Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.

Birmingham City player infobox images.

Some of them look like they have been ripped straight from Birmingham City website, yet it looks like they passed on an email, but the ticker about the email is behind a password section of wikimedia, I find it odd, because we never use club images like that due to copyright laws. I was wondering how many people have looked into it. Govvy (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The images were approved as per this discussion. LTFC 95 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

What LTFC 95 said. I wish more clubs would release basic profile photos. They're ideal for the many players who have either no infobox image or one that doesn't show what they actually look like. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Never seen that before, it still didn't feel right. How verified was he? Govvy (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons are pretty fussy about licensing. The uploader had to get the copyright holders, which presumably were either the clubs or the shirt sponsors, to send in to Commons, from an email address clearly identifiable as that of the rightsholder, their confirmation that those specific images were free to use and that they understood exactly what free to use meant. If it hadn't been genuine, the rightsholders would have been down on us like a ton of bricks: the odd image may slip by, but three full squads sharing the same shirt sponsor aren't going to go unnoticed... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

k, I guess I leave it at that, interesting that I never noticed it before, Govvy (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice of the clubs to do that. I was in contact with Ipswich about releasing some player photos into the public domain and they claimed they don't own the rights to them... Number 57 15:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Rights technically belong to the photographer - silly of the club not to sort that when getting photos done! GiantSnowman 16:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Smart of the shirt sponsors, too. TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps FC

An IP added "the" the Lede and I accepted the edit. I can't remember whether or not y'all approve of that, and I'm off to bed so I thought I'd leave a message there. I dealth with this on another FC nearly a year ago, so I apologise for forgetting which style is correct. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 03:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

PS Your MOS doesn't mention it. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

FOOTY may or may not, but it's not necessary. Removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 South Korea national football team season

Then there are articles back to 2001, do they all pass NSeason? Is it not overkill of information? Govvy (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

They should be grouped together, per England national football team results (2000–19) etc. GiantSnowman 14:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've seen the English one before, I thought the South Korea setup was overly done. Govvy (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:NeilBrownPlayers

Just as a 'heads up'...

There seems to be an anomaly with the template in that where the N Brown page URL has the player No. of 11 or 12, the template does not seem to work correctly. The code also says 'htm' rather than 'html' and the N Brown page displays differently. Examples are Frank Parsons (English footballer) here and Tom Vansittart here. When changing an EL to the template, we ought to check that it is working correctly. I have notified the editor who created the template... (although it was some time ago they seem to still be active). If anyone can fix the template 'code' would be appreciated. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It isn't all the 11s: see e.g. Bill Blackshaw, whose url does have the html suffix and tabular layout. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No, should have made it clear it doesn't always happen. And it's more often '12' than otherwise. Eagleash (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup, this was highlighted while I was doing an AWB run. I don't think I've broken any other links (apart from the one Eagleash reverted), but I'm checking the others. Given that Struway has noted the extension difference isn't the case for all the 11s/12s, I would suggest that, if possible, something like an "extension=htm" parameter would be the best option. Anyone good at templates? Nzd (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I have received a reply from the template author:-

"... It appears the domain directories player11 & player12 have pages with the .htm extension. If this is the case then supplying the .htm in the ID field will ensure '.html' is not appended. I have updated the template documentation with a third example..."

It looks like it works OK now. Eagleash (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I've had to revert the fix for now as it was causing formatting issues when used as an extlink (removing the bullet even though the asterisk is there in edit mode). I've let the editor know. Nzd (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This has now been fixed so you can now link to pages with the .htm extension per the above advice. Nzd (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Kyle Fisher vandalism

Can someone with rollback rights undo the edits made at Kyle Fisher? Thanks! Jay eyem (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ 🙂 Robby.is.on (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jay eyem: If you use Twinkle you can roll back without the need for additional rights. Nzd (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Good to know, cheers! Jay eyem (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Inter Milan again

Every time there's been a request to move Inter Milan to another location, usually to Internazionale, but occasionally to F.C. Internazionale Milano or FC Internazionale Milano. Now I have an editor claiming that we can pipe to the title we have agreed is not the common name in English. I would like to run AWB to remove any possible piping and leave only Inter Milan. I'm not wearing my flame resistant shorts, so be kind. Ping me when the discussion ends or if there's a direct question to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I would support renaming per every other club article (including Italian ones), but most particularly the precedent at Sporting CP. If we used "common names" on football clubs, then the article titles for every other club are wrong. Nzd (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever suggested moving Inter Milan to Internazionale, and if that's what you think, I can perhaps see why you've always !voted against the move. Regardless, as long as the link goes to the right place and the pipe doesn't leave the link looking like an Easter egg, I don't see any problem with piping to Internazionale or any other title. – PeeJay 14:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You could be correct. The page was previously nominated to be moved.

