Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

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.
 

RfC medals in infobox[edit]

ALL INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENTS

There is a strong consensus to include medals from international tournaments in the infobox of soccer players and national teams, so as to be consistent with how medals are displayed in other sports. Some editors noted that such international tournaments would have to be notable in order to be included in the infobox; there does not appear to be a large objection to this point, though there appears to be no WikiProject-level consensus on this contingency owing to the limited extent of discussion on the matter. Editors are encouraged to discuss this point further in a follow-up to this RfC in order to reach a consensus on this remaining question. (non-admin closure)Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Following up on this discussion, which medals should be included in the infobox of (association) footballers and national teams?

  1. Olympics only
  2. Olympics and other major multi-sports events (e.g. Mediterranean Games)
  3. All international tournaments

re-listed by Nehme1499 12:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC); originally raised by Nehme1499 16:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Olympics only if it's what other sports projects are doing (tennis, swimming, etc.) for consistency. Otherwise, all international tournaments. It would be very weird to include the Mediterranean Games but not the World Cup, for example. Nehme1499 16:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Anything where you have a gold, silver and bronze. Other sports we include things like the World Games. If the international tournament doesn't follow this format, then it doesn't belong. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Lee Vilenski: {{Medal}} also has parameters for "Winner" and "Runner-up", not only gold, silver and bronze. So it's not necessarily true that a tournament that doesn't have a third-place match "doesn't belong". Nehme1499 12:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Olympics only and no need to link the locations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 per Nehme, as other sports are doing it also and i see no reason to only include the olympics. Kante4 (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 is the one we are using in almost every article, I don't see any reason to change it.Cracker-Kun (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 - Olympics only, otherwise where do we draw the line? It does not matter what other sports do. GiantSnowman 09:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 It should not be restricted to only the Olympics or Mediterranean games. Sea Ane (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 the Olympics give actual medals, other competitions do not. Possibly also could include Olympic-like events e.g. Youth Olympics, Summer Universiade (universities version of Olympic Games) if they have football events. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 - Actually, almost all competitions give out medals to the winners (well, sometimes they don't for when there is no match for a 3rd place match played, but 1st and 2nd get almost always medals, can't think of a tournament that they didn't to be honest, but I say "almost" in case I am missing some cases), but the point is that Olympics give only medals and not cups as trophies (unless people count souvenirs as trophies) and so people correlate Olympics with medals, because the tournaments in Olympics are not overshadowed by cups (medals only is still superb, by the way, and, of course, something much better than the old days, much less thorny, considering what the trophy used to be). I don't care if other sports are doing it, but I don't see why not all to not be added as long as you only need to click "show" so the medals to appear, as long as the articles don't look overwhelmed when you visit them... Nialarfatem (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Actually, Champions League (which I have seen in the infobox) only awards a trophy to the winning side, and cash to clubs based on performance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 per Nialarfatem. Also Template:Medals has parameters like "winner" and "runner-up" which could be used (and are used now) even if they didn't get medals. But they do get medals in every international competition and you would have to never watch a football tournament to say otherwise. Piotr Bart (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 If other sports are doing it, we shouldn't restrict to Olympics only for consistence purposes. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 From what I remember it was created for the Olympics and should remain as such. Govvy (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[]
    • It appears to have been added without discussion in 2009 (there is nothing on the talk page from that time). Number 57 10:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 per Nehme and Nialarfatem - other sports do, there is no requirement for the tournament to use medals, and the section says 'honours', not 'olympic medals' or whatever, so excluding major honours would just be a bit weird. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 Why should football be different to other sports? It’s a sport just like any other after all!--Egghead06 (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 Major international competitions such as the World Cup and Euros give medals, at least to the winning and second-placed teams, so no reason not to include them in the infobox. ComplexRational (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 Keep consistency with other sports that use the same style. Comatmebro (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 for consistency's sake.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 for relevance.--Pincheira22 (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 per above Dr Salvus 00:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 I see no reason we can't include them all, as long as the ones we include are sufficiently notable of course. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]
With the RfC over, can we say that there is consensus for option 3? Nehme1499 21:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I re-listed the discussion. Nehme1499 12:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I fixed the relisting, partly so that something meaningful shows at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture (see WP:RFCBRIEF), and partly so that the original inward links will still work. Also, there should be no need to churn the rfcid for a simple relisting - just reuse the previous {{rfc}} parameters exactly as they had been before the rfc was delisted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 - No reason presented why it should be restricted. (Summoned by bot) Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 - Per the various comments above and for consistency with other sports. Note also that this can naturally be limited in the same way as "International" part of "Honours" section on player articles already is (i.e., Global, Confederation, Subconfederation and other competitive (i.e., non-friendly) tournaments. Macosal (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggested improvement to national team tournament format[edit]

First of all, and let me make is clear: Every tournament and national team page will appear exactly as it does now. The objective of the suggested change is reducing edit labor, keeping more pages updated & increase reliability.


Current state of affairs

For every match in every tournament, we create at least 5 almost identical Template:Football box \ Template:Football box collapsible match boxes. 1 in the tournament page, 1 in each national team "Results and fixtures" section and 1 in each of the national teams "Templatonia football team results" page. Each of these boxes needed to be maintained separately and all holding the exact same information, with the exaption of the |result= parameter.


Example
France vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina
  1. 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group D § Matches
  2. France national football team § 2021
  3. France national football team results (2020–present) § 2021
  4. 2020–21 in French football § Group D
  5. Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team § 2021
  6. Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team results (2020–present) § 2021


The suggested change

Create a templated page in the same format of the one used for group tables, but for matches (exampled below). We can create wither one page per tournament, per tournament stage, per group or how ever we can agree to divide the tournament matches. In doing so, we keep all template functionalities we currently have and gain the ability to transclude them into pages. In doing so, updating a match like the one of France vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina would have required just one major edit, instead of 6.


