WikiProject Football

(Rated 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 the project's quality 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 Members Recognised content Project milestones Did You Know? archive

List compilation help[edit]

Can someone help out in adding entries to List of naturalized international footballers? I have written helpful tips for finding these players in the talk page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Btw, should the article be moved to "naturalised", as we are using "football" and not "soccer"?). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to rethink the scope of this article. Countries with a high level of incoming migration are going to be disproportionately represented. Hack (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hack: Hariboneagle927 is the creator of the article. I think the logic of the article is to only list players who have been granted citizenship with the sole purpose of representing the national team. In the sense that, they wouldn't have became citizens had they not had the intention to play internationally for their new country. But yeah, I agree, it's difficult to set parameters for these kinds of things.

It's also disproportionate with different citizenship rules. For example, Mario Balotelli gained citizenship by naturalization, as Italy doesn't confer nationality via jus soli. Were he born in the US, for example, he wouldn't have been naturalized. On the flip side, a player from a country with jus sanguinis law would not be naturalized if born abroad, yet a US citizen would have to go through naturalization to become a US citizen. Countries such a Lebanon, who only confer nationality paternally, also complicate matters.

In short, two players who come from exactly the same circumstance (say, born abroad to a foreign mother), would obtain citizenship in different ways (naturalization or birth right), which affects their inclusion in this list. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: I'm just wondering if this is really explained well and is it sourced for such a list. It sounds quite a specific subset. Also, I'm not sure how we are meant to judge intention of players becoming citizens. --SuperJew (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think different editors/readers are going to interpret the list differently. I would probably nominate it for deletion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a confusing list. "Naturalised" normally means you change/obtain citizenship. But this article is not using countries, but FIFA teams (England/Scotland are not countries that have citizenship, it's UK), which makes no sense as a FIFA nation is completely different from a country that grant citizenship. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And even then, do we consider "naturalized" by the country's standards, or simply as "obtaining a nationality"? Because numerous players born abroad with X descent have gained the citizenship of X (via jus sanguinis) to represent their national team. Should they be in the list? Because the country doesn't consider them as "naturalized". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hack, Hariboneagle927, SuperJew, and Joseph2302: I have nominated the article for deletion. Feel free to comment. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First do you ask for contributions, then nominate the article to be deleted? It doesn't make any sense to me. Svartner (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this past week that the scope of the article doesn't make sense. Can't I change my view on an article? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Notes for cups in club statistics table[edit]

Following these two discussions (1, 2): should there be a note, which lists the cups, next to "National cup" and "League cup" in a player's club career statistics table? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupert1904, GiantSnowman, Mattythewhite, Dashiellx, Felixsv7, ItsKesha, Microwave Anarchist, Spike 'em, and Muur: courtesy ping to the involved editors in the two discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Examples[edit]

1) Without notes

Appearances and goals by club, season and competition

Club	Season	League			National cup		League cup		Continental		Other		Total
		Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Wiki City	2010–11	Second Division	15	10	0	0	0	0	—		0	0	15	10
Template Rangers	2011–12	First Division	0	0	0	0	0	0	—		0	0	0	0
Career total			15	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

2) With notes

Appearances and goals by club, season and competition

Club	Season	League			National cup[a]		League cup[b]		Continental		Other		Total
		Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Wiki City	2010–11	Second Division	15	10	0	0	0	0	—		0	0	15	10
Template Rangers	2011–12	First Division	0	0	0	0	0	0	—		0	0	0	0
Career total			15	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Comments[edit]

