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.
 

Bolton being promoted in 3rd place[edit]

@Muur: has added 'Honours' to all of Bolton's players after they finished 3rd and were promoted; is that an honour or not? I say not. GiantSnowman 21:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I appreciate you trying to get consensus, but I believe this is a plainly obvious "no." SportingFlyer T·C 21:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
There are hundreds (prob thousands) of instances of players and managers being listed on wikipedia with promotions. I don't recall where it was listed, but when there was a discussion on if league runner up counts as an honour and it was stated that it doesn't, unless it's a lower league that comes with promotion.Muur (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Are you aware of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? If a league a runner up doesn't count (by your own admission), why would 3rd place? GiantSnowman 21:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Players for the club who finishes third in League Two receive a bronze medal, so this is usually included in the honours section. This addition to the respective player articles is not unusual as they are added after the end of each season. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
If that is the case and a medal is awarded then fair enough - but we need an explicit reference saying that the player in question has won the honour, not just a match report saying "the club was promoted after this game". GiantSnowman 21:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
it was only stated that it doesnt count for top leagues, cuz its not an honour apparently. however, it counts for lower leagues because promotion is an honour. the EFL literally gives trophies to the teams that get promoted, such as bolton in 2016/17 since bolton are relevant here. watford, having been promoted today as well as runners-up in the championship lifted a trophy today.Muur (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Read what I said - that is fair enough (if true), but where is the specific reference saying players X and Y received a medal? you cannot simply assume every squad/contracted player has got one. GiantSnowman 21:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
EFL regulations state: "To be eligible to receive a Championship, League One or Two winners medal, a player must have been named on the team sheet in at least 25% of the club's league fixtures in that season. Any medals agreed over and above those detailed above will be at cost to the Club concerned." I would assume this applies to the second and third-placed clubs also. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a source that second/third place also get medals? GiantSnowman 21:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
as for stats, I notice people usually include the players's stats and the league table to show they played that season+where the team finished that season, but I figured the match was enough for the players who played since it showed they were promoted. if that's enough we can just switch to the stats+table for everyone. my only qualm is on if the players who played in the first half of the season then left on loan in january count (so Liam Gordon, Ali Crawford, Jak Hickman, and Jamie Mascoll). I didn't list those because they left on loan in January, but all of them other than Hickman played more than 5 games. also, the EFL state to get a medal you need to appear on the team sheet in 25% of matches (not even play, interestingly, just appear in the 18 for 25% of the 46 matches, which would be 11 matches) here. since again, this is bolton, we see 2016/17 captain jay spearing and josh vela here with their promotion medals when bolton came second.Muur (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
We need a source saying that 2nd/3rd place clubs get medals in 2020–21, and then we need a source saying that player X and Y has got the medal. You rightly point out the issue of players who left on loan. Were you just going to ignore them, even though they might have got a medal? GiantSnowman 21:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
looks like leaving in january *does* get you a medal, as this showed that Sébastien Bassong got two medals in in 14/15 due to playing for two teams who got promoted from the championship that season. so yeah I guess all four of those loaned out bolton players count.Muur (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
here's crewe stating they got promotion medals in 19/20. here's a newport player saying he would get a medal for getting promoted last month (oops, they bottled it, he'll have to make do with the play offs)Muur (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the sort of article you would need to use as a source, which shows Plymouth's captain with a bronze medal for their third place finish in 2019–20. However, this wouldn't be sufficient for the rest of the Plymouth's squad that season. LTFC 95 (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
there are multiple of these talk pages that state promotion is an honour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Players/Archive_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_116 consensus seems to be that being promoted counts (and like I said, its listed on thousands of player articles here on wikipedia.) This one is most relevant. it states "They are included for cup competitions, not league competitions (unless it's a promotion, in which case it's a promotion honour not runners-up honour)." so perhaps that means the formatting should be changed as it seems the accepted it "promoted", not "runner-up" (or in regards to league two, third place). note that this is from december 2020. promotion counts as an honour that can be listed. (with the technicality that the *promotion* is the honour rather then 2nd/3rd place. thats why I made sure to state promotion on them, as its a promotion hounour)Muur (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Muur: you need to use better sources than the league table on Soccerbase btw. I have added a Guardian article on the promotion for now - but please find specific references confirming players in question have a medal, otherwise I will remove them again. GiantSnowman 08:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on this picture, it passes the duck test. Can anyone spot any differences from picture?--EchetusXe 10:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Again, my main point now - where is the source confirming which specific players have a medal? GiantSnowman 11:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
All four teams involved could've finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th on the final day. they obviously weren't going to have all the medals and trophies in just one of the 4 places. Morecambe missed out, but it easily could've been bolton, chelthnam, and/or cambridge missing out and ending up fourth. the efl will send medals to the three promoted teams now that its confirmed. its why the trophy itself and winners medals werent involved in the cheltenham celebrations as seen in that pic the other guy linked, they hadnt won the title until the final whistle blew. cambridge and bolton could've walked out as champions instead. so they will send the trophies and medals out to the teams (covid stuff prob wouldnt have allowed them to go from, lets say, bolton to cambridge to swap medals depending on who was 2nd/3rd). with past promotions it was usually confirmed weeks before. for example in 2018, as seen in this picture they had cardiff's runner up trophy and medals (medals shown in pic) ready cuz they couldn't win the league on the final day, so were already confirmed runners up. BTW, here's a source that states "But even if United miss out on winning the league, the EFL have confirmed that they will be presented with a smaller trophy on the final day – and all the members of the squad will be handed runners-up medals for their efforts in the promotion campaign." so theres confirmation the entire squad gets a medal (though having to appear in 25% of the matchday squads will presumably still be in effect). according to the same source the first time they had runners up trophies/medals was in the 2010/11 season, so i guess any time before that would not pass as an honour cuz they got no trophy before 2011. i specifically remember southampton in league one complained that they wouldn't get anything for coming second and the EFL said "fair enough" and created the medals and a trophy for the runners up (and third place in regards to league two, always thought it was stupid league 2 had 3 automatic spots). right now we dont even have pics of the cheltneham team medals cuz they didnt give them out yet. if you want we coudl put a citation needed thing on it? also here's the guys who actually make the trophies and state that they also make medals to go alongside the trophies. but anywhere there's a source stating the entire squad get a medal, and there was previously an image linked of Plymouth's bronze medal from 2020. (and actually, it seems third place get a "Sky Bet League Two silver salver" for third place going by that plymouth pic, but also get medals. the medals are the relevant part.)Muur (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
So to cut a long reply short, there's a source up there that states all members of the squad get a medal. and in regards to the EFL's 25% match day squads, all the bolton players it was added to were involved in more than 25% of the 46 match day squads.Muur (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
But is it really an honour? Just because someone gets a medal doesn't mean they actually won anything. If the Football League started giving out medals recognising every club all the way down to last place, would we consider all of them honours? Coming third earns you promotion to the next division, sure, but it's no different than finishing in the top four of the Premier League and qualifying for the Champions League, and we wouldn't put "Champions League qualifier" in someone's list of honours. – PeeJay 12:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I would agree with PeeJee that it really shouldn't go. Many of those "pre-season international touraments" like the International Champions Cup give out a trophy, but we don't include those in honours. Referees get medals for reffing in a final. It's more of a token. If a league starts giving out participation trophies to every team like youth soccer, would those be honours then? RedPatch (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree - but where does that leave us? Shall I remove the entries? GiantSnowman 14:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Honestly I think the fact we're struggling as much as we are to prove the EFL hands out medals to teams that didn't finish top shows that it's not really a notable thing. I'm still in favour of removing them from the honours. SportingFlyer T·C 14:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. GiantSnowman 17:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
IMO, promotion is pretty obviously an honour, as it is the main aim of a lower-league team's given season. Also, we include play-off wins in the honours so leaving out automatic promotion would be rather odd. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. A third place promotion is listed as an honour for the club, so why not the player? Chris (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
first place and play offs counting but not the other team that gets promoted is really stupid. thats why the EFL created a trophy and medals in the first place. there are more people saying it counts here than not, there's no consensus that it doesnt. also pre-season tourneys aren't competitive matches and the EFL obviously aren't going to give anything out for coming 15th or whatever. counting 1st and play offs but not runner-up (and 3rd in league two) is really really stupid.Muur (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I honestly wouldn't even put the promotion playoffs. That's like a "oops you failed, here's a second chance" option available to a couple teams. I'd put league winner and that's it. An honour, IMO, is something that every team had a chance at and one team succeeded at. This year 40 teams are going to be promoted to the Primera División RFEF....should all 40 of those teams get an honour because they won promotion to a higher division because they are revamping the league structure. A line has to be drawn somewhere. If third place is an honour for League Two then third place should be an honour for every league in every country - there should be consistency, which gets to be a bit much. If there are different rules for different countries, then it could result in arguments of "why is your country is more important/better than my country". 1st place is a much simpler way. Really from my own experience, people/teams only bascally 'show off' a 2nd/3rd place honour when they have no real championships. Once they get 1st places they stop talking about those 2nd/3rds because they're not important or memorable after a while. As a Bolton fan, in a couple of years say you're talking to someone highlighting the clubs history, you'll say things like "we were in the premier league for X number of years and we're 3 time Championship winners". Would a "3rd place in League Two" fall in the same level or be mentioned. It'll be very quickly forgotten. If it's forgettable, it's not an honour RedPatch (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@RedPatch: isnt third in the world cup the same though? the two losers fight over a third place medal after having already lost.
Agreed. League winner and cup final winner/runner up is enough. Coming 3rd in the 4th tier? Getting up in playoffs? No. GiantSnowman 14:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Something being "stupid" in your view is not reason to edit war. There is no consensus for inclusion. GiantSnowman 14:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean Bolton's promotion in 2017 is still brought up pretty often enough. a league being restructured obviously is different, that isnt earned on the pitch. the "runner-up" isnt the honour, the promotion is. (the *earned* promotion, not a league re-structure). thats why 2nd/3rd in the PL means nothing. past discussions over a decade (as I linked further up) had/have people agreeing they should be added, which means current is to include them. the place where it is right now, unless agreed otherwise, in a new thing, is that promotion is an honour. I linked multiple talks on it before where the agreement is that promotion is an honour. wikipedia currently counts it as such. you realise there are thousands of articles where promotion is listed right? the "status quo" is that they count.Muur (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually the two conversations you link mention nothing of the sort. I just looked them over. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_116#Isthmian_Division_One_North_Playoffs has no consensus at all like you are claiming and ONLY ONE EDITOR said for an automatic promotion to be listed, the rest talked about playoffs, of which there was no consensus -some in favour some against and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players/Archive 5 is a) about players not clubs and b) is a RFC that discusses runner-ups but no third place/auto promotion (one user who was the same as the previous discussion mentions it briefly offhand, but it is not referred to again since it wasn't the purpose of the RFC). So, what you are saying is because 1 editor agrees with you in past discussions, we have to include it and ignore the many more editors who don't agree - meanwhile in this current discussion its split 50/50. Basically, your point here is WP:ILIKEIT You mention Bolton's "promotion in 2017" is still talked about. That still falls under WP:RECENT given its their most recent promotion, hence why it would be compared and discussed with their current promotion and their last successful season where they finished above 21st. How much discussion do their 1995 or 2001 promotions get now? If anything, an RFC can be started to come up with a consensus, of which none currently exists (for or against) RedPatch (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
literally an article talking about every single promotion bolton have had only a few days ago. here's one from this week that talks about the fact that sarcevic has been promoted four times from league two in his career (2014, 2017, 2020, and 2021). here's one where matt gilks's promotions in 2010 and 2018 are mentioned (alongside 2021). anyway: "about players not clubs" this entire thing is about players, not clubs. as for runners-up, third place for L2 counts alongside runner-up for champs and L1 due to how that league is structured for automatic promotion.Muur (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I misread it and thought this was about clubs not players. With that said, the past rfc discussion you linked as consensus does not discuss this topic and is therefore irrelevant. Also, linking non-wikipedia articles does not affect wikipedia consensus. Thank you for starting the RFC below. RedPatch (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should club promotion (non-league title) be listed in a player's honours section[edit]

