Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 155

Archive 150

←

Archive 153

Archive 154

Archive 155

Archive 156

Archive 157

→

Archive 160

Articles for merging

It's tough to tell as neither article is of a particularly good standard, but I think the articles for Northamptonshire Senior Cup and Hillier Cup are actually describing the same competition. The list of winners/runner-up are very similar (although not completely identical!), and Kettering Town have won both trophies 31 times :P

Therefore I think these articles need combining/merging (or maybe just the Hillier article deleting?), but this is all a bit beyond my skillset if anyone can be of assistance? Thanks for your help Nonleagueapps (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

From the text on both pages they are the same competition. I don't know if there is a naming convention for these (being called the Hillier Senior Cup since 1981 would suggest this is not a sponsored name), but it seems Hillier Senior Cup should be the base article with the other 2 pages redirected to it. The 2 articles give different results for recent finals, and neither is particularly up to date (or was it cancelled due to Covid?). It doesn;t help that the refs used are now 404s. Spike 'em (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I found a league source which shows recent winners and merged the articles. The list of winners in the NSC article seems to be a year out of sync for at the begining of the crosssover of results, so I've not included. Happy for somone else to do so if they figure out where it goes wrong (will have to look in the page history). Spike 'em (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, great work! Looking at some of the other county cups using the template at the bottom, the consensus seems to be to have the county name as the title of the article ('Northamptonshire Senior Cup'), but then the other name in bold in the lead sentence ('Hillier Senior Cup'). For example, the Isle of Wight Senior Cup is the name of the article, with it described as the 'Senior Gold Cup' in the lead sentence. Is everyone happy if we go with that here for consistency? (It annoys me how the 'Northamptonshire Senior Cup' in the template isn't blacked out when you're on the page because the title doesn't match!) Nonleagueapps (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Peter Barnes (footballer)

@Rcclh: is edit warring at this article to change the Leeds stats from 31 to 30 games. Sources say both, but the STABLE version is 31 and that is supported by (in my view) a better calibre of source, being Hugman, Neil Brown, and (based on the career stats table) ENFA - as opposed to the Leeds fan sites and WorldFootball Rcclh suggests. Can anybody shed any light please? GiantSnowman 19:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Do any of these sources actually list the 31/30 games? That would be helpful to clear up the situation. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The fan sites do - but they might be missing a match. GiantSnowman 20:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nehme1499 fraid not :( . Soccerway and Soccerbase are useful in displaying matches players have played in but on Soccerbase, Barnes only appeared to play for Man City v Newcastle which he scored. Soccerway does not include any league appearances at all. Where next folks? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Rothmans:30 Leeds United A complete record 1919-1989 :31 The difference is the match against Manchester City 10 March. These things happen sometimes. Reliable is not the same thing as 100% accurate. (I would go for 31 in this case). Cattivi (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - it should be 31. @Rcclh: do you agree? GiantSnowman 06:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I just checked the report on that match in The Times dated 11 March 1982 and it does not list Barnes in the Leeds team, which would point towards the Rothmans source being correct and 30 being the right number...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you think ENFA, Hugman, The writers of the Leeds United complete record book etc. are not aware what newspapers and Rothmans write? I think they know what they're doing. They use much more sources than only a few newspapers. I think there is a high possibility you are re-introducing errors made in the past if you use sources like the Times and Rothmans this way.Cattivi (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

That's now 3 sources saying Harris and not Barnes played v Man City. Where are the source saying Harris played? The Leeds F.C. History site have miscounted their own data and all the other sites have just copied the 31. Rcclh (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course I don't agree. I've posted the evidence twice now listing the individual games on both the Barnes article' talk page and your talk page and I haven't seen any evidence to say Barnes and not Harris played against Man City.

Let me show you again ...