• With notes: the average reader won't be aware of each country's national cup. Some countries, such as England, even have multiple domestic cups, which adds to the confusion. Having a note listing the cups involved is clearer. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• With notes: agree with Nehme1499. In addition, I'd also use the notes instead of the name of the cup if the player has always played the same cup. Dr Salvus 14:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd also use the capital C in "Cup:. It'd be less ugly Dr Salvus 14:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "cup" is not a proper noun, so it's correctly written in lowercase. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• With notes as people shouldn't be expected to know what the cup competition is (especially in countries that have multiple cups, and for players who've played in multiple countries, and therefore multiple different cup competitions). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Literally don't care - as long as people don't edit war over it. GiantSnowman 14:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• With notes: It does no harm to help the general reader understand what the football reader might take for granted. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The harm I see is that redundant notes clutter up tables and make them harder to figure out. Most of us at WP:FOOTY are very familiar with the tables but for others, adding unnecessary complexity comes at a cost of readability. MOS:OVERLINKING quotes a study which states that "simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention". Similarly, unnecessary footnotes would compete with necessary footnotes for user attention. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Without notes Some countries […] have multiple domestic cups. There is only one national cup and league cup per country. We should only add notes where ambiguity exists. Notes for the "Other" column will clarify if there are cups beyond the national and league cups, for example the EFL Trophy in England. the average reader won't be aware of each country's national cup. If readers want to know the exact names of the national and league cups they can look them up, no need to clutter up the tables. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A reader might be confused on whether England's national cup is the FA Cup, FA Trophy, EFL Cup, EFL Trophy, etc... See Malaysia for example, who have the Malaysia FA Cup and the misleading Malaysia Cup (which is actually a league cup). If readers want to know the exact names of the national and league cups they can look them up: following that logic we should also remove the divisions, as readers can look those up as well. I don't see how removing information can be more useful than adding it; a small hatnote isn't particularly cluttering. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• following that logic we should also remove the divisions No, there's a difference: Countries have different league tiers, we need to spell out which tier a player has played in. In the case of Germany, for example, it could be the Bundesliga, the 2. Bundesliga, the 3. Liga, etc. A reader might be confused on whether England's national cup is the FA Cup, FA Trophy, EFL Cup, EFL Trophy, etc... If we assume a significant chunk of our readers doesn't know the difference between national cups and league cups, wouldn't the elegant solution be to link "National cup" and "League cup"? We have a League cup article which lists the league cups for all the different countries, we'd just need one for "National cup". Robby.is.on (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This won't work - how are you going to link 'National Cup' to cover a player who has played in England, Netherlands, Germany, France etc.? GiantSnowman 15:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think he means we would link to an article called National cup (or National cup (association football)), which covers the general topic of national cups in football, similarly to league cup. I wouldn't be opposed to this solution. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. Thanks, Nehme1499. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the trophies you've mentioned are League cups (except the FA Cup). A reader, especially for the players who play in the lowest leagues could not understand in which cup he played in. This is the reason we do need notes Dr Salvus 15:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were 3 replies in a few minutes so I've written this comment without reading them Dr Salvus 15:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• With notes: However, I'm not sure I like the note being in the table header. I would prefer it in the detail with the apps stats. I believe there was an example of this. --dashiellx (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• With notes: But I'd prefer using Tooltip rather than efn. But not vehemently Felixsv7 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Without notes: There already exists distinct national cup and league cups columns. To Nehme’s argument that some countries have multiple cups, that’s why we have these separate columns. Adding a note here is redundant. If we combined national cup and league cup into one column, there would be a discussion to be had about the usefulness of these notes. But as it currently stands, they are separate.

Further, the note is isolated and has no frame of reference to which clubs or seasons they are in reference to. A list of a number of different cups adds no clarity to a reader. It adds ambiguity and creates confusion. Take Álvaro Morata, Pedro Pereira and Douglas Costa’s stats table for reference. These notes are on an island and I do not think a listing of cups brings value or any level of further understanding to the average reader. These notes also don’t accurately reflect the trajectory of any of their careers and movement between countries and their respective domestic cups. Morata is currently playing in Italy but the last cup in his “National Cup” note is the FA Cup in England. You say your edits are better for the average reader but I can’t believe I am the only person who thinks the average reader would be confused by that?

It’s a stats stable. We shouldn’t just add notes for the sake of adding notes. Where do we stop with notes? Should we also have a footnote that says in Costa’s table that only Brazilian clubs play in a state league? Or on Morata’s that only England has a League Cup of the countries he has played in? For Pereira, should we also have notes that Serie A is the first division in Italy, Serie B is the second, EFL Championship is the second division in England, etc?

While I don’t necessarily love the the appearance of all the notes and footnotes in Continental and Other columns as they are very busy, they are necessary because those columns are a catch all. It’s the best solution we have found without creating a stats table with an egregious amount of columns. A European club can now compete in three different continental competitions in a single season as no less than 10 are doing so this year with the introduction of the Europa Conference League (including Celtic, FC Midtjylland, FC Flora, Slavia Prague and more). Therefore, notes are needed in this scenario to indicate which competitions these stats apply to. Same in the case of the Other column; Bayern Munich played in three different “Other” super cup competitions in the 2020–21 season so this note adds value.

I appreciate that Nehme is attempting to clear up a supposed issue and help the average reader but I firmly believe this note is counter to that goal. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• With notes as others have stated this is clear an unambiguous. Would add that I would use the names of the cup directly in the header if they have only played in one country (i.e. the display at Trent Alexander-Arnold rather than Luca Pellegrini). Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Microwave Anarchist - I think linking the cup directly is fine and unambiguous when a player has only played in one country like TAA. The issue I and other editors have is when the player is moving countries as noted above and has a footnote on his article with a list of a ton of different cups that have no specific relation to any stat or season. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rupert1904: sorry, my comment was unclear. As stated, I think in cases where the player has played in more than one country, there should be a note in the header so it's clear what competition the column is pertinent to. Having said that, I have no preference between the note being in the header or in the body as proposed by dashiellx, but it should be consistent. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• With notes per Nehme1499, Joseph2302, Struway2 and Microwave Anarchist. LTFC 95 (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one who has said with notes has addressed my legitimate concerns/questions above. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• With notes but I wouldn’t mind either way. SlySabre (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitables vs football box collapsible in club season articles[edit]

After another instance of a user trying to replace wikitables with the football box collapsible template in a club season article in my watchlist without consensus, I am unfortunately having to raise this subject here again. I cannot understand why this template continues to exist when it is a blatant violation of MOS:COLLAPSE. Users who argue for its use give the reason that it is simpler to use. However, this is not a reason to go against the MOS. Personally I do not find editing wikitables difficult but appreciate that other users do.