Is promotion when not finishing as champions an honour? So runner-up (and in league two, third) and play-offs. Muur (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  • No - In a club article, maybe. In a player article, no. Only first place in the league, and winners + runners-up in cups (+ third-place in knock-out competitions with third-place matches). Nehme1499 15:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No As mentioned above, only league winner should be considered honour. Prevents opening up a can of worms where others will say if third place in League Two is an honour, then 3rd place in La Liga, Serie D, Bulgarian Second Division, USL League One, etc, should be listed as an honour. Mention in the article prose instead if you want to include it. RedPatch (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Those instances aren't promotion.Muur (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
As I said, prevents opening up a can of worms. RedPatch (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
that's why its a promotion honour. you'd simply say "coming second in the premier league isnt promotion."Muur (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
And I repeat, can of worms. Someone will say third place is third place. If third place is allowed for some leagues, then I can apply it to another league. I'm not saying me, I'm saying what others users will do when they see. Opening a can of worms means "If you 'open a can of worms', you [often unexpectedly] set in motion or discover something that has wide-reaching consequences". You're intending to do 3rd place for promotion only, what could easily happen is it becomes third place for everything. RedPatch (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No - Per above. Kante4 (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No, not for a player. Mention it in a club article, yes, but not a player 'honour' - that should be restricted to league titles and cup winner/runner-up positions only. GiantSnowman 16:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
wouldn't that discount things like world player of the year or manager of the month as well though?Muur (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No as per GS, mention it in club article, but not in honours section of players. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No it’s an achievement but not an honour. Winning a cup or a title is an honour, coming third, in this case, gains you promotion but that’s it.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
You get medals and a trophy too actually. @Egghead06:Muur (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes: IDK if I'm even allowed to vote on it, but I say yes. and you guys all realise this includes play offs too right? so no play off final wins would be counted (which will be relevant as there are three English play offs finals about to happen).Muur (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Question: What do reliable published sources list as player honours? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
whenever a team signs a player they pretty much always mention player's promotions.Muur (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
(e/c) Neither NFT nor Soccerway give Tammy Abraham any sort of title for Aston Villa's 2018–19 EFL Championship play-off win. Nehme1499 16:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
soccerway does mention sheffield united's 2018/19 championshiip runner up tho. (since you mentioned 2018/19 specfically) [1]. also surely if only league titles and cup winner/runner up count in hounours section then literally every award such as world player of the year isnt relevant either?Muur (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
We are only talking about club honours, obviously, not individual honours... Nehme1499 16:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes: Promotion is in itself an honour, regardless of where a team finishes in the table. The articles found by Muur show that sources make little distinction between promotion and winning a league and I personally don't think there is any real difference between finishing 1st, 2nd or 3rd in League Two. Contrary to RedPatch's assertion that promotion honours are "very quickly forgotten", I can tell you about every one of Leeds United's and Crawley Town's promotion's but I can't neccesarily remember where in the league they finished. Also, I can't quite work out from the discussion above but I think 3rd place in L2 gets medals, which would also suggest it is an honour. In response to RedPatch asking This year 40 teams are going to be promoted to the Primera División RFEF....should all 40 of those teams get an honour because they won promotion to a higher division, the answer is obviously no, as that is a restructuring and teams are only moving to a higher tier if they win the promotion play-offs for the Segunda Division and not if they qualify for the new Primera División RFEF, like how Crawley Town's promotion from the 2003–04 Southern Football League was an honour, but Weymouth's second-place finish was not. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
they get medals and a trophy yes. The conversation just before the RFC was "even though they get medals and trophies promotion isn't an honour". That's why playoffs are included in this as well.Muur (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Muur: ok, ta. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Well they don't give out medals for those who came 17th or whatever. the efl give out medals to promoted teams (including first place) and cups winners. its the entire reason world cup third place is included, cuz they get a medal.Muur (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No For all the reasons mentioned above, only league championships should be included as "personal honors." Even then, I am on the fence regarding league championships as personal honors, but the current consensus is that they are listed. Promotion for any reason is a team honor and should remain on team pages. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No Usually, I would say it depends on who we're talking about but for these circumstances and the reason above, I think it's best not to include it in the honours section. It should however be covered as prose within the career section as for most players, winning promotion is a significant and notable event. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to say I am a bit bemused by people saying that something can be an honour for the club but not the players. If we regard achieving something as an honour for the club, why would we not also regard it as an honour for the players who actually achieved it by their performance on the pitch.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No Not in the honours section. It can be included in prose if relevant. SportingFlyer T·C 10:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No Neither for players or clubs. Agree with Egghead06 that this is an achievement, not an honour. Number 57 10:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No Not in players' honours lists but to be mentioned in the article body.--Tanonero (msg) 11:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Quick question - where do we stand on play-off final wins as honours? It would seem (to me, at any rate) odd to not credit the players of the team which finished 3rd in League Two with an honour for getting promoted but to credit the players of the team that finished (potentially) 7th with an honour for getting promoted just because it was decided by a single game at Wembley and they got a trophy...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
play offs are included in this for not counting. if this gets a "no", the play off finals are snubbed off as well. also, the runners up (and 3rd in league 2) get medals and a trophy as well, which has been proven multiple times at this point but now its a "even tho they get medals we don't wanna count it anyway" thing, which is why the play offs have been thrown in too.Muur (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Another question And is it an honour to be a runner-up in a play-off final.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
course not.Muur (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Someone better tell Neil Warnock, famously promoted eight times as a manager, that only two of them count as honours. Of course his Conference Manager of the Month award from November 1986 is an honour and getting Cardiff promoted into the Premier League isn't an honour. That makes perfect sense and doesn't make the encyclopedia look ridiculous to bemused readers. The List of Cardiff City F.C. managers featured article will have to be revised as well, seen as a random selection of the promotions will no longer be classed as honours.--EchetusXe 21:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No Per the reasons mentioned above, It is not an honour but rather an achievement. Sea Ane (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Should winning a promotion-playoff match/final be listed in a player's honours section[edit]

This has come up a few times in the RFC, so starting a section for it here. Pinging voters and commenters of the previous section @Muur, Nehme1499, GiantSnowman, Joseph2302, Struway2, Microwave Anarchist, Alyo, EchetusXe, Stevie fae Scotland, Egghead06, Jkudlick, ChrisTheDude, SportingFlyer, Number 57, and Tanonero:

