had!! I still regard this as highly disruptive ing. Govvy (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem with those removals. There is the extra "season" template which will still be there. Kante4 (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Extra template? Govvy (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I think there is general consensus on WP to remove navboxes that fail BIDIRECTIONAL. Local WP:FOOTY consensus is not needed if this is the case. Spike 'em (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
And I'd just like to add that I have always found Frietjes very helpful. Spike 'em (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is the direct guideline for it. The whole point of it is to remove clutter of navboxes and only have the most specific navboxes on a given page so that links are not just spammed on the bottom of the page. The intended way of navigation for the things in the template that was removed is to use the category system since the links in the other template would not have been bidirectional, it removes the purpose of the navboxes which was to enhance categories by having bidirectional navigation. That is its intended purpose. Since that template wasn't bidirectional, it was redundant to the category system. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Three nav boxes is not clutter, they are collapsed to begin with, I really do not see how you call a perfectly good template spam, and the nav box in question is directly linked to the club. I still don't get it, it's like listening to everyone contradict themselves. Player articles have multiple templates, you going to delete all of them as well? This is all highly illogical. Govvy (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
No, we should keep them separate, due to size - see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Disadvantages numbers 4 & 8 (amongst others). GiantSnowman 18:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain why a football player like Lionel Messi is allowed all those navboxes? Why all the Man U seasons are allowed to use {{Manchester United F.C.}} why, Man City season articles, the same, Arsenal, all other clubs have the same setup as what Spurs had, yet you're just removing the template from the Tottenham season articles and none of the others, fucking strange situation if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Because Messi is linked in all of those infoboxes. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
And what about the cross-links? Pfft, I might as well retire from this stupid project and wikipedia if you are all going to be this dogmatic over stupid wikipedia polices, so many stupid pathetic policies that are not helpful to the wikipedia project. Fucking disruptive ing. Govvy (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to quote another stupid WP policy at you : WP:AGF. Your tone and language is disgraceful. Spike 'em (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The Manchester United articles don’t all have the {{Manchester United F.C.}} navbox on them though. The most recent ones might because the current season is linked from that template and no one remembered to remove it, but that’s an error on our part, not tacit approval for you to add {{Tottenham Hotspur F.C.}} to all their season articles. It’s not appropriate, and I endorse their removal. – PeeJay 07:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Are you going to apologies to Friejtes now that she has gone and removed the navboxes from all the other teams seasons you mentioned? Spike 'em (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Vanuatu vs Fiji[]

Is anyone able to find out the teams and substitutes for the fixture from June 10th? Cheers - J man708 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

National Football Teams should post the fixture in the following days. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The most information I can find right now is this release by Fiji FA. Soccerway has only listed the venue and score. WorldFootball don't have a page for the match yet, but I reckon they'll get one in the next few days. --SuperJew (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

DeKalb County United[]

Nothing wrong with having an article on the team but much of the article feels like it violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and maybe WP:OR given the level the league is at, such as the fixture lists/results. Wanted a second or third opinion on what to do here before I take out the ing hatchet. SportingFlyer T·C 05:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup, the fixture lists/results definitely is more than needed on the page. Don't think it's original research (as long as it's referenced), but it's place is in a season article if the club is notable enough (which I don't think is the case in this case), but for sure not on the club page. --SuperJew (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I've removed. GiantSnowman 09:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! SportingFlyer T·C 15:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Watford / West Herts / Watford Rovers[]

There's a slight disagreement at Watford F.C. about the foundation date, but that's not really why I'm here. Upon reading the article, it appears that a team known as 'West Herts' (and previously known as 'Watford Rovers') amalgamated with another (Watford St Mary's) in 1898 to found the present club we all know and love. However, West Herts seemingly appeared in the FA Cup in the 1880s. Shouldn't we have a separate article about the older, different club as it appears to be independently notable? That is established precedent when clubs merge. GiantSnowman 09:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

FCHD entires on Watford Rovers and West Herts. FA Cup was qualifying only, so not notable - but they played in the Southern League... GiantSnowman 09:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
"FA Cup was qualifying only, so not notable" - when did we decide that.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Aaaages ago, I thought? I thought a club had to play in FA Cup proper to be notable (if not by some other way)? GiantSnowman 10:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Not as far as I'm aware. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Qualifying rounds has always been the case – see e.g. this 2011 AfD or this 2013 one, in which GS himself notes that playing in the qualifying rounds is generally considered notable :P . Number 57 12:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, I know in some instances it's not and in some instances it is - I think the distinction was between preliminary rounds and qualifying rounds? - but it doesn't matter as long as the club passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Preliminary round are part of the qualifying rounds in England, and they are treated the same. Number 57 16:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
My poor memory :( GiantSnowman 20:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Right now we've resolved the issue with the FA Cup / my memory, can we please discuss the merits of a separate article? GiantSnowman 20:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it is related to the foundation date question. If the founding date for Watford F.C. is taken as 1898, then it is a considered a new club and the predecessor clubs should be topics of seperate articles (if notable). If Watford Rovers, West Herts and Watford FC are considered the same club (founded in 1881) in different guises then a single article is more appropriate.   Jts1882 | talk  06:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
But like we have articles on Dagenham F.C., Redbridge F.C. and Dagenham & Redbridge F.C.... GiantSnowman 08:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
My rule of thumb (albeit for non-league articles) has been that if both predecessor clubs are notable, then to have separate articles for each. If only one is notable, then to just include it in the history of the current one (as usually in such scenarios the 'new' club is more of a continuation of one than the other).
The Dagenham example fits the first case. An example of the second might be Felixstowe & Walton United. However, if a decent standalone article can be written on Watford Rovers/West Herts then I would be averse to a separate article – if it's only going to be a permastub, then I'm not sure there's a huge benefit. Number 57 11:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Watford St. Mary's played in the qualifying rounds of the 1897/98 FA Cup as well: 25 September 1897 they beat Aylesbury United away, These fixtures are not on the FCHD site. I have no problem with a separate page, but I won't create one myself, it's not something I would put much effort in. Cattivi (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WPF listed at Redirects for discussion[]

