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.

FIFA Men's World Rankings[edit]

Hi. Why was this article moved to this name? FIFA World Rankings should be the correct name.--Island92 (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree. FIFA's own website distinguishes between "Men's Ranking" and "Women's Ranking. Historically it probably is the case that "FIFA World Rankings" referred to the men's game, but I'm not sure that distinction remains relevant (Unlike, for example, if someone were to move FIFA World Cup to FIFA Men's World Cup). If anything I think FIFA World Rankings should be turned into a disambiguation page. Jay eyem (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree as well, FIFA clearly has them titled as Men's and Women's rankings, and it is becoming more common to distinguish the two, same as some National Football team articles now have men in the title for the National Football team to distinguish it from the women's team.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 00:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, they might name them that, but is it the WP:COMMONNAME? It's a little bit of WP:RECENCYBIAS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at 2022 FIFA World Cup Group E for example you read FIFA Ranking (generic name). That's why I think the Page should be re-moved to the previous name. Island92 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that, the info box for a National Football Teams shows FIFA Ranking, as England national football team for example.--Island92 (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every women's national team page also says simply "FIFA Ranking" not "FIFA Women's Ranking", for example England women's national football team. It also does the same on the world cup pages (just says FIFA Ranking (example: 2019_FIFA_Women's_World_Cup#Qualified_teams. So that is irrelevant. If I were to talk about about a women's team's ranking, I would naturally say they are number X in the World Rankings. I wouldn't randomly include the word women's since it would be obvious. For both genders, the COMMONNAME is simply "FIFA World Rankings", but it needs to be disambiguated somehow, so going with the name FIFA uses makes sense instead of going with FIFA World Rankings (men) and FIFA World Rankings (women). RedPatch (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you check out this page and this page, you can see a logo in the top-right corner saying "Coca-Cola Men's World Ranking" and "Coca-Cola Women's World Ranking". I think that's enough evidence to suggest the new titles are appropriate. – PeeJay 16:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should the articles be moved to FIFA Men's World Ranking and FIFA Women's World Ranking (singular)? Nehme1499 16:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with that. – PeeJay 16:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so - we would be listing all of them, so you might look up the ranking of a team, the teams all make up the rankings. We can't just change good English to fit with FIFA. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On that, why is this not FIFA men's world rankings? It's hardly a proper noun, even if they think it is. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's an official branding, similarly to why we don't have the FIFA world cup or UEFA champions league. Nehme1499 16:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- but those things are proper nouns. They are competitions. It seems to be a bit all over the place, with things like snooker world rankings, but also Official World Golf Ranking, which just seems wrong to me. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The FIFA Men's World Ranking is also a proper noun. Not sure why you'd think it isn't. – PeeJay 19:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need input[edit]