Could we investigate creating a template using the wikitable format instead of a minority of users contentiously going around replacing wikitables with a template that does not meet Wikipedia guidelines? The main problem has been the same users mass creating club season articles each season using the football box collapsible template without a consensus being reached here and a concerted effort to stop this from happening. I remain hopeful that a solution can be found and hope that we can work together to make this happen. LTFC 95 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, a template would mean editors who find editing wikitables more difficult would not be excluded from updating articles that use them currently and would also hopefully make converting articles from the football template easier/less time-consuming. I'm not that much of a technical whizz otherwise I would've done it by now. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LTFC 95: Can you point to some of these club season articles? I'd like to see what it is you're trying to do so I can try to figure it out. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkudlick: Different formats of wikitable exist. One example is 2015–16 York City F.C. season, which is a good article. Other examples include 2000–01 Gillingham F.C. season and 1980–81 Ipswich Town F.C. season, which are featured articles. The main objective of the template would be to help users who find editing wikitables difficult and establish a single format with complies with Wikipedia MOS to be implemented across all club season articles. LTFC 95 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LTFC 95: I'll see what I can work on. It will probably require multiple templates (header, row, maybe an ending template), though I'm not sure I'd be able to make it sortable that way. If you don't hear back from me within a few days, hit me up on my talk page. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

​​UPDATE: I have built a couple basic templates in my user-space at User:Jkudlick/Football club season header and User:Jkudlick/Football club season row. I welcome any and all feedback. I plan to move them to template-space at the end of the week if there are no objections to doing so. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either or, or, no thanks to your version of a table. I prefer Template:footballbox collapsible I find them much easier to manage than a big ass table. Govvy (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with Govvy more on this. The Footballbox aims to make it easier and more efficient and has done exactly that for the past 12 years or more..--Sakiv (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many times it's been pointed out here but the football box used in that way does not meet Wiki policies and guidelines. A new template which does meet Wiki policies and guidelines will make it easier for editors who aren't as familiar with the code used on Wikitables. There will be almost no difference in managing this template vs managing a large collection of football boxes. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkudlick: What about the information of round, time, source/report(!), goalscorers, location, referee? --SuperJew (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevie fae Scotland: You're going by a guideline, guidelines aren't wiki-law! And besides, the guidelines are way out of date and need adjusting to modern styles. Govvy (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the guidelines are out of date, why not try and change them? Would it not be better if Wikipedians followed the guidelines that our community has put together to try and make Wikipedia the best it can be instead of just ignoring them because they haven't been updated and no one has tried to? Personally, I don't see anything more modern about a football box and less modern about a table when video games and websites use formats that are similar to both. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adelere13[edit]

• Adelere13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This guy is constantly messing around with a couple of footballer bio articles, it's like watching constant edit testing! Can someone have a look at his contrib, to me it is extremely irksome. I don't trust the editor either. Govvy (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that... Adelere13 (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At it again I see, this time at Pepe Reina. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to WP:AIV. The user has been blocked for this before and is either WP:NOTHERE or doesn't understand that WP:CIR. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad stats updates[edit]

See [1] - this IP has been on a spree of updating player stats without updating the timestamp. Would anyone be able to help me go through and check that the stats are actually correct and, if so, update the timestamps? Thanks!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the first three I checked all had incorrect stats...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see this before undoing most of them. The stats appear to be all correct and up-to-date, except they're for all competitions rather than league only. I'm guessing it's this chap with a new IP address. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be an anonymous Walsall fan who thinks every appearance for the club should be included in the infoboxes instead of the leagues the club plays in. I think that's everything cleared up in terms of that issue. I hope the message Struway2 gave out on the IP address would help understand that chap in what's the right version as of now. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operating without WP:NFOOTBALL[edit]

