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.

Totals for loans in Career statistics table

Evening all, I recently added totals to the two loan spells Darren Bent had in the career statistics table. The edit containing these totals was subsequently reverted by Mattythewhite - and probably rightly so according to WP:FOOTY/Players. I'm not a big fan of the layout provided in the template and thought I'd bring it up for discussion here.

The lack of a Total row at the end of each club, even if the player was only at said club for one season, breaks the chain so to speak. If you add up all the totals they don't correlate with the Career total because the single-season/loan season don't have totals. This makes tallying up the statistics a chore and breaks the general aesthetic of the table, with some club's having totals and others not. There is also nothing separating the loan spell with the player's next club which makes it seem as if the stats flow until the Total below.

It's a small thing but I'd like to have a discussion on it nonetheless. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you Liam for the reasons mentioned. As it is these tables aren't kept up-to-date very well, so anything which makes it easier should be promoted IMO. I'd even suggest having some kind of template for it which would only need input of seasons and would automatically total the club and career totals. --SuperJew (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Total rows for single season spells are completely pointless. Why do we need an extra row that repeats exactly the same figures stated in the row above? As for the aesthetics of the table, doing this makes it worse not better. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I never thought of the totals rows having to add up to the final row.--EchetusXe 23:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Having a total row which will just have the same exact number as the row above is not needed. To highlight such a one season case, i agree that there should be done something. Kante4 (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

There are some split views here, can further discussion be had? Liam E. Bekker (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no need for a 'total' row if a player only spent one season at the club (it just duplicates info), and there certainly shouldn't be a 'loan' total. GiantSnowman 07:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand the duplication argument but surely there can be another solution? Look at Kevin Stewart's page as an example of how bad it can get. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The example you have given is actually a good example of how tables should look. I see nothing wrong at all. LTFC 95 (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with is that at first glance you'd say "but 0+11 doesn't equal 31" --SuperJew (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A perfect example like LTFC said. Kante4 (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

My issue is that the Totals don't add up to the Career total. On Stewart's page you have 0 and 20 = 42? While I know that the other 22 appearances are found in between it makes it unnecessarily difficult to tally up. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The totals aren't meant to add up to the career total. The totals are only for club spells spanning two seasons or more. The entire column should add up to the career total, not the totals. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with what LTFC95 says, completely. This is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GiantSnowman 18:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree with LTFC95. R96Skinner (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The aesthetic is a small part of it so it's disappointing that one should try and dismiss my view as WP:IDONTLIKEIT when the main concern was clearly practical in nature, and supported by two experienced editors. My intent was (is) to try and find a way to improve the template and I'm happy to continue dialogue if there is interest in finding an alternative. If not, that's okay. That's what these discussions are for. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. Although I disagree with you on this, it is worthy of a discussion. R96Skinner (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@LTFC 95: The entire column should add up to the career total, not the totals. doesn't work at first glance either, in the case given: 0+0+0+4+0+7+4+11+4+7+5 doesn't equal 31. Yes, I understand that it's sum of seasons, or sum of single seasons and total of multi-season clubs, but the point being made here is that it's not intuitive, which makes it harder for new (and also experienced) editors. You mentioned here that it's a repetition to have a total for a one season stay (Why do we need an extra row that repeats exactly the same figures stated in the row above?), but isn't a lot of the table repetition of what can be found in the infobox? --SuperJew (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus against adding a total row for single season spells. Perhaps you could suggest an alternative proposal? LTFC 95 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I wanted to emphasise the issue, as it seems not everyone's on the same page. Secondly, personally I don't see a problem with adding a total row for single season spells, but as you say there seems to be in this discussion a majority against it. As far as an alternative proposal, two suggestions (or a combo of them): a) not have totals for clubs (we already have it in the infobox anyway), as is done for example for AFL players, b) have the career stats section done with a template which would automatically do the totals (in both directions), it would also make editing and maintaining it easier and minimise the human errors of addition. --SuperJew (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@LTFC 95: Did you see my alternative proposal? Any thoughts? --SuperJew (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The table provides more than the league-only stats in the infobox so suggestion A is out for me but I'd would definitely welcome suggestion B. I'm not sure how one would go about creating such a template and having approved though. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't support suggestion A for the same reason as Liam. Suggestion B would be the better of the two proposals, but I suspect it would take a lot of work to get it right. LTFC 95 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