  • No Not in players' honours lists but mentioned in article prose. My explanation is in the original commentary. Only league title. Note: This refers only to promotion playoffs. Championship playoffs such as the MLS Cup Playoffs are obviously different, since those determine the actual league champion (not the league table). We don't list automatic qualification to the Champions League/Europa League as an honour, that's the equivalent of the League Two auto promotion. 3rd place in Premier League gets a hybrid "promotion" to the higher level Champions League the next season. Similar to automatic/playoff promotion in my eyes. RedPatch (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No As a rule of thumb, fine in prose, but not in the honours section. Does it count if say Kilmarnock win the relegation play-off and don't get relegated? This is limited to promotion playoffs only as RedPatch notes. SportingFlyer T·C 11:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes / No: I've said more than enough at this point in regards to my support for it. As for relegation vs promotion play off for someone like Kilmarnock that wouldn't count because it's avoiding relegation, not achieving promotion. although if the situation is that runner-up and third in league two dont count, then I don't thikn play off should count either. so my yes/no depends on how the runners-up are handled. PS, the original RFC included the play offs as well.Muur (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Apologies, I missed that the original RfC did indeed cover play-offs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
some others may not have realised that too, so this makes it more clear at least.Muur (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No Agree with the above that prose is enough. Number 57 12:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for tagging me RedPatch. No - Same reason as above, it's a significant/notable event rather than an honour. For countries like Scotland/Germany/France where we have divisional play-offs rather than the promotion play-offs you have in England it really doesn't make sense to consider winning the play-offs as an honour. As a supporter, I considered it much more of a relief in 2016 when Kilmarnock stayed up through the play-offs.
As an aside, I could see merit in including a list of notable events (for want of a better title) in player/club articles when they aren't Lionel Messi or Manchester United and don't have many, if any, winners' medals. It would only really be relevant for players/clubs who have a couple of promotions as a runner up or for play-off winners. It would very much depend on context as a club/player with several runners-up medals or one or two trophy wins might not need it as they have actual honours. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: still feels a tad odd to me that something like a promotion wouldn't count, yet things like world player of the year count.Muur (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Same as result for promotion vote - The honour is with the promotion, not the play-off tournament win. It would be absurd to list a play-off tournament win as an honour but not finishing in an automatic promotion place. I mean, of course it's already absurd to talk about removing promotion honours from the honours section, but here we are. They are listed as honours by primary sources but a few editors don't like it and have come up with a few nonsensical strawman arguements.--EchetusXe 14:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No In the pre-woke, pre-politically correct world they were winners and losers, not winners and a series of people who were runners-up. To win is an honour. Other than that you are not a winner and that is no honour despite what they may teach in schools these days.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
and yet cup runners-up are allowed. kinda goes against your point.Muur (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Football play-offs are "woke". I've heard it all now. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Didn’t say that, but them you knew that. Giving rewards to those who have failed to win the league they were is definitely a modern day pat on the back for failure just like the top FOUR in the Premier league making the CHAMPIONS League. --Egghead06 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Runners-up in the second tier have been promoted to the top flight since the 1898–99 Football League season. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Think there has already been a discussion elsewhere on whether being a runner-up is an honour? Can’t remember the outcome but personally I think it’s again, an achievement, but coming second or third in the league or maybe even sixth in the case of the play-offs, is no honour.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No - prose is sufficient. GiantSnowman 15:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No - I would support including it if we were including automatic promotion, but as there is a pretty clear concensus to not include automatic promotion, the same should apply to play-off winners. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No - Promotion is a team accomplishment, not an individual accomplishment; it can be included in the article prose but should not be listed as a player honor. However, winning a major international tournament (e.g. FIFA World Cup) is something that can be included in personal honors because of how rarely it occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkudlick (talkcontribs)
    • @Jkudlick: - out of interest, why would promotion be a team accomplishment, but not an individual accomplishment, given that it's the players on the pitch who accomplish it? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
      • @ChrisTheDude: Because it takes the entire team to win promotion, not any one individual. Club promotion is definitely suitable for the prose of an individual player's article, but I will always argue against its inclusion in individual honors. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
        • It takes an entire team to win any competition, not just to get promoted. – PeeJay 18:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
        • @Jkudlick: - so by the same logic we shouldn't list any of his four Champions League wins or ten La Liga titles as honours on Lionel Messi's article, because it took an entire team to win each one, not just him......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
          • @ChrisTheDude: That would be correct. However, current consensus is that they are included and this discussion is not about that. I also doubt that consensus will change should I bring it up, so I am content to leave it as it is. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course. Even if we decide that promotions aren't deemed to be "honourworthy", the play-offs are competitions in their own right, so why wouldn't we include them? We include the FA Community Shield as an honour, which is a one-match tournament and the result of which is of no consequence, so why not the play-offs, a tournament that includes four (or more) teams and which results in promotion for the winner? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Well someone has now added it for all players of Dundee F.C. with their latest promotion as well. RedPatch (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
because lower league fans very clearly see promotion as an honour. scrapping it will honestly be controversial as shit and will prob cause quite the shit storm once it starts getting deleted from all the pages.Muur (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Well of course, Paul McGowan winning a SFL Young Player of the Month award is more significant than captaining a team to promotion into the Premier League from the play-offs isn't it? I mean come on, this isn't a completely braindead discussion where people just vote "no" without reading any of the points made or knowing the first thing about football you know!--EchetusXe 16:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
people involved dont like lower league football it seems. they support teams like man city and chelsea most likely and dont realise how much promotion means to fans. also, who's going to be the one to go through 200 seasons of english football and remove promotions from every single player? its crazy that a few big 6 fans dont like something and can cause it to shit all over lower league football.Muur (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
someone tell brentford's manager that getting promoted to the premier league for the first time in 74 years means nothing. speaking of someone added it to all the brentford players, so uh, time to delete!Muur (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't mean "nothing," but it's not specifically an "honour." Nor is this a conspiracy against lower league clubs and I'm honestly kind of miffed at that general accusation even though it's not targeted at anyone. This is an exercise to gain a consensus about what constitutes an "honour" which will need to be applied world-wide, not just to English competitions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
and what is the definition of "hounour" here?Muur (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please refer to WP:POINT. Removing a load of sourced honours when you yourself agree that they are notable for inclusion is disruptive. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
but consensus is now that it doesn't count? @RedPatch: already did the same thing for dundee.Muur (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion (well, !vote) is leaning that way, although I don't think there's been a consensus established yet. While we're discussing it, I think those !voting should acknowledge, promotion/relegation outcomes aside, that play-offs are competitions in their own right, with trophies, medals etc given to winners. What other competitions do we exclude when they've been won outright? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
it was already stated multiple times that being given a medal and trophy means nothing. read the entire discussion. I even showed pics of players in 2nd/3rd place promotion with medals and trophies over the last few years. multiple people said that "just cuz you get a medal and trophy for second doesnt mean its an hounour and only winning the league counts."Muur (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
In the case of leagues where play-offs incorporate teams from multiple tiers, "winning" the competition may be more of a relief to a team that doesn't get relegated than an honour. We need to maintain consistency, and there's no reason why winning the play-off can't be discussed in prose. SportingFlyer T·C 23:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I really don't understand why promotion-relegation play-offs are put forward as some "gotcha" moment that proves winning play-offs aren't an honour. No. The logical conclusion is that the promotion is the honour. Teams that avoid relegation by winning a play-offs are not promoted, thus no honour.--EchetusXe 12:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone has been adding Chelsea's Champions League win to player's honours section. Is it really an honour though? They have a trophy and medals but it's been established that those are meaningless when it comes to defining honours. Someone made the point that a team wins a promotion, individual players. This is also true for cup competitions. EchetusXe 12:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems like you are now grasping at straws because consensus is going against your personal preference. People were saying to not include promotion playoffs because basically its a team that had come in 3rd-7th. Obviously there is a difference between finishing 3-7th and 1st like a CL victory. The top-tier equivalent to winning promotion is qualifying for the UCL/UEL finishing non-first. We don't add those to the honours. Should we add relegation playoff winners to honours? It's the same thing, they won a 'play off'. What about promotion playoffs where it ends up being a team that finished 3rd in the lower league versus a team that finnished 19th in the higher league. Potential honour for one team only then (the lower team). Needs to be something equal for all teams not just one. No one ever said it needs to be completely omitted in the wikipedia page, rather just put it in the prose section where it is more appropriate. RedPatch (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
By winning the play-off, you have, by definition, finished 1st (i.e. winner, champion). How you qualified for the play-off competition, by finishing second, third, etc, in your regular league season is immaterial. In the same way we wouldn't exclude the Champions League on the basis that teams can qualify for that competition having finished as low as fourth in their league. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
That isn't a championship playoff, I know you're well aware of that. It's not really a "playoff", it's more of a "Play Off" - note the space. They're playing for a second crack at it. If they're in it, it's because they specifically did not come in first. In these League Two ones, the league 1st placers, nor the 2nd placers aren't in it. There's trophies for a lot of things that are not true honours. I don't go around adding the Trillium Cup to players honours sections. There's a trophy involved: see here, here, and here's Jermain Defoe holding it. We don't go around adding the International Champions Cup to articles, but there's a trophy like here and here. Honestly, I feel people have different standards when it comes to English teams that there are special rules and everything there is more important. It's like when I made a suggestion to add a Playoffs column to the MOS for the stats table for players who played primarily in Championship Playoffs in North America, which are more important than league games and domestic cups and basically got told it should stay in other because not all leagues have those, but something like League Cup couldn't be put in other, even if the player only played one year in England and had dashes for that section everywhere else. Same as when someone wanted to include the L5-8 League Cup in the League Cup section, despite meeting all the requirements, there was a whole lot of pushback because they wanted to protect the importance of the English League Cup. If this discussion had started over someone adding Belgian second or third division playoffs, I feel like there would be a totally different sentiment. RedPatch (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree with this notion of there being "true honours", it's not for us to judge how 'worthy' a competition is. I mean, the FA Community Shield is essentially a glorified friendly, the result of which is of no real consequence, but we still include it because it's a senior, first-team competition. And I don't know where your insinuations of English bias are coming from, perhaps there's some previous here I'm unaware of here. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I might be mixing up the English bias with a discussion I've had elsewhere not on wikipedia and applying it to some I've had here, so I'll strike out that comment since it'd be biased of me to make that claim and apply it to all. But to go back to my original point way at the beginning of this discussion last week, these just open up a can of worms. 2nd/3rd place auto-promotion, what about 3rd place in leagues without promotion. Promotion playoffs that award a trophy, what about promotion playoffs in countries that don't give a medal for that, what about promotion/relegation hybrid playoff between two different level teams, what about relegation playoffs. If we say yes to some of those and not other, then we are judging worthiness. As an added point, though I'm of the less is better crowd. The more things that are included, the more complicated it gets. A point was raised earlier about things like Player of the Month awards, etc., I don't believe those should be included either. I'd limit those to Player of the Year at the very minimum and only those of major recognition like a Ballon D'Or or maybe a League MVP awarded by the league if at all (not a player of the year from some random website). RedPatch (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
