Football Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject on Football

Main pages
Main project (talk) Task forces and sub-projects Football portal (talk) New articles Cleanup articles Unreferenced BLPs Article alerts Popular pages
Football Assessment
Assessment department (talk) Assessment log
Format templates
Club articles Club templates National team articles National team templates National association articles National assn. templates Competition articles League season articles (Lua tables) Club seasons articles Country seasons articles Match articles Player articles Stadium articles
Other
Consensus Category structure Notability criteria Fully professional leagues (talk) Template list Sources and links Booklist Members Recognised content Vital articles Project milestones Did You Know? archive

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I was sure we were supposed to list the seasons in chronological order. Shouldn't it be "2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12", instead of "2010-11, 2011-12, 2010-11, 2011-12"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we keep the sub-headings ("Club", "International", "Individual", "Records") in all cases, just for players who have a lot of honours, or in no cases at all? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add a new player here Otunbolaji (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Otunbolaji: By "here" you mean on Wikipedia? See Help:Your first article. Let me know if you need more help. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i need help...want to add my player's profile here Otunbolaji (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Otunbolaji: Again, what do you mean by "here"? Have you read the instructions I linked above? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Raheem Sterling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

May I ask some project veterans to take a look at this article? Were Sterling not a footballer, his intro would say he's Jamaican. However, he has caps for England. —C.Fred (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Two problems with "Jamaican-British": we don't use hyphenated nationalities, and we don't use British (as we use English, Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish). Sterling's sporting nationality is English, he has only played internationally for England, and has lived almost all his life in England, so English is the correct nationality to be shown. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Voice4People: Pinging involved editor. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conventionally, the "nationality" given in the opening sentence for footballer bios is their representative nationality, i.e. the country they could or have represented at international football, which is generally their country of birth or original civil nationality. However, where a subject has more than one "nationality", convention is that none is given in the opening sentence, but the various possibilities are explained later in the lead section. Smith played youth football for her native England and switched at senior level to represent Scotland, for which she qualifies through a Scottish grandparent, or Martin was born and raised in Country-A before becoming a citizen of Country-B, which he represented at the World Cup, or whatever. I'm actually surprised that the opening sentence of the Raheem Sterling article described him as English, because I didn't think that was how we did it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Sterling never played internationally for any Jamaican selection, and basically no source describes him as a "Jamaican" player. The point is that we should omit nationality if there are enough sources describing the player as being, say Jamaican, and enough saying that they are English. This isn't really the case of Sterling, in my opinion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no hyphenated nationalities to be used, his nationality should be either set to display “Jamaican based in England” or it should be left to display no nationality at all, as he would just be described as a “professional footballer” with no nationality attached to his name. @C.Fred- you’re blatantly skipping over and ignoring all of the important facts that was stated about his Jamaican nationality. It doesn’t matter if he plays for England, he still has strong ties to Jamaica (family there, heritage, culture, and the fact that that’s his birthplace and he spent his early childhood growing up there) and he claims it as his nationality as well. Hence why “Jamaican professional footballer based in England” would be the most appropriate and accurate. All of these opinions as to why he should be referred to as “English”, yet still no source cited to prove any British citizenship or of him referring to himself solely as “English”. So in no way would this be correct. He’s obviously playing for England because that is where he has resided most of his life— he migrated there for a better life— it wouldn’t have been easy for him to just jump up and move back to Jamaica just to play a sport that he loves for his national team. He had the opportunity to do so for England due to him living there and he took that opportunity, as a Jamaican living in England. Playing for the team nor migrating at a young age does not make him any less “Jamaican” and due to him claiming himself as such and being proud of where he is from(Jamaica)—as he stated in interviews, his “Jamaican” nationality should very much be represented in his biography. Either as “Jamaican based in England” or “Jamaican-British/Jamaican-English”— if there are sources cited to prove so. If not, it is best to leave his nationality blank and just display his bio solely as a “professional footballer”. Voice4People (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources that describe him as English, because of the fact that that is what his main Knowledge Panel on Google states, due to Wikipedia having his biography set to only “English” nationality. If you watch his interviews, etc.