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 agree with @PeeJay: that "cup" should not be capitalised. "League Cup" is often used in UK context with a capital C for what I understand" – @Nehme1499: I would assume the reason for that is that in those cases the EFL Cup is referred to – the name of a specific league cup. We should use lower case for the concepts "national cup" and "league cup", upper case for specific names such as "EFL Cup" or "Algerian League Cup" or KNVB Cup. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this analysis, though it creates inconsistency with capitalisation for players such as Amad Diallo. "National cup" would refer to the Italian and English domestic cup, but since Italy doesn't have a league cup, "League Cup" would specifically refer to the EFL Cup. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. :-) I don't think the "inconsistency" is a major problem. If it turns out upon his retirement that Diallo has not played in a league cup other than the EFL Cup" we can change the name of column from "League cup" to "EFL Cup". Robby.is.on (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @PeeJay and Mediocre Legacy: to participate in the discussion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to add to Robby.is.on's assessment. The EFL Cup (formerly the Football League Cup) is an example of a league cup: "League Cup" is capitalised when referring to the Football League Cup/EFL Cup, but never when referring to the general concept of a league cup. – PeeJay 18:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with whatever, just going by what I usually see in articles Mediocre Legacy (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem implementing this change. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For "club statistics" tables of young players playing in England, why is the U21 team of the League Trophy the only time youth teams are included. I agree that the League Trophy is an odd case as it is completed by First teams and Reserve teams in the same competition. But surely as ever U21 link is actually to a teams U23 team you should include all stats not just for one competition, or a better idea move it into the same row as the senior side with a footnote saying it is an U21 side so you don't have multiple rows for the same season. Thoughts? Mn1548 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a senior cup competition. GiantSnowman 19:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a few issues lately with editors reverting some of my edits on grounds that, to my understanding, go against the general consensus of WP:FOOTY. Given that these edits related to the articles' varieties of English and the subjects' nationalities (or ambiguity thereof), I thought it would help to try to establish a more or less definitive consensus here to clear things up.

Here is the standard I tend to follow when making edits related to MOS:ENGVAR and nationality. I have based these on consensus (when I have seen it) and the clear standard as represented across thousands of articles:

As related to variety of English: 1) If the subject was born in a nation that has a particular variety of English (e.g. United States, South Africa, Australia, Canada, etc.) and has never represented another nation internationally (or any nation, for that matter), I use the birth nation's variety of English and change the note at the top of the edit page accordingly. 2) If the subject was born in one nation but represents another nation at international level that has a specific variety of English, I use the latter variety, as it is the nation with which the subject has the most recognizable national connection. I restrict their representation only to appearances for the national team (or youth teams), NOT call-ups.

As related to nationality in the lede: 1) If the subject was born in a nation and has never represented another nation (or any nation, for that matter), I use that nation as their nationality. Quite simple. Ex: Azalinullah Alias 2) If the subject was born in one nation but has most recently represented another nation internationally (at any level), I leave the lede ambiguous. Ex: Tom Cairney 3) If the subject was born in one nation, represented another nation (at any level), and then switched back and represented their birth nation, I use the nationality of their birth nation, which is also their most recent nation. Ex: Yunus Musah. 4) The variety of English I use directly correlates to the nationality used in the lede unless it is left ambiguous, in which case I use the variety of the most recent nation they have represented internationally.