You are forgetting WP:POLL. Consensus isn't reached by polls where a majority of people say "I don't think play-offs should be an honour because I don't think it's an honour" and do not engage with any actual discussion. Your points are asinine. "what about 3rd place in leagues without promotion" - I would suggest that in those cases where teams do not finish in promotion places then the players do not have the non-existent promotion listed in their honours section. The previous consensus was that "medals or promotion = honour", now this poll seems to be suggesting that "medals = honour (except in certain circumstances)". Talk about opening a can of worms, I'm just asking for clarification on what these exceptions will be. I agree with you that honours section can become bloated. There are about 100 lines each of Cristiano Ronaldo and Zlatan Ibrahimović's honours section, deciding that promotions are no longer honours does not remove any from those or any other excessively long list.--EchetusXe 13:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
RedPatch was clearly demonstrating that just because someone receives a trophy or even a medal doesn't necessarily imply that it's an honour worthy of the honours section of a Wikipedia page. Honours are pretty well defined in my mind - did you win a sanctioned trophy of some sort, or a sanctioned award of some sort? I don't have much issue with lower league championships, but extending this to promotions doesn't make a lot of sense, and it appears consensus is clear that's a correct argument. SportingFlyer T·C 14:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
You claimed that my point is that medal = honour "sometimes" and is inconsistent and yours is consistent medal = honour - and I feel it is the opposite. Mine is very consistent in my mind - 1st place and 1st place only. "First place for the 3rd place game" - which is basically what that promotion playoff game is - a glorified 3rd place competition game - is not 1st place and thus very consistent with my point. I listed an examples actual trophies which do not merit inclusion because they are not real 1st place trophies. Players get random "Man of the Match" trophies all the time. Are those honours because they got a trophy? If the Serie A had a 2nd and 3rd place trophy would that mean 3rd place in Serie A could be included, but 3rd place in La Liga could not be because there was no trophy. My point is very clear - 1st place only to prevent a can of worms. You claim that my points are asinine, but really it's you don't agree with my point so you're automatically dismissing any opposing point as meritless. I've never said that promotion is irrelevant, but I've said a line needs to be drawn somewhere. I never said ignore promotion entirely, I said put it in the prose - include it, just elsewhere. For many clubs, avoiding relegation in the top flight is a tremendous achievement, why isn't that an honour, it's just as valuable as promotion to those clubs. It's actually more important, would that team rather be in the top flight for five straight years or get promoted, immediately relegated, promoted back 3 years later for 2 years of 5 in the top flight? Again, its not that promotion isn't important, it's that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. If it was a true playoffs, that 1st place team in the league would be involved as the top seeded team, instead they're not in it at all, so those promotion playoffs are a "best of the rest" not a "best of the best" compeition. Honours section should be for the "best of the best". RedPatch (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes: I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to have my say on this sort of thing, but after being notified of this policy while adding this honour to the winners of the most recent League One play-off final I thought I'd put forward my view. This entire discussion seems like unneeded pedantry over what constitutes an "honour". Isn't the purpose of the honours section just to showcase the achievements of a player/club in a concise manner? Promotions, via the play-offs or not, are no doubt worthy of a mention as a very notable achievement even if they aren't outright titles. Morecambe have "won" promotion to the third tier for the first time in their history today but apparently it isn't worthy of mention under this policy. They are all huge moments for the fans and significant achievements for the players which come as a result of the team excelling in the league. I don't see what is to be gained by removing all of these honours other than to needlessly water down those of clubs without a plethora of actual titles and make the lesser honours much, much harder to discover. Is there a genuine concern that there will be an inability among readers to ascertain that a promotion, runners-up or play-off victory are worth less than a title? And that the only way to address that is to have them pushed behind the curtain? It all seems pointlessly reductive to me and I'd like to see them kept. If not then I believe a separate section should be created to list these sorts of things as they should certainly be presented somewhere without forcing readers to scour through articles for the information. UTMP1887 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the previous comparisons for medals are pre season tourneys. Non competitive matches obviously don't count. Getting a medal is the only reason people consider third place in the World Cup to be relevant, so I don't see how third place in the World Cup is any different to 3rd place/runner up that comes with promotion. And *no one* is going to list coming third in the Premier League on someone's page. If they do, you tell them that is worthless, and it's only relevant with a promotion in a lower league. they aint gonna give out medals for qualifying for the Champions League. Winning promotion is competitive, not friendlies. If this truely pulls through then i'm going to motion to remove third place in cups.Muur (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
One one pre-season, the other was not. Involved competitive league matches. RedPatch (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Trillim Cup means nothing. It's a fake trophy made up by the teams involved. the EFL make promotion trophies.
And the promotion trophy was a made up trophy for that promotion game. How many teams will go into the season and say our goal is to win the promotion playoff trophy? No, the goal is to win the League One/Two title. The promotion playoff is a consolation match. I'm saying an honour should be what the primary goal is. The goal is to win the league. The goal isn't I hope I come anywhere between 3rd and 7th so I get a second chance. What about leagues that have promotion playoffs but don't award a random trophy for it? I've been consistent all along. 1st place and 1st place only. Even for Cup finals, I still would say winners only not runners-up (that wasn't being discussed here, although some others have referenced those although I don't agree). The only one I would say were 2nd/3rd could be is Olympics, not because I feel its different, but because that'd be more of a WP:SPORTS thing than a WP:FOOTY thing. RedPatch (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
So should those players that won the Europa League after dropping out of the Champions League get their honours removed too? Europa League certainly wasn't the goal at the start of their season, but they won the competition that was put in front of them. UTMP1887 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
also I get yelled at for removing play offs from brentford players, yet @GiantSnowman: can remove it from Morcambe players without being yelled at? brentford players still have play offs listed. this is getting hella inconsistent now. I'm also kinda worried if I start to go through the 200 seasons and remove all promotions I'm going to be banned, lol.Muur (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
If that's the case then the double standards are ridiculous. And using "promotion honours are quickly forgotten" as a justification is even more ridiculous; any sources on that claim? UTMP1887 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not right that @GiantSnowman: removes these honours while this discussion is still ongoing. Also, as the editor who "yelled" at @Muur: for removing the Brentford honours, I wasn't aware of the Blackpool ones being removed, although I don't have the time or inclination to engage in mass reverting at this hour. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
"And the promotion trophy was a made up trophy for that promotion game. How many teams will go into the season and say our goal is to win the promotion playoff trophy? No, the goal is to win the League One/Two title." actually, they always just say "the goal is to get promoted". the teams dont care if its 1st, 2nd, or 3rd as long as they get promoted. Like I said, that Trillian thing is made up by the teams. if man united beat man city and give themselves a trophy, it doesnt count lol. if the EFL make a trophy and give it, then obviously it counts. runners-up and play off winners are relevant for honours, they get medals and trophies and players talk about their promotions years later. no one would go "oh yeah in 2005 I qualified for the UCL that one time". winning promotion apparently wont be remembered, but the time a guy won best young player of the month in the cambodian 4th tier will always be remembered.Muur (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Consensus is clear here, and my removals were justified. GiantSnowman 10:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If editors (currently @Rupert1904:) could please stop adding these as 'honours' in player articles, when the consensus above is clear, that would. be grand. GiantSnowman 14:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this discussion before but I think a promotion play-off is worthy as there is a trophy presentation and all the players receive a medal. It's an officially sanctioned trophy by the EFL so think it's just as worthy of an inclusion as say the Community Shield which is a glorified pre-season kick about. But if there is a consensus not to include that is okay too as I also think it's not noteworthy to include the team that gets automatically promoted in 2nd place. Rupert1904 (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Second place teams *also* get given a trophy and medals and lift a trophy, though. people here said "trophies and medals mean nothing."Muur (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
So it's currently 5 supporting Yes the play-off honours should be kept, against 7 supporting No they should be scrapped. Is that really what counts as a clear consensus around here? UTMP1887 (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTAVOTE (even though the numbers are in favour of excluding them as you say). It's strength of argument. GiantSnowman
So what exactly makes this such a clear consensus? Most of the arguments against seem to boil down to "promotion/play-offs isn't 1st place" which is hardly a hugely compelling argument. If you've spent any time following lower-league football it's obvious that fans and players care massively about promotion and they are hugely significant events in the history of dozens of clubs and the careers of hundreds of players. This discussion just seems to overlook the spirit of the honours section which seems to be to display the accomplishments of the player and not just their outright titles as evidenced by the many existing player articles which already list promotions and play-off victories. As people keep reiterating there are plenty of individual awards which feature and are certainly less relevant than gaining promotion. What is the actual goal of this change? UTMP1887 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
it's simply an admin not liking it. but I feel like that's countered by another admin, mattythewhite, disagreeing making it 1-1 on admins.Muur (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • When there's disagreement on Wikipedia, it's always good to look to see what other sites do. I'd like to point out that other sources don't view this as an honour - not that we use Transfermarkt for anything, but for Ivan Toney they only list his top scorer status and his Trophy win with Barnsley. Football-reference.com lists Jamie Vardy's EPL win and his player of the season wins, but none of his promotions (nor his FA Cup win.) Soccerbase doesn't list any honours. Soccerway.com lists lower league championships, but not promotions. Of the major database sites which might list player honours, none of them list promotions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
One of them not listing the FA Cup kinda throws the entire thing out for me.Muur (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
In that case it should be noted that Soccerway records runners-up honours for league titles. UTMP1887 (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
A quick look and they do indeed. they list second place in league one, for example which is uh - promtion.Muur (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Except they are doing that for EVERY league, so they are NOT doing it because it is promotion. They are doing it because it is second place. So like I said it's the same can of worms, they do second place for every league which is why League one gets it on soccerway, not because it is promotion. Way to ignore half of it to suit your point. Wikipedia doesn't do runner-up for league, so saying soccerway does it for league one is moot because they do it for every league including La Liga, Premier League, etc where 2nd is not a promotion. RedPatch (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The important thing here is that even though different secondary sites determine honours differently, none of them call promotion an honour. SportingFlyer T·C 10:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Players will not actually be released until their contracts end on 30 June 2021[edit]

