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.

Invitation to add content / 2021 in association football / Deaths[edit]

Bumping thread. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being worked on: 14:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Today I started updating January 2021 Deaths section of 2021 in association football. Right away I noticed there are many people to be added. Then I started more sections for Feb. thru December. So I'm asking for help here - anyone who can contribute, it would be great. Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For tracking, I added Progress section below. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Categories for players who haven't played for the first team[edit]

Background: We have always categorised players by clubs that they have signed for, whether or not they have played, and whether or not they have been professional, amateur, youth etc. Neither I, nor many WP:FOOTY members like the fact that we put categories on players who haven't played for the first team. We'd arleady discussed on in early February, finding no concensus.

How should we categorise footballer who just played for a team at youth level? I'll make a second survey (after the one held in February)

  1. Inserting a team's category for whom he only played at youth level (what we currently do)
  2. Not inserting a team's category for whom he only played at youth level
  3. Inserting a team's category for whom he's ever signed a professional contract
  4. Inserting the category for teams inserted in the "Senior career" of the footballer's infobox
  5. Creating subcategories for players such as: Juventus F.C. first-team players, Juventus Next Gen players, Juventus F.C. Youth Sector players, Juventus F.C. (women) players and Juventus F.C. (women) Youth Sector. Category:Juventus F.C. players would still exist, but being composed by the aforementioned subcategories.
  6. Any other suggestion. (Specify below)

Dr Salvus 18:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Discussion made prior to the RFC open[edit]

Neither I, nor many WP:FOOTY members like the fact that we put categories on players who haven't played for the first team. Example: Samuel Iling-Junior spent nine years in Chelsea youth teams without making the first-team debut. Why should the page have Category:Chelsea F.C. players? We'd arleady discussed on in early February, finding no concensus. I would like to revive the discussion again.

In Iling-Junior's example, I would put Category:Juventus Next Gen players (three appearances for them) but I would not put Category:Juventus F.C. players because he has yet to make his first-team debut. Any objection? Dr Salvus 21:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that we should week them in such categories, like Category:Chelsea F.C. players, because being a "Chelsea player" doesn't inherently mean you're on the first team of the club. You can be a "Chelsea player" and be a youth team player. From the moment the player can validly "I am a Chelsea player", I would put him in that category. This is my personal take and what we have been going off of for a while. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support removing categories for youth only player I agree that we shouldn't include categories for youth clubs, only senior. Iling-Junior has never been a Chelsea senior player or had a pro senior contract with Chelsea, so no one in real life would call him an ex-Chelsea player.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thing is, in real life, or as close to it as reliable published sources get, they do call Iling-Junior an ex-Chelsea player: Samuel Iling-Junior: Ex-Chelsea wonderkid impressing at Juventus, Evening Standard via MSN: "On the bench is former Chelsea forward Samuel Iling-Junior", BBC text commentary: "Miretti could find himself up against a familiar face - Juventus team-mate Samuel Iling-Junior, the former Chelsea youth winger who moved to Italy in 2020.", etc etc etc. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think being called a "Chelsea youth" or "Chelsea wonder-kind" is different than being a Chelsea player. Maybe it's conjecture, but I don't think many would consider him a proper ex-Chelsea player, or perhaps I'm mistaken. Like no one would say Harry Kane is an ex-Arsenal player, or Giggs an ex-Man City player, and it would be ridiculous to imply that. Players in List of one-club men in association football often play for more than one youth team.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the criterion should be having a professional contract, rather than playing for the first team. Most clubs have signed players who are put in the development squad but never make the first team and move on, but they were still professional players for that club. However, being a 10-year old on the books of the likes of Chelsea does not really make you a Chelsea player. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was he to be a phenomenon, no one may ever remember him as a "Chelsea" player. The 99% of a team's fans aren't interested in its youth teams. Dr Salvus 10:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would also remove categories when playing only in youth sector. Kante4 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll add my name to the "let's not have youth players in a category for senior players" list. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that such categories should be reserved for players who have earned a cap for senior teams, whether men's or women's. Youth club teams are generally non-notable, though some exceptions could be made. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then, I would instead include the categories for the reserve teams who play in a league which is in the national league system (e.g. France, Spain, Italy but not England) Dr Salvus 19:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about players who were with a club as a professional but didn't play any actual games? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's take Mohamed Farès' example. In January, Lazio loaned him to Torino until June. A few days later, he had an ACL injury which prevented him from making his debut. Since the player was assigned to the first team, I'd insert Category:Torino F.C. players.