Andrew Murphy (Scottish footballer) - it appears this BLP was previously deleted. I'm not versed enough in Scottish football to fully understand if this athlete passes WP:GNG, but in 2021 he played in one FAC. Please ping me when you respond. Thank you in advance ~ Atsme 💬 📧 12:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: - he has never played higher than the third tier of Scottish football, which is not fully professional. In the absence of sufficient source coverage to pass WP:GNG, he isn't notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Chris. Your input is much appreciated. Atsme 💬 📧 12:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: for info, with regard to this edit, playing in the FA Cup does not by itself confer notability on a player. Clubs right down to semi-pro and amateur level take part in that competition as well as the professionals -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, Chris - again, much appreciated. This topic is a bit out of my league. ^_^ But I'm learning! Atsme 💬 📧 12:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Created AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Murphy (Scottish footballer). RedPatch (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the following articles were all created by the same user in the same week. Anyone know about them? Milan Thomas (footballer, born 1986), Devon Jacobs (footballer, born 1991), Ewan Moyes (footballer, born 1990), Sheldon Jacobs (footballer, born 1991), Bradley Donaldson (footballer, born 1994), Ryan Currie (footballer, born 1997), Cameron Fraser (footballer, born 1998), Matthew Gould (footballer, born 1994), Connor Quinn (footballer, born 1998), Moses Duckrell, Lewis Turner (footballer), George Hunter (footballer, born 1996). All of them have minimal prose and citations, which in light of the recent RfC basically states it's inadequate for publication as is as any player must clearly show GNG. RedPatch (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They all look like non-notable players who happen to have played in the lower Scottish leagues. There might be an argument for Devon Jacobs meeting GNG, I don't know what sources will exist though. I think Milan Thomas would've passed the old NFOOTY but with just one appearance I doubt he'd pass GNG. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The common denominator is that they were all on the books of Livingston, so clearly created by someone who is a very keen Livi fan. There's little claim to notability, though - Moses Duckrell, for one, seems to have played literally 0 professional matches -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Stevie fae Scotland said, I think that Devon Jacobs may be notable enough. After all, that is a pretty crazy record if we can prove it is right. However, I've just realised that, looking at the clubs list, he broke this record while he was a free agent. A little bit suspect....[User:Crystalpalace6810|Crystalpalace6810]] (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it was nominated for a speedy deletion today, and I declined the speedy because a good amount of time has passed since the original AFD. It certainly would be eligible for AFD. When I removed the speedy tag, I hope I did not imply that it shouldn't be deleted at all--only that it should go through discussion again at this point and should not be deleted exclusively on the view of ... well.. just me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paulmcdonald, confused face icon Just curious...when experienced NPP reviewers tag A7 on an article, we have already done the research - as you can see in this discussion above. It does qualify as A7, but taking it to AfD just adds more work to our already overworked schedules, and NPP has a growing backlog so how do we fix this to benefit both admins and NPP reviewers to make it so we're working together without piling on more work for both of us? I've had 2 or 3 A7s rejected that were clearly A7s. My workload doubles when I have to add another AfD to my watchlist. Why even have A7 or NPP if we're not going to take advantage and trust the process? Atsme 💬 📧 16:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Adding: here is another James Holden (footballer), and no telling how many more. And take a look at the redirects by one new editor. 16:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi there! Someone disagreed with you on that issue, so it goes to AFD. There is no WP:SENIORITY. I'm unsure how to tell the difference between an "experienced" and "unexperienced" NPP reviewer based on their tag, nor am I necessarily convinced that an experienced review is making a better decision than an inexperienced one. But if there is a way to tell, what would be the divisional line or measure that should be used?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi, Paul - you made some good points, and I certainly understand your position (re:SENIORITY, and experience vs inexperience), so I'll take a slightly different approach for the sake of perspective, and simply apply the criteria for A7 instead. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible,... What made you conclude that there was a credible claim of significance/importance? The first order of business at NPP is to save articles that are worthy of saving. We are second in line relative to article creation and the keep/delete process, unless an article falls through the cracks and ends up in mainspace, probably by autopatrolled users. Our job at NPP is to look for ways to fix articles which includes trying to find and add citations, and perform various other tasks before we even consider deletion, or we risk losing some of our user rights. When reviewing articles, NPP reviewers have the aid of the curation tool; a tool that reviewers helped develop for WMF to implement. The tool helps us zero in on potential issues, like copyvio, blocked user creation, article history, etc. Even with all the tools at my disposal, I still could not find anything that would save this article, but I also recognized my own limitations which is why I came to this project TP before taking any action. I also teach my NPP trainees to seek input from the respective projects prior to making a decision. This particular article happened to be one I chose for a NPP trainee to review. Were you unable to read my mind and figure all this out as Captain Kirk would have done?[FBDB] As evidenced above, the response by Chris provided the necessary clarity I was lacking, and A7 became the obvious choice, especially considering time constraints in the quagmire that is AfD, not to mention NPP's 18k article backlog. And Paul, if you saw a level of importance that I somehow overlooked, would you be so kind as to share it with me? You stated above that ...a good amount of time has passed since the original AFD. Did you compare the deleted article and find updated material? I don't have access to those deleted articles, so I wouldn't know. One suggestion comes to mind in response to the divisional line or measure question you proposed above: if it's a CSD by a NPP reviewer, perhaps a brief discussion with the reviewer beforehand would help if an admin is hesitant? It should be the responsibility of both, not to mention the amount of time it would save avoiding root canals at AfD. I believe the CSD template mentions NPP triage or something along that line? Atsme 💬 📧 00:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look, I just have a mop and a bucket here. I clean up barf on the floor. It wasn't barf on the floor. It's got a source or two, might be weak, I removed the speedy. Probably going to get deleted anyway but I believe AFD is the proper course of action. There's no copyvio, no BLP issue, no threat, no need for immediate removal--i.e. no need for "speedy" deletion. The claim of notability as an athlete seemed to me to have at least enough credibility to warrant a discussion. There is no deadline. If I made a mistake (which is entirely possible) it will all work out in the wash as subject-matter experts will weigh in.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gooooooooooooooooood grief. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My sentiments, exactly. Between the redirects and non-notables the backlog at NPP is off the charts @ nearly 15,000 articles to review. Atsme 💬 📧 22:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I put all the ones that weren't already at AfD at Afd. The list is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves. RedPatch (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, are you really putting all those Scottish League players on AfD without due diligence? Are multiple more Scottish league players going to be added to the AfD queue?? It's as if Scotland has no sports news service! Do they even have newspapers up there! O wait, they do, so where is all the WP:BEFORE ?? I had a look through the nominations for deletion and I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be sources added for at least one of those players. :/ Govvy (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These articles should not have been created without sources demonstrating notability - the RFC established that. That's the issue, not with overworked NPP volunteers sending them to AFD to be dealt with because the speedy was declined. BilledMammal (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: Improve don't delete, and remember WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. --SuperJew (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperJew: An alternative to deletion was attempted; incubation. When that was rejected, it was appropriate to bring the article to AFD, given the backlog at NPP, and the ongoing issue with sports editors created articles without demonstrating notability and instead expecting other editors to do it for them. BilledMammal (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how nominating these for AFD is controversial. Half of them don't meet the old WP:NFOOTY (as they haven't played in an WP:FPL), and the rest only scrape by NFOOTY based on 1-3 appearances, but seem to fail WP:GNG (and so we were deleting articles like this even before the changes to NFOOTY). The problem is the editor creating lots of non-notable articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely with Joseph2302. Crowsus (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update, a couple of the pages just got deleted as "Speedy Close" due to being created by a sockpuppet of a banned user (does that apply to all of the articles?). See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ol1vercloff and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milan Thomas. RedPatch (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, 12 of the 13 pages were deleted through AfD RedPatch (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juventus nickname[edit]