Template example
{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#switch: {{{1}}} | GER_FRA = {{football box collapsible | id         = Germany v France | round      = {{#if:{{{round|}}}|ROUND}} | date       = DATE | time       = TIME | score      = SCORE | report     = REPORT | team1      = {{#if:{{{team1|}}}|Germany {{flagdeco|GER}}|{{fb-rt|GER}}}} | goals1     = SCORER_1 | team2      = {{#if:{{{team2|}}}|{{Flagu|France}}|{{fb|FRA}}}} | goals2     = SCORER_2 | stadium    = STADIUM | location   = LOCATION | attendance = ATTENDANCE | referee    = REFEREE | format     = {{#if:{{{round|}}}|1|}} | bg         = {{{bg}}} | result     = {{{result}}} | class      = {{#if:{{{class|}}}|{{{class}}}|uncollapsed}} | note       = {{small|[[Draft:New football tournament match format|V]] • [[Draft talk:New football tournament match format|T]]}} }} | ITA_ESP = {{football box collapsible | id         = Italy v Spain | round      = {{#if:{{{round|}}}|ROUND}} | date       = DATE | time       = TIME | score      = SCORE | report     = REPORT | team1      = {{#if:{{{team1|}}}|Italy {{flagdeco|ITA}}|{{fb-rt|ITA}}}} | goals1     = SCORER_1 | team2      = {{#if:{{{team2|}}}|{{Flagu|Spain}}|{{fb|ESP}}}} | goals2     = SCORER_2 | stadium    = STADIUM | location   = LOCATION | attendance = ATTENDANCE | referee    = REFEREE | format     = {{#if:{{{round|}}}|1|}} | bg         = {{{bg}}} | result     = {{{result}}} | class      = {{#if:{{{class|}}}|{{{class}}}|uncollapsed}} | note       = {{small|[[Draft:New football tournament match format|V]] • [[Draft talk:New football tournament match format|T]]}} }} }}<noinclude> 


Parameters
  • To be set in the template
    • GER_FRA - Section name, the code used to transclude the match.
    • id - Unique anchor to the match. Example: |id="Germany v France"
    • round - The link that will apear on the left hand side of the matchbox box, when wanted.
    • date - Date of the match. Use {{Start date}} (with df=y or mf=y; see: WP:ENGVAR)
    • time - time of the match. Use {{Start date}} (with df=y or mf=y; see: WP:ENGVAR)
    • score - The final score of the match. If the match went into extra time (and possibly penalties) the aet parameter should be set to yes.
    • report - An external link to an official match report or box score. It is important that match information be referenced, so please use this parameter! (See also: Verifiability and No Original Research)
    • team1 and team2 - Typically team1 is the home team. Both should be wikilinked to a team page if there is one.
    • goals1 and goals2 - Goals scored and optionally cards issued. Use {{goal}}, {{yel}}, and {{sent off}} with the last name (or professional name) of the player involved. Create a list (lines starting with *) if multiple players are listed. If a player scores more than one goal (or cards) these can be grouped together so that the player's name only appears once. This is not required though. Preference should be given to listing goals (and cards) in chronological order.
    • location & stadium - If location is not specified, the value of stadium will appear at the top of the far right column "above the fold". If location is specified, then only the location value will appear "above the fold" on the right, and the value of stadium will be shown with the prefix "Stadium:" beside it only when the box score is expanded.
    • attendance - Match attendance as reported in the match report.
    • referee - Name of head referee (wikilinked only if there is a page for the referee or you intend to create it soon). The referee's national federation in parenthesis is optional but recommended when the box score is for an international competition.
    • format - Automatic parameter, expands "round" width when it is used.
    • note - Adds V & T links as notes.
  • To be set by the caller (optional)
    • bg - Use this param to specify a custom background color (ignored if result is specified). Use RRGGBB values without the # sign. Example: |bg=99C0B0
    • result - Adjusts background color to indicate win (green), draw/tie (yellow), loss (red) or void/postponement (grey). Possible values: W, L, T, D, V or P. See the Legend section below when using this parameter.
    • class - Use this if you do not want the template collapsed. The options are "uncollapsed" (removal of collapse function), "collapsible" (box can be collapsed, but by default is not) and "collapsible collapsed" (box is initially collapsed). If unused, the parameter will default to "uncollapsed". Example: |class=collapsible
    • team1 and team2 - Allows to unlink team1 and \ or team2.


Usage
{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA}} {{Draft:New football tournament match format|ITA_ESP}} 


Result
DATE Germany  SCORE  France LOCATION
TIME SCORER_1 REPORT SCORER_2 Stadium: STADIUM
Attendance: ATTENDANCE
Referee: REFEREE
Note:
DATE Italy  SCORE  Spain LOCATION
TIME SCORER_1 REPORT SCORER_2 Stadium: STADIUM
Attendance: ATTENDANCE
Referee: REFEREE
Note:
Usage examples
{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|class="collapsible collapsed"}} — Makes transcluded box "collapsible collapsed" 
{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|class="collapsible collapsed"|result=W}} — Indicates Win 
{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|class="collapsible collapsed"|result=D}} — Indicates Draw 
{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|class="collapsible collapsed"|result=L}} — Indicates loss 
{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|class="collapsible collapsed"|bg=EEEEEE}} — Inserts background color 
{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|class="collapsible collapsed"|round=1}} — Shows "round" 
{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|team1=1}} — Neutralizes team1 link 
DATE Germany SCORE  France LOCATION
TIME (GER time) SCORER_1 REPORT SCORER_2 Stadium: STADIUM
Attendance: ATTENDANCE
Referee: REFEREE
Note:
{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|team2=1}} — Neutralizes team2 link 
DATE Germany  SCORE  France LOCATION
TIME (FRA time) SCORER_1 REPORT SCORER_2 Stadium: STADIUM
Attendance: ATTENDANCE
Referee: REFEREE
Note:
Conclusion

This format will allow us to keep information updated with less work and less code, while making it easier to make sure that the "report" of each game is a live link, as they will be concentrated in one place. With all template functionalities staying intact, I believe this will could make tournament easier to maintain. Deancarmeli (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]