I really don't understand why all the SNGs are being removed, how do we operate with out NFOOTBALL?? Govvy (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was this decided? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go and have a look at WP:NSPORT, BilledMammal is systematically destroying it if you ask me! Govvy (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)? I see a ginormous discussion with various proposals but I'm having trouble identifying any outcomes among the giant wall of text. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is this discussion, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability, however I couldn't take part, because I get lost in it, it was too much. Govvy (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the TLDR section: "However, there are a couple proposals that received mass participation and have a clear consensus from 2/3 of the participants. In particular, the Main Proposal to abolish NSPORTS received mass participation from nearly 100 editors and was overwhelmingly rejected." That does not square with your claim that "SNGs are being removed". Robby.is.on (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I presume Govvy is referring to this series of edits..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Proposal 3, which is mentioned here as having consensus, is to remove all appearance-based SNGs (which includes NFOOTY). Spike 'em (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So are we going to see a mass of AfDs? --SuperJew (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's more likely Proposal 5 that will create a slew of AfDs (plus Proposal 3 mentioned a grandfathering clause). I actually don't have any objection to Proposal 5 because if the only source you can find about a player is an entry on a database, they don't pass GNG anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Yep, I saw that edit, now I feel somewhat concerned that there will be an attack on the football wiki project! Invasion from the North, South and East??? Govvy (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFootball is gone? Sure there are a lot of stubs squeaking by, but NFootball entirely just doesn't make sense. --dashiellx (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know noone cares (well, actually most are probably happy), but I am not going to contibute to the project anymore. Not everyone is interested only in Ronaldo, England and USA. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know you but I'm telling you not to give up.--EchetusXe 15:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A great step forward for Wikipedia if you want to increase WP:BIAS. They may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. On the other hand, I'm seeing little that indicates that a solitary article on the BBC website about the signing of a player, isn't significant. Nfitz (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect this is actually likely to have a worse impact on female players than male players, particularly internationals, as coverage of women's international football seems to be almost non-existent in many countries. On the other hand, it opens the door to thousands of articles on National League footballers, whose articles will be justified on GNG grounds but were often rejected because they failed NFOOTBALL. Unfortunately this whole exercise has been carried out because a small group of editors are very unhappy that there are far more people who want to write about sportspeople than there are who are interested in others, and rather than encouraging more articles on politicians etc, they've decided to try and reduce the amount of sportspeople biographies. Number 57 17:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A decision appears to have been made to remove any guideline that a sportsperson is presumed notable if they've made an appearance in a notable professional competition, and we should rely on the general notability guideline alone. As a result, one editor seems to be deleting paragraphs from the sports notability guidelines at semi-random, with the result that, in rugby union, only an appearance in the women's World Cup makes you notable. No idea what they're playing at. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not footy related I know, but WP:NCRIC has been similarly gutted leaving only a line about umpires and a paragraph about notability or qualifying critieria which seemingly no longer apply to anything. Like others here, I find the discussion quite hard to follow but am also not convinced there is a definite consensus. The disquiet here must count for something, and the fact that NSPORTS has been edited to the point where it is not of very much use now. Eagleash (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the RfC result, WP:BRD follows for policy items. A discussion should be had as to how to change our MOS as per the outcome of the RfC. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, I think the part of the RfC close that led to the removal of NFOOTY and other team sport guidelines is highly dubious, and a review should be requested. I skimmed over it, and it looked like a quite clear no consensus outcome to me. Number 57 17:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the main two editors re-writing and trimming WP:NSPORT were both big supporters of ditching most of it at the RfC. Still, we've got plenty of articles about moths that someone made a single note of in 1831 to pass WP:GNG, so everyone is a winner, right? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a 22-27 vote seems too close to call a consensus to overturn long-standing policies, particularly after the rambling thread of proposals and counter-proposals. Removing the appearance-based SNGs should really have been a separate RfC. Spike 'em (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought (hoped) that at least three admins had worked together on the closure of each proposal too. I've seen this happen before on complex cases/RfCs at WP:AN. Hey ho. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I believe a close by a committee (with an eye toward the bigger picture rather than a laser focus on discussion on the specific proposal(s)) would be better received. Enos733 (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems very bizarre to me... Relying only in WP:GNG would mean that a player who actually is a backup option at FC Barcelona B has more chances on having a page than a backup option for CD Lugo or UD Ibiza, both in a professional division, for an example. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: Jean Chera, a player who scraps by NFOOTY but does get a lot of WP:GNG (mainly due to the expectations created on his youth, which he never lived by anwyay) is more probable on being accepted than Robson Reis, an actual first-team player for Santos FC, a top tier Brazilian team. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The site has gone down the toilet over the last couple of years, first the Olympic vote and now this. This slippery slope was started when we began accepting deletions instead of fighting against them. The football project could be much bigger than it is now, I expect a big contraction and mass AFDs to follow. I'm considering retiring, I see the writing on the wall.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side, User:Ortizesp, with the FPL requirement now gone, look at all the League of Ireland players that I've argued against deletion over the years, despite having one significant reference, that I can now go to WP:REFUND with! Not to mention some up-and-coming players and Isthmian Second Division players in town with a strong local paper! Nfitz (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the AfD wave has started with tennis players: [2], [3], [4], as well as beginning such requests for football players. --SuperJew (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus wept. Talk about not wanting to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here we've started with football articles. --SuperJew (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That AfD is a perfect example of how this is only going to increase the systemic bias towards certain countries. We are going to end up in a situation where articles on kids who have played for a grand total of three minutes in the Premier League in England pass muster but players who have played in the literal World Cup do not because they are unfortunate enough to come from Africa, Oceania, etc..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can only agree with Chris. There is such a disparity. The criterium shouldn't be deleted at all but WP:GNG should be given more importance Dr Salvus 10:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The online coverage of newspapers in e.g. Africa/Oceania (apart from Aus/NZ) is low, and people are already using this as a basis for deletion (in violation of WP:Offline sources). How the hell are we expected to muster up sources from offline newspapers in countries we don't live in? This will inevitably lead to even more of an Anglocentric bias (since that's where we can easily find online coverage, especially for historic players). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a player has played more than X games, we could decide that he's notable, couldn't we? Dr Salvus 11:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. The whole point of that RfC was to remove the notion of notability based on a player having played a certain number of games -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you now need to win tournaments and medals, something that is very difficult in team sports (which have not many medals). It's been thought out in a way to try and tighten some sports e.g. athletics by changing competed to top 8 or top 10, but with no thinking on the ramifications for team sports, where such a notion doesn't exist. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know where it's being discussed? Can WP:IAR be applied here? Dr Salvus 15:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I would suggest someone formally requests a review of the close of the part that led to the removal of NFOOTY and all the other team sport guidelines, as it does not look there was consensus for it. Number 57 19:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are our next steps here? We could fight the result of this (proposal 3 that is - #5 seems more reasonable and much less contentious) as it didn't seem particularly well-communicated to us sports editors, and the consensus seems a little dubious. For team sports, participation in a top-level competition is such an obvious indicator of notability, but we can't use it because a handful of hyper active anti-sports editors are concerned about the hypothetical one appearance wonder article, which seems a rather pathetic pretense to destroy the whole WP:NSPORTS framework. (as an aside, I don't understand why non-sports editors take so much interest in enforcing notability standards that are nonsensical, when this would clearly be best left to WP:SPORTS).