Another example: Gabriele Mulazzi signed a professional contract in September 2020. However, he spent the 2020-21 and 2021-22 seasons with Juventus U19 and was promoted to the U23s this summer (and still plays Youth League matches for the U19s as an overage player). In this case, I would not include Category:Juventus F.C. players beacuse the player has not been assigned to the 1st team nor fielded by the 1st team. Dr Salvus 20:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the team is included in the "Senior career" section of the infobox I would include the category, even if the player never made an appearance for them. Categories should be removed if they only played at youth level for that club. Reserve team players (in senior pyramids) should only have the reserve team categories, not senior. Nehme1499 21:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nehme1499, take Brando Moruzzi's example. In January, Juventus purchased him from a Serie D team and promptly loaned him back to that team. This summer he made his return at Juventus with whom he was assigned to the U19s. He has never played for the first team but he's in the "Senior career" section of the infobox (because "youth career cannot extend beyond senior"). Would you really add Category:Juventus F.C. players to the page?
(And tbh, I've seen all Juventus U19's matches this season and, due to his poor performances, I do doubt he'll ever play for the first team) Dr Salvus 21:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been bold and have removed categories for the Juventus U23's players who haven't yet played for the first team. Dr Salvus 13:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That goes against current consensus. I'm not saying I disagree with the proposal, but it needs to be agreed upon. Crowsus (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have always categorised players by clubs that they have signed for, whether or not they have played, and whether or not they have been professional, amateur, youth etc. To do otherwise would introduce too many variables and therefore too much room for arguments and conflict. GiantSnowman 14:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The confusion is limited to current Juventus U23's players. If we don't get the concensus, I'll revert all my edits.
But I, Nehme, Redman, Jkudlick, Ortizesp, Kante4, Brazilian dude (from the February discussion) (and might be missing some other) do agree on not putting categories if the player only played at youth level. How many other users agreeing on do we need for a concensus? Dr Salvus 16:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the specific Juventus - if they are signed to the club at any level, put in Category:Juventus F.C. players. If they play for Juventus Next Gen, then put in that category as well. Same goes for Jong Ajax, Real Madrid Castilla etc.
I see no consensus to exclude youth players from categories. If a player plays for a club from 6 to 21 and never makes the first team, he should still be included - as should somebody who spends 2 years with a youth set up. Rule of thumb - if it's in the infobox, we should have a category. Otherwise we provide a incomplete picture of the player. GiantSnowman 17:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at this section and the different opinions it is not so clear to have them included if they just played in their youth. Kante4 (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need a RFC to change something like this that would affect so many thousands and thousands of articles. GiantSnowman 17:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Dr Salvus 17:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope - a RFC has to be done properly. Start a fresh discussion, clearly state the issue, and propose the options so people can discuss and !vote. GiantSnowman 17:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion made after the RFC open[edit]