It appears some sources have taken this page of total appearances from the Leeds F.C. History site where they have miscounted the appearances of Barnes and Harris. https://www.leeds-fans.org.uk/leeds/history/67.html This says Barnes played 31 and Harris 15(3). However on the same site, they document each appearance individually and the total for Barnes comes to only 30 as referenced here with "30/30" (30th start out of 30) on the last game of the season v WBA http://www.ozwhitelufc.net.au/leeds_stats/leeds_united_team_details/Teamsheet_by_season/1981-82/1981-82%20West%20Bromwich%20Albion%20(a).php whereas the final start for Harris is referenced as 16/16 (16th start out of 16) http://www.ozwhitelufc.net.au/leeds_stats/leeds_united_team_details/Teamsheet_by_season/1981-82/1981-82%20Manchester%20City%20(h).php

It is perhaps because Harris took Barnes usual 11 shirt on his final start for Leeds that the mistake in the totals was made. Another site concurs that Harris, and not Barnes played in that match against Manchester City https://www.worldfootball.net/report/premier-league-1981-1982-leeds-united-manchester-city/ Rcclh (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Jarred and MacDonald published the book I mentioned in 1989. They can’t have used online sources. More likely are the Yorkshire Evening Post, Jarred worked there in 1989, the club records and official FA records. I’m pretty sure ENFA and Hugman used Jarred and MacDonald. They both started publishing\ have their origins in the pre internet days. Harris, Barnes is not the only difference. In the book Balcombe is not wearing his usual 6 shirt, but the 5 shirt. Cherry played with Number 6. Cattivi (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't really clear to me from your previous message what you had found. So you are saying Jarred and MacDonald published a book on Leeds United that specifies Barnes playing in the match on March 10th 1982, or just that he played 31 games? If the former, that makes a difference because i hadn't seen or heard of a source for that so far, and so balances the probabilities more in my eyes. I still think there is more evidence for 30 though, as we can now add a Man City site to the list https://www.citytilidie.com/latest/leeds-away-198182/ which means we have a report at the time (The Times), a world football site, a Leeds site and a Man City site. Incidentally there's a flickr user that scans in football programmes that would tell us the answer on the statistics page, but frustratingly the last Leeds programme scanned in for that season was Leeds v Man City. Rcclh (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

ENFA list both Barnes and Harris playing in that match. Barnes 31, Harris 15+3 league apps that season. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

ok - when ENFA was quoted before and someone asked if they listed matches the reply was that "the fans sites do", so that's also new information.

Have chedked newspaper reports on the match. Neither Harris nor Barnes are mentioned and team sheets are not provided. However there are stories on the same day that John Bond, manager of Manchester City, was enquiring about buying "unsettled" (Daily Telegraph) and "out-of-favour" (Reading Evening Post) Barnes. Additionally Harris, and not Barnes, played in the game before and the game after the Leeds / Man City game. Very much pointing to him not playing in this game. Rcclh (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The Times report lists the line-ups and has this team for Leeds: Lukic, Greenhoff, Gray, Hird, Cherry, Burns, Butterworth, Thomas, Worthington, Connor, Harris. The report also specifically notes "....while Harris on the opposite wing could only manage to involve himself in the game sporadically". I know reporters do make errors, but it would seem to be pretty unusual for the reporter to specifically namecheck Harris if it wasn't him playing....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I also found a report from the Aberdeen Evening Express (random I know but there you go) dated 12 March saying "Former Scotland striker Derek Parlane and England winger Peter Barnes are recalled to the Leeds United squad for tomorrow's relegation clash at Sunderland". He wouldn't be described as being recalled if he had played in the last game -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a big problem with the line-ups on page 305 of the book. Balcombe didn't play 23 games 0 goals. In the home game against Aston Villa when he scored, he isn't even in the line-up. Aspin, Thomas, Butterworth all completely wrong. Looks like something went wrong in an excel file. Balcombe 1 game 1 goal on page 59 is correct. If they both played(ENFA) someone else (not Harris) didn't play against Manchester City. Cattivi (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cattivi: do you or @Struway2: have the full line-up for the game as listed by ENFA so that we can compare it with the one listed by the contemporary source from The Times.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear now Barnes didn't play in that game and Harris did. Balcombe made 1 appearance for Leeds in October 1981 v Aston Villa. Rcclh (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