Comments
I would suggest waiting until the current TfD on one of you previous and very similar suggestions has been concluded before suggesting another. Those national team results articles you've quoted don't meet WP:ACCESS or MOS:LIST and should be updated accordingly. The most recent discussion (as far as I'm aware) on the issue resulted in consensus to use tables and not football boxes (available here). I think it's admirable that you are trying to make things more efficient for editors but any new template should first meet the established policies and guidelines and I'm afraid this one doesn't. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion that you've linked did not reach a consensus - just fyi. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It didn't result in consensus to use the table originally suggested but it does say: No consensus ... unless the table is edited to include all the info presented in the template (my emphasis) which means consensus to use a modified version. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Though a lot of those approving of the table format were solely in favour of it to be used in specific national team results pages, not on the national team pages itself therefore an improved version of the template is still useful. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Also, an accepted table showing all of the same information as the template has yet to be produced. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The table that is now used at Argentina national football team results (2020–present) has been edited to include all the information in the footballbox template. It works as a compromise so I see no reason why it couldn't become an accepted version. But yes, this part would only affect the results pages and not the parent article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Stevie fae Scotland: Without even addressing that this table doesn't go against WP:ACCESS or MOS:LIST, it DOES comply completely with the Manual of style for national teams. By your arguments in the previous discussion, that is reason enough to use it. If you'd like to start talking about merits now and not just precedents, that's fine too. Deancarmeli (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If you had read my previous comment, you would see I said this part would only affect the results pages. I'm not arguing about the main pages, but if the suggested usage is for lists of national team results then I would be against because it does not meet WP:ACCESS or MOS:LIST. It is specifically mentioned at WP:WHENTABLE that lists of sports results should be recorded in tables and the process of promoting Gibraltar national football team results to a featured list resulted in a change from the football box template to tables (available here). Keep it uncollapsed and then at least readers can access the information but no one has ever been able to demonstrate to me that the football box fits with MOS:LIST. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You are taking the discussion to the wrong place. This project currently uses Template:Football box & Template:Football box collapsible. This suggestion will keep things as they are visually while providing several advantages. Please keep the discussion within this scope. Deancarmeli (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm not saying there is no acceptable use for football boxes but, essential, your proposal is that we should use them for x and I've explained why that would go against the established policies and guidelines as well as previous consensus. If that's not "within this scope" then I'm not sure what is. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Stevie fae Scotland: Enough.

You are being destructive, not constructive.

You can't just claim policies are on your side. Per WP:JUSTAPOLICY: "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy."

More over, per WP:WORKINPROGRESS: "...in airing their complaints, they frequently miss out one crucial detail: Wikipedia is not finished. Not even close. In fact, we're barely getting started.". This is a small step to get Wikipedia better. it improves upon what exists now while keeping its appearance. All your objections to that appearance should be made in a different discussion that you are welcome to start. This template won't make this project perfect. It aims at improving upon the current state of affairs, with a small change the will bring some benefits with it. Keep it to this scope.

Finally, stop holding the stick on both ends. You can't claim that everything must be done accordance to the MoS [1] and then argue here that the MoS shouldn't be adhered to when it specifically calls to use the matchbox templates. This is simply disruptive. Deancarmeli (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Can I apologise if my tone has come across as unconstructive? It's not always easy to get it right in text and that was not my intention. I accept I haven't properly asserted why it would be against WP:ACCESS but I have explained why it would contravene MOS:LIST: It is specifically mentioned at WP:WHENTABLE that lists of sports results should be recorded in tables. I also accept I could have explained this better, MOS:TABLES is a specific consideration included in MOS:LIST and there are no accepted list formats that are similar to the football box style. I think I have been clear though that I am not arguing against the MOS for national team articles (this part would only affect the results pages), I am arguing that this shouldn't be used for lists of national team results as proposed. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The problem with citing a page like MOS:TABLES is that when all you hold is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

The importance of actually linking to the policies you're mentioning, in addition to quoting from them, is that your arguments can be refuted. Take WP:WHENTABLE for example: "Often a list is best left as a list. Before reformatting a list into table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.". In our case, the use of a list of templates is clear, clean and conveys relative information with an option to expand upon it. it is similar to "Avoid cramming too much detailed information into individual table entries; if appropriate, the reader should be able to click a Wikilink to read a full, detailed article corresponding to a concise table entry.", again from WP:WHENTABLE.

In our case, not just that the non-existent table will bee seen without its header for many entries, This existing template format build upon a current format, and have some benefits — including reducing edit labor, keeping more pages updated & increasing reliability — that you simply insist upon ignoring.

So please, if you insist upon taking part in this discussion: Stay within the scope of this discussion. This is the 3rd time that I'm asking that of you in this very discussion. If you cite policies, link to them and quote from them. Otherwise it could be seen as WP:LIARLIARPANTSONFIRE. Deancarmeli (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Okay, I'll play. The use of a list of templates which are autocollapsed is not clear. Per ACCESS Auto-collapsed (pre-collapsed) elements should not be used to hide content in the article's main body. Why have a list of football results if you're going to hide the attendance, the goalscorers, the stadium etc? That is the main body of the list so it only acts as a barrier between the reader and the information. (I would however presume from this that the collapsible format would be acceptable on the national team article as it is not the main body hence its inclusion in the MOS). The football box template renders as a table so is subject to MOS:TABLES and, as a result, Table captions and column and row headers should be succinct and self explanatory and used on all data tables. The football box has no row or column headers so it only conveys relative information to people who understand football. We shouldn't assume that everyone who reads Wikipedia knows about football and knows what each element refers to. Per WP:WHENTABLE, the specific example given for the appropriate use of a Multi-column sortable standard table is a list of sporting results. What makes football special that we shouldn't utilise what has been highlighted as appropriate for articles which include sports results? There are also a number of appropriate list formats listed at MOS:LIST but none are like the football box format (See list styles for the full list). I fully agree that we should Avoid cramming too much detailed information into individual table entries, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information after all. However, the consensus following this discussion is to include all the information that the football box template has parameters for. As an ACCESS concern, it had been pointed out to me previously, and this is a few years ago, that screen readers didn't work as well with the football box as they do with a regular table. I don't know if this has been resolved since or if there is a way to fix it so I would appreciate any further information on that. Whether or not the football box is "clean" or not is purely opinion. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Stevie fae Scotland:I'm sorry, but this is clearly a WP:DONTGETIT ("Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time-wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is.").

This discussion is NOT about Football boxes vs. tables.