  • Option 1 (kind of) - which is maintain the status quo of including a player in the club category for any/all clubs they have been signed with, because a) to do otherwise would introduce too many variables and therefore too much room for arguments and conflict and b) otherwise we provide a incomplete picture of the player. Rule of thumb - if it's in the infobox, we should have a category. GiantSnowman 18:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 exclude youth players from the category. So many never make it to the senior team so i think it's not needed to have them in the category. Kante4 (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 4 (which is really an Option 2a): if the club is in the "Senior career" section of the infobox, the player should have the respective categories. If the club is only in the "Youth career" section of the infobox, the player should not have the category. Nehme1499 18:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    this will then lead to argument about whether or not a club should be in the 'senior' section of the infobox... GiantSnowman 13:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Isn't that a subset of the already-existing differing views on "when does a player's youth career end"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Similar, for sure - so option 4 is just asking for a whole heap of edit wars... GiantSnowman 14:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 4 I and a few other follow youth football. In previous Samuel Iling-Junior's example: if he doesn't come back to Chelsea, no one may effectively remember that Iling played for Chelsea. Dr Salvus 18:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC) I've changd idea after the discussion with Nehme1499 and ChrisTheDude. Dr Salvus 10:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 4, I believe this could be managed as long as good sense and sourcing is used for the infobox. Youth section = No category. Senior section = Category. There will still be debates, mostly around the 'when does youth career end', and particularly for 17yo kids breaking through at a low level, being signed by a top club and being dumped in their youth team, many of whom never play for the top club's first team. I don't have an easy solution for that but I think it's important to bring it up. But it is pretty clear cut in most cases. I have been following the 'at club at any time' rule up to now but it has seemed pretty daft adding a Category for a player who is a sourced as playing for a really elite club, but in fact it was for a year at u13s and their career was otherwise at lower levels. Crowsus (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can I tell you the problem with Option 4? Do read what I said on Brando Moruzzi above. Would you really add the category in that case? Dr Salvus 20:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A double problem there. Had he still been in the Juventus U19s, ideally I would have put Juventus in the youth career section, but that seems to be considered an impossibility as he has already played senior games so his youth career 'has ended' - even though it clearly has not. However, that is moot since he has been loaned back to Sangiovannese, Juventus really has to be in the senior box as the loaning club, as you have done. And if he's contracted to a club in between making senior appearances for another club then yes, I would include the category. And I would add it for all the Chelsea players who went to Vitesse for 4 years until they were 22 but nowhere near the first team, as the loaning club was their employee and they were senior players. It makes more sense to use that existing youth/senior box as a category divider rather than... Actually where does your proposal make the cut? An appearance in any competition? A league appearance? A place in a match squad (this can be difficult to verify in some leagues and some time periods)? A senior contract (again, difficult to verify)? A certain age? Apologies if you did lay out the specific criteria above and I missed it. Crowsus (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Idk whether he's signed a professional contract or not. However, he's been assigned to Juventus U19 and I think (having seen his performances) that he does not have the capacity to get to play for the first team and that it would arleady be a miracle if he played for Juventus U23. Even should he ever enter into a loan limbo without ever getting anywhere near the first-team, I would not put the first-team category. Most Juventus fans wouldn't even be aware of his existence. Dr Salvus 00:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's the 100th time I say this: I'd put in the category only the players who have played a match for the first team (being called up means nothing imo) or the players who were meant to be for the first team (see Mohamed Fares' example above). Dr Salvus 00:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    who were meant to be for the first team: how do we determine that? It's extremely WP:OR. And what about the infamous 3rd-choice GKs? Do those not get categories? Nehme1499 00:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If the player is assigned to a youth/reserve team, I think at least a source will say this. If the 3rd-choice goalkeeper is always called up by the first team (except when injured), I do believe he's clearly a first-team player. Dr Salvus 08:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not every country, league or team has as much coverage as Juventus. We need to take into account "smaller" nations where it's not possible to do this (imo OR) analysis. A clear-cut method is to base the categories on the infobox. I'd rather include the categories for the youth teams than have to resort to personal judgement (he was called up 10 times, is it enough? Sources don't say if he's senior or not, what do I do? Do I open a new discussion at WT:FOOTY everytime?). Including either all the teams in the infobox (youth+senior), or just the ones in the senior career (my preference) leaves no margin for confusion. Nehme1499 10:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "If the player is assigned to a youth/reserve team, I think at least a source will say this" - that definitely isn't true if you go back more than about 30 years, even for "major" countries. I think if you go back to the 1980s in England, you would struggle to even find information on unused substitutes, so an 18 year old player could have warned the bench multiple times (which would suggest he was "meant to be for the first team") but we simply wouldn't know. And if you go back even further to, say, the early 1960s when there weren't substitutes you have essentially no chance of working out if a player who left a club aged 18 was ever "meant to be for the first team".