One of Juventus' nicknames is Bianconeri (Whiteblacks lit.). Which translation should there be? Should there be the literally translation or not? Dr Salvus 16:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Whiteblack" is not a word in English. The best English translation would be "the black and whites" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just an aside, there is a gridiron football team called the Ottawa RedBlacks, so you could call the the Whiteblacks, although I agree 'white and blacks' is probably better as a translation. RedPatch (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The translation should be a note, the Bianaconeri should be written in Italian context on the English wiki. Govvy (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dr's question is regarding the order of the colours: should we translate "bianconeri" (literally "whiteblacks") into "Black and Whites" (the most natural-sounding English translation) or "White and Blacks" (the translation more akin to the Italian version)? Nehme1499 11:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'd write Whiteblacks for the literal translation (in a note) and The White and Blacks. Dr Salvus 11:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do reliable sources translate it? This is no different to the thread above about translating the Catalonia national team : editors translating something themselves is OR. Spike 'em (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"White and Blacks" is definitely more common than "Black and Whites" according to Google. Both "whiteblacks" and "blackwhites" yield almost no results. UEFA themselves use White and Blacks. Same as this book and Nehme1499 17:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Juventus themselves use Black & White, in their story headings e.g. 1, 2, and their marketing e.g. membership page. I think it rather depends on whether people are doing a literal translation, as explicitly in the book mentioned above (whose English is fluent but definitely non-native) or using the natural English equivalent, which would be black and white that way round. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spike 'em, (Sometimes, I'd break OR, to be honest) well there are sites which provide translations for Bianco and for Neri. Dr Salvus 18:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I checked google translate (and got redirected to google dictionary), this was the description I got:
Player or fan of a team that, like Juventus (or Udinese, Ascoli, Cesena, Massese, Siena, etc.) wear these colors.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crystalpalace6810, they can also be called Bianconeri, that would be the equivalent for Chelsea's Blues or Liverpool's Reds. The only difference is that in Italian two adjectives can be merged into an only word. Dr Salvus 18:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that I think it is a term used to describe the fans, not the club.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crystalpalace6810, and no. You can sometimes see Il club bianconero (The club whiteblack lit.) Dr Salvus 19:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. Remind me not to use google translate again....Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystalpalace6810 I'd use only google translate until March 2021 because I had made some terrifying grammatical mistakes. This helped me to reduce the number of errors (but I still make some). Dr Salvus 19:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't speak Italian, so it's bad translations or no translations. I'd leave it for the Italians to decide.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Must be contacted a wiki-translator who knowns Italian and English to resolve this. However, there are an article about clubs' nicknames and here Bianconeri is translated as "The Black and Whites".--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should use RS, not wp editors to provide the translation. Spike 'em (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spike 'em we'd need a RS for the English word for Bianco and Neri? Which sites could be used? Google translate, reverso context? Dr Salvus 09:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We need to know how RSes translate the whole phrase, and particularly when it is used as a nickname for the team. Using Google translate for the individual parts is no better than using the knowledge of an individual editor. Spike 'em (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about a phrase but about those two words. And it's a literal translation. Dr Salvus 09:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
UEFA, for example, use both White and Blacks and Black and Whites. There doesn't seem to be consistency. Nehme1499 09:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many times can I say this? Use. Reliable. Sources. If reliable sources disagree, use the most commonly used one or mention them both. Spike 'em (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page idea[edit]