Information.svg

An or has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPF. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Review of contribution for User:139.47.3.236[]

Hello footballers,

I need someone more knowledgeable than I to review the contributions of this IP account that I recently blocked for vandalism. They have modified a lot of kits for various Spanish football teams that I have no idea are accurate or not. As an example, this diff appears to match up correctly for Concil CF's new home kit, but I cannot verify the accuracy of the other changes. Hope someone can help out. Sasquatch t|c 19:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Team of the Season honour[]

Hi. In Lebanon, the Al-Manar Football Festival is the award ceremony where players are awarded certain awards such as "Lebanese Football League Best Player" or "Lebanese Football League Best Goal". The ceremony also includes the Team of the Season, with a specific formation (e.g. a 4-1-2-3, with specific roles such as left-back and defensive midfielder). The players in the TOTS are not only included in the formation but are also handed an award, for example, for "Lebanese Football League Best Striker" or "Lebanese Football League Best Right-back". My question is: in the honours section of the players' articles, is it enough to write "Lebanese Football League Team of the Season: 2018-19" or should "Lebanese Football League Best Striker" also be included? Thanks, sorry for the unnecessarily long post. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Merge request[]

Can one of the admin, please merge the Wakirya AC and Wakriya AC articles? The correct spelling is Wakriya (http://www.wakriya.com). TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

For the record, this was done earlier today. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Table templates/Module:Sports table[]

Could an or who is familiar with sports table templates/Module:Sports table help me out?

I've already created the table template for the Argentine Primera División standings (here) that is used for showing tables in a seasons article, but I am having difficulty in creating one for the relegation/average points table that Argentine football uses (here). I'm inexperienced when it comes to these type of templates so haven't a clue how to create one/if one exists; I don't see a relegation table listed at Module:Sports table so assume it doesn't. Any help would be much appreciated. R96Skinner (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Club season article MoS[]

To follow on from a couple of previous discussions, I just wanted to know if there was a consensus as to whether we keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons as it is regarding results lists or if we change it (For background, I reverted s on 1874–75 Dumbarton F.C. season and 1874–75 Dumbarton F.C. season before starting a discussion here which moved here. Tagging participants: @Aitkegs and Crowsus:).

As far as I can see, there has been no consensus to change from a table of results to a list of collapsed footballbox templates but there are several pages which use this style so I want to establish which should be in the Manual of Style. The collapsed footballbox template contravenes WP:ACCESSIBILITY because it defaults to hiding information. It also means that there are sometimes 60+ footballbox templates per page depending on how successful a team has been in a given season compared to just three or four tables. I don't think a list of footballbox templates works with MOS:LIST but the table of results does work with MOS:LIST and MOS:TABLE. Both the football box templates and the table of results meet MOS:COLOUR.

There have also been discussions which argue that the table restricts the amount of information which can be included as it doesn't mention opposition scorers (which I would argue are irrelevant on a given team's season article - important goals against can be included in prose) or referees whereas the football box template allows you to include this. Should the consensus be to keep the table format, I'd propose we update it to include a referee column (as I believe has been done on some pages). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

the main problem with the footballbox template is the propensity to have references which are not in a reference format. this leads to linkrot. it does allow for the key information to be displayed but also to include other information which may be of interest but doesn't otherwise clutter the article. in short both approaches have their benefits but no-one has ever been able to get a consensus about what the MOS should contain. most of these articles actually violate WP:NOTSTATSBOOK because the authors are only interested in the stats.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
As the previous user has indicated the main issue at hand is that those authors involved in such pages are only interested in the stats - or data - provided. The footballbox style allows for a mass of information - not just opposing scorers and referees - which cannot be stored under the MOS version. MOS served its purpose when authors started off creating club season data - as did I - but it seems strange to fiddle about with the MOS to get it up to speed when there is already the footballbox style available - which most authors are already using Aitkegs (talk)
I'm a wee bit confused. The *only* thing the table doesn't include that footballbox does is the referee and opposition scorers. Also, I don't know if I'm picking you up right but you seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia should be a stats book. The reason we have policies, guidelines and style guides is to ensure articles contain the relevant information, that they remain consistent and avoid confusion, that's why I want to update the club season style to represent what the consensus is, ie- keep it as is but with an extra column or change it to the footballbox.
Also, can you please sign your posts on talk pages? (See WP:SIGN). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The MoS has not been overhauled in a long time and desperately needs it (good luck if you want to try). on top of that there is an issue with having large tables and the readability issues it presents with reading articles on mobile devices. the footballbox does tend to overcome this. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
In what way does the footballbox overcome accessibility issues? If anything, a table is better because the data is all contained in appropriately labelled columns, not to mention the fact that the footballbox contains unnecessary info for a club season article (e.g. the opposition scorers) and people tend to misuse it by adding cards etc. – PeeJay 17:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Nlu removing nationality categories[]

@Nlu: has been mass removing valid nationality categories. I have reverted a bunch and told them why. Further eyes/input would be welcome in case they insist on keeping up with their disruption... GiantSnowman 14:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)