• RM, F.C. Internazionale Milano → Inter Milan, No consensus, 7 March 2012, Talk:Inter Milan/Archive 1#Requested move
• RM, F.C. Internazionale Milano → Inter Milan, Moved, 14 June 2012, Talk:Inter Milan/Archive 1#Requested Move: F.C. Internazionale Milano → Inter Milan
• RM, Inter Milan → F.C. Internazionale Milano, Not moved, 8 March 2013, Talk:Inter Milan/Archive 2#Requested move 3
• RM, Inter Milan → F.C. Internazionale Milano, Not moved, 12 January 2015, Talk:Inter Milan/Archive 3#Requested move 12 January 2015
• RM, Inter Milan → F.C. Internazionale Milano, Not moved, 13 July 2015, Talk:Inter_Milan/Archive_3#Requested_move_5_July_2015

But the request remains and the common name has been upheld every time. We don't pipe endonums of other foreign-language clubs, why this one (or other Italian clubs as listed above). I'd be happy to apply the unpiped exonym as requested above. I don't understand why we occasionally allow endonyms for some clubs and not others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Inter Milan is a title that falls within the guidelines of common names for article titles. The Sporting CP consensus was that this article title is the common name. So, indeed the articles for every other football club are currently wrong.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it should remain Inter Milan per COMMONNAME guidelines and the others redirecting. Govvy (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I think a lot of editors fail to understand that WP:COMMONNAME is only one of the five article title conventions and not one that overrides all others. "Inter Milan" is contrary to WP:CONSISTENCY, as virtually all other football club articles consist of the clubs' proper name with initials (see the contents of Category:Football clubs in Italy), so the current title is out of sync with our de facto naming convention for football clubs. Number 57 17:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Well that and a lot of news services just use Internazionale. Govvy (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Well a lot of news services use Bayern München on occasion as well. So if we're saying it's OK to use endonyms over exonyms, I'm all behind correcting that glaring error instead of the Inter Milan piping. Which shall it be? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There isn't a FOOTY guideline for article titles. No proper discussion either. What does exist is the Wikipedia guideline on article titles, which in a nutshell states: "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent". Imposing the institutional titles of football clubs is not recognizable, not natural, and certainly not concise. Precision is also debatable as many of these institutions are actually sports clubs, not just football clubs. Particularly in those cases, it would make more sense to have the common name redirect to the well-known sports team of that club (such as the football team), while the longer (more formal) title would be reserved for the club as a multi-sports institution. As for consistency, that sole point cannot override the other four points that the common name guide clearly supports.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 20:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR: If this is such a consistent issue and interpretations differ, then perhaps we should develop a FOOTY guideline on article titles.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 20:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty much only an issue with this one club (and has become something of a sore point because it stands out). Otherwise we virtually always use the proper name of clubs. It's not a formalised naming convention (I'm not sure there's any point for such a specific subset of articles), but it's a de facto one given how long titles have been set this way (well over a decade) and the uniformity of its implementation. Number 57 20:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget Boca Juniors, which was moved from CA Boca Juniors a while back. Also, we have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams), which was drawn up a while back for this exact reason. – PeeJay 22:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