Me again. May I suggest that we create a "list of major association football comebacks" page with different sections for different deficits that have been overturned (1 goal deficit, 2 goal deficit, 3 goal deficit, etc). It may be proven that this is a very stupid idea (which seems to be happening a lot to me on this talk page), but I think it may work.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What would the criteria for inclusion be? Because comebacks happen every week all around the world. Nehme1499 03:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just be reasonable. A comeback from two goals down in the premier league is a lot more notable than coming back from 7 goals down in the last minute of a Bolivian sunday league match.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even though Bolivian league is much inferior to the English one, I don't believe so... a good idea would be creating an article where there's the list of the comebacks in two-legged magches in the Champions League or perhaps in the Copa Libertadores. Dr Salvus 06:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. It could just be a section in the league's records and statistics page.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it could be properly sourced and others are onboard, you have my vote. Although I wander if this hasn't been brought on by Everton's unfortunate comeback last night. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Nehme1499 wrote, this would need a criteria for inclusion. A comeback from one goal down is quite common. From two goals down also. Are we talking comebacks to win or to draw? In league games? Domestic cup games? International competitions? --SuperJew (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any significant secondary sources covering lists of these types of comebacks? I'm just wondering if it would go against WP:OR. Alvaldi (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with it, other than what will be the arbitrary decision of what a notable comeback entails. Shades of the cut-off to qualify as a one-club man which I may or may not have implemented myself about forty years ago. Seasider53 (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be defining any sort of inclusion criteria, other than sicgcov in reliable secondary sources describing it as a (superlative of choice) comeback. Each entry to such a list should stand on the merits of it's sourcing. Gricehead (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me, something like this sounds like WP:LISTCRUFT and would fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Nehme1499 12:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was a predictive request rather than a reactive one! Spike 'em (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope (but thinking about it, it might make the list- in a top flight and a comeback from 2 down to keep a team in the premier league is pretty notable). Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's Comeback_(sports)#Association football. -Koppapa (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's (almost) all unsourced, and needs cleanup. Nehme1499 13:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't like the idea as there is no criteria what would be included. When it's that notable, a match gets an own article. Kante4 (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My idea is that in the records and statistics page for every league, there is a comebacks section starting with the most notable ones. For example, for the champions league, first on the list would be Barcelona 6-1 PSG (only comeback from 4 goals down to win), then all of the comebacks from 3-0 down to win (the only one I can remember of the top of my head is liverpool 4-0 Barcelona) then the comebacks from 3-0 down to draw and then win in another way (away goals or penalties, for example), so Liverpool 3-3 AC Milan (liverpool win on penalties) and spurs 3-2 Ajax (spurs win on away goals) and so on and so forth.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Including comebacks over two legs and including penalties doesn't seem right to me. Should be single matches only. Seasider53 (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big fan of this, as I feel it could get out of hand very quickly, as fans will want their team highlighted in the list saying it was an important comeback, while others will say no. I can forsee this becoming a ridiculously long list that becomes impossible to manage or even look through. RedPatch (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the competition. If the competition only has one match, such as most tournaments, then only include one-match comebacks (you can't include second-leg comebacks in competitions with one leg). However, if a tournament has the potential for both one-match and two-match comebacks, such as the champions league, then include both (possibly with different sections for them). And we should work our way down-do the comebacks from the most goals to win, then from that same amount to draw, then the next amount of goals, et cetera (for example, comebacks from 5 down to win, then 5 down to draw, then 4 goals to win, then 4 goals to draw, etc). And if you don't think that two-legged comebacks should be included, then I won't include them.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- realistically, it needs to meet WP:LISTN. You'd need to prove that sources are talking about comebacks as a topic. Do we have any sources that talk about this group of matches as a group? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger. I've just realised that it might be original research.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Best advice I can give is to search out the references first before making a page, rather that finding references to fit your article. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found this page. Would you consider transfermarkt to be a reliable source?Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not WP:TRANSFERMARKT. Kante4 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page is literally just a list of premier league comebacks. In theory, all I should need to do is go to the respective PL season articles on wikipedia, look at the results table and look for those matches.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a silly idea. GiantSnowman 15:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I can literally just check whether those matches happened on more reliable sources (like other wikipedia articles)! Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you say yourself above, this is Original Research. Spike 'em (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking at a source and verifying the facts. That's not OR.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a source that talks about them as a group. That's not OR.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transfrmarkt is not considered a reliable source so can't be used as the basis of the list. Spike 'em (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but if I verify that the facts on it are reliable through reliable sources, it is reliable.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, if the source of your list is unreliable then anything based on it is either unreliable or original research. You haven't explained how it would pass WP:LISTN either. Spike 'em (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the list would have thousands and have like 50 added weekly.Muur (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I clearly stated earlier in this argument ("My idea is that in the records and statistics page for EVERY LEAGUE,"), my proposal is that we have a section for comebacks in every league in the records and statistics article for said competition. I can use other sources to find lists (transfermarkt has a comebacks section for every league) and verify it using more reliable sources (the season article for said competition) Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just WP:DROPTHESTICK. Kante4 (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kante. This is not a workable idea. Nehme1499 19:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Player who have been called up by Juventus U23[edit]

The article about this team has the list of every player called up this season. Is this excessive? Should I remove the players who haven't made their U23 debut and have had a just a few calls up? Or just put them in another subsection as done at Juventus F.C.? Dr Salvus 17:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the club website doesn't list them in the squad then they probably shouldn't be in the article either. They should be in the season article if they played that season though. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put the excess players in the Youth Sector subjection (similarly to the U23 subsection in the senior team article). Nehme1499 21:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned it up. Nehme1499 00:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need such players to be included in the template for the roster? Dr Salvus 18:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if they played at least once. Nehme1499 19:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This just came up on Harvey Elliott's talk page. Do I just ignore or is there a policy to revert such requests? This IP is either from London or North Liverpool so in theory they could be who they claim to be but I would bet a lot on it being a imposter. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree- just ignore it. Even if he does have evidence (such as a passport, as he says he does), how is he supposed to send it? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTRS. Nehme1499 21:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source used (premier League) says it is Daniel James. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The very first reference at the page (Premier League, by name in infobox) has him as 'Elliott, Harvey Daniel James'. Eagleash (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yeah the page wasnt even using the full name from the premier league source, i have edited to include his full name from the pl source.Muur (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the history. It was using the full name from the premier league source. It got removed earlier today (a few hours before you added it back). RedPatch (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, the IP could indeed provide evidence of the correct name via OTRS (maybe Crystalpalace6810 wasn't aware OTRS existed). It does pose the question, though, of how the Premier League seemingly got his full name so spectacularly wrong...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not super convinced we should change it even if his birth certificate was brought in. Presumably we are talking about the subject in a football sense in {{infobox football player}}? They are clearly registered with this name. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and, although the reference in the article relates to last season, the equivalent for this season also gives his middle names as Daniel James -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Histmerge at Andressinha[edit]

Someone has done a copy and paste move from Andressa Cavalari Machry to Andressinha. Could one of the admins sort out the history? Hack (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Primefac has solved that problem. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates[edit]

