Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

    WikiProject iconFootball 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.
    ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

    Requested moves[edit]

    The following two discussions may need more input from users as they have been relisted:

    Article/Category/Template Nom Date
    Jonny (footballer)Jonny (footballer, born 1994) RM 2024-01-23
    Brandon Thomas (footballer)Brandon Thomas (Spanish footballer) RM 2024-01-23

    They were both nominated by me and viewing them they seem to be balanced at this point of the second relisting.

    Youth players in Category:[Club] players[edit]

    Should a player, who has only participated in a club's youth academy and never played for or took part in the club's senior team, be included in the category for players of a club? For example, Mike Newell did not play for Liverpool F.C. and was only an academy player. Should he be included in Category:Liverpool F.C. players?

    (Some related discussions - Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Sep 2019, Sep 2022, mentioned by @Struway2)

    I propose that such players are removed from this category. Ae245 (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Newell spent six years with Liverpool so he is a Liverpool player. How can a player play for Liverpool's youth or reserve teams without being in the Liverpool player category? Will there be editors hovering around a player article for a guy siting on the bench waiting to add the category to the article once he is brought on? EchetusXe 11:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree with EchetusXe. Also, when a player first signs for a club, editors will routinely update the club players category - they don't wait until he makes his first-team debut before updating the article categories. The player will also have trained and played in practice games, etc, alongside others who will regard him as a team mate and fellow player for that club; contractually, he will seen as a club's player by the manager, club staff and football authorities; and fans will regard him as a club player regardless of whether he's yet to play - why should Wikipedia treat such players any differently? Paul W (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's a question of consensus. For example, on WP:AFL, the consensus is to add club categories only after a player plays a game for the club. Also what editors routinely do doesn't play into this. Editors used to routinely update games live (and use the {{mip}} marking), but the consensus is not to do this and wait to the end and now that is the majority.
    Regarding the question itself, I do agree that a player who has joined the club should be added to the club category. As Paul W said they train and play practice matches with the club and are contracted by the club. --SuperJew (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    they also might play friendlies but then never play an official match, like a back up GK or something who sits on the bench a few years then leaves playing 0 official games but played a few pre season games. still played for their team.Muur (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think youth players should have the categories, there's a big difference between being a youth player and first team player - and I'd argue same with reserve teams. I don't think anyone considers Icardi a proper former Barcelona player, even though he's from La Masia. I'm not opposed to adding youth categories, something like Category:FC Barcelona youth players, to go along categories like Category:FC Barcelona Atlètic players.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also feel like it should be restricted to senior team players and have no opposition to having a separate youth team category (I have seen this for several teams). In terms of who gets included, maybe a simple compromise would having a bench appearance at minimum? RedPatch (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also say that youth is very different to senior and the category should not be added just because someone played there in the youth sector. Kante4 (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Youth players should be in the club player categories - are you really saying that Joe Bloggs who spent 15 years with Arsenal but never made the first team should not be in Arsenal player category? Nonsense! There is no reason not to categorise them as such and no need for separate categories for youth players. GiantSnowman 11:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If Joe Bloggs never ever played for the senior team, then no I wouldn't consider him a full-stop Arsenal player. He's certainly an Arsenal academy player, but never "made it" to Arsenal proper. How many 10s of thousands of players would Arsenal have, if every single U6, U8, U10 that ever passed through is an Arsenal player.Ortizesp (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What about a player who spent 3 seasons on the bench of the first-team? Such as an older goalkeeper who is signed as a back-up but never played? GiantSnowman 09:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's what I like about my 'bench appearances' requirement. Could also use the is the club in the "senior career" or "youth career" section of the infobox. We also have pages like Arsenal F.C. Under-21s and Academy and Arsenal F.C. The former is what is supposed to be linked in the youth career, while the later is for the senior career. Could easily have categories based on that since there are separate pages anywways. Arsenal youth players category and Arsenal (senior) players category. RedPatch (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why is somebody making 1 appearance on the bench any more definitive that somebody who makes 0? Or 100? What about the many players who play for both junior and senior teams - we are unnecessarily duplicating categories. Remember the Celtic 'youth' player category was deleted a few years ago... GiantSnowman 12:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's the same logic as separating senior and youth career in the infobox. Ideally we would just match things up same as their infoboxes, and if there's discrepancies then we'd have a discussion. Ortizesp (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm trying to find an easy enough compromise. Yes, the Celtic category was deleted years ago, but consensus can change. How many people would regard Ryan Giggs as a Manchester City player? He played a couple years in their academy when he was very young. Putting him in the same category as Haaland and Foden seems a bit off to me and obviously several others. RedPatch (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If people were doing a CatScan for players who had played for both Man C and Man U, Giggs would (erroneously) not appear... why is Giggs spending a few years as a Man C youth player any less important than (for example) a senior player who is signed for 1 game only? This is not a problem that needs fixing. GiantSnowman 14:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it would provide valuable input, I don't consider Giggs a Man City player either, and I don't see what would hurt with having a Man City youth category on his page for visibility. Ortizesp (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also, like Ortizsp mentioned earlier, we have a consistency issue. We have categories specifically for some of the B teams, but then A team and Academy players go in the same category. If we're going to have the B team categories then it should just be categories for A, B, and Academy for consistency reasons. RedPatch (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Overly complicated! GiantSnowman 22:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Request for comment: FCSB v CSA Steaua București[edit]