For the consistency. Sporting CP was the only team in the cat without dot. But it look more serious in Inter Milan that without F.C.. For the guideline, Inter Milan certainly fall in the part "widely use in the English media", which in that case , I would understand why Red Star is used, instead of the transliteration of non-Latin character (but Italian language use Latin). Inter Milan was a spacial case that it was a short name and the only one with translation to English, other Italian club retained that full name even Mantova, Sudtirol, Padova, Venezia had their city in different English spelling. Did "F.C. Internazionale Milano" confuse people to NOT recognize it as "Inter Milan"? May be not, but even move the namespace back to F.C. Internazionale Milano, piping to "Internazionale" or "Inter Milan", may be the real problem. The current argument was piped to "Internazionale" or unpipe it, to me both way is ok, as there is no other club recognisable as "Internazionale" (except Inter, Internacional), just like Sporting CP, seem there is no need to call it Sporting Lisbon to make it "the Sporting", but just Sporting is sufficient. However, by abuse of Google hit to support the argument, certainly "Inter Milan" was widely used. Matthew_hk tc 00:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Goal.com use Inter and Internazionale, espn used Inter Milan and Internazionale interchangeably. Thus starting an edit war on the piping thing, seem unnecessary. Matthew_hk tc 02:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @MarshalN20: that there should be a guideline for club names and piping. It wouldn't hurt to codify the national representation rules there as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Walter Görlitz. The presented sports teams naming convention still leaves gaps and inconsistencies. For example, should Atlético Madrid and Alianza Lima have the "Club" in front of their names, since that is the "official name"? Why is the de excluded from the Atlético title? Also, why does the prefix in FC Barcelona have no periods, but the suffix in Barcelona S.C. does have periods? I also continue considering that multi-sports clubs remain a complicated subject. How can we properly create an encyclopedia entry of FC Barcelona as a multi-sports institution? There's even a table within that article which indicates the "Active departments of FC Barcelona". However, the FC Barcelona article is only about the football club, and not about FC Barcelona as a multi-sports club. This seriously needs to be clarified and resolved.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

In relation to multi-sport clubs, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies. There's nothing stopping us having an article on the sports club as a whole, but it does not need to be at the primary location. GiantSnowman 15:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: PRIMARY relates to content in articles, not the naming of them. WP:COMMONNAME applies to the naming of articles, but I think the underlying point is the same: "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)." However, the issue is that if we are using the COMMONNAME that PRIMARY sources provide for articles, why in the world would we allow alternate names to be piped in at a later time? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I think User:GiantSnowman may have meant WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. – PeeJay 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I did indeed, thanks @PeeJay2K3: - I've edited accordingly. GiantSnowman 16:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

For the codify thing. It was in fact had a de facto coding in each league for the namespace, La Liga used common name instead of full name (except the expansion of abb. A.C., C.D., F.C.), so it was Deportivo de La Coruña (without club) and Atlético Madrid (without "de" and "Club"). May be there is some doubt to drop C.F. from Real Madrid or not from the namespace, but certainly keep in F.C. Barcelona, and drop it when piping.

For Serie A and Italian club, except i can't find source to support the abb. of the "B.C." in Atalanta B.C., all club except Inter Milan, were the full name that common abb. F.C., A.C., F.B.C., A.S., S.S. (that FIGC had its own document to specify the coding, such as the meaning of "Pol." came from) were not expanded. For consistency, Inter Milan should belongs to F.C. Internazionale Milano, and pipe to Inter Milan or even Internazionale, Inter (the common names) depends on the nationality of the footballer. (some Uruguayan footballer were piped to River Plate only for the Montevideo club, as well as Nacional)

For other league, U.D. Leiria was preferred but often piped to União de Leiria, so did Vitória S.C. and Vitória F.C.. The inconsistency were CP and FC (without dot) for FC Porto and Sporting CP, so what "coding" actually the project want to form , when the last two move were supported by the member? May be all common name and inferior to consistency? Matthew_hk tc 06:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Ballon d'Or 2017

To quote the first line on the page "best male footballer in the world for 2017." I don't think it's a world honour is it? If you always look at the lists it's for players that play in Europe, so shouldn't the first line be "best male footballer in Europe"? Govvy (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Next section says: "The Ballon d'Or is an annual football award presented by France Football. It has been awarded since 1956, although between 2010 and 2015, an agreement was made with FIFA and the award was temporarily merged with the FIFA World Player of the Year, and known as the FIFA Ballon d'Or, but the partnership was ended in 2016 and the award been reversed back to Ballon d'Or while FIFA also renamed its traditional award. Conceived by sports writer Gabriel Hanot, the Ballon d'Or award honours the male player deemed to have performed the best over the previous year, based on voting by football journalists. Originally, only European players were in contention for the Ballon d'Or: in 1995 the award was expanded to include all players at European clubs and in 2007 to all players from around the world" Kante4 (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's been a world award since 2007, see this. GiantSnowman 16:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought when it split back from FIFA it was Europe only. Hmm, well, it had clubs only from Europe for 2017, there seems a few irregularities on the page, such as, Stating 32 nominees, only listing 30, none from clubs outside of Europe. Govvy (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That's because none of the players outside Europe are in the top 30 in the world. – PeeJay 22:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Victor Mendy and an international appearance for Senegal

Looking for some sleuthing help here. This afternoon I've removed information from Victor Mendy that stated he played in a friendly for Senegal against Iran on 1 April 2009. There was no inline source to the statement, however it was present in the infobox with approriate timestamp update, suggesting this isn't pure vandalism of the normal kind. It's also present in fr.wiki.

