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

Someone using the IP address range has made edits to Brighton & Hove Albion players, updating stats but updating them in the format 'Monday 1st January 2018', which does not comply with WP:MOSDATE and therefore have been corrected by other editors. The latest I have noticed was on Glenn Murray which I've fixed recently. If anyone notices similar activity from this range of IP addresses, please correct the format as soon as someone sees the change first. Thanks, Iggy (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a move review about article UAE Arabian Gulf League on Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 January, you can have some comment on Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 January, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Can I have some opinions on the talk page for Jamie Robson regarding recent media coverage of alleged drink-driving, please? There was a similiar recent discussion here regarding David Moyes and an alleged assault, where the consensus was it didn't need to be in the article. Jellyman (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Should not be included unless / until it's reported in a reliable source, i.e. not the Daily Record (red-top) or Twitter (for goodness sake). It's also stretching credibility to breaking point to describe Jamie Robson as a "public figure". He won't even be a household name in most Dundee households. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPF says "Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article". This applies to most professional athletes, outside the minority of star who are generally well known (i.e. Messi, Ronaldo). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

Should the "manager" column in the 'Personnel and kits' section of league season articles (see 2017–18 Premier League#Personnel and kits) only list the last manager or all managers over the season?

At the moment the standard seems to be only the most recent manager, which seems to me to be recentism, and could mislead readers into thinking that only those managers managed. For one particularly bad example of this, see the 2015/16 article, which lists Everton F.C.'s managers as being Joe Royle and David Unsworth, who managed one game (the last of the season), with no mention in that section of Roberto Martinez, manager for most of the season that the article is about.

I've checked a few other league articles and they all only have one manager listed, even in cases where clubs have many over the season. I think these should be changed to list all managers who took charge of the club over the season, with dates where necessary. OZOO (t) (c) 20:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

All that shows it the current manager of the team, directly below that 2017–18 Premier League#Managerial changes shows what changes happen to managers for the teams during the year. I think it is ok as it is. NZFC^(talk) 20:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Normally all changes are documented at the managerial changes section. Listed at the personal and kits should only be the recent one. Kante4 (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

A few IP editors (82.137.9.167, 82.137.13.149, 82.137.13.244, 82.208.187.11) have been changing links from "[[FC Steaua București|Steaua București]]" to "[[FCSB | FCSB]]". I am aware of the controversy regarding the naming of the club but as far as I know, the change goes against current convention. They edits started on 30 December and have continued until today while other editors and I have been repeatedly reverting the changes. Should the IP editors be blocked? Robby.is.on (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: - some more of the same 'disruptive editing' has been made after your post. I will scan through the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.137.9.0/16 range and find more of the same type. As to your block querey, I agree with that as I consider that as disruptive editing (pointing re-directs to the page previously linked to) which is unnecessary. Iggy (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Iggy. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Another IP, 82.208.187.11, is reverting again. In a few cases, they have explained the change in an edit summary, for example at Denis Alibec which gives me the impression that they are willing to discuss. I have written on their Talk page to suggest they start a discussion here. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

5.15.11.185 has now appeared. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: I've blocked this latest IP - if anymore re-appear let me know directly. GiantSnowman 12:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Will do. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I have posted an update on the Harry Roberts date of birth issue, which was brought here by @Jesi last month. I am now suggesting that we move the page based on new information. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I’ve seen at Real Madrid C.F. and FC Barcelona, also Juventus F.C. use squad field boxes to show the squad from a Champions League title win. Since the squad can be found at the Final’s page, these are probably not necessary on a club article? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 05:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

FA articles about Manchester United and Liverpool don't included it. Details like that are more important for technichal articles like these about single matches, not in generic articles like these about the clubs.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Juventus article's weight is near 50 kb. over the limit in en.wiki and this make more difficult the access and read.

Quick survey, let's get "voting" if you please,

in your opinion, what outline is the more suitable/habitual for a football bio? The current or this one (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unai_Emery&diff=815965378&oldid=815788574)? The latter contains the personal life content in a section in its own right, the former has it all mingled with playing career, so much the confusion that now the title is humungous ("Early life and playing career"). The latter mentions player position in the introduction, the former in the body of article.

The former version contains wikilinks of a competition (i.e. UEFA Champions League) AND seasons of a given competition, the latter is having none of that and removed all instances of the competition, leaving only the given season. The wording of versions X and Y is only a minor aspect i believe, it can and will always be adjusted/corrected.

Attentively, thanks for any input that can be provided --Quite A Character (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure best way about linking the competitions in the article but I agree that the personal information should be taken out and have its own section instead of mixed in with the career. NZFC^(talk) 21:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Put the personal life first in its own section, and put his birthplace in there, not in the playing career. There's no need to link both competition seasons and the comp itself, but it's fine to do so, if the prose supports it. Whatever gets linked, make sure the reader can tell what the link is aiming at without having to interact with it: linking to a random word or phrase just to shoehorn another link into the article does neither the prose nor the reader any favours. See WP:Piped link#Transparency. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think both are okay, but in this current version, where is his playing position? I think it's a good information to add in the intro, otherwise one of the most important things in football is only listed in the infobox. MYS77 ^✉ 12:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I edit the Inverness CT Season pages, mainly editing out minor errors and updating fixtures etc. But this season page in particular is all over the place, showing incorrect results, for example Inverness 1–0 Celtic would be labeled as a loss to Inverness. And I can't do anything about it, as it is an unfamiliar template, and I have no clue how to change the colour of the box. I am only familiar with "Football Box Collapsible" which most articles are in. So, can someone check it out and fix it please. Thanks, Cheesy McGee (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I've fixed those colours for you (among other things). If I've missed anything, do let me know. – PeeJay 22:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello all. Apart from a few exceptions, there have been no two national championships within a year in Europe. In Turkey there was the Turkish National Division (from 1937 to 1950) and the Turkish Football Championship (from 1924 to 1951). Thus they existed at the same time for about 14 years and there were two national football champions in those years.

Now my question is how to put that into the European football template of a specific year/season.