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've reflected a bit and changed my optinion to option 4. I must've voted the option 2 because in Italy, it's quite easy to find info on those who only warmed the bench in a game. Dr Salvus 10:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ChrisTheDude, anyway, can I ask you what you prefer beetween option 1 and option 4? Dr Salvus 10:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If the <1980s dude in question didn't play a first-team match and left the club when he had the age to play for a youth team (Idk the maximum age in England of that moment) I would not add the category. Dr Salvus 17:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In England it was under-23, now under-21 - except for the overage players who play... GiantSnowman 18:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment (Option 1) Realistically, if a consensus is agreed to who is actually going to go through thousands and thousands of players on thousands of team categories. It's simply an impossible task given the current existence of these categories for youth players. While I would prefer it for only senior players, at this point we're simply in too deep. Even if you fix it for one team (for example Juventus) someone will come along and say we have the category for, for example Tottenham or PSG youth players that hasn't been fixed, and then re-add the categories to Juve youth players. RedPatch (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We explain the concensus was got in the edit summary, problem solved. Since you prefer it for only senior players, please vote either 2 or 4. Dr Salvus 22:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on my comment, my vote is for Option 1. It's too impossible of a task otherwise, in my opinion. RedPatch (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would keep the categories for reserve teams playing in a league that is part of the national football pyramid, but I would not sub-categorise them with those of the respective first teams. E.g. Category:Juventus Next Gen players would not be child category of Category:Juventus F.C. players. Dr Salvus 23:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it would still be a subcategory in the background, as that is how categorization works (a reserve team is unavoidably a branch of the main club), but the June U23/Next Gen-only players would not appear in the same category list as the first teamers, nor would "Juventus FC players" appear on their articles, which is the whole point of removing the youth-then-U23 players from the senior cat, and of course is already applied to those who sign and play specifically for the U23s. Crowsus (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Maybe, I don't understand your message properly). If we made an Eulero-Venn diagram on players who have played a 1st-team match, we could not put a subset with players who have played with Juventus U23 because most of these players are/were not good enough to play a match for 1st team. Dr Salvus 00:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RedPatch It's too impossible of a task read Nehme1499's today's comment. Dr Salvus 10:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still feel Option 1 is the best, yes there is no time limit, but I don't think it will ever get done. I also don't have an issue with having the category for the youth team. I feel there should be some sort of category (whether it is a youth category or a general one) RedPatch (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment the statement of the RFC itself doesn't seem at all neutral, particularly Neither I, nor many WP:FOOTY members like the fact that we put categories on players who haven't played for the first team. which is clearly pushing a viewpoint rather than being NPOV. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I vote for Option 1. The other options leave too much room for pointless debates and edit warring, not to mention countless hours of work in changing to the new consensus. Additionally, I think if we were to go down that route then it would make sense for a category for youth teams to be created. So this Fabrizio Romano guy would be in the Juventus youth team category, and only be added to the first team category if he were to make his debut or turn professional there. Maybe that could be option 5? But yeah, that would still leave us open to lots of debate and work. EchetusXe 12:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fabrizio Romano guy, are you talking about Brando Moruzzi? Dr Salvus 12:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1, if that means maintain the status quo, because it's the only realistic option, per GiantSnowman/RedPatch/EchetusXe etc above. Once upon a time, a decision was reached to categorise players by the clubs they were on the books of – not 10-year-olds who once went to a summer camp or whatever, but players who were verifiably attached to that club. Whether people liked it or not, it was straightforward, and it's generally worked across time and across place, apart from possibly at Juventus. Since that decision was made, changes have been suggested several times, nobody's yet come up with a functional alternative that could reach consensus, and I don't see one here. As to Options 2/3/4, the idea of blindly removing Category:Manchester City F.C. players from Jadon Sancho (an extreme example, but a valid one) might make our readers think we'd lost touch with reality. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't see Sancho as a big issue to be honest. It would still say in the box and in the text that he was involved with City. If we changed the rule and removed the category, anyone challenging it on the youth team basis could be directed back here as "he never played a first team game [and didn't have a senior listing for the club in the infobox (optional)], that's how it's been agreed to sort it now." It isn't much different to someone potentially challenging it on the opposite basis just now. Crowsus (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question – What is the functional difference between Option 2 and Option 4? — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jkudlick there's a little difference beetween them. Option 2 says not to use categories for players who played only at youth level. Option 4 says to use categories only for the teams who appear at the "Senior career" section of the infobox.
    The difference can be explained through an example. In January, Juventus bought Brando Moruzzi, who was playing for Serie D club Sangiovannese and promptly loaned him back to them. Once returned from the loan, he's been assigned to the U19s.
    Since his career had already started in 2021, "Juventus" must be put in the "Senior career" section of the infobox. With option 2, Moruzzi would not have Category:Juventus F.C. players. With option 4, he would. Dr Salvus 17:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Dr Salvus: Thank you for the clarification. My selection remains Option 2. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 4, the current status quo doesn't reflect real life. No one in the planet calls would call Giggs an ex-Man City player, or Kane an ex-Arsenal player, and if those clubs are mentioned it's exclusively tongue in cheek or calls them their youth clubs.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment, I see an incoherence with the Option 4. If we don't categorise Giggs as a Man City player because he played only at their youth, why would we categorise Moruzzi (should he never make his first-team debut) as a Juventus player just because he'd already started his senior career? Dr Salvus 18:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yep - what if Giggs had spent 15 years playing for Man City at youth level before making his name with Man Utd? GiantSnowman 18:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A practical consideration - not having youth players in club categories will really mess up searches from Wikipedia:PetScan. GiantSnowman 18:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