Don't know if anyone wants to way-in, but support for the Premier League winners blurb doesn't have much weight this year, even know we've had it added for a number of years now. I am a bit myth'ed by the oppose. :/ Govvy (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I have seen someone opened a discussion on Talk:Rafael Leão: my opinion - I don't think it is all that important for the inclusion of the fact footballer have caught Covid unless in circumstances where they cannot feature for major tournaments or if they are seriously ill with it. The article Rafael Leão currently has that content for example but what affects his schedule if any? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was briefly discussed here (permalink). Perfect4th (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, now I see. I don't think on the Leao article that should be there. For our information - the source says he was already injured, getting Covid does not affect the chances of him featuring in immediate matches or not. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Unless the positivity actually means that the player has missed important/notable matches, I don't see the need to add it under the "Personal life" section. Nehme1499 19:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the information from the article. Perfect4th (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the content received media coverage, we should reflect that. GiantSnowman 18:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some information may be WP:UNDUE. It's the same reason why we wouldn't list all the goals a player has scored in prose, even though there might be good coverage for it. Nehme1499 19:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'professional athlete affected by unprecedented world pandemic' is not the same as 'goalscorer scores goal'. GiantSnowman 19:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In 2022, a footballer being affected by COVID-19 is pretty much the same as having caught the flu or having a fever; it's an inconvenience that will make you miss a game or two. It's not the same as when it happened in 2020, and the first players were being affected. If the players' health was seriously affected, then I'd understand. But the myriad of On [date], [player] tested positive for COVID-19, amid its pandemic in [country]; he recovered on [date]. is not necessary. Nehme1499 20:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a player catching covid this season is no more significant than any other illnesses or injury. We wouldn't record every minor sprain or fever a player suffers that causes a couple of games to be missed. Spike 'em (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that having a personal life section that consists entirely of "this player once caught COVID" is a bit daft unless it had some sort of major impact/long-lasting effect on him. If a player's article had a personal life section that consisted solely of "this player once caught the flu but he got better" it would be deleted in a heartbeat and I don't really see why COVID should be treated any differently -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the original comment in the Marley Aké section, but just wanted to comment again here to re-state, as others have mentioned, that it is not necessary to include this (especially to create a section devoted solely to it), when it is so brief and not impactful. Not everything is noteworthy. Missing a random mid-season fixture which will happen to that player many times over their career for injury/rest/coaching decision/etc. Missing one match due to covid is really no different. RedPatch (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Have a look to this one. He's been adding copyrighted pictures to some footballer's pages. Dr Salvus 20:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually reverted this user by restoring the free photos to the articles affected. I also added a comment after the edit made by Community Tech bot (see e.g. Talk:Diogo Jota) that I agree they are copyrighted. This was how I came to the Rafael Leão article and talk page where someone asked the importance of Covid, see the immediate above section. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the speedy deletion (copyvio) tag on the Commons page which SlidingD removed earlier. Hopefully this time an admin sees it before he removes it again. BigDom (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same with me at Diogo Jota's current image. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted a few of his changes. I note Dr Salvus has already left a message - let's see if he listens. GiantSnowman 21:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He never listened to us. Have reported him to ANI. Dr Salvus 22:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though he seems keen on edit warring at Dušan Vlahović, changing the lead to less concise wording ([1]). Nehme1499 22:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update, the offending photographs have been deleted from the Commons. BigDom (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's main interests, addition of recentist overdetail, and addition of unfree photos is typical of banned prolific sock User:Martimc123. Might be worth contacting an admin. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F01:8893:5B98:8D4F:7741 (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

for our info: I have reported SlidingD to the SPI page of Martimc123 in line with the latest IP address response. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal contributions[edit]

Hello WikiProject Football! It's been a while I haven't commented anything here.
I need some help for contributions at a merger proposal on the talk page of Arsenal firm.
Cheers, Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season[edit]

You know, I am fed-up, I use to love working on the Tottenham season article, I feel at odds with the guy called Mwiqdoh who keeps doing what I feel is strange editing, and it feels like he is claiming WP:OWN over the article, I try to do stuff but get constantly reverted, and why the fuck do you want a picture of Santos for the 22-23 he has nothing to do with the season. It's all weirdness. Anyone else want to edit the dam thing or not?? Govvy (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: What does owning the article mean? And the Santos picture is there because the background section is a recap of the 21/22 season, and he had a part of it. Sorry if it seems like I am targeting you. We can just discuss if that'd be better. Thanks, Mwiqdoh (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"owning an article" is explained at WP:OWN, linked above. Kind regards, (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who Santos is in relation to Tottenham Hotspur. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume they mean Nuno Espírito Santo, as there appears to be an image of him on the article. Which isn't a relevant photo at all, as he's not the manager for this season. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I see no reason why Mwiqdoh is just trying to recap all of the 2021-22 season, which is explained perfectly well at that article? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: See featured article 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season#Background. Just trying to mimic the format. Mwiqdoh (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could understand/justify having a picture of Nuno in the background section if he left the club at the end of the season just finishing and Conte was replacing him as part of the build-up to the new one, but he left last November, so his relevance to the article on the upcoming season is completely nil -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking of players after release[edit]

Not sure where we stand on this. I removed the club column from table listing Spurs' released players in their current-season article a few days ago and, of course, got reverted because that's the way it's always been done here. It's one of those that appears to be an editor-specific choice. The caveat in said article is that a club is only listed if the player joins them during the same transfer window...? Seems arbitrary. I don't see why we need to add potential confusion for the average reader.

The footnotes in the Spurs article read thus:

Note: Players will join other clubs after being released or terminated from their contract. Only the following clubs are mentioned when that club signed the player in the same transfer window.

1 - After being released, Ferguson signed for Boston United.
2 - After being released, Gazzaniga signed for Fulham.
3 - After being released, Marsh signed for AFC Wimbledon.
4 - After being released, Roles had a trial with Crystal Palace and then was signed by the club on 1 July 2021.
5 - After being released, Rose signed for Watford.
6 - After being released, Tracey signed for Cambridge United.
7 - After being released, Whittaker signed for Swansea City.
8 - After being released, Aurier signed for Villarreal.
9 - After Thorpe's contract expired, he signed for Luton Town.