For example into this one:

I have added the National Division, but the Turkish Football Championship was also held that year. How would you implement it into the template? Any suggestions are welcome. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

See e.g. Category:Celtic F.C. Under-20s and Academy players. I think these are pointless, particularly if a player has both youth and senior time with a club and will therefore be in two categories...thoughts welcome. GiantSnowman 13:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile. There are lots of players in this category who have not played for the first team, i.e. cluttering the main Category:Celtic F.C. players category with people who never actually played for Celtic. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

But has it not always been the case that the main club category includes players who were on the books even if they never made a first team appearance (e.g. Ryan Bertrand is in the Gillingham players category even though he left when he was 15 and never got anywhere near the first team)? Is this not being applied consistently across all clubs....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm attempting to change. There's no good reason why that should be the case, at least for the clubs who have articles about their youth and academy teams. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue about saying a player shouldn't be in a club category if they haven't made a first team appearance as a youngster is what do to about categorising players who signed for a club as a senior player but never made an appearance (especially in the old days of the proper reserve leagues). Number 57 14:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

But we have always categorised players as long as they were signed to a club, not whether they played first-team football...otherwise we will end up with twice as many categories as needed! GiantSnowman 14:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

My preference would be to only categorise players by clubs they have been registered to as a senior / professional player. This would include those who haven't played first team football, but exclude youth signings. I can recognise the thinking of having the separate youth categories, but when someone was only signed to a club as a 12-year old, it doesn't make it a notable categorisation: see WP:COP#N. Jellyman (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Youth players should be excluded. Kante4 (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Who is classed as a youth player though? Some players make their debut at 16, for others it's in their 20s. Is someone who plays in a club's U23 team a youth player? Number 57 15:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The club categories should include players who signed a senior contract with the club, even if they haven't played, or youth players who've made a senior appearance, as is the consensus up to now. If someone wants to change bring it here in a proper proposal to get consensus. --SuperJew (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that is the consensus now, though. If it is, it hasn't been made very explicit..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Far as I know, current consensus is players who've "been on the books of" a club. Anything more formal is unsourceable, before the last very few years. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a definite lack of consensus. Similar discussion to this a year or two ago was highly inconclusive. Jellyman (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Another comment I'd make on the separate categories issue – some non-League clubs only have one or two players in the categories, one or both of which may have only been at the club as a junior. This would potentially lead to overcategorisation. And as Struway suggests, how do we know what kind of contract a player has at a club... Number 57 15:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

On the books is exactly what we have, and what it should remain - otherwise we end up with incomplete/inaccurate pictures of a player's career. GiantSnowman 16:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

That's what we have now, with these categories including players who were nowhere near the club's first team. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't see why a player, who was playing for e.g. Celtic as a 12-year old but never had a (semi)professional contract with them, should be in the Celtic F.C. players category. He never sniffed at the first team. When you sign a contract with the first team, but never appear, that is another story. Kante4 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

But players don't specifically sign a contract "with the first team", just with the club, and the definition of what constitutes a "youth player" vs a "senior player" can be very blurred indeed (how would you decide whether a 17-year-old player from the 1920s was a youth team player or not, for example?)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, it's not black and white. Imagine a 17 year old player who is on the bench for an entire season, but never gets a minute of play. Or a 22 year old who never makes the bench. We could go on... which of these players goes in which category? GiantSnowman 17:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Then make it a clearer line that a player has to appear in a competitive first team match to count as an "X F.C. player". This would also be consistent with the league categories (e.g. Category:Premier League players), where the player has to appear in that competition to count. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

But that's not the current position, or what we're saying should happen. Because, what happens to players who were not a Youth/Academy player and also did not make the first team? GiantSnowman 11:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I raised this issue a couple of months ago and the consensus was that players should be included if they were with the club at any level (whether they made a senior appearance or not). I don't really see a problem with that, as long as it's clear and there is consistency. GiantSnowman describes the complications of further categorisation quite well. Would it not be better to develop the players list(s), e.g. in line with Manchester United (1–24, 25–99, 100+ appearances) and link to that? Nzd (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I'm proposing. We now have situations where clubs (e.g. Chelsea) buy players, loan them out and never use them for their own first team. Is it realistic to call someone like that a "Chelsea player"? It's more akin to the American baseball system, where teams acquire (sign, draft or trade) players, only use them in their minor league teams and they never progress to the Major League level with that organisation. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's realistic to call then a Chelsea player; they did sign for the club after all. Number 57 11:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with N57 - someone who signs for Chelsea and then spends 5 years out on loan was still a Chelsea player. We include the club in the infobox, and we include the player in the club category. GiantSnowman 12:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. If you did not play a competitive first team match for a particular club then I don't see how you can have a category added as "X F.C. player." The fact that you may have signed a registration form with the club when an eight-year-old or a 15-year-old, or as an adult but then loaned to others for X years can be mentioned in the article text, but for category to be added as a club player, then surely you have to actually PLAY for that club !! Some alternative must exist, or be created to better reflect the youth and adult career and life span. Perhaps something like category: X F.C. Youth or Academy squad member ? RossRSmith (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not a footballer has played for the club does not change the fact they are under contract. I don't see the necessity to include club categories from a players' youth career, but this would be better than having a separate category for each club's academy, which is excessive. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

A footballer having a contract with a club does not mean they were a player with that club. I note that cricketers contracted to Cricket Australia do not have a Wiki category Test player if they have not PLAYED in a Test, similar for T20s and 1-Day Internationals. RossRSmith (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a bit of an "apples and oranges" situation, Ross. Let's deal with cricket articles on their own terms and just deal with football articles here. – PeeJay 16:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Was using it as an example of different standards applied across different projects. I think a person should only have category "club player" shown if they have actually played for club/organisation at the top tier of the sport which has enabled them to reach notability for article creation. I note that Australian Football players who have been drafted into an AFL club's contracted squad list for 2018 have their name shown, but do not yet have an article because they haven't PLAYED a senior game yet. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. RossRSmith (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Leo Fasan was released by Celtic at the age of 23 after spending 21 matches as an unused substitute for the first-team during a three-year professional contract at the club. Yet apparently he is supposed to be in the 'Celtic F.C. Under-20s and Academy players' category and not the 'Celtic F.C. players' category. It makes zero sense.--EchetusXe 15:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

He never played for Celtic in a competitive match. We don't count players who have been called up to the England squad but didn't actually play as England international footballers. In list of club players ("List of X F.C. players (1-25 appearances)" we don't include players who made 0 appearances. Why include them in the categories? That makes even less sense. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that as an inconsistency. Players are not contracted to the England national team. I also think that including players in the categories that don't appear on the lists is kind of a good thing. Nzd (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not a part of this WikiProject but I have doubt to clarify this. I recently created an article, Pundarika Prathanmitr a Thai woman cricketer who was born in 13 November 1990 and I also found a source (Eurosport) [https://www.eurosport.com/football/pundarika-prathanmitr_prs281354/person.shtml stating that Pundarika Prathanmitr is a Thai footballer who was also born in 13 November 1990 similar to that of the cricketer. (Probably Eurosport could be an unreliable source) But I didn't find any football article links to prove that there isn't any notable footballers with this similar name. On the other hand, apart from Eurosport I couldn't find any football related sources to verify my doubts. Please help me out here. Abishe (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I want to know whether editors are of the opinion of removing unsourced "managerial statistics", "top scorers" and "highest appearances" in club articles. Also what are your opinion on the notes column present in these tables, which are often filled with information like "youngest manager in the league" and so on. RRD (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR unless cited. the club and club season articles were full of unsourced material or data copied from transfermarkt, which is unreliable. Matthew_hk tc 13:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's unsourced remove it. GiantSnowman 14:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If all the matches are sourced with a match report that contains squad and scorers, isn't the top scorers and highest appearance stuff routine calculation? --SuperJew (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Just people often adding up wrong. for one season only, those total caps, goals should have plenty of external source. But without one, it may qualified as a routine calculation if it did have all the match report cited, but to me, i would still tag for ((refimprove)). For multi-season sum, it definitively require external citation. Matthew_hk tc 20:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think an asterisk and a note that the stats only relate to the domestic league is user-friendly. It's similar to small print and people understandably don't see it and assume the stats are wrong. Should the heading "Senior career" not be changed to "Senior league career" or "Senior domestic league career" to make things clearer? Stuart1234 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Short answer = no. It's fine as it is. GiantSnowman 20:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with the way the infobox is shown, although I wouldn't say no to some commented guidance (league stats only/update timestamp) to save time cleaning up after those less familiar. On a related note, I assume in Brazil we only count Série A games and not those of the state leagues? Nzd (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Only national-level stats are included in the infobox for Brazilian footballers in the national league era. There's some grey area around the 60s/70s about when the national league actually started. Before that, with the likes of Pelé and Garrincha, infoboxes will contain state league stats. Hack (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't be averse to a change. I don't think it's at all clear as it is, and not too long ago I saw a piece on (I think) The Guardian's website where they explicitly stated that our stats for one player (John Burridge, I think) were wrong because it showed 0 against a club for whom he made one or two cup appearances..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Idea: I think it will be a good idea to create a Wiki guide/rules for merging football club articles