A little off-topic, but maybe it can help evaluate the value of the different formats of overlapping info, why does the infobox show only league appearances? --SuperJew (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Because there are no reliable historical records for cup appearances, so it's way of having old and new players' stats the same. GiantSnowman 16:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent significant changes to an article

There have been multiple changes to List of association football competitions today. It may just be a case of personal preference because I can't say definitively that either version is better. Although, I think some competitions have not made it to the new version (I have not had the chance to check yet). What are the project's guidelines in situations like this? Equineducklings (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I tried to look more closely and is seems like some of the smaller competitions are now missing (UEFA Nations League, Caribbean Cup, among others). It's hard to tell what all is missing after the changes. I'm not sure if reverting all of it is the way to go. Thoughts? Equineducklings (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw the account which made these edits had been indefinitely blocked and decided to revert the edits. Equineducklings (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

In general this article could use a lot of work. It's format is inconsistent between leagues and the formatting of colours for different category seems to me to fail WP:ACCESSIBILITY, no? --SuperJew (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it could use a lot of work. I believe this article was created very early and the editors who created it are mostly gone. As a result, there has been very little improvement over time. I didn't have much of a problem with some of the changes recently except that the editor chose a format that seemed to be leaving out a number of competitions. Equineducklings (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Did players earn caps for recent abandoned Ivory Coast v Senegal game?

The National-Football-Team.com source has given players caps for this game even though it was abandoned in the 88th minute. In the Ivory Coast national football team artice there seems to have been a decision not to add caps for this game with the following note: "Match abandoned, for field invasion, after 88 minutes on the score of 1-1. Presences and goals NOT to be counted unless official decisions"

Is there any precedent for this and how was it dealt with? If we are not counting it as a cap then we will have to add notes to every relevant player with a NFT.com source. Stuart1234 (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

A friendly between Spain and Scotland in September 2004 was abandoned early in the second half due to a flash storm and floodlight failure BBC. I don't know about Spain, but Scotland still awarded caps for the game RSSSF. The same applied to a previous abandoned game v Austria in the 1960s. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

A Euro qualifier between Albania and Serbia was abandoned after 42 mins and Albania awarded a 3–0 win. Seems nft and soccerway list caps from the match. --SuperJew (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no general rule, and national FAs may recognize the abandoned match or not, for example for the abandoned friendly in 1995 between England and Rep. of Ireland no caps have been awarded.213.156.121.92 (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

details for old players

Hoping to get some assistance regarding personal details of a couple of early 20th century Scottish players who by coincidence both played for Liverpool - Thomas Robertson (footballer, born 1875) and Donald McKinlay. I won't bore you with the details but I think they were born in the same place however the sources I can view don't confirm this. If it seems like something that you could help with or would be interested in, I have put a bit of explanation on the article talk pages already (but no replies there). Thanks.Crowsus (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Crowsus, I hope these links help. (1) Thomas Robertson: [1]; (2) Donald Mackinlay: [2]. Please also note the year of birth for Tom compared to the Wikpedia page. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but to be honest those don't really help, they are the first things that come up on Google and are already linked in the Wiki articles. And they contain the exact information ('Birthplace: Newton Mearns') I'm hoping to disprove! Non-web stuff is really what I need, particularly given the inconsistencies you have highlighted.Crowsus (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the Smith book I added to McKilnay's article says Glasgow as his place of birth. GiantSnowman 09:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The SFA profile says likewise. As I put in the talk, I think at some point a Liverpool stat person has seen Newton and added Mearns thinking that was it, but the other circumstances suggest Cambuslang is right.Crowsus (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

When should titles be updated?

There's already a few folk updating Celtic's latest title win, confirmed today, in the relevant articles. I'd have thought this isn't a good idea until the season is actually finished as articles might get inconsistent, and other users might update them for a second time at that point. But technically it's correct that they have won the title. What is the consensus on when these things should be updated? Crowsus (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're talking about the infobox, they probably shouldn't be updated until the entire Scottish season (all promotion/relegation) has been decided, otherwise, like you say, things start to get inconsistent. Unfortunately it's difficult to stop IPs and overexcitable editors from doing this... Number 57 15:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

When it is confirmed i would say. Kante4 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with updating it once it's a certainty. Leagues/Associations often congratulate the teams securing the premiership early before the end of the season (such as FFA congratulating Sydney FC with 3 rounds to go) --SuperJew (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it should be fine to update once it is confirmed. It also prevents a situation where editors keep having to go back and forth to remove it each time the title is added in before the season ends. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for input folks, I will happily let all accurate confirmed-champion edits remain and just keep an eye out for anyone adding this season's titles a second time in the summer!Crowsus (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't see a problem with this sort of update. The only ones we need to revert are where people change an article to say "So-and-so F.C. currently play in the Premier League" nanoseconds after they clinch promotion, even if they still have five games left to play in the Championship.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Steaua name change