If we are to proceed without a participation-based notability criteria, does anyone have a clue how we are meant to come up with an alternative here? I honestly don't see how any non "participation" criteria can exist for team sports: one based on "holding a record/championship/award" is clearly not a useful measure for team sports and a system based on club honours would be unfortunate for spurs players. It's clear that an alternative is needed though - all leaving notability to GNG would do is take WP:BIAS through the roof. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only sensible way forward is for each sport's WikiProject to ignore WP:NSPORT and maintain its own guidelines, based on the specific nature of the sport. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, BilledMammal's edits - and they are heavily INVOLVED anyway - have been reverted? NFOOTBALL still exists. Also, a side note - if you didn't participate and try and make the case for NFOOTBALL, then don't f***ing moan about it. GiantSnowman 19:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully reverted. Also just notices that the edited version of NFOOTBALL says managers are presumed automatically notable but players are not. Absolute nonsense. If anything it should be the other way around! GiantSnowman 19:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This project was only notified of the proposals on 6 February, by which stage the discussions had been going on for eighteen days and were far too long and unwieldy to get a clear idea of what was being proposed, much less join in the discussion. The discussion should be relisted, with all relevant Wikiprojects invited to participate from the start. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the project was notified on 19 January, when the discussions began - see this and this. GiantSnowman 20:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: I speak only for myself here, but I'm pretty sure this thread here is the first I heard of this discussion (I guess I've been less active in the last couple months) and the discussion is such a mess I'm not sure I could have participated. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, I was aware of Billed Mammal's attempts to AfD 'historic' international players and that they were disappointed with the results but not aware of anything further until this thread; thus presented with a 'fait accompli'. Eagleash (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole RfC was flawed from the beginning, when notifications to NSPORTS projects were labelled as canvassing in an attempt to bring in partisan editors. The whole thing grew out of control into a monster walls of text, including constant replies and questioning on every comment by a couple of users who were working to push it through (BilledMammal has 128 comments and RandomCanadian 66). The whole thing was positioned to destroy NSPORTS, and not to improve it. --SuperJew (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such a conclusion is at best motivated reasoning (and incorrect - see [5]); and at worst it is a borderline personal attack against BilledMammal and me. I'd suggest you change your tune. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With NFootball back, perhaps we should discuss ways to improve it so we don't have to go through this again? --dashiellx (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it is back - at least in its current form - only temporarily. There will be changes, but we don't know what they will be yet until the RFC closer actually implements the close. My view on how we come back from that? Overhaul WP:FPL, removing a number of leagues where players do not meet GNG. Whatever happens, NFOOTBALL will need to be tied much more closely to GNG from now on. GiantSnowman 20:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman, there's still such as disparity. A league composed by lots of teams could have teams with high notability (for example teams with a huge historical importance or for their being a reserve team) and ones with low notability. Dr Salvus 23:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking, if NFOOTBALL is removed from NSPORT, we can simply slap NFOOTBALL in a project page here and evolve it how we see fit. Govvy (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As I see it, the only realistic course of action here is to accept the outcome of the RfC, and maybe try to come up with something new, better, to solve the issues that were identified (the amount of digital ink spilled here certainly shows there is some willingness to do something about this). Of course, it's possible to pretend like nothing happened and "slap NFOOTBALL in a project page", but that would be counter-productive (more an example of "burying one's head in the sand like an ostrich") and will rightfully be disregarded as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Protected edit request on 9 March 2022 (3). Jevansen (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess we need to cut down the FPL list to ones where unequivocally everyone passes GNG. We could also mintain a separate list that says "players who compete in this league are often notable but there are exceptions", though that bit is less of a priority than getting some guidelines re-accepted, which is a way better solution than having it all nuked. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There's also been discussed elsewhere (cannot remember where off hand) changing appeared to appeared in multiple seasons, to remove the people who play a couple of times ever (and are the kind of articles this WP has deleted hundreds of in the last year). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do share the concerns of a lot of people here and hope we don't see AfD flooded indiscriminately with nominations without any indication of actual WP:BEFORE. Thankfully, it doesn't look like it has happened. I do believe that WP:FPL needs some sort of review as some of the leagues on there don't seem to be reliable predictors of GNG. I'm a bit concerned that this guideline alteration may lead to a lot of professional women's footballers being deleted just for being stubs. I've created a few hundred recently but it can be quite difficult when a lot of the in-depth coverage is hidden behind a paywall. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for WP:FPL needs to be changed from 'fully professional' to 'players and managers in this league regularly receive significant coverage', in-line with GNG. I have been suggesting this for years! Some leagues can possibly be added (maybe League of Ireland in last few years?), some will remain unchanged (top European leagues), others will have to come off (Bulgaria? Myanmar? Vietnam? etc.) GiantSnowman 10:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GS above; I personally have never really understood why our criteria to assume GNG was based on pro leagues, when we have entries such as the Greek 2nd division, Japanese 3rd, Polish 2nd, Ukrainian 3rd which have nothing to do with presuming automatic notability of individual players. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree above with what GS said, the top National League also receives a lot of coverage, lots of players and the league it's self is very well covered by the media in this country. Govvy (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: (ec) I think it dates back to the very early days of WIP, when a small number of editors, who possibly weren't brilliantly clued up on the intricacies of football across the world, came up with the rather simplistic "the pro leagues" as a guideline for all sports...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do when there are some teams who have lot of coverage but play in a non-notable league, or vice versa? Dr Salvus 13:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Players might individually meet GNG, but there should be no automatic presumption of notability for playing in a league/competition unless 90%+ of teams/players get that level of coverage. GiantSnowman 14:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the closure that removed NFOOTBALL has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#NSPORTS closure review. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia has way too many articles on football players. We need to severly reduce that number, and we need to reduce it now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It is time for Wikipedia to get rid of substandard articles, and articles on sports people are the main cause of substandard articles. People should not be considered notable just because they kicked a ball in a few games. No where else do we consider everyone who just gets paid to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's your opinion. I think Wikipedia doesn't have enough articles on football players. Also there's no space or size limit as it is an online encyclopedia. --SuperJew (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that someone can be considered notable for sitting on the bench in 1 game is ludicrous. In the overly inclusive field of film we require significant roles in multiple productions. We really need to scap this ludicrous one game rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got it wrong. The player is considered notable for actually making an appearance, not for sitting on the bench. Chus Ruiz, for an example, was on the bench for 36 league matches for Mallorca and Alcorcón before actually making an appearance recently. Only after that, he had an article about him created. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, to be honest, a lot of articles were (and are) deleted for the cases where some player appeared once or twice in a WP:WPL but then went on to have a career where WP:GNG was not covered. That's why I still don't see why the change in the guidelines might be a way forward rather than backwards. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why @Johnpacklambert:? Because you say so? Football is by far the most popular sport in the world, and the most popular sport in most countries. Every country in the world has a league. Why is it unreasonable to have a large amount of pages?--Ortizesp (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ortizesp, I guess he was talking about the pro leagues with a low notability. Dr Salvus 22:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, I don't think he cares about sports in general. He's trying to use arguments used against other sorts of articles that he cares about (like film) and applying them here more "equitably". I'm not opposed looking at changing from WP:FPL, but not from terrorists who just want to delete all sporting articles for no discernible reason.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, at this point I agree with everyone, should be topic banned as Govvy has said above Dr Salvus 23:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think no less than three games should be enough to make someone notable. We also need to majorly cut back on the number of legagues that make someone notable after playing in that many games. Also the old worlding is not clear that someone actually has to play. Also, I think we need to come up with something that better approaches a notable contribution than just being on the filed for a few minutes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• three is no better than one. GiantSnowman 21:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) People should not be considered notable just because they kicked a ball in a few games. Billions of people disagree ([6], [7]). Whether you like it or not, football has insane viewership and media attention worldwide, even if it boils down to just "kicking a ball". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with John. We're an encyclopedia, not a sports provider. The criterium shouldn't be deleted but we do should re-write WP:NSPORTS. en.wiki is one of the fewest Wikies which allows the creation of kids who have played one minute in a league forgotten by everyone but professional. I am not talking about the Serie A, Premier League, Liga or Bundesliga but I am talking about the 3rd Ukranian league or the 2nd Greek league Dr Salvus 21:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes, agreed - and I will be putting forward proposals tomorrow once I've had a think. GiantSnowman 21:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with that. Some leagues are not guaranteed of notability, but as I've said before, NFOOTY was a good thing to avoid the creation of a 15-year-old kid who impressed in a bunch of matches for Barcelona or Real Madrid and is receiving tons of media coverage, while some dude who plays 20 matches in Segunda División for UD Ibiza gets deleted. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, ultimately, it is media coverage that demonstrates notability. What we need to do is ensure that our presumed notability guidelines are tight so that players who are making 20 appearances are also getting media coverage. GiantSnowman 21:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman is right in regards to that it is media coverage that demonstrates notability. A 15-year old who has received significant coverage in global and/or national sources over a significant period of time (few years? At least not over a couple of weeks) is very likely notable, regardless of how the rest of his career pans out. For instance Isak Hansen-Aarøen, who has yet to play a fully pro game but has had significant coverage in the Norwegian national media since 2014. On the flip side, should a modern day player who debuts in a fully professional league, but does not have any significant coverage on him despite all the online coverage we have today, be considered notable? In my honest opinion, he shouldn't because while his league and team might be notable, nobody has yet to take significant note of him. With the impending death of print media and the wealth of online coverage today for football, in both english and non-english speaking media, should we have any problem finding significant coverage for notable players of the last 5-10 years?