not having players in youth categories, so you want a category like Category:Manchester City F.C. Youth Sector to put Giggs onto it? Why not picking Option 5? But hadn't you said it'd be a "carnage" in February? Dr Salvus 18:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I want youth players to be in the 'senior' club category, as they always have been. Somebody tried to create something like Category:Celtic F.C. youth players a few years ago and that alone was messy - having one category for senior players and another for youth players is a terrible idea. GiantSnowman 19:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are you against it? Dr Salvus 19:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because you have twice as many categories, for no purpose or benefit. GiantSnowman 18:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We already have categories for youth national teams, it's not such an extreme solution. Would you categorize an England U17 international under the senior category? Nehme1499 18:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apples and oranges; we deal with club and international football differently and you know that. Also the current international 'youth' categories are much slimmed down from previous years, where there were separate categories for under-15, under-16 etc. GiantSnowman 18:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Straw man arguement, you still haven't explained why you view them as "apples and oranges". And you know that... yeah, I know that this is your approach, not that I necessarily agree with it. No one asked for separate categories for under-15s, 16s... only for one single youth category. Doesn't seem that unreasonable. Nehme1499 19:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
they are apples and oranges. Currently, a player gets added to club category as soon as they sign - but for international they actually have to play. We categorise international players by 'senior' and 'youth' because those are very well established parts of the international set-up, and super easy to differentiate between youth and senior international players. None of that is true for club players. GiantSnowman 19:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 4 – just like the article on a club primarily covers with the senior team (and youth/academy teams if notable have their own articles), the category should also reflect that, in my opinion. Per WP:CAT, the defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to [...]. While the strict interpretation of that would lead to wildly inconsistent categorisation, a slightly more relaxed interpretation still in the spirit of WP:CAT, but that creates consistency, would be to draw the line at senior career clubs. It feels utterly ridiculous to categorise a player based on the fact that they participated in a few youth matches for a club at the age of 10. That's extremely far from a defining characteristic of the player. – Elisson • T • C • 17:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you saying who spent 15 years with a club as a youth player should not be defined by that, but a 1 week loan spell as a senior player is defining? GiantSnowman 18:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    When I lived in Belgium, I had a friend who was taken on loan by Club Brugge just to play a youth tournament in which they were eliminated at the first round. Should this one ever be a professional player, would you really add Category:Club Brugge KV players just for that youth tournament game? Dr Salvus 19:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    probably not - because it would probably not be in the infobox. GiantSnowman 19:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Emanuele Pecorino was taken on loan by Milan for the Torneo di Viareggio in March 2019 (for whom he played only a match). At that moment, he had not yet made his Catania first-team debut. Should the loan for the Torneo di Viareggio be put in the infobox? Dr Salvus 00:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Pecorino appears to have had two spells with Milan's youth team, making nearly 20 youth appearances. So yes, I would continue to categorise him as a Milan player. GiantSnowman 13:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This subthread is an example of why I feel the conversation has turned a little WP:OR. We should be guided by the reliable sources. What do they say about whether Pecorino is considered a Milan player? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Barnards.tar.gz the article does say this on his Milan spells: In March 2019, AC Milan took him on loan for the Torneo Di Viareggio youth tournament. He scored a goal in the round of 16, in which they were eliminated by Charles De Ketelaere's Club Brugge. [...] In summer 2019, Pecorino returned to Milan's youth setup on loan; he scored seven goals in 14 appearances in the Campionato Primavera 2 – nine in 18 in all competitions, helping his side gain promotion to the Campionato Primavera 1. Each sentence has its source in the article. Dr Salvus 14:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's hard for me to be sure because I'm reading those through Google Translate, but I'd be willing to believe they both endorse the idea that he should be considered a Milan player. That's all I'm saying - we need to read the sources and let them guide us. It's not about number of goals scored, spells, or number of appearances, or whether the player was merely on loan at the time. It's about what the sources say. That will be more robust than trying to come up with our own rules for who counts as a player and who doesn't. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @GiantSnowman my question on Pecorino was Should the loan for the Torneo di Viareggio be put in the infobox? Dr Salvus 14:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Probably not - in England, underage players often go on trial with other teams and play youth football for them (a game or two, normally). It's a similar situation here? GiantSnowman 15:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No source said he did a "provino" (Italian word for trial). I guess a Milan observer saw him play, proposed him to Milan managers and to Milan U19's coach, who both decided to bring him for the Torneo di Viareggio. The strange thing is that he deal happened outside the transfer market window.
    If I'm not mistaken, in Italy, players on trial are ineligible to play an official match (they can train or play friendlies) because they are yet to be registered by the team for whom they're on trial. Dr Salvus 15:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Same rule in England (no trialists in competitive matches) - except for youth football, where trialists are allowed to play in the youth competitions. GiantSnowman 15:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: yes, that's exactly what I am saying. The 1 week loan spell during their senior career is more likely to generate multiple reliable sources associating the player with the club, than his/her 15 years in the youth sections of a club will generate. Just like sportspeople are not categorised by all the various sports they played at youth level (no matter for how long). – Elisson • T • C • 16:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hard disagree. As a quick example, Google Searches for 'David Beckham Tottenham' and 'David Beckham Preston' bring up about the same number of hits (just over 4 million each for me) - one was a youth career, the other a brief loan. GiantSnowman 16:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think that also has to do with the level/prestige difference between Spurs and Preston... Nehme1499 16:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah yes, because all those 4 million hits for DB and Tottenham naturally cover his career in the Tottenham academy. I Guess Beckham should be categorised as Swedish as well as 'David Beckham Sweden' brings up around 4 million hits for me, or 'David Beckham Hertha' and 'David Beckham Fiorentina' that scores around a million hits. Come on, you're smarter than this. – Elisson • T • C • 20:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What a stupid argument. GiantSnowman 20:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It wasn't really an argument. It just showcased the irrelevance of your Google search results argument. – Elisson • T • C • 19:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't see a huge inconsistency problem in following the definingness guideline. If reliable sources associate a player with a club, then put them in the club's category. If no such reliable sources exist, exclude them from the club's category. What problems would that create? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My main concern is that it would lead to a mix and match of whether or not categories would actually match a well-defined scope. E.g. if I check Category:IFK Göteborg players, would it actually list all Wikipedia articles we have for senior team players, or would some players be semi-randomly excluded because sourced don't commonly and consistently associate the player with the club? To clarify, with "reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to" I am excluding pure database/statistical sources. If I would include those, sure then I agree with you. – Elisson • T • C • 16:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To avoid such concerns - simply have all clubs categorised. GiantSnowman 16:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Define "all" clubs. – Elisson • T • C • 20:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Every club a player has been signed to, obviously - like we do now. GiantSnowman 20:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, that's definitely not how we do now. I would ask you to define "signed to", but let's just get straight to the point. In many situations, youth players do not sign anything. In fact, the Swedish FA explicitly does not recognise any contracts for players under 15. so your "solution" doesn't seem to avoid the concerns I had with inconsistency by strictly following WP:CAT. – Elisson • T • C • 19:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Every club a player has joined, not signed. I'd change GS' message. Dr Salvus 19:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It seems you don't want to maintain the status quo. Why don't you vote? Dr Salvus 16:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can’t imagine a scenario where we couldn’t find a reliable source to tell us which clubs a notable player played for. If there really were no such sources, they probably shouldn’t have an article in the first place. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I know hundreds of articles without information on the player's youth teams he played for. Dr Salvus 18:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So? If the information can be reliable sourced, add it (with supporting category). If it cannot, do not. This is simple. GiantSnowman 20:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Exactly. Those hundreds of articles without information on the player's youth teams he played for presumably aren't in the category for those youth teams, and that's as it should be. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 4 makes more sense to me. BRDude70 (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1a: Inserting a team's category for whom he only played at youth level if reliable sources associate the player with the club. So by all means include them in the category, but only if we can source that association to a reliable source. Debating the association feels like WP:OR. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 4- Only because I feel it is the simplest solution (is it not also basically option 2, only include senior and not youth?). I don't think a person who hasn't played for a club's first team can be described as a "club name player" and it is often easier to source if someone played in a game than the vagaries of football contracts. I'm not opposed to option 5, it just seems like a lot more work, adding extra categories for 1000s of teams. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 mainly because changing the current status quo would be unbelievably complex and also because, as shown above, sources often do describe players as "former [club] player" even if they only played at youth level. Option 5 would be madness - would every player who played both youth and senior at the same club need to be in both sub-categories? Whatever the answer is, I bet it wouldn't be consistently applied...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Would every player who played both youth and senior at the same club need to be in both sub-categories? why not? It's what we do with national teams after all. Most senior national team players have played at youth level as well, meaning that they all have two national-team categories. Nehme1499 09:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK, who would volunteer to go through and add separate youth categories to probably tens of thousands of articles? I know I wouldn't be up for that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question I know a person who plays in a Juventus Academy in Belgium. Should he ever have an article, should he have Category:Juventus F.C. players keeping the status quo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Salvus (talkcontribs)
    That's another thing I was wondering: do members of offsite youth academies count as having played for the youth academy? Nehme1499 10:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, some clubs have loads of those over the world, it's more like a training/scouting scheme rather than being signed to the club. GiantSnowman 15:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think there are too many variables which make the inclusion of youth team members to club categories complicated. Keeping it only for senior-team participations is the easiest solution. Nehme1499 15:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, it's absolutely not, which is why it is not the current status quo. The easiest solution is to keep the status quo, which is to include players in any club category if they have been signed with that club. GiantSnowman 15:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    When I was 12, I played at S.S.D. Città di Gela's scuola calcio (football school) before having an injury. I was registered with them but I did not sign any contract (my parents just paid for the scuola calcio). If I was a professional player, would I have Category:S.S.D. Città di Gela players? Dr Salvus 16:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How about you guys stop making up ridiculous hypothetical situations to try and promote your position? GiantSnowman 16:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not ridiculous hypothetical situations, its reality. Which is why your position of "if they have signed with the club" is 1) not status quo, and 2) not realistic to use as a criteria. Stop trying to bully people to agree with you. – Elisson • T • C • 16:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    GS, you have forgot that we all said in previous days that no one would for instance consider Giggs as a Man City players nor would anyone consider Kane an Arsenal player.
    Read why people picked up the Options 2 and 4 above.
    Is it too much work? No problem, if we did it together, it would probably last no more than three months (to cover also the less known ones).
    To make an example, those who care on English football do it for English players l. Those who care on Italian football do it for Italian players. Nehme1499, who cares on Arabic World football does it for that kind of players. If the work is divided into parts, it'd be easy.