1 John Lukic 2 Brian Greenhoff 3 Eddie Gray 4 Kevin Hird 5 Kenny Burns 6 Trevor Cherry 7 Carl Harris 8 Gwyn Thomas 9 Frank Worthington 10 Terry Connor 11 Peter Barnes

according to ENFA. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

and if you want a different contemporary lineup, there's The Grauniad's Lukic, Greenhoff, Gray, Hird, Cherry, Barnes, Butterworth, Thomas, Worthington, Connor, Harris. But true to its reputation, it lists 11 players but omits Burns, who must have been there or he couldn't have been sent off in the first half... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

If we assume that the Guardian has Barnes as a typo for Burns (which seems plausible given where he is listed in that line-up) then that XI would match what The Times has. The player that ENFA are missing is Aiden Butterworth, and again he is specifically namechecked in the Times report ("Butterworth almost had a death wish to run down blind alleys"). I really think all the signs are pointing to the line-up in The Times being the right one, meaning that Barnes did not play. Annoyingly none of the Yorkshire local papers seem to be available on Gale, proQuest, BNA or Newspapers.com...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

If this is true, the line-up in ENFA would be unverifiable for everybody, it would be fiction, that’s a very bad thing. Someone should ask ENFA what their source is, there can still be a good explanation. Cattivi (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

:I know Pete Barnes is the brother of John Barnes. I create the 1980-81 Nottingham Forest season masterpice article and I'm gonna delete it because the Nomenklature censored my CONMEBOL Qualification stages Position by round tables. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC) Can someone temporarily block Hugo? It's getting annoying. Nehme1499 00:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC) I have blocked him for 72 hours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Change to Sports Personalities section

An RfC is pending at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RfC: Change to Sports Personalities section. Cbl62 (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"Other players under contract"

I noticed that a lot of club and club-season articles have sub-sections titled "other players under contract" (see here), listing fringe players who have just come back from loan spells but are not included in the first-team squad by the club itself. Most of those players are bound to depart again soon, but it's not uncommon to see one or two guys remain there for an entire season, either because they're injured or the club is unable to sell them. Needless to say, those section are usually unreferenced (but most likely relying on information found on Transfermarkt).

So the question is: what's the consensus here? Personally, I would get rid of those sub-sections since they're unsourced and OR. Besides, if such players are not considered first-team players by the club, I see no reason for us to include list them at all (just like we don't list every single academy player, or every single kitman for that matter). Luxic (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel like there are some editors of football articles who aren't members of the WikiProject and just create their own manuals of style, common sense be damned (seeing transfer tables getting updated with the club a released player joined three months later still blows my mind). You're right to request input, but it seems like we're fighting an uphill battle. Seasider53 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

That section seems to be a misnomer, you're either in the first team squad or a youth team squad. Either a correct title added or remove the section completely. Govvy (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreee with Luxic. I too believe there can be those who aren't considered first-team players. Dr Salvus 10:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Case in point for rogue editing: Tom Barkuizen was released by Preston on 9 May (officially 30 June, of course), and this morning his release got updated to a transfer to Derby County (in parentheses, to denote it happened "after his Preston North End contract expired") in North End's outgoing transfers for this season. I've since removed the player-tracking attempts, although it was reverted briefly this morning. Seasider53 (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Seasider is correct that when a player is released, he should be shown as 'released', not moving to a new club on a free transfer.

I also think Govvy is right that 'other players' should not be a section. If they are a contracted senior player but do not have a squad number then list them with a '-'. GiantSnowman 10:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

GS, so you'd put want to see 48398903 players with a "-" and huge templates? I'd prefer seeing the section. Dr Salvus 10:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I think most people would prefer to scroll through a table in one section rather than scroll through multiple sections to get the same information. Seasider53 (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

What clubs have such large squads of players that are neither first teamer or 'reserve/U23' etc. squad members? GiantSnowman 11:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

See the huge amount of non youth teams players Juventus do have. I'm afraid they won't loan every player due to Fifa's new rules and that we'll have exceeding player. Dr Salvus 11:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