Officially FC Steaua București has changed their name to "FC FCSB" after a dispute with the romanian army (see ESPN article and The Sun). Also sites like Soccerway and even UEFA has already changed team name to FCSB. Should we change as well or should it stay at "Steaua București" per WP:COMMONNAME? Qed237 (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd say to wait and see how independent media will report about them. --SuperJew (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Good article nominations

Hi all, I'd just like to bring it to this page's attention that there are quite a few football articles on the GA nominations page which are awaiting review. Reviewing is not my strong point but if there are any editors who can assist in addressing the nominations please do so. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Franco Vázquez again

Can the "edit war" on his nationality qualified for full page protection? It look silly that recent changes were all about his nationality back and forth from Italian to Argentine. It looks wasting wikipedia resource on such "contribution". Matthew_hk tc 10:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually had a chuckle at the back and forth when I had a look now. The page definitely warrants some sort of protection with that going on. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Football in South Africa

I don't know if this is an appropriate place to ask for people who want to help me get the South Africa leagues pages up to date? Freddie2016 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. Is there any particular area that needs updating most? R96Skinner (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm also happy to get involved if you can give some indication of what you think needs doing. Jellyman (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Antonio Conte

Hey editors. What are your thoughts on the notability of Antonio Conte's Chelsea managerial section? He hasn't even spent 12 months at the club and the section is already longer than his two years with Italy, and three with Juventus:

"His side managed two more wins against Watford and Burnley, before drawing 2–2 away against Swansea City on 11 September 2016."

"On 16 September, Conte suffered his first loss, a 2–1 home defeat to Liverpool,[62] which was followed by a 3–0 defeat to Arsenal on 24 September 2016."

"He then went on to win three straight games without conceding a goal, defeating Hull City, Leicester City, and Manchester United 2–0,[64] 3–0[65] and 4–0[66] respectively; football analysts and journalists opined that his "tactical shift" from a 4–2–3–1 formation to a 3–4–3, with his trade-mark three-man back-line and wingbacks, was responsible for the club's transformation."

This is way too much information and the journalistic opinion on his tactics doesn't seem biographical at all. What are your thoughts?Danieletorino2 (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup, should be trimmed. Kante4 (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be trimmed, without removing key content. I think the first signing is fine but don't see the need to name the second and third, as with the wins and losses - unless they provide background to an important section of the season. For me the shift in formation is an important part of how Chelsea's title-winning* season came about and should be retained. There's a bit of repetition with the Manager of the Month awards as well. I think they can be summed up in one well-written sentence, perhaps an expansion of the last sentence in the section. The records should also be retained. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Get rid of all sports commentary - just cover notable events. We don't need a run-through of every game/goal. GiantSnowman 07:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and trimmed it. Kante4 (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I suggest also taking a look at the Sergio Agüero page which is unbelievable how overly detailed it is. This is a particular problem with Premier League players and some sort of standard needs to be enforced.Danieletorino2 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Essex Senior Cup

The second table down says Wins by club, but it has 0 with runners up in rank 37 and 0 for rank 35 and 34 for runners up, I was curious is those runners up really that notable? Govvy (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Malaysia Super League

Can we get Malaysia Super League protected? Especially move protected. @JebatMalaya seems determined to unilaterally dictate the page. LordAtlas (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Protected for a month. A proper RM needs to happen if a move is desired although previous discussions here suggested the current title was the common name in English language sources. Fenix down (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem we are having is that the main editor seems to feel that they are entitled to make any and all changes without regard to what is common in English. Even by looking at the previous discussion, that really isn't going to change until consensus is met here. LordAtlas (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Timestamps

I was involved in a dispute with the user Efc1878 earlier over incorrect timestamps. He has been adding them correctly recently by typing five tildes like I told him. However, when I changed edits on Everton players pages when I noticed incorrect international update timestamps, he reverted me for some reason.

Can a third party here change the edits back on Idrissa Gueye and Mason Holgate's articles because I have already reverted this user a good few times and don't want to be dragged into a needless edit war over something so trivial.

Cheers. Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This user is continuing to revert changes I had made earlier on other Everton players' articles. What can be done about this user? Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)