I do however agree with those here that worry about the historical players who are likely to be notable but sources might not be easily found online and I think that NFOOTY could be very important in "protecting" those articles. Regarding the thresholds, there are others here that are much more qualified than me to figure out tight guidelines for professional players, but the one I can comment on is regarding national teams players. When it comes to football, I mostly write and edit articles for players from Iceland, a non-english speaking country where football is the number one sport and gets alot of coverage. Its men's and women's national teams have participated in major competitions (World Cup and European championships). All major media publications have a large online presence and all major printed media from the late 1800's to today is available online. Its top-tier leagues are not fully professional (men's top tier is close though) but get alot of coverage (live games, post game shows, alot of articles etc.). Despite that, playing a few games for the national team doesn't tend to translate into the player in question having significant coverage. Usually these are players who have played well lately and get a chance to play in a low importance friendly where the manager is testing new players and not using the regulars. Now, while it is an interesting test case due to the popularity of the sport in the country and the availability of print and online sources, I'm not suggesting we base a national team threshold solely on that. I would however be interested to know if we have a similar situation somewhere else which we could research, that is a country where football is fairly popular and print and online sources are readily available. Alvaldi (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: Wikipedia has way too many articles on football players. We need to severly reduce that number, and we need to reduce it now. This from Johnpacklambert really does disturb me. There are millions of football players who are notable on this planet. You want to purge it? If you act like that you don't belong on wikipedia. You should be perm topic banned from anything related to this subject with that attitude. Govvy (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• there is no reason or justification to have the number of articles sourced only to a sport stat website that we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think what people are forgetting is that we are an enclopedia. We are supposed to have lots of information, topics, and articles! The issue is poorly written, poorly sourced micro stubs about players who played for 2 minutes 15 years ago - and the problem is not players who played at historical times and/or in countries where online media coverage does not (currently) exist. I only wish those who are trying to delete so many articles spent as much time trying to improve them... GiantSnowman 21:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My issue has always been with microstubs for people who want to bump up their created page count and do the absolute bare minimum. When I create a player article, I try to make sure there's a decent amount of information (at least 1-2 decent sized paragraphs), multiple sources, etc. Creating an article with "AA BB is a professional player for Team FC" is not an article, IMO. I feel like there should be a size and reference minimum for new pages. I feel like that could go a long way to reducing the creation of microstubs sourced only to a database with no real encyclopediatic value. For example, here's an example of a short article I recently made for a player who made his FPL debut in a cup match a couple of weeks ago. Is GNG fully met on this one, could be debatable and with only one appearance so far (league season doesn't begin for another few weeks, but the cup match happened already), but at least 11 sentences in the body with some actual information on the player with 10 reference links (some passing mentions, others with more depth). I feel like that should be a minimum - if you're going to "create an article" actually "create an article". This is my first comment on this topic, like others have said there's just been so much text when I discovered it that it just became a little overwhelming to delve into and figure out what was going on with all the proposals.RedPatch (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with this, but I don't think the solution is to blindly delete 10s of thousands of pages - if we are honest with ourselves, if we follow the RFC exactly thousands of pages are going to be requested to be deleted. We are dealing with unreasonable folk who are inherently against sports articles in general. The other fact is that with more research and time, tens of thousands of these pages could be improved, we just don't have the time or the will to do so. What I always liked about Wikipedia was the width and breadth of articles, and I found it too restrictive, not too lenient. Maybe there's a process to split off the sports section to a new Wikipedia affiliated site.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the solution isn't to delete all the articles having a few sources (as there are so many lazy editors – like me – who just put two/three sentences in the article). But when's obvious they do fail WP:GNG, the page should not exist here at all even though they meet NFOOTY Dr Salvus 22:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I also agree, blindly deleting tons of articles isn't the solution. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place, where I think we can all agree that the present approach definitely needs reworking, but the proposed deletion solution also isn't great. I wasn't saying 3 sentences is lazy, at least it's something and will have an actual fact in it. I refer to the articles that are 1 sentence long with no body section and say nothing more that XYZ is a footballer. I don't have a specific number as to what a minimum sentence count should be, but it is definitely more than 1. RedPatch (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think following GNG to a tee is a solution either, there's players that are obviously notable, but we won't find sources because they are historic, or from underrepresented nations. If a player appears in the WC or has 50 + caps, they are inherently notable whether we can find a Zimbabwean newspaper or 1930s Italian newspaper covering them or not, but those players would still be deleted if we follow GNG to a tee until we find a source. Ortizesp (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ortizesp, in order to avoid these problems I'd use a modified versione of NFOOTY here.