There is no reference to Victor in the national-football-teams.com entry for the game in question [7], but in the External links section of the article is a link to Victor's (now dead) personal site. In a 2009 archive of that site[8] it is discussed (in French) that he played 80 minutes of the match.

The national-football-teams site references Frédéric Mendy as starting and playing 68 minutes, so there's a possibility of a mistake there.

I understand that we should accept a WP:RS such as national-football-teams over a primary source such as victormendy.com, hence the removal, but has anyone got access to other sources on this matter? I'm happy to put the information back if so. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Soccerway says it was Frederic Mendy. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Soccerway is a reliable source, but sometimes they make mistake. I sent some link to the primary source of CBF match report, they are happy to correct it. I am not suggesting Soccerway was wrong again this time, but may be the availability of the third source , would make it 2:13:0, would be better. The "primary source" of footballer website did not count. Sometimes the url is the real name of the footballer, but the owner is not. Anyway , for primary source, or set up by impersonator, is not quite reliable as other secondary source. Matthew_hk tc 18:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC) fixed typo 01:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, Metz may announced the players with international duty and their performance. It may be used as source despite in between primary and secondary source. Matthew_hk tc 18:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

RSSSF have Frederic. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Jupp Heynckes

Are all the managerial statistics tables on the Jupp Heynckes article necessary? Typically, most managers have one table summarising their managerial record. I don't recall any other managers with such detailed statistics on their articles, having 14 different tables seems excessive and like a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Pinging Crowsus, who left a message on the talk page regarding this as well, and Kingjeff, who added the tables. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

One table and that's it. That is too much. Kante4 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not needed, defintely WP:NOTSTATS. One table only for managers. GiantSnowman 19:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Heh, I can't even remember adding that, only two months ago as well. From the timestamp, looks like it was a quiet moment at work about 6am so obviously not fully awake. Anyway, I do think it's a valid point. The 'two spells table' in particular is just a copy of what's above, doesn't add anything new at all, let alone excessive statistics.Crowsus (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

UAE Arabian Gulf League

Looking for opinions at Talk:UAE Arabian Gulf League, thanks.--Bijanii (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

List of English football transfers winter 2017–18

Should List of English football transfers winter 2017–18 and the other list of winter transfers be started up yet? The January transfer window in European football is pretty close to being started up again. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't see why not, if there was project sandbox start it there, do we even have a project page sandbox? Govvy (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

If there is deal also signed and waiting to be effective on 1 January 2018 (for international) and ? (for domestic), why not? The only thing may need to sort out was , may be avoiding the word "winter". The list will be fine in WP:RS by the existence of BBC and Sky. Matthew_hk tc 14:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Scottish FA player template

The SFA have updated their website. The numeric codes don't seem to have been changed, but the links have been shortened from old format to new format. Not sure how to fix this at Template:SFA player/doc. The good news is that we can use the template for players with other squads (youth, women) as the base format is the same, with just the numeric code changing (e.g. Gemma Fay). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Owen Coyle

I've initiated a discussion about conflicting sources on Owen Coyle's birthplace here. Jellyman (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Gulf Cup of Nations

Could a moderator please review the recent move of the Gulf Cup of Nations article as well as each edition's article by User:Hashim-afc? Thank you.--Bijanii (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bijanii: Hi Bijanii. All official sources state the name as Arabian Gulf Cup (Template:Lang-ar, Kass Al-Khaleej Al-Arabi) or the shortened form Gulf Cup. Zero official sources state it as Gulf Cup of Nations. Only some English news websites do this, likely due to the fact that it was the name on Wikipedia. Not even Arabic news sites uses this name. The official sources I am talking about are the official Gulf Cup website,, the official AGCFF Twitter page,, the official logo of the tournament has "Arabian Gulf Cup" written in both Arabic and English. Furthermore, the full name of the AGCFF (organisers of tournament) is "إتحاد كأس الخليج العربي لكرة القدم‎", the 'AGC' part of their name in bold is Arabian Gulf Cup. So it is quite clear that this is the competition's official name. As for the individual seasons, the Gulf Cup seasons are named in numbers, similar to the UFC or Wrestlemania numbering each edition. The sources for this are plentiful, the official Gulf Cup website,, the official AGCFF Twitter, and many many Arab news sites such as: . And also the tournament's logo. As said before, no official source calls it Gulf Cup of Nations, only some English news sites. Hope I explained clearly. Hashim-afc (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