- he is stated as a Jamaican and represents himself as such as well. He just plays for England’s team due to him residing there. Voice4People (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote most of the below as a reply to Nehme, but here will do. The convention was supposed to avoid controversy in the opening sentence by putting "is a professional footballer" and then explaining a subject's various national allegiances, so that the casual reader, without an in-depth understanding of football's peculiarities, wouldn't be confused or misled. The unequivocal "is an English footballer" in the opening sentence and no more than "Born in Jamaica, Sterling moved to London..." in the lead, almost implies that he was an English boy who just happened to have been born in Jamaica. The reader has to go past the lead to find out he was Jamaican by birth and parentage, only became eligible for England at all after the Home Nations Agreement was updated in 2009, and said that same year that he'd decide who to play for when the time came, "but if Jamaica calls for me, why not?" We can't put all that in the lead, but we souldn't be obfuscating it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Struway2- I agree, reasons why I strongly feel as if “Jamaican professional footballer based in England” would be the most accurate and appropriate description. Voice4People (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to both Struway and V4P: the key thing is, as Struway says, either to put one nationality or none. So either "English professional footballer" or just "professional footballer". Neither "Jamaican-British", "English-Jamaican", "Jamaican-born English", "England-based Jamaican", "Jamaican based in England", etc... I have no problem in omitting the nationality and keeping just professional footballer, but this shouldn't be done for every player who was born outside of the country that they represent internationally. The key thing isn't whether they were born outside or not, but whether the player is known to be Jamaican, or English, or both. If, indeed as you two say, his Jamaican nationality is also notable, then we should omit the nationality. If the fact that he was born in Jamaica is just "trivia" (I'm not saying that it is specifically for Sterling, just that it might be for any given player), then we should just list the notable nationality. We don't say that Zinedine Zidane is Algerian or Amin Younes is Lebanese in the lead, as it's not that notable (it's just "trivia"). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499, that is why you should do your research before contributing. If you did so, you would know that Sterling is known to be a “Jamaican” that plays for a England’s team. Even many YouTube videos and interviews of him are based around him being Jamaican and migrating from Jamaica to England. He was displayed on Wikipedia solely as an “English” so that is why quite a few sources describe him as such, because that is what is represented of him on his main Knowledge Panel of Google (which is based on Wikipedia’s biography). Majority of people know that he is a Jamaican-born and of Jamaican ancestry. Only those who don’t follow the sport wouldn’t be aware of this. As @Struway stated as well, it’s quite misleading when you search up “Raheem Sterling” and all that appears is him being an “English” footballer with no form of his real “Jamaican” nationality stated. This implies that he’s an English boy that just happened to be born in Jamaica with no form of Jamaican ties- which would mean he has no family/ancestors from there, his parents weren’t born there, etc., but that’s not the case at all. He has no ties to England besides residing there and now playing for their team, so he isn’t “British/English” in any form, unless he was to obtain citizenship there and identified himself as such. That’s like if he was to now move to China and reside there for the rest of his life and decided he wanted to play for the Chinese team— it would be in every bit of way irrational and inaccurate to describe him as a “Chinese professional footballer”. It would have to accurately be “Jamaican professional footballer based in China” Voice4People (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China's example isn't entirely correct as one has to renounce their former citizenship to obtain the Chinese one. You say "quite a few sources describe him as such". This is exactly the point. We should be following what sources say (however "right" or "wrong" they are in omitting Jamaica). Also, why are you fixated on "based in England"? Sterling has English citizenship as much as he has Jamaican citizenship. This makes it sound as if he is just happening to reside in England as a Jamaican. Sure, he is Jamaican, but he is also English (I would personally phrase it the other way around, but I digress). If >95% of sources call him "English", he is English. If, instead, a good part of sources also call him Jamaican, then we can omit the nationality. The point is I don't think there is any source calling him solely Jamaican. At most, they will say that he is English AND Jamaican. The overwhelming majority says he is just English. Anyway, I've updated his lead a bit, let me know what you think. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point I made. When I said “quite a few describe him as such”— referring to “English”, I stated that it is BECAUSE of the Fact that Wikipedia editors had has his biography solely as “English”, which is a representation of the Google’s main Knowledge Panel of an individual. In simpler words, The Knowledge Panel of a person on Google is based off of Wikipedia’s biography, so whatever he is referred to on Wikipedia— will be displayed on the Knowledge Panel. Being that his biography only mentioned “English” that is what his Knowledge Panel mentions as well- “English professional footballer” and when sources begin to gather their information to write their articles, they see his representation on the Knowledge Panel as an “English” so that’s why they refer to him as such in articles. If Wikipedia correctly displayed his Jamaican nationality or added it to his biography, I’m pretty sure there would be way more sources that refer to him as a Jamaican instead of English. How do you state, “This makes it sound as if he is just happening to reside in England as a Jamaican”......... Do you hear yourself? That statement is 100% correct. How on living Earth would he be English or British if he wasn’t born there or doesn’t have any family from England??? How????? It would obviously have to be by citizenship only, right? You stated that Sterling has British citizenship, okay- so cite the source that supports your claim. That is what I’m trying to say, if he obtained British citizenship, cite the source that proves he has dual citizenship or became a citizen of England, it’s that simple. You said “sure he is Jamaican, but he is also English”... One, English is an ethnicity and not a nationality, so if he would be labeled for representing England, it would be as “British”, because his ethnicity is “Jamaican”— due to the fact that his family/ancestors are from Jamaica. It’s really not that hard to comprehend. Either his real and authentic nationality be stated— “Jamaican professional footballer based in England” or none at all, since hyphenated nationalities aren’t represented. Voice4People (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that newspapers and articles describe Sterling as English indirectly because of Wikipedia, you are delusional. Sure, some blogs might do so, but reliable sources don't base their information on the Google Knowledge Panel. Also, there is a thing called naturalization. See Patrice Evra, Mario Balotelli, and many more. Born abroad, obtained the country's citizenship through naturalization. For sportspeople, we don't use British (this has been discussed a lot), rather one of the constituent countries. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The wording saying he is an English footballer is absolutely fine in Sterling's case. GiantSnowman 18:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t take away from the fact that he is Jamaican though. In actual real life, not Wikipedia, he is solely Jamaican. Unless he chose to identify himself as a “Jamaican-English” due to British citizenship. The only reason why I feel as if it should’ve been updated is because as previously stated, it is very misleading. People who just stumble upon his name/biography would think he is an “English” who just happened to be born in Jamaica with absolutely no Jamaican ties whatsoever, when this is not the case at all— which is my point. I don’t care if I moved to the U.S. and started playing for their team, I would want to be described as my original nationality because that is who I authentically am, not an “American”, I just play for an American team because that is where I reside. However, Wikipedia is full of opinionated-based guidelines instead of strictly factual information so I’m going to leave it at that. Voice4People (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voice4People has now been indef blocked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that the MoS encourages us to order continental competitions ahead of domestic competitions in the club honours. I've very rarely ever seen honours sections laid out this way in practice, and I reckon most readers would expect to find the domestic competitions listed first. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you expect readers to see honours of lower value before those of higher value? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are competitions like the Premier League, La Liga etc of "lower value" to the FIFA Club World Cup? But regardless of supposed value, there must be a reason why 99%+ of player honours sections list domestic competitions above continental competitions. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Matty, why choose the FIFA Club World Cup as an example instead of the Champions League or the Europa League? By that logic, someone could ask you why the Community Shield is of a higher value than the Champions League.