I'd be amazed if this is a shock to anyone, as it follows what I have always seen as the consensus, or at least standard practice. Does anyone see anything I am missing, or does anyone vehemently disagree with these approaches. Thanks. Anwegmann (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It all makes sense to me, except for 3. I'd keep the nationality in the lead ambiguous there as well. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying about 3. I figure, though, that if they are actively representing their birth nation (or cap-tied to it, as is the case a lot of the time), it becomes rather unambiguous, as the nation in which they were born aligns with the nation they represent, regardless of what they did in between. That's at least the reasoning behind it. Anwegmann (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I get your point of view. My point is that they are dual nationals who acted upon their two nationalities. In the sense that they actively represented two nations at certain points in their career. Anyway, the rest of what you said is reasonable (and I don't have such a strong opinion on point 3 anyway). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to repeat myself (if I am), but I have continued to have an issue with an editor who has repeatedly reverted my addition of "{{Use [X] English|date=[xxx]}}" to footballers' pages. This editor claims that variety of English is established when the article is written, whether listed or not, and should never be changed (this occurred with a South African footballer listed originally using British English, which I changed to South African English and was reverted). To my understanding, this is against MOS:ENGVAR, MOS:TIES, and MOS:RETAIN, all of which make rather clear that if there is reason for it—such as "strong national ties"—the English variety of an article can change, and indeed ought to be changed. This has also happened in articles that do not yet have a note on English variety at the top. Twice now, I have added one (in this case adding a note on using Hiberno-English for an Irish footballer), and this editor has reverted it, claiming that the article was written in British English and cannot be changed. Am I missing something? Is it not correct that the English variety of an article should follow the variety of English used in the nation to which the subject has "strong national ties," regardless of what variety of English the article was written in originally? A mistake or incorrect information should not have privilege over correct information just because it has been in the article from the beginning. Any guidance or clarification on this would be appreciated. Thanks. Anwegmann (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct in saying that it can change. GiantSnowman 16:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will make the changes accordingly and link this discussion. Thank you. Anwegmann (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, most of these sort of edits are entirely academic. Apart from replacing “football” with “soccer”, I can see little difference between British English and South African English. And as for Hiberno-English, I’ve no idea. If an article is created about a footballer who is born in South Africa or Eire and moves to England at a young age and plays his entire footballing career in England, why should I, as a native speaker of English, be forced to attempt to write an article in another variety of English of which I have no knowledge? Unless Anwegmann plans to edit the articles on which he has tried to impose a different variety of English than that in which it was created, to comply with his preferred variety, what is the point of the edit? Simply adding this tag, and then moving on, is of no help to anyone. And I don’t accept that a discussion involving just two editors can create some sort of precedent. But if you wish to waste your time making these sort of edits, feel free. I will equally feel free to ignore them, but will not revert you in future. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if I can get any feedback on this; under the section "Career statistics" there's the option to place a table that lists all the international goals scored by the player you're editing. I've seen these tables in slight varieties and tought it might be a good idea to simplify and unify the process. So I created a (very rudimentary) Lua module that creates the table - kinda like the Sports table module, but less complicated. The script is located on my temporary module sandbox (Module:Sandbox/BartVaes/Bananas) and a test table is on my userpage sandbox (User:BartVaes/sandbox). Be aware I didn't have any Lua knowledge before so this needs cleaning up :) Any feedback ? Good idea or not ? 19:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC) BartVaes (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea! Just a couple of nitpicks: endashes should be used for scores (1–1, not 1-1), and the scores should not be bolded. Other than that, it looks good. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: how would we add custom competitions, such as the 2019 WAFF Championship? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to this if it makes creating a table easier and if it follows the standard layout and formatting as shown at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. For the latter, adding to what Nehme1499 already pointed out: a) The score of the player's team should go first, b) there should be a note above the table saying "Scores and results list Templatonia's goal tally first, score column indicates score after each Template goal.". For the former, I'm not convinced the script makes it easier to read the table code? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I replaced the dashes with endashes now. Meanwhile, some questions of my own:

• the module re-uses the Template:International goals header which currently doesn't have a hide option. Maybe good idea to make it "collapsible" because some tables can get quite big.
• the module auto-links text in stadium/city ("Venue") and "Competition" columns. Is this a problem with WP:OVERLINK ?

I added the bold markup for score/result because I'm looking for a way to maybe include the home/away team info, which is absent in the current template. I admit I sometimes forget to inverse the scores when entering data myself, so adding home/away markups could possibly reduce errors ? Can anyone link or summarize the reasoning for the current style? I couldn't immediately find it in the archives?

@Robby.is.on: I'm not sure what you mean by: easier to read the table code ? The module generates the table code so editors don't have to. Sure, there's a visual editor but personally I find it still cumbersome when you have to rowspan/merge rows. My module attempts to solve these small issues and helps keeping a consistent style.

@Nehme1499: competitions are entered with the "comp" & "comp_alt" parameters. Of course, you have to make sure these pages exist, otherwise you'll just get red links.

BartVaes (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To resolve the OL issue, can you add a "nolink=" parameter? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]