Yes, we're at that point when Football League clubs are starting to announce retained/released lists. Just a polite reminder that in 99% of cases players remain contracted until 30 June 2021, so they will be released only then. Please do not remove them from 'current squad' lists or similar until that time. GiantSnowman 14:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

technically they're released on July 1st, since June 30th is the final day of their contracts.Muur (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. The point is they are not released now. GiantSnowman 10:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Successor national teams[edit]

Can anyone help out with the disruptive IP adding false information to UEFA Euro 2020 qualifying? They continue to add that Ukraine are successors of the Soviet Union, Croatia and North Macedonia are successors of Yugoslavia, and Slovakia are successors of Czechoslovakia. As has been discussed before, UEFA and FIFA only recognise Russia, Serbia and the Czech Republic as successors to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, respectively, which was already noted on the article. The IP is from Ukraine, so it appears they dislike the recognition of Russia as sole successors to the Soviet Union. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I tried reverting and warning them (again), but they're clearly WP:NOTLISTENING. Needs an admin to either block or protect the page. FIFA/UEFA consider Russia as sole successors of USSR, and similarly for Yugoslavia. This IP user reverting cannot change that. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@S.A. Julio and Joseph2302: I've issued a final warning - please ping me if they come back. GiantSnowman 20:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
GiantSnowman They're back from their block and doing the same edits again.... Joseph2302 (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Already blocked by @Ashleyyoursmile:. GiantSnowman 18:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
And they're blocked again- this time for a month. Would it be worth giving that IP address a longer partial block from editing that one page? Joseph2302 (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
What does blocking admin @Luk: think? This relates to 91.234.72.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Given they are pretty much a SPA an indef page block might suffice? GiantSnowman 21:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd be afraid they go to another related page to do the same thing. IMHO, 1 month puts the block up to the end of the Euro (which is on 11 July), so they might forget about this. I might be wrong though :) -- Luk talk 22:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough - let's re-assess after the block expires. GiantSnowman 09:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Soccerway play offs[edit]

Okay so Soccerway count play offs as regular league appearances. This is something people will need to pay attention to because it will cause, and has caused (ive made a few corrections before) errors in stats due to soccerway counting them as regular league apeparences when theyre actually play off appearecnes. this is mostly relevant for non english players since soccerbase tends to be used for english players and *does* specify play offs. for example, Carlos Mendes Gomes made 43 league two apeparences, and three play off appeaences. Soccerway list it as 46 league two appearences whilst Soccerbase are usually accurate but uh, for some reason theyre counting the league two play off final as a regular league match? what the shit. (the totals in the league appearence are correct at least with 74 instead of 75). but still people will need to pay attention here for countries with play offs. england, india, usa, austraila etcMuur (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

For India, there isn't really a way to distinguish so I would just use a note saying "3 appearances included from playoffs" or something. For Major League Soccer, I just link to the website which does differentiate between regular season and playoffs. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
theyre still play offs in india, so go into "other"Muur (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The finals series matches in Australia are always counted as league appearances. Hack (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Hack: I've just noticed that recently when udpating stats for Bobô and Tomi Juric respectively. Why is it like that? I would prefer adding to the other column and don't particularly like the way it currently is since it's extra matches beyond the regular season plus in every other league around the world with that sort of finals play-offs like the English lower divisions, MLS, Indian Super League, Eredivise European play-offs, Bundesliga and Ligue 1 relegation play-offs, etc., we put those stats in the other column and make a note about appearances in the play-offs. I am okay with adding play-off appearances to the league column for players in Belgium and Denmark as those are structured a bit a different as almost half the season is considered a "play-off" but I feel that A-League play-offs should go in the other column. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The reliable stat sources don't split league and finals. The league and federation only ever talk about total appearances. I would suggest including a note to say that A-League appearances include league and finals. Hack (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Jack Taylor (referee)[edit]

I am in a small disagreement with an editor, (@Augustus End:) who is related to Taylor, as to his date of birth. Reliable sources claim April 1930. He is saying they are wrong and it was May 1930 and that the reliable sources are copying an earlier error in Wikipedia. Anyone know a definitive date of birth for Jack Taylor?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This is getting rather silly!
Would you like to see his birth certificate, marriage licence or death certificate? Augustus End (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Augustus End, it's not silly. This is about Wikipedia:Verifiability, a core Wikipedia policy:
In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Official documents can be used to verify dates of birth/death for deceased people only, although it's still not ideal, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. If it needs to be verified then use WP:OTRS. GiantSnowman 10:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The family of Jack Taylor are flattered that people are still interested in his career. Not many people have relations that have obituaries published in newspapers around the world. Sadly, either a lazy journalist or a Wikipedia editor entered the wrong date of birth on his passing. Now, the family have to contend with the fact that there is a lot more erroneously published data out there, than the documents in our hands and the knowledge in our heads. Jack would find all of this rather amusing. Augustus End (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Augustus End: What exactly is your source for the other date of birth? Can you send a link to it? Upload a file? Something? Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie: - Augustus can supply relevant documentation to WP:OTRS (as mentioned above) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m the executor of his wife’s will. I have their marriage licence, his death certificate and his birth certificate is with his daughter (my wife’s mother). Honestly, I’ve got better things to do than this. Augustus End (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Augustus End: I don't get if this an attempt to troll or if you're being serious. We have told you multiple times that you can verify your documents via WP:OTRS. You keep ignoring us, and proceed to get offended... Nehme1499 12:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Augustus End: I understand how it can be frustrating to see inaccuracies appear, and your desire to have them corrected. Currently, your request has to be based only on your word written here above, and unfortunately this can be written by anyone (for example I could create a new account and change the date of death to one month ago and write that I am related). Therefore, to avoid a case of anyone saying what they want which could be wrong (if it's with some agenda or just for trolling), Wikipedia is supposed to include only facts which are supported by verifiable and reliable sources. The Guardian is of couse such a source. Even so, even these kinds of sources can be wrong and may have mistakes. In such a case, the relevant documentation can be supplied as said above to WP:OTRS. I would also suggest directly contacting the source (The Guardian in this case) regarding the issue and asking them to correct. Lastly, I want to assure you that the editors here are as interested as you that the information is correct and accurate as possible, but also to make sure that not any person with an internet connection will write whatever they want. --SuperJew (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m quite serious. I’ll send an email to one of the addresses listed under WP:OTRS. Augustus End (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Augustus End: - I'm not vastly familiar with OTRS, but I think info-en-q@wikimedia.org would be the best email to use..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an email address. This is the first time that I have ever been bothered enough to want to change what is on Wikipedia. The only reason that I care is because both Jack and Sue are in our thoughts at this time. Augustus End (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a brief update: I have sent documentation to the email address suggested. Hopefully, this will suffice and I return to focusing on Mrs Taylor’s estate and funeral arrangements. Augustus End (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

…and primary data is ‘less reliable’, apparently. I’m now going to dig out a copy of his autobiography, to see if he mentions his birthday! Augustus End (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Jack has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography:

https://www.oxforddnb.com/search?q0=Jack+Taylor&t=OccupationsAndRealmsOfRenown%3A1604

Surely, in the world of Wikipedia, this has credibility?

It corresponds with the documents that don’t seem to count. Augustus End (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you all happy with the ODNB? Augustus End (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

…and it’s been changed back again!

Why would anyone do that? This is bloody annoying! Augustus End (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

As you know, I emailed the OTRS address a few days ago. As I’m new to all this, they provided a few pointers, but I didn’t get the impression that they were actually going to help - I might be wrong…

As the Egghead person stated, I’m part of Jack’s family. So, I know full well his date of birth. I now know that this doesn’t count for much!

I think it was Robby that advised me about the importance of Wikipedia Verifiability. Jack has an entry in the ODNB - this is quite a big deal and not many people get the chance to have their lives documented in this way. Given that the biographer was able to state with confidence the very street in which Jack was born, you’d like to think that the date given would be based upon substance and is reliable.

We bury Jack’s widow in two weeks time. It would be nice to think that this could be resolved by 30th June. Augustus End (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added a footnote mentioning his disputed DoB and used the ODNB as a reference, but I would say that a member of his family directly editing the article does raise WP:COI concerns. Spike 'em (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, I notice he released an autobiography, does that have any mention of his DoB? (p.s. I see you mentioned that above) Spike 'em (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I have expanded the article based on the ODNB entry, and slightly expanded the footnote. ODNB states "Taylor, John Keith (Jack) (1930–2012), football referee, was born on 21 May 1930 at 33 Sweetman Street, Wolverhampton, the son of Albert Taylor, butcher, and his wife, Olive Gertrude, née Lane." I wonder if the family have written to The Guardian? It has been zealous about accuracy, publishing regular 'Notes and Corrections' if information was found to be incorrect - if it now published a correction to its obituary, that, surely, would immediately be reliable? Paul W (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The most recent update is really well written. To avoid any potential conflict of interest, I won’t edit things again.

However, I would like to point out that Jack and Hazel had a daughter; the other three children were from Sue’s prior relationship. Augustus End (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

So, has the ODNB got it wrong regarding Jack Taylor's children from the respective marriages (re Hazel, it says "with whom he had two sons and two daughters")? Is there a published source with the correct allocation of children? Paul W (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
If Guardian and ODNB both use May, then I think we should as well. GiantSnowman 18:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The Guardian has April not May.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The article now says April (cited to The Guardian), with the fact that the ONDB says May buried in a footnote. But surely the ONDB is a more reliable source than a newspaper article? I would suggest that the article should say May, with the alternative suggestion of April in a footnote..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of the FIFA World Cup [2] has April.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

it's not just the Guardian, the Telegraph and Independent obits also had April. Not managed to check being the Times payroll. Spike 'em (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I’ve emailed The Guardian. Hopefully they will take note of Jack’s personal details where Wikipedia cannot.