Use: Similar like the guide we have for e.g. WP:FPL.

Reason: Inconsistency.
For example most will agree Rangers F.C. are still the same club when they reformed. A.C.R. Messina have one article but technically legally there were 7 different clubs (many Italian teams like this). Newport County A.F.C. has 1 article. Darlington 1883 was a phoenix club but when the successor changed their name to the same as the historic folded club's, Darlington F.C., the two articles were merged. Etar Veliko Tarnovo have 3 articles but there is a clear continuation in time-line, the crest, strip, and colours, as well as the fans are all the same. Counter productive to have 7 Messina articles and 3 Etar ones.

Proposed rules:
1. Colours, crest, location the same
2. Substantial link in name
3. No split in continuation (i.e. not reformed before club ceased to exist)
4. No surrounding controversy
5. No more than 1 existing successor club

Implementation:
Simple tick and cross for each point to determine whether to merge or not. Examples:
- FCU Craiova & CS Universitatea Craiova: Pass 1,2,3; Fail 4,5, as CSU exists alongside in 4th division; no merge
- VfB Leipzig & Lokomotive Leipzig: Pass 2,3,4,5; Fail 1; split
- BSG Chemie Leipzig (1950) & BSG Chemie Leipzig (1997): Pass 1,2,5; Fail 3; Debate 4; no merge
- CSU Vointa Sibiu & LSS Vointa Sibiu: Pass 1,2,3,4,5; merge
- Juan Aurich (1922–1992) & Aurich–Cañaña & Juan Aurich de Chiclayo & Juan Aurich de La Victoria: Pass 1,2,3 (Deportivo Cañaña unmerged), 4, 5; merge

Please tell me what you think of those proposals.
Abcmaxx (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

In Messina case, the new (recent) owner applied for Article 52 of N.O.I.F., so it is not even a phoenix club, but a change in legal person only. For Rangers, it was rejected as a successor of the place of Premier League, but did all the procedure to acquire the asset and membership as successor , so it still one club. So, i suggest to add the point of view of those football associations. Just like MK Dons, Wimbledon F.C. and AFC Wimbledon. Matthew_hk tc 20:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Wimbledon is a terrible example its saga has its own article just to explain it, safely say it is an anomaly. With Messina what about previous 6 times? Darlington 1883 was considered a new club, so was Newport in 1989, they have 1 article. What about VfB Leipzig? Abcmaxx (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bohemians saga is also worth mentioning. Hack (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

In general, I think if a club has been established to replace one that has folded and see itself as a successor, then we should stick to one article for simplicity and convenience for the reader. If you read up on club histories, many of them folded and reformed a few times in their history, so there's no reason to treat modern interruptions any differently IMO. Number 57 11:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Then we would have only one article about NK Olimpija Ljubljana, but in reality we have two.Linhart (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please find a reliable source for his return to Everton on 31 January 2012 (source #7)? ZEROZERO is quite harmless as a link for Portuguese/Portugal-based players (it is spot-on in 99,99999999999999999% of the cases), but not reliable as a source for WP as its content is user-generated.

Oddly enough, i searched the web like crazy, found nothing (reliable, that is). Attentively, thanks in advance for whatever can be provided --Quite A Character (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

put some key word to google, not sure these would work https://www.publico.pt/2012/02/01/desporto/noticia/joao-silva-rescindiu-com-o-v-setubal-e-regressa-ao-everton-1531781 http://www.record.pt/futebol/futebol-nacional/liga-nos/v--setubal/detalhe/joao-silva-regressa-ao-everton-738986.html Matthew_hk tc 00:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to propose a change to the format of honours section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. I don't believe it is necessary to have level three headings to divide club, international and individual honours, and that the bold text headings would be sufficient. I would use level three headings to separate playing and managerial honours, if necessary. Here is an example of what I think would be a better layout. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

That looks good to me! GiantSnowman 08:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I support this proposal and agree it would be a better layout. LTFC 95 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I like that, it does looks nicer. R96Skinner (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

From an accessibility point of view, using level three headings would be best practice. But if that isn't wanted, then please use bold-text markup for the headings, as Mattythewhite's example does, rather than mis-using semicolon markup. See WP:PSEUDOHEAD and the recent discussion at Talk:2014–15 A-League National Youth League#Pseudo-headings for why. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Glad there's a MoS that makes it clear we should use bold text. I've noticed that semicolons mess up how the headings appear on mobile screens.

Going by WP:PSEUDOHEAD, using level three headings then bold-text markup would be the most MoS friendly approach. But I can't help but feel that it looks over-the-top, clunky, and I'm not sure how we would go about it when the subject has managerial honours, a la Millsy. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Imagine the MoS would want level 4s if it could have them, before bold text, but the edit links every couple of lines would be visually difficult. I'm not arguing against your proposal: I think I do honours sections that way round anyway. Added to which, there's no actual structural difference between your proposal and the current suggested layout, is there? isn't it just whether you start from type of honour as at present or job title as proposed? So there shouldn't be any reduction in MoS-compliance.