From a quick sample, lots of those players look to be under-23 - so why aren't they included with the under-23 players? GiantSnowman 11:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Assistance required, if anyone's willing. On-the-fly adjustments (including footnotes now) are being made in an attempt to support post-release transfers. Seasider53 (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

GS, most of the players aged <24 you've seen are those I don't think they'll ever be given a number for Juventus U23. Dr Salvus 12:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Tottenham Hotspur

Looks like "Tottenham Hotspur" is common name than "Tottenham Hotspur F.C.". "Tottenham Hotspur F.C." is probably fake (such abbreviation is rather not used expect Wikipedia). Eurohunter (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? – PeeJay 01:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Eurohunter, assuming you are suggesting changing the title of the main article. The full name should be used. Although "Tottenham Hotspur" would appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME in this situation, "Tottenham Hotspur F.C." is the club's official name and should be used. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: No. Official full name is "Tottenham Hotspur Football Club". There are four variants:

1. "Tottenham Hotspur" - short official name used by club in social media and at official website + it is also WP:COMMONNAME used by media (examples: [1], [2], [3]).

2. "Tottenham" - shorter variant of the name used by media alternately (examples above).

3. "Tottenham Hotspur Football Club" - official full name.

4. "Tottenham Hotspur F.C." - not used by media or probably not used by anyone else and part of name is incorrectly abbreviated (should be "Tottenham Hotspur FC" - without dots).

Eurohunter (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an absolute non-starter - otherwise we will end up with article club names like Man U and Liverpool (football club) etc. GiantSnowman 09:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely. I don't think anyone would have an issue with "Football Club" instead of the suffix "F.C.", but that looks like a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

One thing to consider: in the Premier League there is a team commonly known as Bournemouth but there is also Bournemouth F.C. which is a totally different club from the same place in fact. With Tottenham Hotspur, there is also Tottenham Hotspur (Superleague Formula team) which was operated for three years so dab on "Tottenham Hotspur" is and will always be needed. And to use some local rivalry examples - there are a few clubs named "Arsenal" worldwide - see Arsenal_(disambiguation)#Association_football and we would not move Arsenal F.C. to Arsenal either because the latter page already has content reserved for the weapons. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Warning

It would appear that a random 29-year-old Premier League footballer has been arrested per this news report. Keep your eyes on any potential vandalism on the random article in case people who know the identity of that footballer starts editing that page. He can't be named for legal reasons - the same case with Gylfi Sigurðsson almost a year ago where people probably vandalised that article of the former Everton player. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Restrictions on naming the player almost certainly only apply in the UK. Media elsewhere and Wikipedia can name him. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

We should be careful even if named in foreign media to report the notable elements and not get into blow by blow accounts or speculation. Koncorde (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Definitely no BLP worries here. Spike 'em (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Raphinha

Could I get some input at Raphinha for the RM? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Officialised deals

When a deal is officialised, can there be a reliable source different from the club's website? Dr Salvus 21:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliable third-party sources are preferred over club announcements. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Island92 doesn't agree with. Dr Salvus 21:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Depending on which website the source is taken from.--Island92 (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Juventusnews24 (a site I use very much) and Goal.com are rubbish. But you'd removed Michel Pisano's transfer to Bayern Munich which is sourced with Goal.com. Dr Salvus 21:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, despite that info coming from Goal.com, I did not consider it to be trusty.--Island92 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

And why? Dr Salvus 21:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Because personally I consider it to be far from the normal football transfermarket. It's my opinion.--Island92 (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, Michele Pisano played for Juventus U16 in 21/22, but would there be a reason for which the news had a significant coverage? Search "Michele Pisano" and you won't find just a few results. Dr Salvus 21:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Mb, he's Manuel Pisano 🤦‍♀️. Dr Salvus 21:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Potential Clive Middlemass copyvio

I can check on this when I have time, if nobody else has been able to, but I put the pertinent info on Middlemass's talk page. Either the Lancashire Evening Post has lifted from his Wikipedia article almost verbatim, or a Wikipedia editor has been deft with some copying and pasting skills. Seasider53 (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