    Our ridiculous hypothetical situations are to know what to do should a similar situation happen if the status quo is kept. Dr Salvus 16:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @GiantSnowman, my question on my Gela Calcio experience has yet to be replied. I wanted to make an example (using a personal experience) to know what to do should something similar happen. Dr Salvus 21:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I have said - playing at a football school run by or affiliated with a club is not enough. GiantSnowman 18:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Knowing whether he played in a football school or not is not always possible. Dr Salvus 18:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We rely on what reliable sources say. GiantSnowman 18:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's no youth team (under-<15s usually) which does not cost anything. Dr Salvus 18:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The current status quo is what it is just because you keep pushing your POV, and leave barely any breathing room for editors to discuss any changes. Whenever someone proposes something (and this is not the first topic where this has happened), your main rebuttal is "it's the status quo for a reason, there is no need to change". Nehme1499 16:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm the one who suggested this RFC! How embarrassing for you. GiantSnowman 16:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So you can keep shouting "status quo, status quo!" all the time... embarrassing indeed. Nehme1499 16:48, 17 September 2022‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No - I have made reasoned arguments in favour of the status quo, as have many others. Those arguments have not been dealt with by the opponents. GiantSnowman 16:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's simply not true. The status quo you claim is in effect (that as long as the player has been signed by a club the club category should be included) is not what's happening in reality. As mentioned before, no Swedish youth player can be signed by a club before the age of 15, yet there are many Swedish player articles that include club categories even though they only played there before age 15. People dislike arguing against false premises. – Elisson • T • C • 17:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And that's why I talked about when I was at Gela Calcio's scuola calcio without signing any contract. Dr Salvus 17:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (e/c) Just because you close your eyes and chose to ignore anyone who disagrees with you doesn't remove the fact that most of us raised valid points. Nehme1499 17:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi all. As most of you probably don't know, I'm a freelance TV producer and I'm currently working for UEFA on coverage of the Nations League. The production company I work for has just had an email through from UEFA confirming that Czech officials have requested that, from today, their country be referred to as Czechia in English. This hasn't been updated on the UEFA website yet as far as I can see, but it will be reflected in the world feed broadcast of tomorrow's match between Czechia and Portugal, and in the highlights programmes we produce after the fact. Just letting you know in advance. – PeeJay 15:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good to know. I'm actually a fan of the Czechia name, and hope it catches on. Same with Turkiye.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm, I'm not so much of a fan of Turkiye. They can call themselves whatever they want in their own language, which is what Turkiye is, but in English it should still be Turkey. Just my opinion. Anyway, the UEFA website has now been updated (see here). – PeeJay 17:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At which point do we seek to move Czech Republic articles to Czechia articles? I don't think UEFA making it official is quite enough, there are still a lot of independent sources who don't use Czechia (although, the trend is definitely moving away from Czech Republic). However, what happens with Czech Republic national football team results (2020–present) for example? It's not like Samoa or North Macedonia where there is a clearly defined point that the name changed. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair, the country itself asked to be known as Czechia (at least in the short form) way back in 2016. Not sure why it's taken them this long to make the same change in the sporting arena. – PeeJay 17:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There have been six failed move discussions for Czechia on Talk:Czech Republic, we should not be renaming football articles unless there is a consensus to move the main country article as well. Same applies with Turkey/Türkiye. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps this move by the Czech FA today will encourage some movement in reliable sources. – PeeJay 18:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) That is really annoying because we can't retrospectively change everything from 2016 to today. In English, they have been known as the Czech Republic since Czechoslovakia split up. We could use today as it is the point that UEFA will start calling them Czechia but will the BBC for example or ESPN etc. I dare say at some point we will need an RfC to sort it out. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In ice hockey, the team has been going by Czechia for a few years now in many tournaments, Wikipedia still keeps the name of Czech Republic, due to the continued failed RM changes at the page of the actual country. So I doubt the football team going by Czechia will change anything. Some tournament pages have them as Czechia such as 2022 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships as that is what they used, but the main Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team page still uses CR. I expect football articles to be the same. RedPatch (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as the article of Czech Republic doesn't get renamed into Czechia, we shouldn't even be thinking of moving any sports-related articles. Once the main article is renamed, all other can (should) be moved accordingly. (Btw, I'm also a fan of Czechia. Not so much of Türkiye). Nehme1499 19:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like it too, but I recall a few years ago I used that term in an article (I think it was on a map, to save room as much as anything else) and got reverted quite aggressively by someone who was clearly patrolling the whole site for wild and dangerous unauthorised Czechia-ing. Crowsus (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeeJay: If you want to change the article title please open a WP:RM. Given the country's article has failed multiple times to be moved to Czechia, there should be consensus before retitling the national team article. Just as with Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast and Türkiye/Turkey, we do not necessarily use the "official" name the national teams use. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Name of the Czech Republic. The name 'Czechia' dates from way before 2016. Despite the formalizations of its 'recognition', this is indeed more of a gradual change in vocabulary than one linked to a clearly defined point, and if the trend continues, the name will gain usage even in retrospective reference to aspects and periods when it was unusual or nonexistent. By the way, there is at least one precedent where the articles on the country and the national team are using different names: "East Timor" and "Timor-Leste national football team". --Theurgist (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also Chinese Taipei national football team and Taiwan? --SuperJew (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say Taiwan/Chinese Taipei and French Polynesia/Tahiti are special cases, as these are not discrepancies of how the the name is written in English, but rather entirely different names the national teams have chosen/were forced to be represented under. As for East Timor, the national team article could probably be moved, the only other discrepancies are Congo and DR Congo. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article title for Swiss System phases of UEFA competitions[edit]