This discussion is about whether we should keep creating 6 identical Football boxes like we do now, or create 1 Football box and transclude it 6 times. This is the discussion, and nothing else. I can't state it any clearer. Deancarmeli (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

And I have told you why it's inappropriate to use football boxes in the way you are proposing. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Stevie fae Scotland: WP:READFIRST: "Familiarizing yourself with a discussion before participating makes it easier to build consensus." If you would have looked at the provided links in the discussion opening message, you would have seen that the usage of Football boxes is the current norm & part of the Manual of style for National teams. They are also used in other pages i the same manner. Now, please, for at least the fourth time in this very discussion, stick to the issue this discussion was opened for, and to the ONLY question in it:

Should we keep creating 6 identical Football boxes like we do now, or create 1 Football box and transclude it 6 times? Deancarmeli (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

And as I've said three times now, I've argued against using this template in national team results articles. So no, we shouldn't be creating 6 identical Football boxes because two of them shouldn't exist in the first place. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Feel free to open up a separate discussion about that. It has nothing to do with the discussion I've started here. Let's follow WP:EXHAUST and "Keep discussions focused". Your wish to change the current state in one way has noting to do with my suggestion to change it in another. This discussion is about my suggestion. Deancarmeli (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Argentina national football team results (2020–present) is not good in mobile view and in my opinion might violate WP:ACCESS for mini readers. Deancarmeli, seriously, I am getting fed up with all your templates now, it's starting to bug me out! Give it a rest please. Govvy (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Govvy: Thank you for your constructive comment.

      WP:IDONTLIKEIT: "It's annoying."

      WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR: "A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself. Though the suitability of other related articles may be mentioned during the discussion, and some deletions are bundled with other articles, the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD. An article is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors. Even well-respected editors sometimes create pages that others feel should be deleted, and likewise, newbies and those who have created many unworthy articles still have the potential to contribute good writings and have made many really good contributions."

      Please, answer this discussion main question: Should we keep creating 6 identical Football boxes like we do now, or create 1 Football box and transclude it 6 times? or stay out of it. Deancarmeli (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

1: Stop pinging me,
2: You have the wrong end of the stick and I really don't think you have listened to other people. Now I am going to watch the second half of the England game! Govvy (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support This allows editors to update and maintain alomst exact same information in one place instead of six. Regarding the comments by Stevie fae Scotland - they are arguing how the match should be formatted on the page and not the subject of discussion here which is should the template be implemented. Currently, the six pages Deancarmeli linked above in the example all display the match in the footballbox format, and that is the reason I assume they formatted it in the footballbox way. The question isn't about the format, but if the information should be in a template which can be called on six pages with minor differences or if the information should be duplicated in six different pages. Regarding the format, that is a separate discussion, and anyways implementing such a template would actually help change the format if needed and keep pages through Wikipedia more consistent to the format. --SuperJew (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Suggested improvement to national team tournament format — updated[edit]

Added v·t·e boxes to matches, to make editing easier. Current code example:

{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#switch: {{{1}}} | GER_FRA = {{football box collapsible | id         = Germany v France | round      = {{#if:{{{round|}}}|ROUND}} | date       = DATE | time       = TIME | score      = SCORE | report     = REPORT | team1      = {{#if:{{{team1|}}}|Germany {{flagdeco|GER}}|{{fb-rt|GER}}}} | goals1     = SCORER_1 | team2      = {{#if:{{{team2|}}}|{{Flagu|France}}|{{fb|FRA}}}} | goals2     = SCORER_2 | stadium    = STADIUM | location   = LOCATION | attendance = ATTENDANCE | referee    = REFEREE | format     = {{#if:{{{round|}}}|1|}} | bg         = {{{bg}}} | result     = {{{result}}} | class      = {{#if:{{{class|}}}|{{{class}}}|uncollapsed}} | note       = {{navbar|Draft:New football tournament match format|mini=y}} }} | ITA_ESP = {{football box collapsible | id         = Italy v Spain | round      = {{#if:{{{round|}}}|ROUND}} | date       = DATE | time       = TIME | score      = SCORE | report     = REPORT | team1      = {{#if:{{{team1|}}}|Italy {{flagdeco|ITA}}|{{fb-rt|ITA}}}} | goals1     = SCORER_1 | team2      = {{#if:{{{team2|}}}|{{Flagu|Spain}}|{{fb|ESP}}}} | goals2     = SCORER_2 | stadium    = STADIUM | location   = LOCATION | attendance = ATTENDANCE | referee    = REFEREE | format     = {{#if:{{{round|}}}|1|}} | bg         = {{{bg}}} | result     = {{{result}}} | class      = {{#if:{{{class|}}}|{{{class}}}|uncollapsed}} | note       = {{navbar|Draft:New football tournament match format|mini=y}} }} }} 

New look:

{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA}} 
DATE Germany  SCORE  France LOCATION
TIME SCORER_1 REPORT SCORER_2 Stadium: STADIUM
Attendance: ATTENDANCE
Referee: REFEREE
Note:

All else stayed as it was. Thoughts? Deancarmeli (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]


Feature Added
Now, when using |team1=1 or |team2=1 the local time will be added to the "tournament time". This could be used to show local time only, if a discussion will suggest it.
Examples:
{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA}} 
DATE Germany  SCORE  France LOCATION
TIME SCORER_1 REPORT SCORER_2 Stadium: STADIUM
Attendance: ATTENDANCE
Referee: REFEREE
Note:
{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|team1=1}} — Neutralizes team1 link & Adds team1 local time 
DATE Germany SCORE  France LOCATION
TIME (GER time) SCORER_1 REPORT SCORER_2 Stadium: STADIUM
Attendance: ATTENDANCE
Referee: REFEREE
Note:
{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|team2=1}} — Neutralizes team2 link & Adds team2 local time 
DATE Germany  SCORE  France LOCATION
TIME (FRA time) SCORER_1 REPORT SCORER_2 Stadium: STADIUM
Attendance: ATTENDANCE
Referee: REFEREE
Note:

Deancarmeli (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Non-UN national football teams[edit]