Long time since I looked at that layout... it wouldn't hurt to delink club/national team names while you're at it. And add explicit instruction to not put (1)s after every honour, unless the number in the bracket is up to about 6, anyway. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we get some clarification over the status of WP:KARLSRUHER vis-a-vis its application to Ron-Robert Zieler. User:DerDFB seems intent on applying the essay (yes, it's just an essay) rigidly and referring to VfB Stuttgart thus throughout the article, but it doesn't really work from a "good writing" standpoint. I get that including the "VfB" avoids confusion with any other Stuttgart clubs, but the fact is that VfB is the biggest and best-known of the Stuttgart clubs, which makes the inclusion of the VfB unnecessary once you've established which club is being talked about. – PeeJay 10:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The essay in question actually agrees with you. It says, "Obviously in article prose, a shortened name can be used, once the proper name has been established, to make the text flow more easily". So there's nothing wrong with abbreviating after the first mention. Jellyman (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The Infobox and career stats table should contain the KARLSRUHER name. In the prose, just Hannover or Stuttgart is correct. Kante4 (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll echo what's been said here already. Out of prose (infobox, stats tables, section heads etc.), the "VfB" should be left in unless you're seriously cramped for space. In prose, removing it for ease of reading is fine. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Cool, sorted. – PeeJay 16:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

just use in the lead and infobox (or the place where the German club was first mentioned) and then pipe everywhere else that follow. Matthew_hk tc 16:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Could someone consider protection (again) for the above? Reverted four different nonsense IP edits this morning already.Crowsus (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 17:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Yerry Mina, the situation seems to be more serious even: When I discovered vandalism yesterday, I was unable to find a clean revision in the last few weeks. And since my cleanup yesterday there's been lots more vandalism. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 19:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Interesting" situation at this footballer's article, several users keep removing the fact the player was banned/suspended by the Iran national team even though it is RELIABLY SOURCED. I am not aware if a pardon has been granted to him and his teammate since the events, but those contents surely must remain, am i correct?

Second reversion was even more serious, as they (obviously Iranian seeing the username) reverted me without one word whatsoever. Suggestions? Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Side note: said second user has already been warned several times by User:Robby.is.on due to disruptive edits. --Quite A Character (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you are right, if it has been reliably sourced then it should stay and just be added too if he has been pardoned or allowed back to play. It was still relevant for that time in his career. NZFC^(talk) 01:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Been reverted again, this time with a summary at least (calling me an uneducated vandal, but still better than nothing). Re-reverted and sent a message to the other party, someone PLEASE assist here. --Quite A Character (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between the Iranian deputy sports minister being quoted by the New York Times as saying on television that they would be banned for life, and the football authorities actually banning them. See ESPN, which says "Iran's football federation 'strongly condemned' the players last week, saying it is reviewing the case and would make a final decision after speaking with both players." Might be wise to do a bit more research... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Might be wise to do a bit more research", aimed at me and I admit the glove fits. But was the other party right in reverting and insulting User:Struway2? If they were, I'll re-revert as soon as I see your reply. If you don't think the content should be totally removed, any suggestions on how to rephrase/source it (I think the previous contents should remain, with additions upon further future developments, do you agree?)? Cheers --Quite A Character (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Read the sources.

1. A US-based normally reliable source quotes a politician speaking on TV, on which he says: "It is certain that Masoud Shojaei and Ehsan Haji Safi will never be invited to join the national football team".
2. The writer of that piece interprets that as those two players have been banned for life.
3. However, the ESPN source I linked above says the football authorities, whose job it is to select the national team, condemned the players' actions but had not made a decision on further action.
4. Although Mr Shojaei was dropped from the next match, his team-mate wasn't, so it's pretty clear there was no ban and we shouldn't say there was.

That's what I meant by doing a bit more research, so you can write about what did or didn't happen.

And no, no-one should insult another editor in their edit summaries. That's not what they're for. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

If you google "Masoud Shojaei" ban, there are plenty of sources via which you can follow the train of events. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi folks. I've got some questions regarding the career stats tables:

• Is "valign="center"" necessary? At least on my computer, removing it doesn't change the display of the table. Any objections to removing it from the template?
• Any objections to removing the apostrophes around numbers (for example "rowspan=3" instead of "rowspan="3"" from the template? I find the table code easier to read without them.

Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Neither are necessary in my opinion as they don't change the display of the table. LTFC 95 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, LTFC 95. If there are no objections, I will modify the template accordingly later. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The quotes around the number for colspan, as colspan="3"<nowiki>, are needed. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 06:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC) :::That is why? [[User:Kante4|Kante4]] ([[User talk:Kante4|talk]]) 07:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC) ::::[[Help:Table#Cells spanning multiple rows or columns]] would suggest the quotes are not needed. cheers, [[User:Struway2|Struway2]] ([[User talk:Struway2|talk]]) 07:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC) == collapsible stats tables == I am not sure, but I didn't think you were allowed collapsible stats tables, there is one on [[Alex Pritchard]], [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 12:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC) :Shouldn't: see [[MOS:COLLAPSE]]. I've restored it to normal display (someone had already uncollapsified it once before, and it had been reinstated). cheers, [[User:Struway2|Struway2]] ([[User talk:Struway2|talk]]) 12:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) ::Definite no-no. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 12:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC) :::k, need to remember that for next time, thought as much, cheers, [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 13:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC) == Courtesy note: AfD of [[FK Stanišić]] == Not showing up in your article alerts. [[User:L3X1|L3X1]] Happy2018! [[User talk:L3X1|<small>(distænt write)</small>]] 03:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC) :This AfD has been included in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves]]'s list by me. [[User:Hhhhhkohhhhh|Hhhhhkohhhhh]] ([[User talk:Hhhhhkohhhhh|talk]]) 04:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC) == Dundee Wanderers == [[Category talk:Dundee Wanderers]] notes that [[:Category:Dundee Wanderers]] is within the scope of WikiProject Football. However this category actually relates not to [[Dundee Wanderers F.C.]], which is covered by [[:Category:Dundee Wanderers F.C.]], but to a (field) hockey club of the same name. [[User:Dunarc|Dunarc]] ([[User talk:Dunarc|talk]]) 21:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC) :Since there is no article for [[Dundee Wanderers (hockey)]], seem better move the cat somewhere or deleted it (turn ((c|Dundee Wanderers)) as a redirect to ((c|Dundee Wanderers F.C.)).) [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 07:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC) ::To be honest I did wonder if the category is needed - it has one article in it (which could easily be taken out of it) and as you say there is no article on the club so a redirect to [[:Category:Dundee Wanderers F.C.]] might be the way to go. [[User:Dunarc|Dunarc]] ([[User talk:Dunarc|talk]]) 15:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC) == [[Naby Keïta]] == I have seen so many edits from IP addresses on Keïta's article implying that he is the new Liverpool player although his transfer to Liverpool has not been officially confirmed yet (at least until the upcomng summer transfer window). Can you admins please do something about that? [[User:DerDFB|DerDFB]] ([[User talk:DerDFB|talk]]) 09:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC) :The page has now been semi-protected for a week. [[User:Kosack|Kosack]] ([[User talk:Kosack|talk]]) 15:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC) == [[UEFA Euro 2024]] == Is it necessary to include a table of the Turkish candidate stadiums on [[UEFA Euro 2024]]? All of the stadium information is already included on [[UEFA Euro 2024 bids]], but ((u|Motuna)) has restored the table. The user has also added unsourced statements (e.g. "this is due to Turkey losing out to France for UEFA Euro 2016, and Istanbul losing the 2020 Summer Olympics to Tokyo"), along with quotations which do not directly involve the bid ("Turkey is proving that it is one of the world's leaders in its commitment to football infrastructure"). I previously removed the statements and copyedited the paragraph, but Motuna has restored their version. Thoughts? [[User:S.A. Julio|S.A. Julio]] ([[User talk:S.A. Julio#top|talk]]) 19:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC) :"Turkey is proving" definitely sounds like an editorial rather than something established in fact. Even if it was something sourced by citation, it would still be something in the opinion of the source rather than something absolute. Otherwise you'd need some hard numbers showing investment in football infrastructure or something of the sort. -[[User:Gopherbashi|Gopherbashi]] ([[User talk:Gopherbashi|talk]]) 21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC) == [[Egy Maulana]] == Could do with a bit of advice on this one. The page has previously been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Egy%20Maulana%20Vikri deleted via AfD]. However, there is now an international appearance, referenced by Soccerway, and the prose states this was against Brunei (the game happened since the last deletion). This is backed up by [http://www.skysports.com/football/indonesia-vs-brunei/live/385936 Sky Sports]. It's a bit odd though; the [https://int.soccerway.com/players/-/485072/ Soccerway profile] shows 14 minutes played of a senior game. However, the Brunei game is not shown on his profile. If you look at the [https://ng.soccerway.com/matches/2017/12/02/world/other-competition-matches-youth/indonesia-under-23/brunei-darussalam-under-23/2691108/ Brunei game], it shows it as an under-23 fixture. He was an unused sub for the [https://int.soccerway.com/matches/2017/11/25/world/friendlies/indonesia/guyana/2664053/ only senior game] it lists on his profile (against Guyana). [http://www.fifa.com/live-scores/international-tournaments/fixtures-results/index.html#month11-2017 FIFA] does not list the Brunei game on it's senior results page. [http://www.national-football-teams.com/country/87/2018/Indonesia.html NFT] does not have an entry for him, although I'm not sure how accurate that page is. The [[PSSI]] website [http://www.pssi.org/national-team/mens-seniors/matches/276 suggests] this was part of the [[2017 Aceh World Solidarity Tsunami Cup]] (an under-23 competition).((parabr))The page has been subject to continual vandalism/unsourced additions for the last month. If the cap is indeed valid, it could do with being semi-protected. If it isn't, then it should probably be deleted and salted. Cheers, <span style="background: #6fd6f5; font-family: Monospace;">[[User:Nzd|<span style="color: #98285c">Nzd</span>]] [[User talk:Nzd|<span style="color: #98285c">(talk)</span>]]</span> 12:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC) :He was a late sub in Indonesia's match against Iceland yesterday (14 January) according to Soccerway.[https://int.soccerway.com/matches/2018/01/14/world/friendlies/indonesia/iceland/2699993/] I'm not sure if this was a full international though. [[User:Hack|Hack]] ([[User talk:Hack|talk]]) 14:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC) == [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Spain task force/Spanish club names]] (relating to [[WP:KARLSRUHER]]) == Hello, I would like you to take a look at a draft of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Spain task force/Spanish club names|this page]], created by me - it appears that I am confused about the way certain Spanish teams should be displayed as what I have noticed on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Montero&curid=15885164&diff=820064211&oldid=819331301 the latest difference] by [[User:Quite A Character]]. The red text is the bit I am not sure on, and the question marks and ('Spanish equilavent of KARSRUHER') should be replaced with the appropriate word. I have noticed inconsistencies with the piping on certain Spanish club names - that causes confusion on my part. [[User:Iggy the Swan|Iggy]] ([[User talk:Iggy the Swan|Swan]]) 23:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC) :I'm not really sure what you mean here. While I don't speak Spanish, as far as I can tell, there is no direct equivalent to the Karlsruher problem in Spanish. The practice of using adjectives/demonyms in club names is far less common, and using just the adjective seems to be an accepted shorthand. For example, among current La Liga clubs, only [[Deportivo Alavés]] uses the adjective form of a place name, and shortening it to Alavés is common practice in Spanish. [[User:Sir Sputnik|Sir Sputnik]] ([[User talk:Sir Sputnik|talk]]) 02:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC) ::As far as i'm concerned, several users pipe ALL clubs in box and storyline. Me, for aesthetic reasons, choose to leave them in full in storyline and, 99,99999999999999999% of the time, encounter no "resistance" whatsoever while doing so. ::On a related note, I'll leave you with this situation: there is this article