Seasider53 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need in footnotes. There is no real need for an extra table for released. Put them in the rest of the 'transfers out' table, the fee is "released", the "to" is the next club they ended up at unless they never found another club and retired. Simple.--EchetusXe 15:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. You don't get "released" to another club, you get "released". There's some argument for including a club in the "to" column if the player signed a deal with the new club before the end of their contract with the releasing club (ie before 30 June in England). If they were out of contract with the releasing club when they signed with the new club, then the "to" club has no relation to them leaving the releasing club. Pretty sure consensus has been reached here before regarding this, probably about this time last year. Gricehead (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You get released to a club, the club that you sign for after you're out of contract is irrelevant. But there's way too many editors that add the next clubs for released players to all the season articles... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean released from a club? Seasider53 (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather silly. I've seen some case where a player was without a club for a year and editors added the club they joined a year later in the "to" column. --SuperJew (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a player is released on 30 June and has already signed a pre-contact with a new club, signing for them on 1 July, then the 'to' should be that club. But if they sign for a new club days/weeks/months later - no, they are just released. GiantSnowman 18:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the issue in adding the club the player has joined after being released, as long as it's the same transfer window. I've done so with footnotes (see 2021–22 A.C. Monza season#Out). Nehme1499 18:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That article has returning loans listed as transfers, though, which is even worse. And why are Arrivals and Departures headings in the table when the tables are already in the "In" and "Out" section of the prose? Seasider53 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The table reflects changes in roster from one transfer window to another. Nehme1499 19:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
loans might techincally/legally be different to transfers, but the average reader wants to know who joined the club and who left the club. -- SuperJew (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The details of the loan should be indicated in the article for the season when it happened. The end of a loan is not a transfer, so it shouldn’t be listed at the time when it ends. – PeeJay 09:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only listing the beginning of the loan but not the end is inconsistent. Nehme1499 10:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PeeJay: loans should only be listed once, and therefore we should not list players returning from a loan separately in the next season. Spike 'em (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with listing returns from loan is still not clear to me. Nehme1499 10:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you include the end date of the loan when you list the loan initially, there should be no need to mention it again. By definition, all loans are temporary – we know all players who go on loan eventually return – so listing the end date in the initial table of transfers solves your issue. – PeeJay 16:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but not everyone is going to look at the 2020–21 season article to know that a player (who was on loan during that season) left the club ahead of the 2021–22 season. Take Davide Frattesi, for example. He was on loan at Monza in 2020–21, and finished as their top scorer that season. Surely, the average reader would like to know that he left the club in 2021–22, without having to look at the previous season. From a fan's perspective, Frattesi leaving Monza is the same as Marco Armellino leaving on a permanent deal. Both were at Monza in 2020–21 and both were not part of the roster in 2021–22. It seems frivolous to me to not include Frattesi just because of the nature of his contract. Nehme1499 17:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because he didn't leave in 21-22, he left at the end of 20-21. Why would someone reading the 21-22 article need to know what happened in the previous season? Spike 'em (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same as someone who's contract expired on 30 June 2021. Would you not show him as having left the squad in the 2021–22 season page? Nehme1499 11:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Newp. The only way this might make sense is if it was a loan-to-future-sale type deal, which would obviously be explained in the notes column. Seasider53 (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a case of live and let live with the multitude of different article standards. I can fall in line, I suppose. Seasider53 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

End of season squad changes[edit]

Just a reminder for people to read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 131#End of season squad changes before removing released players from club articles unless a source confirms they have gone early. For example: Gary Cahill was removed from the Bournemouth squad list even though the Bournemouth website says so, whereas the Swansea City released list was published and those first team names are still currently on the squad page. I have noticed someone removing released players from a club article already without any source confirming they have left early at this moment. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a source saying they have left immediately, players in England will not leave their current clubs until 30 June (when contracts expire) and will not sign for new clubs until 1 July. GiantSnowman 21:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Campos and List of goalscoring goalkeepers[edit]

Hello there. I observed that Jorge Campos was removed from the List of goalscoring goalkeepers because it is not possible to say precisely how many goals he scored starting a game as a goalkeeper, and how many goals he scored playing as a striker. What is the best way to resolve this situation? Continue leaving out Jorge Campos, or arguing the situation properly? Svartner (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

add Campos back in, with a note explaining the situation. GiantSnowman 06:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Svartner (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continental football infobox[edit]

Hi guys, can someone take a look at the continental football infobox as I seem to have broken it after adding a parameter on the number of seasons a team has played in Europe. My edit somehow wiped out the addition of the conference league and after trying to fix it again, I've broken the infobox. Also, if anyone has the capability would anyone know how to add a P/W/D/L parameter in the infobox so it goes across horizontal and shows a team's record in European competition, I think that would be useful info for readers to consume quickly. The infobox has evolved a lot since I first created it and I have no idea how to add such a parameter. Thanks for any help and assistance! NapHit (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: I think I've fixed it. Nehme1499 11:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Nehme1499: that's sorted it :) If anyone can help with the additional request about the P/W/D/L then that would be great. NapHit (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations wanted - potential entries for List of footballers killed during World War II[edit]

Reposted and updated version of original now archived.