    Does FCSB or CSA Steaua București (football) represent the 20th-century Steaua Bucharest club? Scolaire (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    For context, see FC Steaua București records dispute. Scolaire (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Poll (Steaua)[edit]

    • FCSB. There is continuity between the club formed in 1947 and FCSB; the current CSA Steaua only exists from 2017. Scolaire (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • FCSB They are the ones who kept the top division status, so are clearly the continuation IMO. Number 57 13:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • FCSB Just follow the players. The Banner talk 22:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Correction Reply[reply]

    Discussion (Steaua)[edit]

    You have rushed the RFC. Where are the sources? GiantSnowman 22:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    You said, "Somebody please open a RFC, I'm sick of this argument and the disruption." I did. The sources are in the article I linked to. --Scolaire (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That article is full of misinformation. Cezxmer (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are also sources at Talk:FC Steaua București records dispute and Cezxmer's talk page, as well as his post in the section above this one. --Scolaire (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You can't be serious. Cezxmer (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am completely serious. The Banner talk 23:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Got it. Tomorrow PSG buys the whole Barcelona team. Congratulations in advance to PSG for winning the UCL :D
    At least have the decency to read what I posted. You also commented on my talk page and I gave you a reply. If this is your response, then I'm forced to believe that you have bad intentions or that you're a troll. Cezxmer (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:AGF. The Banner talk 00:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree, but how is "Just follow the players" open for discussion? How is that even an argument? I have given my thoughts on the matter. I also tried to provide sources. If you want to discuss, I'm here for it. But don't come with a verdict based on one sentence, on a debate as complex as this, if you want to have a serious discussion. Cezxmer (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is clearly an argument that does not fit in your point of view. Sorry for that. But who is playing where is in this confusing case a valid argument as the players were not involved in all legal arguments. They just did their job. If you play for entity A or any other letter in the alphabet, they all have to earn a living. The Banner talk 10:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If company B hires all of the employees of company A, that does not mean that company B = company A.
    No one is disputing the legitimacy or motives of the players. This is a debate about the illegal use of a trademark, proven in court. And I have to ask you to provide sources for your claims, because this is the first time I have heard that the identity of a club is determined by the players. Cezxmer (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If Company A overnight changes name and legal status into Company B with the same staff on the payroll, it is still a valid successor. Despite later court cases. The Banner talk 16:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • We should not decide this Sources describe a prominent dispute, and we have an article on the dispute. Not only do we not have to take a side, Wikipedia should absolutely not take a side. That's massive WP:OR, especially sending people to the article on the dispute to suggest, what, reading the sources and making a decision? If reliable sources definitively say one or the other is a successor, we go with it. If they disagree to the point it is unclear, we write that sources disagree. Especially when there is a legal aspect and Wikipedia deciding one or the other is "right" could be harmful. Continue writing there is a dispute and close this as both a technically malformed RfC and a terrible idea. Kingsif (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Recently there was a lot of edit warring and POV-pushing. That has to stop. Allowing that to go on is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 09:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Stating OR as fact is not in the best interests of Wikipedia, and can't be easily prevented by protecting articles like the disruption you describe can. Kingsif (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Kingsif: A link cannot go to two different articles. Either we use [[FCSB|Steaua București]] or [[CSA Steaua București (football)|Steaua București]] to link to the old Steaua. At the moment, links are being changed back and forth, and different pipes are being used in different articles; this is highly undesirable. Scolaire (talk) 12:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        We don’t have to link one or the other, either. Protect the articles if there is warring Kingsif (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm sorry, I don't understand you. Are you saying that all references to pre-1998 Steaua should be unlinked? And that this should be enforced by protecting all articles with "Steaua București" in them? Scolaire (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, sort of. We should not be linking (wikilinking nor connecting in prose) either of the disputed articles to the original team, and there is no reason or need to do so. Besides edit disputes, I don't even know how editors have got it in their heads that something needs to be done. Just have an article on the pre-1998 team, which should contain the information on the succession dispute, and mention the dispute at the articles of the two more recent teams. No side taking is needed at all. If people start trying to take sides, protect the articles. Kingsif (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So, you're saying we should create CSA Steaua București (football, 1947–1998), which will have the same content as FCSB, CSA Steaua București (football) and History of FC Steaua București. We should then edit the 100+ articles that mention Steaua to link to this new article, and if anybody reverts, have the articles protected. Have I got it? Scolaire (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As for why we have got it into our heads that something needs to be done, not every change is an edit dispute (see these edits for instance, which were not part of edit wars), but every change is disruptive. A reader should not click a link today, and find themselves at a different article than when they clicked it yesterday. Not to mention articles like this version of Eternal derby (Romania) – a fixture that goes back to 1948 – that had only "FCSB" in the text and infobox, and "Steaua" in the tables. Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Club Atlético Sarmiento (Junín)#Requested move 27 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Assistant manager[edit]