called [[CD Numancia]]. "Numancia" is not the name of any city, it being the old Roman name for the city of [[Soria]]. Thus, if the article is named with the "CD", why are we forbidden to display it in full in storyline (just remembered now, same goes for [[CA Osasuna]], from the city of [[Pamplona]])? Shouldn't we be worrying more about stuff like sourcing content in storyline and akin? Just saying... ::Attentively --[[User:Quite A Character|Quite A Character]] ([[User talk:Quite A Character|talk]]) 22:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC) :::The question isn't "why are we forbidden?", it's "why should we?". In English prose, ''which is what we're supposed to be writing in'', it's rare to see a football club name written in full, whether the main part refers to a place or anything else. If forms like Getafe CF or CA Osasuna are rarely if ever used in published English prose, we shouldn't use them either. Obviously, if there's more than one club from the same city, like the [[Merida#Football clubs|multiple clubs from various places called Mérida]], we should use the full name initially (both in the infobox and the lead section, and at first use in the prose) to establish context, and then use the short name thereafter. :::Incidentally, I googled Numancia on ''marca.com''. In running prose, they generally use just Numancia, not CD Numancia, both in their English-language and Spanish-language content. cheers, [[User:Struway2|Struway2]] ([[User talk:Struway2|talk]]) 15:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC) ::::Agree that we should pipe Spanish/Portuguese club names at all times. No reason not to. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 15:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC) == [[Portsmouth F.C.]] == I am questioning myself on a revert I did, I saw this IP editor has done a fair bit of work on the article, but I questioned weather this statement which I saw added in by the IP ('''Pompey was also a generic African-American slave name''') was that right to add to the article? I really didn't like hearing that so... Did I just revert because [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]], or is there something worse going on, on the article, is it being improved or vandalised? I really don't know if I am confusing myself over it or not!! [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 12:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC) :You correctly reverted that information. Its relevance to the football article was not clarified.--[[User:MarshalN20|<b style="color: Olive">'''MarshalN20'''</b>]] [[User_talk:MarshalN20|<sup style="color: maroon">✉</sup>]][[WP:3O|🕊]] 15:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC) == Two national championships in European football template == ((ping|Matthew hk)) ((ping|Nzd)) ((ping|Koncorde)) ((ping|Struway2)) ((ping|GiantSnowman)) ((ping|Quite A Character)) Hello all. Apart from a few exceptions, there have been no two national championships within a year in Europe. In Turkey there was the [[Turkish National Division]] (from 1937 to 1950) and the [[Turkish Football Championship]] (from 1924 to 1951). Thus they existed at the same time for about 14 years and there were two national football champions in those years. Now my question is how to put that into the European football template of a specific year/season. For example into this one: ((1940–41 in European football (UEFA))) I have added the National Division, but the Turkish Football Championship was also held that year. How would you implement it into the template? Any suggestions are welcome. Regards, [[User:Akocsg|Akocsg]] ([[User talk:Akocsg|talk]]) 16:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC) :I would go with something similar to the Latvia one so something like: * Turkey [[1941 Turkish National Division|<small>National Division 1941</small>]] * [[Turkish Football Championship|<small>Football Championship 1941</small>]] :Hardly perfect, but not ground breaking. [[User:Koncorde|Koncorde]] ([[User talk:Koncorde|talk]]) 16:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Sorry, can't be of any assistance there (i am as dumb as they come concerning charts and templates and akin), but thanks for "calling" me to the discussion). --[[User:Quite A Character|Quite A Character]] ([[User talk:Quite A Character|talk]]) 16:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC) :For Turkey, I'd say the following would work best: * Turkey <small>(National Division [[1940 Turkish National Division|'40]] [[1941 Turkish National Division|'41]], Football Championship [[1940 Turkish Football Championship|'40]] [[1941 Turkish Football Championship|'41]])</small> :Should be clear enough. [[User:S.A. Julio|S.A. Julio]] ([[User talk:S.A. Julio#top|talk]]) 19:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC) ::Or: ((Navbox |name=1940–41 in European football (UEFA) |title=[[1940 in association football|1940]]–[[1941 in association football|41]] in European football |state= autocollapse | above = ((align|left| « ((smaller|[[Template:1939–40 in European football (UEFA)|1939–40]])) )) ((align|right|((smaller|[[Template:1941–42 in European football (UEFA)|1941–42]])) » )) |listclass = hlist |group1=Domestic leagues |list1= * [[1940–41 Gauliga Ostmark|Austria]] * [[1940–41 Národní liga|Bohemia and Moravia]] * [[1941 Bulgarian State Football Championship|Bulgaria]] * [[1940–41 Croatian First League|Croatia]] * [[1940–41 Cypriot First Division|Cyprus]] * [[1940–41 Danish War Tournament|Denmark]] * [[1941 Estonian Football Championship|Estonia]] * Finland [[1940 Mestaruussarja|<small>'40</small>]] [[1941 Mestaruussarja|<small>'41</small>]] * [[1940–41 Gauliga|Germany]] [[1941 German football championship|<small>(Finals)</small>]] * [[1940–41 Panhellenic Championship|Greece]] * [[1940–41 Nemzeti Bajnokság I|Hungary]] * Iceland [[1940 Úrvalsdeild|<small>'40</small>]] [[1941 Úrvalsdeild|<small>'41</small>]] * [[1940–41 Serie A|Italy]] * Latvia [[1940–41 Latvian Higher League|<small>'40–'41</small>]] [[1941 Latvian SSR Higher League|<small>'41</small>]] * [[1941 LFF Lyga|Lithuania]] * [[1940–41 Netherlands Football League Championship|Netherlands]] * [[1940–41 Primeira Divisão|Portugal]] * [[1940–41 League of Ireland|Republic of Ireland]] * [[1940–41 Divizia A|Romania]] * [[1940–41 Serbian League|Serbia]] * [[1940–41 Slovenská liga|Slovakia]] * [[1940–41 Slovenian Republic League|Slovenia]] * Soviet Union [[1940 Soviet Top League|<small>'40</small>]] [[1941 Soviet Top League|<small>'41</small>]] * [[1940–41 La Liga|Spain]] * [[1940–41 Allsvenskan|Sweden]] * [[1940–41 Nationalliga|Switzerland]] * Turkey [[1940 Turkish National Division|<small>'40</small>]] [[1941 Turkish National Division|<small>'41</small>]] <small>(ND)</small> [[1940 Turkish Football Championship|<small>'40</small>]] [[1941 Turkish Football Championship|<small>'41</small>]] <small>(FC)</small> |group2=Domestic cups |list2= * Bulgaria [[1940 Bulgarian Cup|<small>'40</small>]] [[1941 Bulgarian Cup|<small>'41</small>]] * [[1940–41 Cypriot Cup|Cyprus]] * [[1940–41 Coupe de France|France]] * Germany [[1940 Tschammerpokal|<small>'40</small>]] [[1941 Tschammerpokal|<small>'41</small>]] * [[1940–41 Greek Cup|Greece]] * [[1940–41 Magyar Kupa|Hungary]] * [[1940–41 Coppa Italia|Italy]] * [[1940–41 Maltese FA Trophy|Malta]] * [[1940–41 Irish Cup|Northern Ireland]] * Norway [[1940 Norwegian Football Cup|<small>'40</small>]] * [[1940–41 Taça de Portugal|Portugal]] * [[1940–41 FAI Cup|Republic of Ireland]] * [[1940–41 Cupa României|Romania]] * Spain [[1940 Copa del Generalísimo|<small>'40</small>]] [[1941 Copa del Generalísimo|<small>'41</small>]] * [[1940–41 Swiss Cup|Switzerland]] * Sweden [[1941 Svenska Cupen|<small>'41</small>]])) ::Either way should be fine I would have thought. <span style="background: #6fd6f5; font-family: Monospace;">[[User:Nzd|<span style="color: #98285c">Nzd</span>]] [[User talk:Nzd|<span style="color: #98285c">(talk)</span>]]</span> 19:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks for all the suggestions guys, I will do it like that. Regards, [[User:Akocsg|Akocsg]] ([[User talk:Akocsg|talk]]) 02:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC) ((done)). This topic can be archived. [[User:Akocsg|Akocsg]] ([[User talk:Akocsg|talk]]) 04:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC) == 2018 Club Atlético River Plate season == Hi all. Me and [[User:FerchuJenson|FerchuJenson]] have had a discussion regarding his creation of the [[2018 Club Atlético River Plate season]] article. Argentina runs a 2017–18 style calendar league season, which already has the equivalent season article. However, FerchuJenson has created the 2018 season article due to the Copa Libertadores/Copa Sudamericana calendar following the January to December format and rumours that the Argentine league may re-adopt the Jan-Dec format for next season (2018, from July/August). Am I correct in stating this would be classed as [[WP:TOOSOON]]? [[User:R96Skinner|R96Skinner]] ([[User talk:R96Skinner|talk]]) 05:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Hi, FerchuJenson here. Just to make sure my point was clear (since english is not my mother language), Top League in Argentina may -or may not- change the calendar, but CONMEBOL (South American Football Confederation) has been using the Jan-Dec calendar (suitable from southern hemisphere) since January 2017, and the competitions organized by the continental authority have been held that way since the very begining of 2017. So perhaps it's not a matter of "too soon" but a matter of "should we guided by Argentine Football Association or South American Football Confederation?".