That might make things easier. Augustus End (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for moving this to May. There are sources that confirm it as May. I don't see the COI case here as an issue. Wikipedia discourages Conflict of editing due to the issue of neutrality. Neutrality isn't an issue here because there is nothing subjective here. Date of Birth is an objective fact. Augustus isn't trying to change content in the article, apart from the DOB, which to me seems a perfectly valid reason. I understand the issue of COI and have seen articles in the past with COI editors and have seen the issues there - this one seems completely different to me because of the circumstances. The only issue being raised is a DOB which is an objective fact and a reliable source HAS BEEN provided to back up the claim. RedPatch (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
And there are at least 5 reliable sources that use April (though we have little way of telling if any reproduced information from each other) Spike 'em (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If it helps, I’ll write to each of these publications. He doesn’t mention his own date of birth in his refereeing book, but may have done so in the other one… I’ll have to dig it out. No longer am I annoyed; I’m actually finding this whole thing fascinating! Augustus End (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

So in summary, both dates can be sourced to at least one reliable independent source, so the only issue is deciding which one(s) to trust over the other(s). Can we not just assume good faith that Augustus End is telling the truth when he says he has evidence that the date he is arguing for is the correct one and go with that one, with a footnote indicating that some sources give the other date? It's not like he is arguing for the inclusion of a date which isn't supported by any reliable independent sources at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I think this is sensible. Paul W (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
If it helps at all, the 1939 Register (an official document) gives 21 May 1930: link to Ancestry.com, for those with access. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The 1939 Registry entry is one of the documents that I’ve already shared with OTRS. Augustus End (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree - change it to May. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that one source has got something wrong and the others have copied... GiantSnowman 09:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI - the Independent have responded already and have changed their obituary. The Guardian have also replied - asking me to explain my relationship. Hopefully, they will follow suit. Thank you all for the professional manner in which you’ve worked towards a resolution - I’ll try to stay clear of Wikipedia editing from now on! Augustus End (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Augustus End: - stick around, you might find you like it ;) GiantSnowman 10:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude has changed the article and its footnote so that the May date is now paramount. Pleased to see this resolved - and, echoing GS, @Augustus End:, please consider editing Wikipedia again - it is, as you said, 'fascinating' to be part of a community building an open knowledge resource, and more volunteers are always welcome. Paul W (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Good morning. The Guardian have just changed their article too! Thank you for all your help! Augustus End (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978–79 London Spartan League[edit]

This AfD just closed as delete in spite of the fact there's press coverage we can't access. Since we have typically kept these sorts of articles, we need to have a centralised discussion about when we can create articles on a league's season in order to figure out at what point on the pyramid it's acceptable to have articles about a league's season. I have no proposal at this point other than GNG, but what sort of coverage contributes to GNG for these sorts of articles would be helpful to know for future discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty clear, the toll on that last AfD shows these season pages fail GNG and the rest should be sent to AfD. I don't know how to do bulk AfDs. Govvy (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, and that's why I've started this discussion here, to avoid a potential deletion conflict. I even think that article can be saved if we can access the British newspaper archives. SportingFlyer T·C 11:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, of the articles I accessed on it, it just shows results. :/ Govvy (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Govvy: - stating that the outcome of one single AfD proves that every other one of the league's 100+ seasons automatically fails GNG is nonsense, I'm afraid -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
You lost me? I am talking specifically for the Spartan League which ran for 79 seasons. The division of this league are so slow on the football spectrum, GNG, where? Where is the evidence, supply it for each season then, no, then don't assume the whole lot should be kept on your whim. Govvy (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I was factoring in the Spartan South Midlands League, which it became. But my main point is that you can't simply state that because the 1978-79 season failed GNG, then that proves that every other one does too. Coverage could have been very different in different eras and each one would need to be assessed on its own merits..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
In 1907, for example, when the LSL formed, it was effectively Step 2 of non-league football in the London area, so there's every chance it got much more coverage than it did in 1978..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure Govvy how this proves anything. Sources were identified, and those that could access them were asked to do so. None did. We don't have problems finding contemporary coverage for such leagues; no reason that there shouldn't be offline sources for historic pre-digital seasons. Nfitz (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Again, I did access some of them, and all I saw was results of teams in that league! Feels like no one is listening to me! Govvy (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
All you saw was results of the league in the BNA, User:Govvy? Two other people noted they easily found more than that in BNA. I'm not sure you are listening to us. What was you search string at BNA? Nfitz (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Two info box lines or one…[edit]

So, I’m trying to figure this out. Harry Souttar has had two consecutive loan spells with the same club. He didn’t play in the meanwhile with his parent club before being reloaded out. Now, Zlatan Ibrahimovic spent a year at Manchester United, was released and was signed by the same club 6 weeks later, however this is shown on Wikipedia as one spell in the relevant infobox. After making a change to Souttar’s article to match Ibrahimovic’s, Add92 reverted this and after being asked to explain the difference between the two, has pointed out an arbitrary website as a “source” and that we should use this. I asked him to explain why Souttar’s double loan and Zlatan’s double spell are shown differently and it’s been ignored. Can someone explain how my actions were incorrect, or if this is something we have as an oversight, which should be looked in to? Cheers. - J man708 (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

With Zlatan, do we know whether or not he was on a rolling, week-to-week contract whilst they were negotiating a new deal? i.e. did he actually leave the club? As far as I can see, we don't know either way, so one line is fine. with Harry Souttar, the sources make it clear that he was "returning" i.e. it was a second spell, so we have two lines. GiantSnowman 07:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Zlatan left the club and was a free agent. That’s pretty much it. Two spells, one line. Confusingly though, when we have a player like Jesse Pinto who leaves football for a while and comes back with the same club, we seem to show two different lines. Then obviously we have Souttar’s issue as listed above, but this again is seen as different to say Luke Brattan, whose one year loan, was “extended” for a second season after the loan ceased. This happened again for a third season aswell, but is listed as one loan deal?
So, what I’m trying to get at, is where is the consistency? It seems arbitrarily defined on here by whoever seems to tell loudest and push the 3RR? - J man708 (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
What are you basing your assertive "Zlatan left the club and was a free agent" on? Players often stick around when their fixed contract expires whilst they negotiate a new deal. An extension to a loan is different to a new loan. I don't see any real issues with any of the examples you have highlighted. GiantSnowman 15:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I know it sounds like a dickish response (not intending that, GS), but Google “Zlatan released Manchester United 2017”. It’s listed everywhere that he left the club, recovered from his injury and was snapped back up.
If a contact is slated to end June 30th, then the player sticking around after that is a free agent. Isn’t it that we are basically implying that he was with them the whole time? If we state he signed a rolling week by week contract, isn’t that basically a form of WP:OR? Also, what do we do when George Weah plays an official friendly for Liberia ages after retiring? Stating his career ended in 2018 is just plain wrong. - J man708 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Where is the reliable source saying he was released? In the absence of any source confirming what happened, you saying "he definitely left" is just as OR as me suggesting "he might have signed a weekly contract". Even if he was only 'released' for a few weeks, that does not mean we should treat it as two spells. GiantSnowman 16:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
consensus is that if they leave and re-sign during the same transfer window it counts as one spell. so like, leave on june 30th at the end of their contract but re-join in august. that counts as 1 spell as its during the same window. this doesnt count for loan players because when it expires they are still contracted to the other team, it wasnt "free agent for a month". now, if they left in june and re-joined in september that would be counted as two spells. he left in june and re-joined during the same window. this stops some players counting as like 7 different spells if they only played for 1 team their entire career. concensus could change one day I guess but it'd be silly if someone left on June 30th, rejoined on july 2nd, and we split their stats.Muur (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we even do it for loan players. For example, after the 2019-2020 season finished Jack Harrison was technically a Manchester City player again until he signed up for a third loan spell with Leeds in August; we don't split his stats. Black Kite (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Then Harry Souttar should match Jack Harrison. - J man708 (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
No, we definitely do do it for loan players. GiantSnowman 09:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I’m just after some consistency when it comes to multi-season loan deals. Remember, it needs to be understandable for the standard reader to see why X’s loan deal is shown in one line, but Y’s is shown in two consecutive lines, with no noticeable difference between them. - J man708 (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Well no. Souttar's is clearly two separate loans, it is not one loan deal over multiple seasons. That is what the sources say, and that is what we follow. GiantSnowman 11:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
And Brattan’s loan was one, over several seasons? You can see the ambiguity in this, yeah? I’m not saying that X or Y must change, but surely we can make it a bit easier to figure out? - J man708 (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Team lists added to club articles using mix of references, personal knowledge and COMET[edit]

Not sure what to do about this, I'm not really a fan of team lists on most club articles as they aren't keep up to date and seem to lead to vandalism. However that is my feelings and thought should get advice on what a user is doing with New Zealand football club articles for teams playing in top leagues. They have added team lists using a New Zealand football article that lists the players, so that is fine, but then it has positions and country codes, the only way you can have those are the country codes come from COMET (National Database that is restricted access) and positions from personal knowledge. So can the information stay? Is the fact that some of us can access COMET and know the information is correct, ok? What about positions that can't be sourced?— NZFC(talk)(cont) 03:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Are flags necessary for club articles, particularly when its unverifiable? Hack (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Not sure, not a fan of them anyway and it's not like the players are representing that country or likely to for most as well. — NZFC(talk)(cont) 04:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd say that use of flags in this situation falls foul of MOS:FLAGS. Hack (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Seems a mix of questions here. Would be helpful I think to list the article(s) you are talking about so editors here can see. The team lists should be referenced and not based of personal knowledge. OTOH it can be hard to regulate this on smaller things sometimes, so personally I don't make too much of an issue of it. Regarting the country codes and flags, that is currently the consensus of displaying team lists on WT:FOOTY. Regarding accesss to sources, there is no reason to remove information based on sources which are behind a paywall or not online per WP:PAYWALL. --SuperJew (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
It's not a paywall or non online source. It's something that can't be linked too. Only people with access are NZ Football, Regional bodies, club administrators and referees. Its the database of all players and clubs that you get your own login and password for. So wasn't sure paywall would apply here or not. Examples are Auckland United FC, Western Springs AFC and North Shore United AFC.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 05:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Interesting situation regarding the COMET source. I'm not sure what the answer would be. Regarding the teams lists themselves, strictly speaking the reference should include position and nationality (or at least an option to click-through for each player to their profile which contains that info as is often on club websites). If such a source exists, I would suggest replacing it. In reality though, often team lists themselves are sourced only to a list of names with the rest of the info (pos/nat) coming from other places not neccessarily cited in that article. IIRC there was a discussion in the general area on this page a few months ago. --SuperJew (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
No concerns using an official database for nationality etc., as long as it is clear that is what has happened. If positions are unsourced then remove them. GiantSnowman 09:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

template: footballfacts.ru[edit]

It looks like the the website is now completed the move to new engine and the old.footballfacts.ru isn't resolving anymore. I think it's time to update the template to the new format and verify all IDs. Some of IDs resolve correctly, others are not and will have be updated. Not sure if it's possible to bot-automate this task, looks like a lot of manual/AWB work. --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Is that website safe? My firmware blocks it with "Spyware detected - LT94fcT.-x-rar-" Govvy (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Govvy: Never had such an issue on multiple laptops that I've used. This website is linked from thousands of wikipedia pages, so I guess if the threat was real it would've been already reported. --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Interesting,I tried to google what LT94fcT.-x-rar was and nothing came up. This time the website loads no problem, I don't know Russian know. Govvy (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2020 line-ups[edit]

The line-ups published by the UEFA one hour before kick-off are wrong very often. After the match the UEFA publishs a PDF with the real tactics every 15 minutes. For the German Wikipedia I uploaded new graphics with the real starting formation (minute 0-15 in the document).