    This IP constantly removes assistant manager stints in infoboxes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:D712:5A00:6A66:EC0F:E227:3B9D/64 is this according to the guidelines? --FMSky (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The documentation for the infobox templates states "A list of clubs that the person has served within the capacity of team manager. Please do not list positions other than team manager (such as assistant or coach positions)" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alright thx --FMSky (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think a number of people like adding coaching/assistant manager stints, but the documentation is clear that it should only be manager/head coach roles. Which helps the infobox to be less cluttered up. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That bit of the documentation says in full "A list of clubs that the person has served within the capacity of team manager. Please do not list positions other than team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career; this will apply primarily to those with significant or perhaps primary experience in management" (my highlighting). So it's not quite as cut and dried as suggested. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I like having other roles in there. Can help explain gaps that would otherwise appear. Why did he have a two year gap, but having other roles could clear that up - "oh he was an assistant somewhere else". RedPatch (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We don't need to open potential floodgates to editors who like to stray from the conventional as it is. Seasider53 (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    First OFC Championship[edit]

    Interesting case here. The very first edition, the 1987 Oceania Club Championship has a lot of results. The article is unsourced currently. Maybe those results came from RSSSF. RSSSF page now has a note reading "NB: contrary to an earlier version of this file, no qualifying tournament was held; it was a one-match play-off between the champions of Australia and New Zealand." Can anyone figure out what happened there? Maybe googleing some news paper article? Edit: I see now the discussion page has a bit of info. Content was already removed once, then added back. -Koppapa (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Youth titles in medal record section of infobox[edit]

    There isn't a consistent standard applied for this across articles, and I can't find any guidance. I had always thought that youth titles were not included in the infobox, based on never seeing them for players I know have them, but recently some users have been adding them. Predominantly to articles of young players, often those who haven't even played senior tournaments, but also retroactively to older players' articles, too. So is there a standard, and if not should we formally discuss what it should be. Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I am unsure why any honours are in the infobox. Seems like clutter. GiantSnowman 21:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There was a discussion to have honours included and i say youth should be there aswell. Kante4 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That definitely opens questions of what the limits to honours should be. Like, do we consider an under-17 Euro bronze medal as more significant than a Champions League win, and if not, why would it be included instead? Senior major international tournaments is pretty watertight, so limiting to that seems reasonable for an overview. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I repeat - why should youth titles be included? (exceptions being major youth tournaments like U20 World Cup) GiantSnowman 14:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree with GS, it's never made sense to me why we include *any* honours in the infobox when they can just go in the honours section. Didn't it start out as Olympic medals at first and then spun out to all international tournaments? Mattythewhite (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm more than happy to remove it completely from the infobox. GiantSnowman 14:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That would need a wider discussion, right? WP:SPORTS? Kingsif (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Hello all. Just over from WP:CRIC. I have expanded the above Hampshire cricketer and Portsmouth F.C. footballer. However, his football section is looking a little bare. I wonder if anyone with a collection of Portsmouth-related sources might be able to expand that section? Cheers, AA (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    @AssociateAffiliate: I've added some little bits and a career stats table using the Barry Hugman's Footballers and English National Football Archive sites, but I don't have any specific to Portsmouth to draw from. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks, a nice addition to the article. Hopefully someone has a Portsmouth book which discusses him at length. Cheers, AA (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Forgive me if I'm treading old ground here, but does this club pass notability guidelines? It hasn't competed at the required level at any point. The main contributor to the article in recent months is a floating IP who is persistently evading a block (Sir Knson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Canberra A-League Bid#Requested move 2 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 18:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Alex Iwobi goal[edit]

    Input welcome at Talk:Alex Iwobi#Goal against Man Utd as I am in a slow edit war with an IP hopper open this topic. GiantSnowman 08:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]