[[User:FerchuJenson|FerchuJenson]] ([[User talk:FerchuJenson|talk]]) 06:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC) :[[Helsingin Jalkapalloklubi]] of Finland used calendar year to follow their domestic league. Seem using domestic league was the style. [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 02:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC) == Page moves == As I don't have administrative capabilities, the following pages should be moved to their correct articles, thank you: :'''Category:UAE Arabian Gulf Cup seasons''' should be moved to '''Category:UAE League Cup seasons''' :'''Template:Arabian Gulf League teamlist''' should be moved to '''Template:UAE Pro-League teamlist'''.--[[User:Bijanii|Bijanii]] ([[User talk:Bijanii|talk]]) 18:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC) :((ping|Bijanii)) About category move, you can consider [[WP:CFD]]; About templete move, you can consider [[WP:RM]]. [[User:Hhhhhkohhhhh|Hhhhhkohhhhh]] ([[User talk:Hhhhhkohhhhh|talk]]) 18:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC) ::Maybe [[WP:RM#TR]] is useful. [[User:Hhhhhkohhhhh|Hhhhhkohhhhh]] ([[User talk:Hhhhhkohhhhh|talk]]) 18:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC) :::I have moved the template. You'll need [[WP:CfD]] for the category to be moved. ((ping|Bijanii)) I see you have moved numerous categories manually – this should not be done. After an RM you should request categories be moved at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy‎]], which will be done within two days and then a bot will do the moving (categories of articles that have been moved without an RM are not eligible for a speedy request and have to go to a full CfD discussion). [[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">Number</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] 19:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC) ::::Didn’t know that, thank you for the informative instructions. I’ve requested the move now.--[[User:Bijanii|Bijanii]] ([[User talk:Bijanii|talk]]) 09:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC) == Gulf Cup of Nations == User Hashim-afc controversially moved the [[Gulf Cup of Nations]] page as well as each respective edition’s article without seeking [[WP:RM]], and was denied the category move request for the same reason. Should the articles be moved back and restored?--[[User:Bijanii|Bijanii]] ([[User talk:Bijanii|talk]]) 09:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC) == West Ham questions? == ((ping|Egghead06|Koncorde|p=)) (or anyone else): Just to note, I have a call scheduled with [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R0ShAAAACAAJ John Powles] on Tuesday. The main focus will be properly citing and correcting inaccuracies in the [[Thames Ironworks F.C.|Thames Ironworks]] season pages, but if there's anything particular you want me to raise, please let me know. <span style="background: #6fd6f5; font-family: Monospace;">[[User:Nzd|<span style="color: #98285c">Nzd</span>]] [[User talk:Nzd|<span style="color: #98285c">(talk)</span>]]</span> 23:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC) :I have Powles book "Iron in the Blood: Thames Ironworks FC, the Club That Became West Ham United", well worth reading. I used it for citations and info for the main History of West Ham United article. ((ping|Spyrides)) was doing the Thames Ironworks seasons at the time, but they seem to have gone largely inactive since 2015. It surprises me to see it isn't listed as a source. Also, say "Hi" to Powles, he answered a question several years ago regarding West Ham history - but for the life of me I can't remember what it was. Ping me on any pages you have issues with, if I have time I can provide any content from the book. [[User:Koncorde|Koncorde]] ([[User talk:Koncorde|talk]]) 15:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC) ::I actually have [[User:Spyrides|Spyrides]]' copy of the book :) I've gone through and added genrefs to the pages I where I thought it necessary and I've made a start with inline citations. If you've seen any other pages where it's missing, do let me know. Will do.. <span style="background: #6fd6f5; font-family: Monospace;">[[User:Nzd|<span style="color: #98285c">Nzd</span>]] [[User talk:Nzd|<span style="color: #98285c">(talk)</span>]]</span> 19:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC) :::Very useful hour-and-a-half on the phone with John last week, Notes [[User:Nzd/West Ham notes|here]]. I've made some of the changes and still have more to do, but need to clarify some points before making some of the others. <span style="background: #6fd6f5; font-family: Monospace;">[[User:Nzd|<span style="color: #98285c">Nzd</span>]] [[User talk:Nzd|<span style="color: #98285c">(talk)</span>]]</span> 21:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC) == [[Formose Mendy]] == After hours browsing the net, found one source for his spell in Egyptian football. However, a major (potential) cockup may be on the rise: the first Egyptian club he has represented is more or less certain ([[Alassiouty Sport]]), but regarding the second both SOCCERWAY.com and NFT.com have him playing for [[Raja CA]] (and there is this squad sheet http://www.worldfootball.net/teams/el-raja-sporting-club/ and this match sheet from the same website as well http://www.worldfootball.net/report/premiership-2017-2018-el-raja-sporting-club-zamalek/liveticker/), whereas the source I now added has him plying his trade at [[Tala'ea El-Gaish SC]] (please see here https://www.kingfut.com/2017/08/23/el-geish-sign-sporting-gijon/), two completely different ballclubs from what I understand, no? Assistance please, I'm a bit puzzled to say the least (browsed the web with news in French or English - my Arabic is so under the weather it should have its own climate - found nothing else than the aforementioned source), cheers --[[User:Quite A Character|Quite A Character]] ([[User talk:Quite A Character|talk]]) 14:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC) :Cairo based newspaper, Al-Ahram had him making a substitute's appearance for [[Raja CA|Ragaa]] in December 2017.<ref>((cite news|publisher=''[[Al-Ahram]]''|title=Match facts: Ragaa v Zamalek (Egyptian Premier League)|url=http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsPrint/282586.aspx|date=2 December 2017))</ref> [[User:Jogurney|Jogurney]] ([[User talk:Jogurney|talk]]) 16:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC) ::I can't read Arabic either. Nor can I find ''any'' [[WP:RS|reliable source]] in latin script that places him at Tala'ea El-Gaish. If I were you, I'd go with the reliable sources that all place him at Raja. cheers, [[User:Struway2|Struway2]] ([[User talk:Struway2|talk]]) 17:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC) ::Looks like he was at Raja by late September 2017.<ref>((cite news|publisher=''[[Al-Ahram]]''|title=تغييرات في الرجاء|trans-title=Changes in please|url=https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ar&u=http://massai.ahram.org.eg/NewsQ/50/241582.aspx&prev=search|language=Arabic|date=20 September 2017))</ref> [[User:Jogurney|Jogurney]] ([[User talk:Jogurney|talk]]) 22:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC) ((reftalk)) == Vandal detected == Please check the contributions of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:587:3113:4E00:E8CB:CB1B:4458:2607 this] IP. Thanks! Someone is using for a long time now, various IP's in order to add to various squad lists the name of a hypothetical player called Bruno Pereira, i.e. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2003%E2%80%9304_Panathinaikos_F.C._season&type=revision&diff=769744628&oldid=761188247 like over here]. I'm afraid that this person is doing the same thing for a long time!!! [[User:Pavlos1988|Pavlos1988]] ([[User talk:Pavlos1988|talk]]) 22:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC) :((ping|Pavlos1988)) not currently active so we can't block I'm afraid. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 08:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC) ::Just on this, have noticed that it keeps happening so did a google advance search and am working my way through all the Bruno Pereira to remove them from articles. Seems to be a common trend of the person not being wikilinked to an actual player, they are either from Portugal, France or Cyprus and they are a defender. You can see my [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NZ_Footballs_Conscience contributions] for how many I've removed so far. <span style="background-color: black">[[User:NZ Footballs Conscience|<span style="color: white">NZFC</span>]]</span>[[User talk:NZ Footballs Conscience|^(talk)]] 22:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC) == UEFA Nations League == Should we start adding Nations League into competition records sections of European national teams? Since this could be considered major competition (although it is more of a alternative qualification route for Euro) [[User:Nightfall87|Nightfall87]] ([[User talk:Nightfall87|talk]]) 10:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC) == John Wood == I find info about [[John Wood (English footballer)]] (http://www.greensonscreen.co.uk/gosdb-players2.asp?pid=902&scp=1,2,3,4,5,6,7). I would like to expand the article by adding a section called "career", but I was not able to rewrite it so as not to copy and paste. Someone offers to help with that? I am not a native speaker of English. Thanks you. --[[User:Metrónomo|Metrónomo's ''truth of the day'']]: <span style="font-size:85%">[[User Talk:Metrónomo|"That was also done by the president" not an excuse]].