Now it's your decision, if you wanna use the wrong UEFA line-ups, which are published one hour before the kick-off when nobody knows, how the real formation will be oder if you use the real line-ups from the UEFA documents published after the match. Just look how different the Austrian line-up was from the expected one. Alaba played in a 3-5-2 as center back and not on the left wing in a 4-2-3-1. I think many of you watched the England match and saw, that they played a 4-3-3 with Sterling on the left und Mount on the right wing. For the match report you could use these Full time reports by the UEFA without a formation. --HSV1887 (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

North Macedonia[edit]

Should their national team players who appeared for the country at youth level before the country's name switch have their international youth caps also changed from Macedonia to North Macedonia? Currently infoboxes have these players representing Macedonia U19 or Macedonia U21 (which both redirect to North Macedonia article) and then North Macedonia at senior level. I.e. Ezgjan Alioski, Goran Pandev, Elif Elmas, Ivan Trichkovski, and essentially any other player in the squad at the moment. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It would be anachronistic to change to North Macedonia; keep Macedonia if they played pre-2019. Nehme1499 00:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you but then we don't separate those players senior stats between when the country was called Macedonia from the current North Macedonia so it seemed at odds in my view. Rupert1904 (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
When I said pre-2019, I meant exclusively pre-2019. Someone who played in 2017 and 2021 for the (North) Macedonia NT should have North Macedonia, and all stats combined, as it is effectively the same exact team with the same FA. It's not different to club re-namings. Maybe a note in the infobox (as we would do for clubs) saying something like "Macedonia became North Macedonia in 2019" could be a good idea? Nehme1499 01:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
There was no 'North Macedonia' team pre-2019, so for a youth player it should be displayed as 'Macedonia'. If a player played both pre- and post- the name change then just use 'North Macedonia'. GiantSnowman 09:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree with the above about referring to 'Macedonia' pre-2019, for historical accuracy. Also, you all might want to keep an eye on Ezgjan Alioski, where there are a lot of of incorrect changes being made, such as referring to the subject's nationality as 'North Macedonian' (the demonym is just 'Macedonian'). Mattythewhite (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems like for historical accuracy we should make a note somewhere about the name change on these players' articles then if we are going to lump all pre and post-2019 stats for the national team in the infobox in just North Macedonia. For this group of players who played before and after the country changed names, I think differentiating in the international stats section would be sufficient. A good example of this is how Arijan Ademi's international caps are tabulated, showing that he earned 9 caps for Macedonia between 2014–2018 and has earned 12 caps for North Macedonia since 2019. While if you look at Goran Pandev's international stats table, it suggests he was playing for North Macedonia in 2001. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
We can list the team as North Macedonia with a note along the lines of The North Macedonia football team were known as Macedonia until 2019. This is similar to what we do for clubs that rename. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
A note is good - but it wasn't just the football team that has changed name, it's the whole country. So I'd suggest 'North Macedonia' was known as 'Macedonia' until 2019. or similar? GiantSnowman 15:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It's just a name change, not a change of borders or anything like that. I don't think a note is necessary, just the most recent name. – PeeJay 16:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
In practice that sounds fine but then you get players like Goce Sedloski and Veliče Šumulikoski who retired before the name change but played in the national team with Goran Pandev for over a decade but their international stats say they played for Macedonia and his says he plays for North Macedonia so to an uneducated viewer it looks like they played for different nations. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, I just added such a note about the country's name change to Pandev's article - in the international stats table. Does this look okay to all? Rupert1904 (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The note is good. Regarding player comparisons (Sedloski v Pandev), it's not different to situations such as Pierre Issa and Mohamad Atwi, who both played at Olympic Beirut; Issa left before the club changed its name to AC Tripoli, while Atwi stayed. Nehme1499 17:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Great. I will start adding this note to other players who made appearances for the national team before and after the name change. Also on a side note, that is a heartbreaking story about Atwi. I was not familiar with him. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes on individual continental qualifying rounds[edit]

@Footy2000: May I ask what the point was in adding infoboxes to each of the AFC individual round pages of FIFA World Cup qualification? (Example: 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round.) None of the other individual round pages have those infoboxes, and the info in the individual rounds is covered perfectly in the main qualifying pages. (In the case of the example above, it would be covered in the infobox at 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC).) Jalen Folf (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Easier to navigate. And there's no harm in providing information about the tournament in a concise way. Btw, all the rounds have infoboxes. Footy2000 (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Footy2000, What I mean is none of the other continental confederation round pages have infoboxes. I am not opposed to your reasoning behind the additions, but would you be able to add the infoboxes to individual round pages on CAF, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL (where applicable), OFC (where applicable), and UEFA (where applicable) as well? Jalen Folf (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Yup I can. It'd be even better if someone helped me along with it. Should be done with a week. Footy2000 (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Footy2000: I can help if need. Drop me a line. --dashiellx (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Block needed[edit]

The user FootballManager2002 is working to change mentions of the sport in Australian pages from "soccer" to "association football" or "football" (contributions), which is against WP:NCFA. As one can see on their talk page, it has been explained to them many times by a few editors, but they refuse to even discuss and continue on the one purpose motivation. I think a block might be in order by now. --SuperJew (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked for a month. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes I see thank you for the update! --SuperJew (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Heinz Michallik[edit]

In the 1973 UEFA Cup Final Heinz Michallik (red link) played in the first leg, surely he must qualify for an article right? Govvy (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. Did he not play in the Bundesliga? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
According to the German language article, he made 39 appearances for Borussia Mönchengladbach, who were in the Bundesliga. Obviously we'd need to find a proper source for that, but does look like he's notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Voila. If nobody beats me to it I'll start a stub later. GiantSnowman 13:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 Done GiantSnowman 20:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Arab (Nations) Cup / FIFA Arab Cup[edit]

In April, a user merged the articles for the Arab Nations Cup and FIFA Arab Cup articles. They claim that the 2021 FIFA Arab Cup is the 10th edition of the competition.

"The tournament will be delivered by FIFA, the Qatar Football Association, the Supreme Committee for Delivery & Legacy and the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 LLC. Seen as a vital opportunity to test operations and facilities ahead of Qatar 2022, the tournament will take place in the same timeslot as the FIFA World Cup. The finals of both the FIFA Arab Cup and FIFA World Cup will take place exactly one year apart – each on 18 December, Qatar National Day, which is a public holiday."

— FIFA.com

There is no mention of the Union of Arab Football Associations being involved. A citation from the UAFA website is used as a reason for the merge. I'm not certain that the articles should have been merged. TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheBigJagielka: See this article by UAFA and this one by FIFA: both mention continuity between the "Arab Cup" and the "2021 FIFA Arab Cup" (the competition was never called "Arab Nations Cup", that was a "Wikipedia invention"). Nehme1499 23:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
It might not have been officially called the Arab Nations Cup but that name predates Wikipedia. Hack (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure it was never referred to as such in Arabic; I don't know if it was called that way in English pre-2006. Nehme1499 01:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
It was mostly called the Arab Cup but having a look at ProQuest, there are references to Arab Nations Cup as early as 1998 and 2000 in English-language sources. Hack (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Gennaro Gattuso at Fiorentina[edit]

Should Gennaro Gattuso’s spell ‘managing’ Fiorentina be in the infobox? Judging by what I can see, he left before his contract officially started. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 14:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@NouveauSarfas: I can see both arguments towards keeping or removing it. "Legally" speaking, he was never a Fiorentina manager, so a strong case can be made to remove the spell. Nehme1499 14:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I don’t have a strong opinion but would lean toward keeping it - there should just be consistency, see Marcelo Bielsa for an example off the top of my head. Also pinging involved editors @Chris Calvin, Angelo.romano, and ItsKesha:. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
If it's based on his contract not officially starting, should we remove Gascoigne's reign at Kettering as he never even signed a contract? And what about Leroy Rosenior's 10 minutes in charge at Torquay? And what about players on trial at a club? What about the "obligation to buy" used mostly in Italy, where a player like Ionut Radu can be owned by Inter, loaned to Genoa with an obligation to buy, and then immediately re-signed by Inter due to a buy-back clause (and then immediately loaned out to... Genoa!). He was officially owned by Genoa for a cup of coffee. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I think since Gattuso's contract was rescinded before it started and before he played any games, the Fiorentina stint with Gattuso should not be kept. Gascoigne actually managed the team in several games so that stint should be kept, same as Leroy Rosenior. Trials should not count unless a player makes a competitive appearance with the team. Radu should have all the moves listed as long as he was legally the player for Genoa. I think the difference in Gattuso's case is that he was due to start in the future, not at the moment of the contract's signing, although I wouldn't be opposed to the stint being listed with a note or an asterisk.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I generally agree with @Ortizesp:. I think we should use a note citation for both Bielsa and Gattuso. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 15:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
All reliable sources are reporting he left after 23 days - Sky Sports, ESPN, The Athletic, RTE, BBC, Marca, FourFourTwo. The announcement of his appointment says "Il nuovo allenatore della Fiorentina guiderà la squadra viola a partire dal 1 luglio 2021", translated as "The new coach of Fiorentina will lead the Viola squad from July 1, 2021". That doesn't say "when his contract begins". He was appointed manager and left after 23 days. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Marcelo Bielsa case is a bit different. He was appointed after 1st of July, so he technically was a manager of the team for 2 days. Gattuso in another hand, had never started his managerial career in Fiorentina. And "will lead Viola squad from July 1,2021" for me means that his work will start from 1st, so he is not technically manager of the team before the date.Chris Calvin (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
His work with the squad would start from that date, as that is when pre-season begins. Why would his work with the squad begin at the end of May when the season is over? If Juventus sacked Allegri tomorrow, would you argue that he wasn't technically manager as it wasn't 1st July? All the reliable sources highlighted above say he was manager for 23 days. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
As somebody stated correctly, Bielsa's case is quite different. He was "legally" contracted as Lazio manager for a couple days, as the contract was signed and formally confirmed by the Serie A league. This wasn't Gattuso's case, as his contract was indeed signed but never entered into effect and never submitted to the Serie A football league (see [7] as one of many references you can easily find), therefore Gattuso never formally served as Fiorentina boss (which Bielsa technically did), and - on the other hand - never acted as Fiorentina boss in any way, may it be a football game, or even just a training session (differently than Gascoigne's case raised above). --Angelo (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