I agree with the current order of honours in the MOS. Most people would rate a Champions League title higher than a league title and a Europa League title higher than a national cup title, etc. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

99%+ of player honours sections list domestic competitions above continental competitions – That does not match what I'm seeing. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious to know what biographies you're seeing this on, because I don't think I'd *ever* seen a continental competition listed before a domestic competition before @Snowflake91: reordered some today.

I'm quite troubled by the assumption that a continental competition is *necessarily* of higher value (by whatever metric we're judging the value of competitions by) to a domestic competition. Would we class the upcoming UEFA Europa Conference League as being of higher value to one of Europe's domestic leagues, purely on the basis that it's competed on a continental basis? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Mattythewhite (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Matty, who gets to play in the FIFA Club World Cup? The Champions League is the key here, not the one you singled-out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the order should be anything other than continental -> domestic -> minor. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I assume that Mattythewhite (and others) have some internal value for importance each competition?

If you take all possible competitions and place them in a table with the first column being the name of the competition, the second being whether it is either continental, domestic or minor (local derby) and the third the overall importance ranking, which would come first, the continental, the domestic or the minor competition? Yes, there will be some continental competitions that are of lower value than some domestic competitions, but if you are invited to a continental competition, it is likely not because the team has won some domestic competition.

I'd also be curious to see where it makes sense to have a different order. Whether that is the order that all articles currently have is immaterial. It is a goal.

Unless Mattythewhite and others want to make a complete and comprehensive value list and maintain it, continental, domestic and minor makes the most sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest or desire in making a "complete and comprehensive value list", I just wanted to ask the question of why our MoS is out of step with the standard applied by the majority of player biographies. To back up what I'm seeing, *not a single member* of the current FC Bayern Munich squad have their honours listed in the format prescribed here. If this standard is indeed desirable, why aren't we doing better, as a project, at applying it? Mattythewhite (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to set-up a false dichotomy and I'm sorry if I did that. The explanation is that the current suggested order, continental, domestic or minor, is effectively a complete list as any competition can be objectively placed within that hierarchy and can be order. You have suggested that it is not the correct order but have not offered a different way of objectively order entries in a list. You have also pointed out that there is a shortcoming: how do we order competitions within these major categories (Should the league title come before the national cup? Should the continental cup come before a FIFA tournament? Is there a way to prioritize minor trophies?) and we definitely need to address that. Clearly, there may be another objective way to order the list. I for one would like to hear of another way, and ordering of the honours within the categories. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot ever recall seeing as single article that doesn't list honours in chronological order. Why would a player winning a league in 1970-71, a League Cup in 1973 and an Intercontinental Cup in 1976 have the latter trophy listed ahead of the others? Let me guess, "just because"?--EchetusXe 13:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen honours listed chronologically occasionally but not very often, although personally I'd be quite happy for them to be listed that way. I see that @BPL2007: has been listing some that way recently, it would be good to hear your thoughts on this. While I'm at it, I'll ping in others who've been involved in the other recent discussions re honours: @RedPatch:, @SportingFlyer:, @ChrisTheDude:, @Stevie fae Scotland:, @Egghead06:, @GiantSnowman:, @Microwave Anarchist:, @Struway2:, @PeeJay:, @Muur:. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological works where a player has won each trophy only once, as opposed to e.g. League in 2011, Cup in 2012, League again in 2013 etc. - so I would prefer organisation by competition type. GiantSnowman 16:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we'd put the leagues on the same line, e.g. "League: 2011, 2013", unless you're referring to a different league competition? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know - but that would not truly be chronological. GiantSnowman 16:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't often edit player bios but I would expect honours to read international, continental, then domestic, especially for clubs who may have won multiple trophies and where chronological wouldn't make sense. SportingFlyer T·C 16:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same, I think that makes most sense as it's the most notable honours first. Thanks for tagging Mattythewhite. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I've been pinged, I'll give my opinion. I would put domestic leagues first, followed by domestic cups, continental titles, continental super cups, global super cups, and then domestic super cups. But this shouldn't be about what we prefer, we should follow what reliable sources do. – PeeJay 18:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I've been pinged, and I don't really have a view, or any experience of editing pages about winners of multiple honours, I did a quick not-even-remotely-scientific survey of the first few I could think of, to see what system they use now. Most of them had domestic first (league, then real cups, then supercups); then continental (Champions League above Europa League above Supercup, or South American equivalent); and then Club World Cup/Intercontinental Cup if any, and it looks quite tidy and rational. Articles surveyed that used that ordering were Cristiano Ronaldo, Sergio Ramos, Robert Lewandowski, Luis Suárez, Zlatan Ibrahimovic, Michael Carrick, John Terry, Alessandro Nesta, Paolo Maldini, Andreas Möller, Franck Ribéry, Johan Cruyff, James Milner, Thierry Henry, David Seaman, Neymar, Gianfranco Zola and more. The only articles surveyed that used a different ordering were Messi and Brazilian Ronaldo. Proves nothing, but it's interesting. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]