References

premierleague.com for height as a citation

Should we be using it? Often I have realised they use 175cm as a default placement for the height of football players, when often this can be incorrect for the actual height of the player. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I have searched a few random players which height details are different from the 175, on Toby Alderweireld, the Spurs reference and the premierleague.com one show different results. And Leon Britton's height on the premierleague.com appears to be a few cms taller than the Swansea Official website. I am not sure if premierleague.com would be WP:RS as if we have 175cm as a default placement.

English footballer articles in need of attention

If anyone's looking for something to do (ha!), I've just posted a list of articles that need attention within Category:English footballers to the England task force talk page. All are currently very basic stubs. Many have had content removed as unreferenced, which could be retrieved from the edit history if appropriate references are found. Others were created as one-line stubs in the first place and have had no attention since. Cross-posting here as I'm not sure how many have that page watchlisted. Nzd (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

UAE Arabian Gulf League naming

The name change request for the Talk:UAE Arabian Gulf League has been reopened.--Bijanii (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Wartime guest clubs in infobox

Is this appropriate? Examples are Joe Cockroft and John Brown (footballer, born 1915). It doesn't seem to be common practice to include these clubs in infoboxes. Nzd (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It looks a bit odd with our rules because they will have never played an official league match during their wartime guest spell(s), but these were legitimate moves. More flexibility was given in the transfer system because players would be primarily serving in military functions, and would be moved around the UK a lot. They would then play as a guest for a club local to that posting. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. No, these aren't official matches of the national leagues, but they were organised league competitions of a sort and we do include non-League stats etc. when we have them available, so I think there is a case for their inclusion. I agree that their use at present is very inconsistent, so some consensus would be nice. Jellyman (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox of managers

Hi. I want to know whether a manager's stint as an assistant manager should be included in the infobox of the article of the manager (as in case of Julio Bañuelos)? RRD (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, it usually is. See for example: David Bettoni, Joan Barbarà, and Steve Bould. --SuperJew (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I usually remove youth/assistant. Maybe need discussion? Kante4 (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It certainly does need discussion. The infobox instructions state: "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", which is hopelessly vague and subjective. I'd prefer not to include them at all, as it would lead to some boxes becoming ridiculously bloated. An infobox is for key information; stuff about jobs as a youth coach or whatever can be kept for the article body. Jellyman (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup, and we had a "discussion" before somewhere but i don't know if anyone participated or the result. -.- But you are correct, some boxes would be full. Just manager of the first team and that's it. No youth/assistant. Kante4 (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

In Germany for example, also second teams can play in a fully professional league (3. Liga), so I would add the managerial position of such teams also to the list, but I would also exclude youth teams. --Jaellee (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the same principle as for players — we include reserve teams stats in the infobox for those countries where reserve teams play in the senior league, but not those in purely reserve / youth competitions. Jellyman (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think assistant roles are important enough to be included. Is that infobox instructions based on any consensus anyway?-BlameRuiner (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Some of these players end up as coaches at a club, but not a big role, I remove them from that slot on infoboxes, the other one that annoys me is some people putting the sporting director of a club in the manager position in the infobox. I will remove that also. Govvy (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Consistency of lists of honours on Wikipedia sites for football clubs

Hi, I am very new to Wikipedia editing and new to the whole process. So far any updates I have made to pages have not been challenged, or have been quickly resolved.. up to now. I have a disagreement with an established wiki editor Number57. I can see his impact and valuable work across numerous club Wiki pages. In particular I can see how he has been largely responsible for several Wiki pages of Southern Combination League teams, e.g. Arundel and Lancing. There are others that do not follow his editing style, e.g. Eastbourne Town. This is fine (of course) however I notice one area of clear discrepancy between his opinion and most others, an area that we cannot agree upon.