False alarm. Just had a peek at the edit prior to his death and it's largely the same. Amazing work by the LEP reporter, then... Seasider53 (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Maps in CFL season pages

Do we really need the recently added 'team location maps', in all the CFL season pages? I'm asking here, as WP:CFL is semi-active. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, yes I think. Dr Salvus 21:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Just so you know, this is the WikiProject for soccer. I think you wanted Wikipedia:WikiProject American football since you were asking about the CFL and North American Football instead of European football, which is what this one is. RedPatch (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Recommend it be renamed "Wikipedia:WikiProject Association Football", to avoid any confusion. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen someone post something about American football in here in my eighteen or so years on Wikipedia. That isn't to say it hasn't happened, but it seems most people pay attention sufficiently. Seasider53 (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Canadian football. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Raheem Sterling

Can Raheem Sterling be protected please? JMHamo (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 17:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Second opinions sought

Is the Newport player in this image John Aldridge? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Right era and does look very much like it is him. Eagleash (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

And he scored twice in that game. Seasider53 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Added to his article. I happened to stumble across the image while looking for an picture of Newport's old stadium and thought to myself "blimey, that sure looks like John Aldridge, why is that image not in his article?" ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Updating club info on national team squads

I noticed that some editors are (in my opinion) incorrectly changing club information players in national team articles, specifically Argentina, Brazil ([4] [5] [6] [7] [8]) and England ([9] [10] [11] [12]). I've reverted a few of these edits but realized I was getting into an edit war but I've stopped.

Anyway, in each case, there's a note saying the information is correct as of the June FIFA window, and updating them to reflect the July transfers introduces inaccuracies. The player information should reflect their club status at the time of the June international matches, right? Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 12:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I say updating is fine, when you also update the date. I mean the age is also the curretn one and not the one from the last game. -Koppapa (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with it either way, but if the information is meant to be current, then we should probably remove the "Information correct as of..." notes. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The "correct as of" should definitely be kept. And I agree with Koppapa: as long as you update the date it's fine to update the club. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The national team squad info should show the club the player was at when the squad was announced. Those squads can be several months out of date at times, and really there's no such thing as the national team squad once the international window has closed and the players go back to their clubs. But just because a player moves clubs between one international window and the next doesn't mean we should update the club info on the national team page. – PeeJay 10:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel it should be Current Club. If I go to a national team page (often in anticipation of future matches), I'm interested in where those players play now not months ago. Also, I feel like the current status quo is to update to current club and the majority (if not all) of the time I see editors who are not members of this wikiproject updating national team squads to current club. That is what people will expect. This same discussion was held here last July and seems like more people preferred current club over the club at call-up (although the latter group was much more vocal). RedPatch (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@RedPatch Then what you're looking for isn't "Current squad", which isn't a thing that exists after the end of the FIFA window or a tournament. As @PeeJay points out, there won't be a "current squad" until September. And while you might prefer the latest/greatest information in a table, it's inaccurate. The fact is, Kalvin Phillips played in Nation's League matches as a Leeds player and Gabriel Jesus was listed on the Brazil squad as a Manchester City player.

For the player lists to be correct and verifiable, I think we can do it one of two ways:

• Rename "Current squad" to "Latest squad" for accuracy, have all the information be valid as of the start of the FIFA window/first day of the tournament, including club and age information.
• Keep "Current squad" while the squad is actually current, then roll everyone into the "Recent callups" list of players called up within the previous 12 months, update club information as needed. Because as far as squad status is concerned, there's no difference between a player whose most recent callup was June vs March.

Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 12:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned, this discussion took place at the same time last year and is referenced on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams. It was mentioned that the latest age and cap/goal number is currently used therefore using their current club is in line with that - I don't think there's any need for a change to the status quo. Felixsv7 (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a prior discussion and I'm fine with updating clubs as they change, but could we do the following?

1. Get rid of the "Information correct as of...." note since the consensus seems to be that we should update the information as they change.
2. Rename "Current squad" to "Latest squad" or "Most recent squad", since that's not really true the majority of the time.

Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would want the "as of" date to be removed. That's like saying that we should remove it from players' infoboxes. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the issue that Adeletron has identified is that if, say, the article says "Information correct as of 6 June 2022" (because that was when the national team last played) but then someone changes the club of a player who moves on 10 June, then the info is no longer correct as of 6 June. So maybe rather than being removed completely, we should insist that if anyone changes a player's club they need to also update the timestamp (although I bet they won't) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I always assumed that the timestamp should be updated when any information (be it the roster, numbers, clubs, etc) is updated. Of course, if the club is updated on 10 June then the timestamp should also reflect that date. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd definitely want some form of time-stamp, either Information correct as of... or Caps and goals updated as of ____, after the match against ____ (not specifying DoB and Club), and Latest squad would probably be more accurate but I'm content with Current Squad - it's more dependant on what others think! Felixsv7 (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Recreation for list of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning players.

Can we recreate a list of players who won European Cup and UEFA Champions League? NextEditor123 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No - it was deleted at AFD and it's likely to be upheld at DRV. Recreation would be disruptive and result in a block. GiantSnowman 21:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

So creation of the article, recreating it after it was deleted at AfD, requesting a DRV which was upheld, and now posting on this talk page again. I think you've exhausted all the options and the consensus is quite clear. --SuperJew (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not create the article and did not started the DVR. I just asked the question. NextEditor123 (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@SuperJew: umm, that was me who did the DRV! :/ Govvy (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Sunderland A.F.C.

I have nominated Sunderland A.F.C. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Alternative categories - looking for input

I stumbled upon several categories created by one user in March this year. Namely:

• Category:Swiss men's footballers
• Category:Men's association football players by nationality
• Category:Men's association football players
• Category:Men's football in Switzerland
• Category:Men's association football in Europe
• Category:Men's association football by continent
• Category:Afghan men's footballers
• Category:Men's football in Afghanistan
• Category:Albanian men's footballers
• Category:Men's association football in Asia
• Category:Men's association football by country
• Category:Men's football in Albania

In edit summaries, this user claims he created those categories following Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 188#RfC: Categorise male footballers in the same way that we categorise female footballers. There seems to be a consensus found in that Village pump proposal, however the categories above is all we have now - five months after said proposal.

What do you think should be the next course of action? Should the consensus be enacted totally throughout the whole footballers categorization trees, or should the abovementioned categories be put to discussion at WP:CFD?

Thanks. Darwinek (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I started editing some pages in the hope that the proposal would be acted upon by someone more technically skilled. There was also some discussion on this page (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_152#Categorise male footballers in the same way that we categorise female footballers) about how to go about it (mostly about what would be appropriate names for the categories). Obviously the task is quite big and daunting. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Definitely via CfD, links to the Pump discussion and the previous one on here should get the ball rolling. Not volunteering to compile the proposal itself but happy to add a voice to the discussion if needed. Crowsus (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

agree that new categories should not be created, but existing ones re-named using CFD. GiantSnowman 16:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Community Shield runners-up

Is coming second in a two team competition an “honour”? Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Medals are given, so yeah. You still need to "qualify" in order to play the game. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it's second in a tournament of 2. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide whether it's an honour or not. If the respective FA gives out medals, it's an honour. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, per Nehme1499. Dr Salvus 20:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer all honours to be winners only. Makes it more consistent about what is included. Many of those pre-season tournaments hand out Cups and medals. By the "a medal is awarded", then those would need to be included too. RedPatch (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I’ve received a host of “medals” for finishing runs, bike rides etc. but I wouldn’t treat them as “honours”, so I’m not sure the medal argument is helpful. Likewise, the only qualification required is to win the Premier League or FA Cup (generally), for which medals are already given. --Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this. "Received a medal" has never been a criterion for notability. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 20:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Your runs and bikes-related medals are not FA-sanctioned, though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the point that DK2018 was making is that, given that there's only two teams in the Community Shield, every player gets a medal just for turning up. It's essentially a participation award...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

That was also my point. The honour from it was winning the PL or FA Cup in order to qualify for the Community Shield, not losing the event itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

We clearly write it down when it's a runners-up medal. When a player doesn't have many honours in his career, I see nothing wrong with a few runner-ups in there. Govvy (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Not an honour. It's a "thanks for coming" essentially. Seasider53 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

We include all second places, and so should we in a two teams' official tournament, like Community Shield. Dr Salvus 12:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Runners up is less an "honour", and more a "look what your honour could have been". For some players and teams it's significant, for other teams it's irrelevant. If its a players sole "honour", then it is likely significant to include. If the player has won a whole batch of other trophies but NOT the charity shield - again it may be relevant to include. But once they have wins in that competition and others its inclusion criteria becomes less significant.