Starting from 2024, UCL, UEL, UECL and (most likely) UYL won't have a group stage but will use the Swiss System to replace groups. What's the most appropriate name to substute 2024–25 UEFA Champions League group stage? Dr Salvus 17:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't have an article for 2024–25 UEFA Champions League group stage, though. We'll decide the appopriate name once UEFA announces it. Nehme1499 17:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, an article will not be needed for quite a while. However, it could still be considered a "group stage", though with just one, large group, so the title might not need to be changed. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I so agree. Dr Salvus 18:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any admins about...[edit]

... who want to block the latest disruptive IP who continues to add incorrect information to Newcastle United player articles. -- Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're already range-blocked for 3 months at their previous ISP, and it's taken them a few days to find a new one, so it's block evasion as well as disruption. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I thought there was a range block before so 100% agree in block evading as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blocked the /64 for a month, no doubt they'll be back. Black Kite (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles for specific season/division combinations[edit]

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/English non-league task force#Articles for specific season/division combinations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Player nationality in intro[edit]

"Raheem Shaquille Sterling MBE (born 8 December 1994) is an English professional footballer who plays as a winger and attacking midfielder for Premier League club Chelsea and the England national team."

How come Sterling is listed as an English footballer but many other dual national players are just listed as a professional footballer without including the nationality? Which should it be? I tried to find the old discussions on this but was unsuccessful, if someone can link them. TonyStarks (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the FOOTY consensus is to list a nationality in first sentence if a player has only ever represented one nation (at any level), but this could be me mis-remembering a past discussion. As he has never represented Jamaica, Sterling is listed as English. Listing him as such would seem to be covered by MOS:FIRSTBIO as he is notable for being an England international. Spike 'em (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And as to previous discussions, I have found this which directly discussed Sterling. Spike 'em (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or take your pick from this this list Spike 'em (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To list a nationality in first sentence if a player has only ever represented one nation (at any level) is what I would prefer to do, but is not the current modus operandi I think. If I'm not mistaken there is no black-and-white rule. If the player was born in country A, moved to B aged 1 and played for B's national team they would have B's country in the lead. If they were born in A and played for B without ever moving there, the nationality is generally omitted. There is quite a bit of gray area, though, so I don't think we will ever have a definitive consensus on this. Nehme1499 13:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I think that there are far too many possible exceptions / sliding-scales to be able to fully codify a solution and there will undoubtedly be conflicting resolutions for seemingly similar cases!! Spike 'em (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense. In a similar vain, Riyad Mahrez is only notable for being an Algeria international but listed as "professional footballer" as opposed to being Algerian. Although he's born in France, he also never played for France and is probably the most famous Algerian person out there .. yet his intro omits the fact that he's Algerian. TonyStarks (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) It does seem to have a 'loose' consensus as outlined above; taking Wilfried Zaha as an example; born elsewhere, like Sterling and grew up in England, learnt his trade in England and represented the national team. However, unlike Sterling he subsequently chose to play for the country of his birth (Ivory Coast). In these circumstances, nationality cannot be precisely defined, is therefore omitted from the lead and article content will clarify the situation. There are a number of articles / players with similar 'issues'.Eagleash (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The consensus I always believed was to omit nationality if they were born one place and represented another and to add it as a sentence later in the lead (Born in X, he represents Y). The only exceptions to that rule, I believe were players who were born in refugee camps, who do not qualify for nationality by birth and we just put the nationality they represented later). With Sterling who was one of those dual nationals,, I feel people just gave up trying to restore it to the consensus, because the extremely high profile players have so many views that people kept adding English and editors just gave up trying to restore it. RedPatch (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another issue is that some people assume that most countries give citizenship on the basis of birthright (jus sanguinis), though that's not the case in most countries outside of the Americas. Just because Thiago Alcântara was born in Italy doesn't make him Italian; same goes for Erling Haaland and England. Other countries have "unconventional" ways of giving citizenship, such as based on how much you invest, or strictly on a paternal basis. We can't just look at the birth place and decide whether or not to omit the nationality. We should base it on reliable sources describing the subject's nationality. Nehme1499 15:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In theory, yes of course, but in practice there are hundreds of articles with minimal sourcing and editors declaring one nationality (usually the descent one ahead of the birth one), and other variables also apply. It had been my assumption that players born raised and playing in a single country must be at least partially a citizen of that country (though clearly it wouldn't apply to the many who leave that country after a short time, like the 'sons of expat players' mentioned above and the many war displaced who return home rather than staying). However it is sourced that Jake Hirst, for example, is not a German citizen despite living his whole life there, and only has a British passport. Personally I find it strange that people living in any country permanently would not wish to integrate themselves and their children born there more fully into its culture etc, but I suppose they don't have to. That particular situation would have been made easier by EU rules (not any more, thanks Brexit) but that won't be the case for the two most common combinations I have come across, Algeria-France and Turkey-Germany. But those two are well-known complex historical relationships and may have specific laws in place regarding movement, I'm uncertain. I have been "following the rules" and changing a few intros to the birth nation where there is no indication of the player living anywhere else and no indication that they have been selected by the descent national teams, but now I'm not so sure, maybe those should have been left out. Is Mahrez a French citizen? As above, I had always taken it as a given that he was due to his circumstances, and of course if he had been picked for France at any level it would be automatic. But same goes for Jake Hirst, a non-German at this point. However, unlike Hirst and a few others, generally there will be little or nothing stating "He was born in X but is only a citizen of Y", that's pretty niche information and journalists can't/shouldn't make the assumption any more than us so it would need to be some kind of interview scenario where they specifically state it or are asked. Crowsus (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'd all agree that someone born and raised in England and who represents England (and has represented no other nations) should be described as English though(Lucy Bronze)? Spike 'em (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm always keen to claim Berwick for Scotland ;-) but IMO yes, she has strong links to Portugal but born, schooled and plays for England. I also think the 'Portuguese name' hatnote is spurious, yes the order follows the Portuguese order but its very common for the maternal surname to be a middle name in the Anglosphere, and birth would have been registered here (OK that is an assumption). If it was her brother who was the professional, it would be less clear cut on both the nationality and name. Crowsus (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm one of the few that thinks that "English" should be omitted in Sterling lede and Jamaica mentioned, but what do I know. I'd prefer having a consensus and having it equally applied for all players, but I reckon that's pretty much impossible.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i doubt he even still has a jamacian passport. he moved 25 years ago and he uses his english passport so why would he even have a jamacian one at this pointMuur (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because the passport expired doesn't mean he doesn't have citizenship. The loss of citizenship is a complicated matter; unless we have reliable sources proving that happened, we shouldn't assume any changes in citizenship of a subject. Nehme1499 11:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Lost Lionesses[edit]

Should the likes of Dot Cassell, Janice Barton, Carol Ann Wilson who participated 1971 Women's World Cup be recognised as England internationals even though it is not recognised by the The Football Association. Or should an article be called The Lost Lionesses be created instead if so there are some soures that can be used. “A dream come true”: Lost Lioness Chris Lockwood on her… - The Face , Lost Lionesses' Proud Of New Generation Of Footballers | HuffPost UK Life ( , The Lost Lionesses: 'It's taken 50 years to feel valued' (, The lost lionesses (, The Lost Lionesses: Carol Wilson on playing in the 1971 Women’s World Cup Dwanyewest (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'd say yes, or make a subcategory for them. Whatever consensus decides.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ortizesp (talk) and User:Bring back Daz Sampson maybe the discussion should take place at Talk:List of England women's international footballers. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit]

I'm trying to expand Formation (association football) without just citing Inverting the Pyramid 200 times, and since apparently there's been no discussion of spielverlagerung as a source anywhere I'm bringing it up here to have something to point to. It was founded by someone who now coaches as Leeds and the current editor has a history in media/journalism. I know it calls itself a blog, but it's one of the preeminent tactics sites in the world and has sent people into coaching/had coaches write for it. Would it be considered reliable for that purpose? Alyo (chat·edits) 16:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some agreement needed...[edit]

... on Talk: Sam Kerr so I can make sure I don't get into the 3RR trap. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should this French article exist?[edit]

Does anyone think List of foreign Division 1 Féminine players should exist? I think there are enough foreign players to justify an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there are enough sources, and the topic is notable, why not? Nehme1499 23:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]