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.

There are currently no "personal life" or "style of play" sections in the template, whereas most footballer articles have such a section; should we add one to the template? If so, where would the appropriate location be, above the "statistics" section? Thanks! Best, Messirulez (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sections should probably go 'Early and personal life' > 'Club career' > 'International career' > 'Style of play' > 'Career statistics' > 'Honours'. GiantSnowman 17:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think early and personal life should go together since events in personal life generally occur much later in their life. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But in a basic article nothing is really chronological. Club career events will extend beyond international ones, but will be above it in the article... GiantSnowman 18:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but this is slightly different since having something occur so late in an "early life" section will be contracting its title, unlike the club career/international example. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you not displaying the goals on the subtotal row before the grand total row? Govvy (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain to me the basis for populating the honours section for a player? In particular, one-match tournaments like the UEFA Super Cup. For instance, Gareth Bale was present on the 25-man squad list submitted for this game (Cristiano Ronaldo was not on this list), he received the winners' medal, so how is it justified that he does not receive the credit in the honours section? He was not on the match-day squad, but he did no more/less than someone who was, but didn't play, like say Danilo or Rubén Yañez. The official Real Madrid page credits both CR and Bale with the trophy, which would make sense if you see it as "honours won while playing for X club". But upholding the match-day squad over all else seems a bit thin, after all, the guy literally has the winners' medal. That's proper evidence of the honour.

Apologies if this is the inappropriate place to seek this clarification. Archives are vast. —Tombstone5650 (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We reply on reliable sources to verify information. We need sources which explicitly state that a player has an honour, as simple as that. Being a squad member and making the assumption somebody has a medal is not enough. 07:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a recurring edit debate, peaceful so far, over the article Dom Dwyer regarding his nationality. Dwyer is notable only as US soccer player, although he was born in England and played for English youth clubs before moving to the US and becoming a US resident, citizen, and (notable) professional soccer player. Like the vast majority of notable footballers, he has never played for any adult national team in a FIFA-recognized official match, which is the (claimed) standard. One editor claims that this page therefore implies that he should be listed as English, and not as US or English-American, and that this guideline prohibits hyphenated nationalities in opening paragraphs. First, is that the consensus on the Wikipedia guideline? If so, why? As I read them, the general guidelines for biographies permit compound nationality descriptions in the opening. Why have a different set of rules for footballers? Also, adult national team participation provides no guidance for the vast majority of individuals who will never participate at that level. Can't we come up with a different standard for determining nationality? Rks13 (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He should be listed as English. GiantSnowman 17:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the maximally unhelpful answer. So, to continue in that style, I'll ask a maximally unhelpful question: Why? Rks13 (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSBIO #context states "The opening paragraph should usually provide context. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable."

The article clearly shows with references that he has aquired American citizenship, and he is fulfilling notability criteria as American, he should be listed as American.

The MOS also goes on to state "Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability"

As he was notable before he became American, it is correct to mention his English nationality, so English-American; unless there is reliable source showing he has renounced or otherwise surrended his English citizenship, in which case he should be listed just as American, or as English born American. ClubOranje^T 22:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to ommit the goals columns for goalkeepers?

In leaving in the goals columns for goalkeepers you end up with a table that can be very unreadable.

Yes there are occasions when goalkeepers have scored goals and when this occurs they should definitely be included.

Thoughts?

Graemec2 (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should make it clear that the updated template requires a reference. I would like to see that the "matches played" is removed. It was added without discussion and is unnecessary. I had an editor revert the removal of the term saying that it was "suggested" at the template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll advertise this on WT:FOOTY, not sure how much this page is watchlisted.

I'm assuming you mean the {{updated}} template that some editors use to generate the correct-as-of date at the top? But I still don't understand why that template needs a reference, if the rows of the table are individually sourced, as is recommended. What would it be referencing? (If the table rows aren't individually sourced, then attaching the reference(s) to that template seems sensible.)

The "match played" wording is there to eliminate ambiguity for the reader. With it, they can see that the table is supposed to be correct as of and including the match played on <date>. Without it, ambiguity exists if the table was updated on a matchday: when the reader sees "as of <date>", they can't tell whether the table includes that day's match or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks for clarifying. The template itself doesn't need a reference. It's the best place for the reference and it accommodates it (poorly as it includes a space). Some statistics tables have row-by-row references, and so it's not needed there, but many have no references at all. There have been cases where the table is updated weekly and done without a reference. This is both for players and teams. No reference on the page for the statistics anywhere. Reminding editors that a reference is required, even for statistics is important, especially in cases where they are debated, and edit wars start over them.

The "matches played" copy is great for the 1% of high-traffic articles that are updated after (or sometimes as) matches are played. What about the cases where those valiant soles update them on the Tuesday after match day or the followers of the small leagues who update them after a months worth of matches or even at the end of a season? The copy is entirely superfluous then. Ideally, we should move all the statistics to Wikidata and reference that instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing: so how about moving bullet point 3, the one that says "ideally, each row should be individually sourced. If this is not done, reference(s) for the entire table should appear within this section", up to bullet point 1, bolding relevant bits so people might spot it, and adding words to suggest after the as-of date as a good place for them to appear? Not that people who create unsourced content take a blind bit of notice of the wording on suggested layouts...

Match played: it's recommended because it benefits the reader. An editor should be checking the source(s) anyway, whenever and however often they update, and if the source shows when the player's or their team's last match was, it's just as easy to write that date as the current one. And at the end of the season you can put {{updated|end of 2017–18 season}}. But it's recommended, not compulsory. There was at least one "discussion" about that wording, not a very edifying one, and rather dominated by an obsessive anon who didn't seem to like me very much :-) which came to no conclusion other than some people didn't see the point, some people did, and trying to impose one's personal preference wasn't a good idea. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world can you be unliked? Your suggestion addresses my two main concerns. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My TIOLI opinion is: this is just a template, so in some circumstances it may be done different in the article. As of match played I see as a good thing as it makes it clear it what it includes up to. If you just have updated (date) and (date) happens to be a match day, does it include that match or not? Bearing in mind I am way ahead of most people on the planet, my 20 Oct 2017 is finished before Brazilian 20 Oct 2017 sunrise, so unless an editor uses the "five-tilde" 21:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC) format it is quite unclear whether today's match is included. On the reference thing, having it there in the template is a good reminder; it can always be omitted if you reference each line, but if you are using the same ref for each line it is well to just put in a single ref for the table. Having a reminder in the template is never a bad thing. ClubOranje^T 21:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]