Does playing for national teams that don't represent actual countries (like Martinique, Gibraltar, or French Guiana) confer notability for players appearing in that match per WP:NFOOTY? How can I tell if a match is FIFA-recognized? Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Non-FIFA international football may help. Clog Wolf Howl 02:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Gibraltar national football team are FIFA/UEFA recognised and play in the qualifying matches for those tournaments, so yes they count towards WP:NFOOTY. The other 2 mentioned are non-FIFA members, so I would say no. Technically they play the odd international match, but those matches aren't covered anywhere near as well as a FIFA or UEFA/COMENBOL etc recognised match. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
As Joseph2302 says, it's easy for teams like Gibraltar/Cayman Islands/Cook Islands who are all members of both FIFA and their relevant confederation. Players are presumed notable if they are capped by the national team. For the likes of Martinique/French Guiana/Tuvalu who are members of the continental confederation but not FIFA, being capped isn't enough for presumed notability under WP:NFOOTY. Notability is presumed for players capped in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA, or the Olympic Games. So when Martinique play in the CONCACAF Nations League or Gold Cup, the players used in those matches would be presumed notable because it's at confederation level. It wouldn't apply to players who are capped in friendlies or competitions below confederation level, for example, players capped by Kiribati at the 2011 Pacific Games. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Agreed, if non-FIFA sides play in continental cups they pass NFOOTY. Otherwise they have to pass NFOOTY through pro games or GNG through notability. I'm of the opinion that all NTs (even unofficial ones) should pass NFOOTY, but I don't think it's shared by the majority.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If by unofficial, you for example mean CONIFA ones (such as Sardinia national football team), then I would obviously oppose those players passing NFOOTY. Teams part of their respective continental confederation, but not of FIFA, who play in official continental tournaments are fine. Nehme1499 14:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Should we use Eloratings?[edit]

So I've been looking around through a few national team result lists (mainly Oceania teams), and some sources have eloratings.net in them. For me, I don't think EloRatings is that reliable. The only reason is that status of some games can be incorrect for some teams which their association has even fixed themselves and number of matches played. For example, EloRatings says England as 1,085 games played whereas RSSSF and EnglandStats.com both say 1,024 which is the number recognised by the English FA.

Or the fact that Cook Islands played a game against New Caledonia in the South Pacific Games "competition" that is considered fictional by the RSSSF therefore not counting, whereas EloRatings counts it as a "friendly" on a different date. The only reason for this is that this is clear in New Caledonia's list, but not Cook Island's list. This also shows that lists can be incomplete or just completely wrong. For me I would say RSSSF does a fantastic job of keeping track of official A matches for every association's national teams and we should keep using only that source + other match reports for any recognised international match instead of EloRatings. FastCube (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

RSSSF doesn't have complete lists for all national teams, though. Nehme1499 08:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Elo does often include matches that aren't considered A internationals but that doesn't mean it's not a reliable source. There are mistakes on RSSSF but it is rightly a reliable source. The main reason I use Elo is that it contains an up to date list of matches in chronological order and for a number of countries, the RSSSF lists stop in the mid-2000s. The Cook Islands list for example stops in 2004. Editors need to make a judgement call sometimes based on the sources they have and, on this occasion, those matches were included (it was done over 18 months ago for both and I honestly can't recall why they were included).
I think you're right to highlight the examples you've given though because their inclusion is dubious. I recently removed a match between Chile and Tahiti from the Tahitian page because its status was dubious so there's no reason we can't update and improve these lists when there are questions over the status of a match. I didn't realise there could be a connection between the fictional 1985 South Pacific Mini Games tournament (which obviously isn't included in these lists) and the 1995 friendly between the Cook Islands and New Caledonia. It does seem plausible that those two could play a warmup friendly in French Polynesia a few days before a tournament in the same territory. The 1985 South Pacific Mini Games took place in the Cook Islands as well so that makes me think the two matches are unconnected even though the score is the same. It is also plausible that this match (and others on Elo that aren't on RSSSF) took place between full international teams but record keeping wasn't deemed important because it was only a friendly and the only thing known is the date, score and location. Even RSSSF doesn't have full details of the 1971 South Pacific Games for example so it may not be that simple. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah, I guess what I'm saying is that Eloratings doesn't really show full correct info, but should be prefered to use RSSSF as the main source is what I meant. Also RSSSF could be helpful with list before they become FIFA-recognized nations which is then clear on the status of games. It can show those games before the FIFA affiliation so it doesn't matter if the list stops near the 2000s and all OFC teams are affiliated until 1999. What I mean is that before nations are FIFA-recognised (which means FIFA controls their statuses), it's up to the association if matches counted. Unfortunately there is no clear info for this (except New Zealand) and the closest thing is RSSSF (or Elo if it's not shown/unclear). Now, I do check two different pages: The match list or the competition page itself. I go for the one which is the last updated which could mean more clear info. We can use Elo but maybe just be careful of a few mistakes in it that really confuse the database. If both sources have the same amount of games, it's clear but almost all of them aren't. I think the information included in EloRatings is fine, except the status. I figured that RSSSF should be the only back-up plan to save Elo's lists.FastCube (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Fully agree, RSSSF should be the main source. If there are other matches that you're unsure of then flag them up on talk pages (I have all the Oceania ones on my watchlist so at the very least I can add my thoughts). If there are any that you are sure shouldn't be included, just take them out. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Adolfo Leite[edit]

Even though he played pro football (added refs today), does this guy merit a WP article? TWO Liga Portugal 2 matches (one as a substitute), and he did not even play all that much in the third tier or below that! In my humble opinion, does not pass WP:NOTABILITY by a mile, but i could be wrong of course. It's only one of thousands of articles created by User:Alexanderalgrim, who since he's here (ten years and counting i think) refuses to engage in conversation with anyone, even though his talkpage is overflowing with messages.