As main contributor to this article, I would like to flag up for attention of others on the project a number of candidates for the list that are already wiki-articled and known or believed to have been killed in or died as a result of circumstances brought on by the war (eg execution, in enemy captivity, effects of wounds etc) but which so far lack a reliable citation regarding their death which is preconditional to inclusion in the list. A few have no death circumstances described in the text of their article but I note have been put on category lists that suggest someone knew/believed they died in wartime circumstances. I also include those whose death circumstances are disputed - see their talk pages for further detail - and are in need of a conclusive ruling in or out.

  • Josef Adelbrecht (Austria) - categorised as Austrian military personnel killed in the war. His German wikipedia article states he was killed on the Russian front NW of Moscow. Disputable death date.
  • Dragutin Babic (Yugoslavia) - there is a source in Croat language but it is unclear to me it indicates manner of death
  • Josef Bergmaier (Germany)
  • Jozsef Eisenhoffer aka Joszef Aczal (Hungary) - also disputed death circumstances
  • Bronislaw Fichtel (Poland) - disputed death date (see talk page)
  • Hermann Flick (Germany)
  • Josef Fruhwirth (Austria) - categorised as Austrian military personnel killed in WWII. His article in Germany wikipedia has citation to an Austrian newspaper report of his death which I find unreadable, I can only make out he died on the 'Ostfront' (Eastern Front).
  • Nikolai Gromov (Russia) - Russian language profile says he 'died at the front' in 1943 without further detail. More informative sources if found preferred.
  • Karl-Richard Idlane (Estonia) - Death cause and death dates (both in 1942) disputable.
  • Karl Kanhauser (Austria/Czechoslovakia) - German wikipedia states without citation he was drafted into the German army towards end of WWII and deployed to Yugoslavia where he was reported missing, no final year given.
  • Franz Krumm (Germany) - There is a link to the German Volksbund website but it does not directly connect to his details and I lack expertise to interrogate the site.
  • Willi Lindner (Germany) - source in German language, not fully clear about death details
  • Johann Luef (Austria) - his German wikipedia article indicates he died of wounds in hospital in East Prussia.
  • Josef Madlmayer (Austria)
  • Artur Marczewski (Poland) - his Polish and German wikipedia articles state without citation he disappeared in January 1945 following Red Army advance into Poland, where he had been working for the Germans as a factory official.
  • Vladimir Markov (footballer) (Russia) - Stated in Olympedia to have died in Leningrad in 1942, which coincided with the long running siege of the city. Can evidence be found for treating him as a victim of the siege?
  • Alexander Martinek (Austria/Germany)
  • Otto Martwig (Germany)
  • Philip Meldon (Ireland) - disputed death details, not known to CWGC.
  • August Mobs (Germany) - said to have been killed in air raid.
  • Alberto Nahmias (Greece) - death circumstances disputed; his English article gives two different years of death in 1980s without source. His Greek wikipedia biography states he was arrested by the Germans in 1942 because of Jewish origins and further trace was lost, possibly because of being put to death, although also said to have emigrated post-war. Can someone find sources that settle this? The nearest named individual recorded from Greek Jews listed in the Testimony Pages of Yad Vashem is an Alberto Nachmias (sic), born in Greece, died at Auschwitz, age given as 42 but no birth or death date given. However out of the estimated 6M Jews killed in the Holocaust only 4.5M are known to Yad Vashem.
  • Slavko Pavletic (Croatia) - no death circumstance details given in text but has been categorised as a Croatian civilian killed in the war. In Croatian wikipedia, he is stated with citation to have been executed following Communist seizure of power in Croatia with 'date of execution' stated unknown, though the infobox gives a precise date of 27 May 1945 and death place as Zagreb.
  • Jean Petit (footballer, born 1914) (Belgium) - His French wikipedia article indicates without citation or death location given that he was a doctor - probably civilian rather than military - who was killed in a bombardment preceding the Allied invasion of Normandy.
  • Kurts Plade (Latvia) - Repatriated to Germany as a Baltic German, his Latvian wikipedia article states he was 'killed' (no further detail) in February 1945 in Poznan, Poland. I note his death coincided with the Soviet siege of Poznan.
  • Bernardo Poli (Italy) - Italian wikipedia indicates he died in 'an unspecified war accident' serving as an airman. Only citation in English wikipedia does not indicate manner of his death.
  • Fyodor Rimsha (Russia) - Stated without citation in English and Russian wikipedias to have died in siege of Leningrad, allegation not supported by cited sources Olympedia and Russian language Profile, the latter of which states his fate after 1914 "is unknown".
  • Holger Salin (Finland) - No decisive date in most wikipedias. Although Finnuser reported a newspaper report states only he was killed in an accident, his German wikipedia article states that after his last international match (1943) he " the Continuation War" [term given to Finland's hostilities with the Soviet Union over 1941-45 in concert with Germany] in '1943 or 1944'. I do wonder if he was serving in the Finnish Armed Forces though. (Accidents as well as combat killed a number of players already on the list.)
  • Aristotel Samsuri (Albania) - Reportedly executed in German concentration camp in Greece as a Communist partisan between 1942/1944, but was claimed by the postwar Communist regime of Albania to have escaped and survived before proclaiming him a martyr in 1981.
  • Gennaro Santillo (Italy) - Categorised as Italian military personnel killed in the war but no indications of military service on Italian wikipedia. Would like to be more certain of his status (mil or civ) before adding him.
  • Harry Spencer (footballer) (New Zealand, previously played in England) - There are similarities with a New Zealand soldier known to the CWGC (see talk page of article). Can someone find confirmation they are the same man?
  • Erwin Stührk (Germany) - disputable death date, death place given in German war grave site not easy to ascertain as it only gives German form of name rather than its vernacular.
  • Ludwik Szabakiewicz (Poland) - disputable death details, particularly date
  • Willi Völker (Germany) - uncertainty about death location.
  • Karl Wahlmuller (Austria) - UPDATE - Have located a citation that supports his death as war casualty and added him to the List today.Cloptonson (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heinz Warnken (Germany) - German wikipedia gives him as gefallen (fallen) in 1943 but no detail of precise death date or death place.
  • Willi Wigold (Germany) - date of death disputed