</span> 09:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC) :+ http://bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/History/Players/Player.aspx?id=177 --[[User:Metrónomo|Metrónomo's ''truth of the day'']]: <span style="font-size:85%">[[User Talk:Metrónomo|"That was also done by the president" not an excuse]].</span> 10:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC) == [[Aymeric Laporte]] == Protection requested for his article until his transfer is resolved one way or another, thanks.[[User:Crowsus|Crowsus]] ([[User talk:Crowsus|talk]]) 10:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC) :((done)) [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 12:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC) == Michael Ballack == Can please anyone have look a ((User|ChocolateRabbit‎)) edits in [[Michael Ballack]]? He insists on shortening [[Chemnitzer FC]] to Chemnitzer which is just plain wrong (see [[WP:KARLSRUHER]] for the reasons why this is wrong). I advised him several times to stop it, but he insists on his disruptive behavior. --[[User:Jaellee|Jaellee]] ([[User talk:Jaellee|talk]]) 21:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC) As I've said it is an essay, it is not a rule or guidline and no one has to follow it. It is complete and utter rubbish -- 🐇 <b style="font-family:arial">[[User:ChocolateRabbit|<b style="color:brown">Chocolate</b>]]</b><b style="font-family:arial">[[User talk:ChocolateRabbit|<b style="color:green">Rabbit</b>]]</b> 21:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC) :It was a consensuses. Fail to discuss content dispute is a disruptive behavior and could be blocked. Since there is [[Chemnitzer BC]], there is a legit reason not to pipe it as per [[WP:KARLSRUHER]] [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 21:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC) :Nobody in the whole wide world refers to [[Chemnitzer FC]] as "Chemnitzer", it's 100% wrong as explained in [[WP:KARLSRUHER]]. Plain and simple. If you're having trouble believing this, check the [http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/3liga/vereine/3-liga/2011-12/chemnitzer-fc-63/vereinsinformationen.html list of articles] at the German sports magazine Kicker which refers to the club as "Chemnitz" (for the city), "der Chemnitzer FC", or "der CFC". [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 21:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC) ::Agree that for Chemnitzer FC it should be the full name, and not piped. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 12:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC) :::I agree for the most part, although after it's been established that it's Chemnitzer FC that is being referred to in prose, it should be fine to refer to them simply as "Chemnitz". – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 14:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC) ::::The first appearance of the name and in infobox should not be piped. [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 13:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC) == [[Talk:Leeds United F.C.]] == I was wondering if someone could add the archive bot to Leeds United talk page, as I don't know how to do it. Cheers. [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 13:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC) :Done (I think). [[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">Number</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] 21:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC) ::Cheers, hopefully that will help as it was getting a bit much on that talk page. [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 21:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC) == Soccerfacts.co.uk == What do people think of [http://www.soccerfactsuk.co.uk/ this website]? It seems to have rare stats, such as [http://www.soccerfactsuk.co.uk/s2003/player_details.php?playerid=3317 here], for [[Mark Molesley]]'s 2003–04 season stats in the Isthmian League Premier Division, but the website seems difficult to use.--[[User:EchetusXe|Echetus]][[User talk:EchetusXe|'''X'''e]] 14:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC) :Who's the author? Where has he got the info from? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 14:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC) :Blackfoothosting....seem some die-hard fans self-published source, that failed to upload a proper logo. [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 14:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC) == [[Persepolis 3–2 Esteghlal (2012)]] == Is the article really that noteworthy? [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 17:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC) :Nope. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC) ::I decided to PROD it, [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 19:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC) == [[Barnet F.C.]] #Stadium == I've done a little work on the article, but I was thinking about the Stadium section, In what order should the stadiums be? Should you have the current stadium first or the old stadium first? Just wanted some idea's on how to maybe rewrite and maybe improve that section. I am not that happy with the way it is at the moment. [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 21:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC) :Personally I'd always go chronologically and start with the earliest ground. [[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">Number</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] 21:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC) ::I agree - for me this is the only logical approach -- [[User:ChrisTheDude|ChrisTheDude]] ([[User talk:ChrisTheDude|talk]]) 21:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC) :::In general, I agree. It might be worth having a couple of sentences saying "they currently play here, but they used to play there" at the top of the section, but the overall body of the section should run chronologically. – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 10:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC) ::::PeeJay's approach is suitable - brief summary, then chronological detail. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 10:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC) :::::Yes, I agree with that too. Summary, then chronological.[[User:RossRSmith|RossRSmith]] ([[User talk:RossRSmith|talk]]) 23:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC) ::::::k, Well, I've had a start at it, after seeing the use of using '''<nowiki>((reflist | refs= )) where you can list the references in the references section with names, I rather like listing my citations for use that way now, so much easier to deal with an article that way around. Govvy (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Or Harry Wheeler Nickson exists, I think the article needs a good cleanup not deleting, I don't think the prodd'er did a google search. Govvy (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a good question about whether he passes WP:NFOOTY. Were Liverpool playing in a fully-pro league that season (1945–46), given that many players in the Football League North and South were guests? Number 57 15:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

He played in the 1945–46 FA Cup. Assuming that one of those games was against a fully pro team, he would meet WP:NFOOTY. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Not if Liverpool were playing in a semi-pro league. However, I'd say he's notable. GiantSnowman 15:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The guest players in the war leagues were other professional players, who just guested for clubs other than what was notionally their own. I think it would be disingenuous to claim that the war leagues were semi-pro.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

As long as a consistent approach is taken for every player - matches are either included or they are not. The article for Football League North and South ends with "Results and players' contributions do not tend to be included in official statistics." So I assume at the moment this project's take on the matter is that Liverpool (and all other teams in FL N & S) were not in a fully-pro league ? RossRSmith (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)