If i was wrong in removing the tags even after adding the sources, please accept my apologies. Attentively --193.137.135.2 (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

He has presumed notability under WP:NFOOTY as Liga Portugal 2 is fully professional. That notability still has to be established to satisfy WP:GNG though and it doesn't look like it has as yet. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Agree, WP:GNG is most important- we have deleted many articles that scrape by WP:NFOOTY for a few appearances, but clearly fail WP:GNG. On a cursory look, this player doesn't look to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't see an issue with the article being kept, obviously passes NFOOTY on top of a normal semi-pro career.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Name format of location of club vs. name of club[edit]

I came across an interesting situation and wanted to get more input. In the article page of the club Hapoel Be'er Sheva F.C., the name of the city is spelled differently than the city's article page where it is Beersheba (which apparently has been discussed many times on the talk page). In pages relating to the football club (such as Hapoel Be'er Sheva F.C., 2015–16 Beitar Jerusalem F.C. season, 2016–17 Hapoel Be'er Sheva season, 2021–22 Israeli Premier League) should we use the spelling Beersheba or Be'er Sheva? --SuperJew (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I would use the article title, so Tadamon Sour, for e.g., not Tadamon Tyre. Nehme1499 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I think that SuperJew is asking which name the articles should use when referring specifically to the city, rather than how it is written within the name of the club. So, should it say "Hapoel Be'er Sheva F.C. is a football club based in Be'er Sheva" or "Hapoel Be'er Sheva F.C. is a football club based in Beersheba". I don't think the suggestion was to alter how the name of the club is written..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Ahh got it. I would still use the article titles (so, Tadamon Sour and Tyre, or Al Ahli Saida SC and Sidon). Nehme1499 13:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Use the proper article link, rather than a piped one with a varied spelling, per WP:PIPING - so "Hapoel Be'er Sheva F.C. is a football club based in Beersheba". GiantSnowman 14:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Correct, you wouldn't say "FK Austria Wien is a football club based in Wien."--Ortizesp (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I think that the problem lies with the page name of Beersheba, and that a changed of it should be (again) argued, but whilst it is a cross Wiki problem – we shouldn't ignore the page's current title. Deancarmeli (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't think it's a problem. The way we refer to clubs is entirely separate from the way we refer to cities. We had this issue back when Kyiv was still referred to as Kiev. The club refers to itself as Dynamo Kyiv on its own website, so there was a discrepancy, but it's not a problem because the club name is not dictated by the way we spell the name of the city (nor is the city name dictated by the way we refer to the club). – PeeJay 22:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That is not our case. Both the club and municipality use Be'er Sheva, it is Wiki that uses Beersheba. Deancarmeli (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This question often arises in German football articles. For example, 1. FC Nürnberg is based in Nuremberg. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

And Bayern München is based in Munich, Bavaria. Clog Wolf Howl 08:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Clog Wolf: Though Bayern München is written and referred to as FC Bayern Munich or Bayern Munich on Wikipedia. --SuperJew (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the answers! My meaning of the question was indeed as ChrisTheDude wrote. I understand from the comments that should use the page name as it currently is - so right now "Beersheba". I don't intend to open the debate of what the name should be, whoever wants to is welcome to on the article's talk page. Pinging מחסל האגדות, who I had the misunderstanding with. --SuperJew (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The name Be'er Sheva is variant of Latin to English, Beersheba is a variant of Hebrew to English. Both uses are correct. :/ Govvy (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Actually, Be'er Sheva is an English transcript of the city's Hebrew name, but that is irrelevant for this discussion. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
What are you on about? Maybe you need to read Romanization of Hebrew. Govvy (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have. It lists the "Common Israeli" & the Academy of the Hebrew Language to use "v" for "ב‎", and the other sources to use "b" whilst the IPA is [v] for all. Still, after we had fun, it has nothing to do with this discussion that isn't about how the city's page should be titled. Deancarmeli (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I believe you have confusing between the Bet and Vet usage. There is the different of the dot (sounding), where as Latin uses a translation from Vet, while the English uses the Bet. Bet (letter), You should bare in mind I am Jewish, have been taught Hebrew and a little Latin. Not to mention I lived in Beersheba for a year! Govvy (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you, WP:BECAUSEISAIDSO, for sharing this personal "knowledge". As This is irrelevant for this discussion, I will WP:DROPTHESTICK. Deancarmeli (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Use the name of the club when referring to the club and the place name when referring to the place. Like Boreham Wood F.C. who play in Borehamwood. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Brian Calabrese[edit]

I can't see it, but does this one pass WP:NFOOTY at all?? Govvy (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Yep, six games in the current 2021–22 Liga Primera de Nicaragua. Nehme1499 15:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Don't think that's FPL? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
True, I misread. He has only played in semi-pro/amateur leagues in Argentina, so he doesn't pass NFOOTY. Nehme1499 16:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Is there any way of checking if he played a game for Atlético Pantoja? The Dominican Republic top tier is fully pro, apparently Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
He has only played 2018 Caribbean Club Championship games, against clubs in non-fully pro leagues (GSA). Nehme1499 13:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I suppose it could be argued that La Nueva and Interior show GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Review of link changes by 212.237.121.16[edit]

212.237.121.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has recently edited in fifty-eight changes that replace any external links to iraqi-football.com with ifa.iq. At a quick look into both of these websites, I cannot determine which one of these is supposedly more legitimate than the other. They claimed in a singular edit summary that ifa.iq is the "official website", but I was hoping someone more familiar with sportsball than I could endorse this mass change. See also their talk page, where I initially attempted to reach out to them, to no real avail besides the edit summary linked earlier. Perryprog (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I can confirm that ifa.iq is the official Iraq Football Association website. Nehme1499 13:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you! Perryprog (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Assistance with going through potential hoaxes in stale userspace drafts[edit]

Hello. I was wondering if anyone could help me go through these userspace drafts of Special:Contributions/JackWoodley93 and Special:Contributions/JASWiki. I came across JackWoodley93 with Sylhet United F.C, which I speedy nominated as a hoax. Checking the user's contributions, I see some of the pages were moved to JASWiki's userspace. With JASWiki, I've found hoax userspace material made by this user on places. Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, hoaxes aren't allowed in userspace. So far, I've found several hoaxes for these users and speedy nominated them. The football list is:

If anyone could help out, like the last time, I'd appreciate the help. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The East Ham one is definitely a total hoax, no such club exists and the text is mostly copied from Tower Hamlets F.C. The East Grinstead one is a copy of the existing article on East Grinstead Town F.C. with a little bit of fake info thrown in..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Dhanda and Merovci exist but have fake stats. Kolyugev and Eloundou are hoaxes. Dougal18 (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've had a quick look and all look to be false. GiantSnowman 11:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Blimey, what a load of crap to go through, the user should be banned from wikipedia as well. Govvy (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@MrLinkinPark333: You know, this issue feels like it really should be brought to the WP:AN board. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Govvy: The first user had been alrrady blocked for a different reason. The second user is inactive. I'd be more concerned if they were active, then WP:AN would be more appropriate in my opinion. However, as this isnt the first time I've found mass hoaxes about football in userspace, that might be an option. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Update: Thank you everyone for looking into these pages. I see that most of them are deleted. I also found Special:Contributions/MysticNinjaWiki edit multiple pages by the first user. Luckily, it's only two pages. It does make me wonder if anyone else had edited these user pages. Sad to see more footy hoaxes :/--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Notability of F.C. Clivense[edit]

Hi all, writing here to ask about the notability of F.C. Clivense. Somebody has created an article about this football club, founded by a former Chievo player and director, which aims to be an informal successor of A.C. ChievoVerona (which, for the record, has not folded yet, despite having been excluded from Serie B, hence the naming difference) and is going to play Terza Categoria, at the very bottom of Italian amateur football. I personally think it is not worth of having its own article, due to the extremely low level it plays and the fact it is a club with no history at all. Thoughts? (Feel free to name it for deletion, if you think it is a good idea, of course.) --Angelo (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I also believe it not to be notable, yet. If and when the club buys the license off of A.C. ChievoVerona, then we can create the article (or expand ChievoVerona). Nehme1499 13:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Clivense. --Angelo (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Junior/youth trophies on senior articles[edit]

Hello there, I just wondered why some national teams randomly have Olympic and Mediterranean Games medals listed on their articles? Spain national football team as an example got honours from 3 Mediterranean Games and 4 medals from the Olympics listed. As far as I know football at the Mediterranean Games are for youth teams and Olympics became a U-tournament from the 1992 edition and onwards. Shouldn't all the Mediterranean medals be removed and 3 of the 4 Olympic medals as well? I might be wrong here, but as far as I have researched, these are not medals that should be on the senior squad's article. Italy national football team got some as well, while some other senior squad articles don't. It seems very random. Speun (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Depends if those medals were won when the tournament was for senior sides, or after it became strictly for youth teams only. Nehme1499 18:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The 1000 Destubbing Challenge[edit]

Just a reminder that we're close to hitting 20% at The 1000 Destubbing Challenge. If anyone wanted to give a hand it would be appreciated :) Nehme1499 18:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Giuliano Maiorana[edit]

Hello, so two IPs claiming to be him and his daughter keep changing two things:
1. His nationality is changed from English→Italian (saying "although born in England [Giuliano] does not class himself as English. His parents were both Italian and he has an Italian passport" and "doesn’t own an English passport.")
2. His occupation at the time he signed for Histon F.C. is changed from working in a bakery→a clothes shop.

A reference has since been added to the header to support him being English but it only refers to him as "Cambridge-born." Interestingly though that source says he worked "hairdressing for eight months" then in an "Italian fashion shop called "Giulios"", not a bakery. Can someone resolve this please? 20:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The last time that article was edited was three months ago. Is this really an issue? – PeeJay 20:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The IPs started making these edits in 2016 and have continued in 2017, 2020 and this year. So no, it's not an ongoing edit war but it stands to reason they'll try again. 21:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This interview seems to be useful. He states: "And on the pitch I would be 'beaten up', also because I was Italian". It also confirms that he worked in a clothing shop. Nehme1499 22:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree, that would make two sources where he maintains he worked in a shop for Italian fashion items but the article currently says bakery based on a newspaper report from 1988 (ref no.4). And which nationality should the page reflect in your opinions? Thanks. 23:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be best to leave out his nationality from the opening sentence. He was born in England to Italian parents, so it doesn't seem easy to distill his nationality down to a single word. I would hazard that him saying "I would get beaten up because I was Italian" is a comment on his heritage rather than an explicit comment about how he sees his national identity. – PeeJay 12:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
He is English per this. GiantSnowman 13:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Raheem Sterling is also Jamaican per that site. If it is a reliable source replace the second ref with it (which just calls him "Cambridge-born"). In the interview Nehme found he's refered to as Italian and refers to others as English:
"I wanted to reach Serie A, play for the national team. I loved Italian football and when they asked me which national team I would choose in the event of a call-up, I replied that I didn't see myself with another shirt other than the blue one."
What about his occupation before his signing? 14:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
For players who were born in one country and played for another national team, we often just omit the nationality. Can't we just do that here? "Maiorana (born date) is a former footballer. Born in England with Italian ancestry, he played for ManU." Could be an easy compromise. RedPatch (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Because the Italian ancestry in the lede violates WP:MOSETHNICITY. He was born and raise din England, sources say he was English - does it matter that he bigs up his Italian heritage? GiantSnowman 15:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Just wanted to point out that not all countries have jus soli. Plus, we wouldn't omit the nationality of Thiago Alcântara or Raheem Sterling, for example. Nehme1499 15:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
From the same source: "Maiorana, before settling permanently in the United Kingdom, lived in the Altirpino for a few years: "From 1977 to 1981. We returned to England a few months after the earthquake". Of course, he never played at national level. 15:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

So whats the resolution to these, nationality and occupation before signing?
Ref 2 on the page supports clothes shop and ref 4 bakery. this unsourced interview also supports clothes shop. 11:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: occupation, if it's disputed, why not just leave it out? It's not really a big deal exactly what he did for a living - maybe just say "In 1987, he was playing Sunday League football when he signed for Eastern Counties League club Histon"? (albeit worded in such a way that it doesn't sound like he signed his contract with Histon while literally on the pitch in a game......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@ChrisTheDude: Good idea, could you change it or tell me how it should be worded please?
Lastly, what to do about his nationality? Thanks 14:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I would omit simply because we don't have a reliable source stating whether he is either English, Italian or both. I would then write a sentence to the effect of "Maiorana was born in England to Italian parents." Nehme1499 22:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That's the first sentance of the "career" section, I don't know if it's needed in the lede as well but what about omitting where in Italy his parents were from? Because I don't know if the source is reliable and it feels like excessive trivia.
And in response to what ChrisTheDude said does anyone know the right way to reword it without implying he was signed while playing a game? That would be everything. 23:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the nationality from the lede since 3 of you suggested it with only 1 disagreeing. Lastly any answers to the question above? Thanks. 01:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe something like "He had been playing in a recreational Sunday League football league, before joining ECL club Histon in the summer of 1987"? (The article reference is from December 1988 and says he signed 18 months earlier putting it around June/July 1987) RedPatch (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Ben Brereton[edit]