There may be additions coming onto the list so I encourage watch this space! Others are welcome to add. Please let us know if sources are found and added into their articles.Cloptonson (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

transfer window[edit]

english transfer window opens june 10th, not july 1st. july 1st is just free agents.Muur (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree re the above so I have changed the dates on the transfer window article as the dates formerly shows last season's transfer window dates for England. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2020 Final[edit]

Some sort of edit war going on here. Been reverted back and forwards since the middle of April leaving the article very unstable. Maybe someone could decide which version survives?--Egghead06 (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section being revert-warred does seem overly detailed; the 2 most recent WC finals and 2 previous Euro finals cover the same topic in a couple of lines in a Post-match section, and the "Aftermath" section was not there at the time the article was promoted to FA status. It seems to have been added here. Spike 'em (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some form of compromise is definitely necessary. The amount of detail currently in place is too much, but deleting the section wholesale doesn’t help anyone either. – PeeJay 09:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, a summary of it section should be kept and moved up into the previous section. Spike 'em (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as overly detailed. Obviously no aftermath would exist shortly after the tournament aired. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need details of individual matches for Italy in 2 subsequent tournaments? The 4 other pages I mentioned above have nowhere near this amount of detail, having a short paragraph to cover both teams. This info would not be out of place in History of Italian football team article, but is not needed here. Spike 'em (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant part of 2016 final has 511 characters of text; 2012 final has 355 charcters; 2018 WC Final has 176 characters; 2014 WC Final has 764. The text here is 2300 characters, so has more text than these other 4 finals combined: it needs pruning. Spike 'em (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut about a third of it out, think it could do with some more. Spike 'em (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text on "Finalissima" is fine, as Italy qualified for that event due to winning Euro 2020. Too much detail on Italy's World Cup qualifiers, just saying that they failed to qualify for the 2022 World Cup would suffice, in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who initially added the section, it was probably too detailed, though I believe there should be some mention of the close aftermath for the teams. Italy's poor performance in their qualifying group in the following months, and missing the World Cup altogether 8 months later as European champions, is certainly significant, and the match against Argentina is directly relevant to the Euro final. It seems one IP has dedicated themselves to removing the section without any discussion. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And continues to revert without any attempt at discussion - 5! reverts yesterday alone despite a "warning" on edit-warring!--Egghead06 (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sreenidi Deccan FC season[edit]

Something just does not add up with this article. Maybe someone who has more experience with club season articles can provide some assistance. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelmeen10: What's the issue? Nehme1499 15:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not me needing the help, I just randomly found this article. But IMO the article name should contain the season and there shouldn't be so much stuff from the league, which is not directly related to the club. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pelmeen10: It should be fixed now (the article has been moved to 2021–22 Sreenidi Deccan FC season). Nehme1499 15:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, although the relegation stage table is not needed and the last wikitable should be called "Final standings". Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nehme1499 15:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Phase 2 is now missing and league tables in 2021–22 I-League are now gone. But thanks in advance! Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Idk why the transclusion hid the tables in the I-League page. I've asked for help at Help talk:Transclusion. Nehme1499 17:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed. Nehme1499 17:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Max Kucheriavyi[edit]

I am having serious issues with @Andriyrussu: at Max Kucheriavyi, and they either cannot or will not understand my concerns, desp[ite me raising it with them clearly on their talk page. In short, in relation to full name and youth stats, the UAF link is inaccessible (meaning that it is unverifiable) and the Soccerway link does not confirm either bit of information. They are also editing against MOS in relation to the honours section. Please can somebody else review before I escalate this? GiantSnowman 12:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andriyrussu was wrong to move the page back without discussion. However, the Ukrainian FA website is accessible, and the information is correct. You just need to "log in" as a guest (click on the white button with гість), and it lets you view all the information. "Max Kucheriavyi" is clearly the common name, and "Maksym Serhiyovych Kucheryavyi" is the full name. Nehme1499 13:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cup infobox rules[edit]

another user told only continental non invitational tournaments can stay, contradicting updates. as both are exactly that here, should it be reverted (user warned), if rule exists; thanks! Sportski recenzist (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trophies won with youth teams[edit]

Dušan Vlahović shows his trophy won with Fiorentina U19. Samuel Iling-Junior shows his (little-notable) trophy for England U17 and his second place at a cup with Chelsea U18. Do these achievements merit to be in an article despite being made with youth teams? It's better to be including just the trophies (and not the second places which do not count for someone's palmarès) won with the highest-prestige youth team imo. Dr Salvus 18:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the competitions have articles on Wikipedia (or are notable), they should be kept. Nehme1499 19:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if they have articles on Wikipedia, but does this mean only in or in every Wikie? Dr Salvus 19:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. If it doesn't have an article but is eligible to have one (passing GNG), then keep it. Nehme1499 20:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]