It concerns how to record honours when a league and/or division has changed name. It is not a new league, just a rebranding. What I usually see for non-league club is the honour described using the title it had when it was won. However, on the pages such Arundel, the editor Number57 does not use this convention. From 1920 to 2015, there existed the Sussex County League. From 1983, it had three divisions - One, Two and Three. From 2015, the league was renamed the Southern Combination League, and the three divisions correspondingly rebranded Premier Division, Division One and Division Two. These changes are simply relabelling, both of us agree with this.

However, Arundel won the Sussex County League Division One in 1957–58, 1958–59, 1986–87, plus the Sussex County League Division Cup in 1976-77. That is mentioned in their club history section on its Wiki page. However, Number57 has chosen to describe these honours as Southern Combination honours which I strongly disagree with for two reasons. 1. The Southern Combination name only came into existence from 2015-16. Arundel won the Sussex County League (Division One). 2. Although they have been transcribed from Sussex County League to Southern Combination League honours, the division names have not been similarly updated.

Surely, they must be written as Southern Combination Premier league champions (using today's names) or written in the old names of Sussex County League Division One champions. What is currently written in neither one or the other.

My preference is to retain the original league and division names (as for Eastbourne Town, and teams from the South Eastern Counties league, e.g. Whitstable, where their honours are still listed as the Kent League). I suspect the Arundel programme would mention that the club won the Sussex County League.

Sorry if you all think this point is trivial. However, from scanning dozens of Wiki pages for football clubs, I only see the style of (half) converting the honours on pages highly influenced by Number57. We are not going to agree on this point so as advised I have written to the wider community. Although a novice, the lack of consistency bugs me across the various pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.205.61 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The TL:DR version of this is: If a league changes name, should the league be listed under its current or former name in the Honours section in club articles if the club is still in said league. This has come up at Arundel F.C. – the club are currently members of the Southern Combination, which was formerly called the Sussex County League. The honours were won at the time the league was under the former name. IMO as the club are still in the same league, it should be listed as Southern Combination to avoid confusing readers. The IP obviously holds the opposite view.

As far as I'm aware this has sort of been discussed before, but concerning instances when honours were won under both names (in which case I believe consensus was to use the modern name) or where the club has since left the league (again I think it was agreed to refer to the name at the time). I'm not sure there is any clarify over what happens when the club is still in the same league. Number 57 17:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I would lean to the old name, but it's tricky. Can't we just put both names in there with a "/"? Kante4 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the brief summary of my point! The issue with putting both names in there with a / is more complicated since the name of the division has changed as the same time as that of the league. So if you write Southern Combination / Sussex County League, their corresponding division names would be Premier Division / Division One. One of my main points is that as currently written, the honour reads Southern Combination - Division One which is undeniably incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.205.61 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

i.e. the honour must be Sussex County League - Division One (original title when won), or if you DO decide to use the new name, the honour must be Southern Combination - Premier Division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.205.61 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If I saw a Sussex team having won the Southern Combination 50 years ago, I'd assume it meant the Southern Counties Combination... See Southern Combination Challenge Cup and other competitions mentioned in that article.

I have no knowledge of any consensus to use historically inaccurate names, or for the name used to depend on the club's current status. At first glance, neither sounds particularly likely. Using the historically accurate name for a competition as we do in prose, or as we do when listing clubs in historical league tables, would be internally consistent, and would make sense to me (not that that counts for much).

If there's potential for confusion, clarify. Add a bracketed (level 2) for Football League Second Division/Football League Division One/Football League Championship/EFL Championship, or a bracketed (renamed Southern Combination Premier Division in 2015), or wikilink to the current name.

I've indented the anon's post: you do that by adding colons before the text, one more than used in the previous post. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on indentation. Having done more scanning of Wikipedia, I have seen that the convention of using the modern name for a league and then applying that retrospectively is essentially only used by Number 57. (I also see that Number 57 is a prolific editor of Wiki football club pages which makes me cautious to discuss his influence critically). About 50% of the Southern Combination Premier team's pages use the 'Number 57' approach, plus a couple in the Southern Counties East League - Canterbury and Erith - which have also been edited by Number 57. He has been using this approach for years it seems so I guess he was not happy to change it when I mentioned it. However, it means that the pages are clearly different depending on whether or not he has significantly influenced them. Sorry, I am not trying to be provocative, it just does not make sense to impose modern names retrospectively in the way he has done.