Just to remind people that this article should not use excessive usage of the name Díaz at this moment. Soccerbase plus his social media still has himself as Ben Brereton however many edits recently includes the addition of his mother's maiden name. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

One-club man[edit]

I know that a player is still a one-club man if he has played for the B team of the club he represents. However, is a player still a one-club man if he played for a "feeder" or "affiliate" team? Examples are Ray Gaddis who played for Reading United AC, an affiliate of the Philadelphia Union, and Inaki Williams who played for CD Basconia, a feeder team for Athletic Bilbao. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

No, it's a separate club. GiantSnowman 18:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If it's a separate club that is just 'affiliated' where they have a partnership (like send us your young players who need time), I'd say no. If it's a team such as Fort Lauderdale CF which is 100% the B-team of Inter Miami CF / Real Monarchs which are the B team of Real Salt Lake / Tacoma Defiance (Seattle Sounders FC) / North Texas SC (FC Dallas), but they just wanted to call the B-team something else, then I'd say yes. A good determinant is probably are they eligible for a domestic cup (B teams usually are not allowed). If they are, it's a separate club, if not it's the same club. For example, the clubs I mentioned are not allowed to enter the U.S. Open Cup (the US version of the FA Cup/Copa del Rey/etc), whereas a club like Colorado Springs Switchbacks who is only an affiliate of Colorado Rapids not a direct reserve club is allowed to enter it. RedPatch (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Alpha Oumar Sow (Senegalese footballer)[edit]

Hello. Can someone check the dates in the infobox for Alpha Oumar Sow (Senegalese footballer)? I'm unsure. Secondly, could anyone find where/what Sow is doing now? Is he still pro? Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The years seem to be in line with NFT's info. Nehme1499 07:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Nehme1499: Why did you move the articles, Nehme? Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Because it's preferred to use the year of birth as a disambiguator for footballers, rather than the nationality (which isn't as stable of a determinant). Someone could have double-nationality, or could have his nationality status changed; the date of birth, on the other hand, always remains the same. Nehme1499 22:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Both players have already played for their respective national teams, and will never be able to change... I don't understand your argument here. We have always used nationality as the first disambiguator if players are from different countries. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@GiantSnowman, Robby.is.on, RedPatch, Spiderone, Angelo, and PeeJay: Pinging other potential contributors. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I know from past Rename Requests over the past year, this community has been going with (footballer, born XXXX) as the norm rather than (XYZian footballer) due to the potential for representation switches and/or edit-wars (player hasn't represented a team and is a dual-national and two people want to each change it to their country, which is a bit subjective, while birth year is completely objective and unchangeable). I've been going along with this as the status quo in how I've named articles. I do see the merits of the latter though (nationality) and it probably does make for better differentiation as someone is more likely to recognize someone's nationality in a search rather than their birth year. There are definitely pros and cons for each method. I have no strong feelings either way and will go with whatever the consensus is. RedPatch (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't know what the naming convention is but I think DOB is better. If another notable Senegalese or Guinean Alpha Oumar Sow comes along then you'll end up being forced to rename them all to reflect year of birth anyway. It would be better to just go with year of birth from the beginning with Alpha Oumar Sow being preserved as a dab page with their current nationality mentioned there. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The naming convention for sports people (WP:NCSP) has nationality listed above year of birth. I don't know if that's the preferential order or if it's just the way it is listed but it is phrased in such a way that I would think nationality should be the primary disambiguator and year of birth is a secondary disambiguator. I don't have any preference though, they are both useful depending on the context. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Youssef Darbaki[edit]

The Youssef Darbaki article discusses a supposed former international footballer, but even the article itself now says "this claim cannot be proven" and that a claim to be a professional club footballer "can also not be confirmed". Right now the article cites no reliable sources about Darbaki at all (which alone makes it a WP:BLPSOURCES problem). The article was created in 2008, and shortly after was the subject of this discussion. Unfortunately all the references found there are now dead links, except for this story, which evidences only that he later became a high school football coach. It strikes me that, as it exists now, the article gives no reason to reasonably support the claim that Darbaki passes WP:NFOOTY. I'm inclined to sent it to AfD, but I thought I'd ask here first, in the hope that y'all have more up-to-date references that can shed light on this player and whatever notability his career may actually confer. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The article was created by a user named Darbaki, so I guess it's an autobiography, or created by a close relative. Especially has it has sentences like this claim cannot be proven, making me think it's own research from family history. Seeing as we can't verify they actually played a FIFA-recognised international match, I don't think it would survive an AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
There was an article about an Africa person in America coaching who was a real person, yet all the information on wikipedia prior to his coaching was actually fake information to inflate him. My gut is telling me, this happens to be another one of these articles that somehow got past a number of checks. From what I see, no one by this name has ever played for Sporting Lisbon and there doesn't appear to be any records for this name with either Marbella clubs. Govvy (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have raised the matter with user:Darbaki (who is still occasionally active on Wikipedia, albeit sporadically). -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Decided to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youssef Darbaki Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Fairfield Villa F.C.[edit]

Hi all, does anyone know if the above club has played at a notable enough level to pass WP:FOOTYN? I can't find anything from the cited sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

French and Portuguese sources for UEFA Euro 2016 Final please![edit]

Hi all, I'm looking for decent French/Portuguese language coverage of the UEFA Euro 2016 Final? My French is passable, so my priority request for help is with the Portuguese sources. Ideally something from the build-up, perhaps something of the main match incidents, and certainly the reaction to the game. Any takers? Cheers all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]