LTA active in other wikis[edit]

The LTA (Mike4Matthews17 being the latest incarnation) seems to be active in other wikis as well, I know this as I have received a large number of alerts about messages being posted on my talk page there (e.g. Italian and French. I see the LTA has been blocked already here (thanks @ChrisTheDude:), Spanish and Italian wikis but not on Commons. There may be some that I missed because I don't have any vandal messages from the pest today. I'll explore and clean up the mess left despite having very limited knowledge on other languages. Thankfully the English Wiki is always the quickest to spot. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Contacted me on Commons; I simply reverted. GiantSnowman 15:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Is there a way to global block? --SuperJew (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@SuperJew: - ask an administrator at metawiki (e.g. User:-revi who blocked a deceased Wikimedian last year). That may help with using global blocks on vandals across many Wikipedias. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The guy is most active on commons right now. And will edit as IP or any of their multiple accounts. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I got my talkpage on Commons semi-protected for 3 months, which should hopefully slow them down. I asked at Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, in case anyone wants to do similar. I guess there isn't a way to semi-protect talkpages on every Wikimedia project? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: - thanks for the Commons link you provided. The only 'good' manual edit on my Commons user talk page being made which was not reverted was a notice that one of the screenshots I uploaded was a copyright violation. The rest is basically vandal and reverted edits there on a much larger page edit history than Joseph2302's. I will consider requesting protecting the talk page if there is at least one more bad edit by one of those sock accounts/IP's. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh yes, while I remember, I managed to miss the vandalism on this talk page which was removed by Mattythewhite. I thought that was already removed by someone else. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The Best FIFA Football Awards[edit]

I've noticed, what I consider a long standing edit-war of sorts, that's certain editors will add The Best FIFA Football Awards to player articles in the honours section, others will come along and remove that award from the honours section. So... what the hell is going on? This back and forth adding and removing has been going on for ages!!! Govvy (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Ben Brereton[edit]

With his debut for the Chile NT, multiple editors have changed his full name from "Benjamin Anthony Brereton" to "Benjamín Anthony Brereton Díaz". Unless we find an official document by the CONMEBOL or Chile FA, I would refrain from doing so. A PDF similar to these two ([8], [9]) would be ideal. Also, even if we did find an official reference to source his full name as "Benjamín Anthony Brereton Díaz", it wouldn't really make "Benjamin Anthony Brereton" his birth name in my opinion, as it would imply him legally "changing" his name. He just has two different passports with different names. Nehme1499 22:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I think it's a bit complicated, obviously his full name would include Diaz, but maybe his legal name in England wouldn't have the Diaz. I think as it is now, with the birthname and full name as separate is good enough.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
My point is that we have two problems at hand. First, does his legal name (in Chile, or wherever) include Díaz? If so, we need an official document. Secondly, if his Chilean name does indeed have Díaz, how should we portray it in the article? With a "full name" (with Diaz) and a "birth name" (without)? This also impacts several other players who have dual-citizenship (with different naming systems). For example, Elkeson (Brazilian) / Ai Kesen (Chinese), or Felix Michel (Swedish) / George Felix Robert Michel Melki (Lebanese). Nehme1499 23:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I think mentioning he uses it when playing for chile is fair. its still a name hes using even if its only akin to a Stage name. Hulk (footballer)'s real name isnt hulk, that's his stage name and ya'll are fine at using that on his page instead of his real name. hes using "Ben Brereton Diaz" professionally when he plays for Chile so there's no reason not to mention the fact he's using it on the international stage and why. blackburn rovers even used the name here so is this website you guys list as a reliable acceptable source.Muur (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Presumably Diaz is his second, or maternal, surname, used in the Spanish naming customs (which are used in most Spanish-speaking countries). But outside of Spanish speaking countries, only the first surname (Brereton) would generally be used. Though we should definitely find a source for this, rather than assuming it works this way. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Punching this into a search engine quickly brings up a number of possible sources, all of which so far are in Spanish. SportingFlyer T·C 09:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Popular pages (Most viewed stubs in this Wikiproject)[edit]

Fun fact: This is the most active Wikiproject on Wikipedia: WikiProject Football 195,831 articles, 191 participants, 2,251 editors--Coin945 (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Matt Armstrong death date[edit]

Hi all. I'm currently expanding Deaths in 1995, and I am wondering if the article on Matt Armstrong has the correct date of death. This source cited in the article states he died in 2002. And this source says October 4, 1995. Given the discrepancy I am wondering which source to trust or if there was perhaps a mix up between two different athletes in the sourcing of the article? This isn't my area of expertise so I thought I would ask here. Thanks for any help in advance.4meter4 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Per the Scottish statutory register of deaths, there's a record for a Matthew Armstrong who died in 1995 but none for 2002. So I'd go for 1995. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Salis Abdul Samed[edit]

Salis Abdul Samed is on loan from a youth team (JMG Academy) to a professional team (Clermont Foot). Is the current way the loan is written in the infobox correct? Or should I move JMG Academy to the senior career even if it's not a senior team? Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  • A good question! It's fine for now, but I might include the youth team in the senior info-box with "(youth)" next to it just to make clear which team he was loaned from. SportingFlyer T·C 10:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I agreed. It's probably a good idea to (also) include the club in the senior section for clarity. Nehme1499 11:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Yep, it's standard to include the parent club in the 'senior' bit. GiantSnowman 16:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Using football manager as a source[edit]

Seems fine to me. Their database is used by professional football teams like Everton. What do people think? Proper sources would be preferred but when it's super low down leagues like let's say the English tenth tier I think it's fair to use the stats from football manager.Muur (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I would not consider Football Manager to be a reliable source. The data is generally supplied by specific teams of users. SportingFlyer T·C 10:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
its still officially published information. I doubt it's wrong, SEGA wouldn't allow false information like that.Muur (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
No, it's not suitable for an encyclopaedia. GiantSnowman 10:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Bernio Verhagen[edit]

An alleged football player who has signed for four clubs but never played a single minute's football, surely Bernio Verhagen fails WP:NFOOTBALL? Mjroots (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

He seems to pass WP:GNG, with multiple sources talking about his scamming/fraud as well as his personal life and arrest. --SuperJew (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hermitage football club[edit]

In 1890s there was a London club called Hermitage F.C. , we don't have any article for it, does anyone know anything about the club? Govvy (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the early history of Spurs (or Tottenham FC) - see this article about Stanley Briggs link (there are a couple of others about Briggs too). - Paul W (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
According to this "The player in question was Stanley Briggs, who started his career down in Kent with Folkestone, near where he was at school, from the tender age of 14 before he was brought to Hermitage FC in 1890. This club was morphed into the Tottenham Football Club, which was not the same as Tottenham Hotspur, a club he did move to in 1892." So a club from the Tottenham area, but seems to be pretty obscure. Never played in the FA Cup as far as I can see, and there seems to be almost nothing on the web about them (other than that they played Spurs in a friendly in 1886), so the club definitely fails all relevant guidelines in terms of getting an article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
heh, it's funny you mentioning Briggs, because I was working on User:Govvy/Stanley Briggs, that's where I got it from, but there was like little to no information on the club. Govvy (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the SPLIT table used in the SQUAD sections of the Club manual of style[edit]

Use of this system seems to lead to conflicts with the mobile version of Wikipedia. Perhaps with Accessibility software too?

On mobile versions of club pages a user needs to swipe from the right in order to view the entirety of the squad. However, this action brings up the context menu.

In order to access the entirety of the table, the user needs to delicately slide their digit from the right.

Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Tables mentions;

Splitting lists and tables per summary style is advised against. Among other problems, arbitrarily splitting a wikitable effectively disables the powerful and useful sorting feature from working across the entire table.

Are there Accessibility issues with splitting the table?

Can Screen readers and other web browsing tools make use of specific table tags to help users navigate the data contained within tables when the tables are split?

I understand the design choice involved with wanting the table to fill more of the screen real estate in desktop browsers, but maybe there is a better CSS solution that can better marry both the desktop and the mobile version without the need to split the table?

A possible solution (adding more relevant column data);

Current squad[edit]

No. Pos. Name Age Nation Apps Goals
19 FW Tema Templovic (2000-01-01) 1 January 2000 (age 21)  Canada 32 2

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamccullough‎ (talkcontribs)

@Tamccullough: See this lengthy discussion. Nehme1499 00:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Better referencing needed at Alec Ashworth and Lennart Askinger[edit]

Alec Ashworth has only one reference, and it is to a fan club website. If anyone has time to add a more quality reference that would be great as the subject appears to be notable. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Also the reference at Lennart Askinger is coming up empty with no content in the wayback machine link and a deadlink in the other link; essentially making the article unsourced.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Ashworth's article now has two high-quality references -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@4meter4: Askinger's source is still live, but the publisher had changed its url structure (it happens, regularly). The wayback machine has a copy, but unfortunately not the one linked in the article (that also happens, far too regularly). Have fixed and tidied a bit. Struway2 (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)