As a point of note, and competition of significance mentioned under honours should be mentioned in the narrative of the career - and if a Runners Up is covered in significant detail specifically in conjunction with that player (in other words not just WP:ROUTINE coverage) then due weight and similar would support its inclusion both in the lede and summarised in subsections and so on. Koncorde (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

medals are also given out for league runners up. if you dont coutn this, youd discount all super cup runners upMuur (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Strange situation as to think that should be an honour for runners-up yet I see someone returning the honour and ref to the Liverpool players in 2019 (example). At this moment it is unstable as to see if that content should be included or not re the runners-up Community Shield honour since that has been removed/re-inserted many times among a handful of articles including Joe Gomez (footballer). But there are Community Shield honours for the winners. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion - although at the beginning of the season, it's an actual competitive competition, recognised by UEFA as a 'super cup', that has been running for over a century, as opposed to the unofficial, unrecognised, here-today-gone-tomorrow pre-season tournaments like the Audi Cup, Asia Trophy, Emirates Cup etc. You receive a medal for finishing as runner-up, rather than just coming second and that being that (such as league tournaments) and as with other trophies it therefore should justifiably be included in the Honours section. I'm not sure the number of teams in the tournament should make a difference, particularly as it's a super cup. It's an official trophy according to all the official bodies, you receive a runners-up medal, so I can't see any reason at all why it shouldn't be included, unless we commit to removing ALL runners-up medals, which would be a separate conversation (but which I'd also disagree with. --OGBC1992 (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• I vote no, coming second in a 2-horse race shouldn't get you any honours. Completely irrelevant that they get medals IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I’d argue, as we’re discussing the ‘Honours’ section, the fact you receive a medal is far more relevant than the number of teams in the competition (which as far as I know has never been a factor in a tournament’s legitimacy) OGBC1992 (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes per above. Dr Salvus 21:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, a runners-up medal for the Community Shield isn't a 'participation medal', like a fun run, or a 'well done for turning up' medal, by the same token that any runners-up medal isn't, despite losing any final being the equivalent of coming second out of two. The Shield is a super cup, not an invitational tournament, that you need to properly qualify for.OGBC1992 (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

A Humble Request

Hello everyone, I'm new here on this platform. Here on a particular page related to Indian football, Mohammedan SC (Kolkata), Mr. User:Debankan Mullick made a ton of edits, removing important data, records, file–images, citations and others, without mentioning edit summaries. According to me (who, within a year or more than that, contributed neutral data, references, and things related to the club seriously), those edits (few of those, are really acceptable; others are synonymous of vandalism) predominantly made the article poor, inappropriate, and "damaged".

Examples of vandalism:

1. The club doesn't have its separate statistics article ; but the user removed the club's all data about RUNNERS-UP finishes in honours section. Also, the current honours section format is wrong.

2. The user also removed reliable references, notes, and other items singlehandedly.

3. Also removed club RECORDS, which were important, and added by me with proper citations. Its horrible that, Now they all are vanished.

4. Also removed data in History section and the user too removed clubs matches against notable opponents. Simply, all citations related to those, gone forever.

5. The User removed OTHER DEPARTMENTS section (beside men's football section; women's football, hockey, cricket, futsal), and all the data and citations gone.

& MANY MORE

That's why — I'm requesting all of you, if possible, PLEASE take a look on those happenings, and fix/restore all necessary data and references, to make the article "healthy". Thanking all of you a lot at the end & keep smiling :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billjones94 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)