For me, it could be

If a player has played for the national team and in some leagues, he becomes notable

If a player has only played in a pro League whom we've decided it's not notable but has played more than X games in the league he becomes notable Dr Salvus 23:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be open to a hybrid solution like this, but again, I don't think that's what the anti-sports terrorist committee have in mind. Ortizesp (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How else do you write an article about somebody, if you don't have sources from which to write it from? WP:V is fundamental to everything on Wikipedia, and we don't write stuff just because we "think" that it is "obviously notable". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a participation award, and what might be "obviously notable" to some is unsustainable drudgery to others. This might have worked 15 years ago, when Wikipedia was just beginning and people needed to have indications what to write about, but obviously that is not sustainable nor desired anymore (is it really productive when you have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 "articles" which all read the same as each other with the name/date of birth changed, and which provided absolutely no other information, because sources "might exist"?). There is no other field where people get articles just because somebody can document that they existed and did their job. When, however, the issues with this get pointed out, people accuse others of being anti-sport fanatics and bury their head into the sand instead of trying to implement a fix (or often, positively inhibit any such attempts, as can be seen from the whole recent mess). And then people wonder why stuff is as it is. I'm not defending anybody on either side (some people might have been a bit too extreme), but ignoring the problem or actively attempting to bypass resolution attempts (and calling other people "anti-sport terrorists", which is very WP:BATTLEGROUND) is not going to make it go away. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the community has proven in the past, it is against articles that scrape by on minimal appearances without GNG and has actively voted to delete them. But notice that all 18 of those articles that you linked were ALL created by ONE SINGLE EDITOR, pumping out a new "article" every two minutes on the same day (I checked the article history for each). That editor has since been restricted from creating new articles that are less than 500 words. I think we can all agree that the quality of those articles is not up to the standard of the project (unless they can be greatly improved). But to me it seems you're trying to lump all of us who support NFOOTBALL in some way (most of us want some level of change already to make it more stringent and close unsuitable article creation loopholes) as the same as that editor who has been banned from article creation (who reveled in the loophole of being allowed to create thousands of microstubs). Notice I said mere posts above that there should be a minimum article length. If there's a minimum article length, no-effort microstubs wouldn't get created. Seems like this is a missing the forest for the trees situation, where because one editor greatly abused the system, everyone else is apparently guilty by association. I have no issue deleting micro-stubs that have no substance, but to say that NSPORTS needs to be completely and utterly scrapped because of the abuses of one/few is an overreaction. There's a better way. What is that better way is up for debate, but there has to be one somewhere in the middle. Throwing a stick of dynamite at it is not the only way. Here's an example of that editor's microstubs that I greatly improved Mauro Cichero (footballer, born 1951), I found it looking like this originally. The original form I found it in, sure not worthy of an encyclopedia entry, but it's current form, I think it's a worthy article. That's why I'm in favour of some rules for article creation, so it has some substance before being accepted. Now I can't go and fix every microstub on wikipedia, but we could do a "starting now" thing where new articles have to meet the new, more stringent, criteria, while the old ones can get looked at on a case-by-case basis because mass-deletion without any regard is excessive. Wikipedia is simply too large to fully fix all historical articles at once. RedPatch (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be obvious to you that the sporting community is open and willing to change. There's been numerous changes to WP:FOOTY and notability criteria to placate your side. WP:V of course is important, but these changes aren't encouraging WP:V, they are encouraging deletion of what could be positive articles without the opportunity to expand. And I've been fighting this anti-stub mentality for years, I think something is better than nothing. Ortizesp (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RedPatch: But to me it seems you're trying to lump all of us who support NFOOTBALL. When these articles where nominated for deletion, editors of this Wikiproject (including the culprit, but plenty of others too) almost unanimously got out all sorts of arguments, mostly procedural in nature, to not delete it. Those same editors who also opposed any attempt to tighten or rewrite the criteria as they stand. So, I'm not accusing anyone of group-think or the like, but it simply is a fact that members of this project (among others) have not so far been very conducive to attempting to resolve this issue. "Mass-deletion without any regard is excessive", maybe, but doing nothing about the problem isn't going to make it fix itself. And comments like "Oppose, I see no problem with NSPORTS personally.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)" (from the RfC) do not seem like they even want to acknowledge that there is a problem, much less how it should be solved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really active in AfD, RM is where I look at more, but your argument seems to lie squarely with what happened in the past. Several editors in this discussion have been in favour of updating and improving it. Today is March 11, not January 23. People's opinions can change. Maybe two months ago they would've voted like that, but today they may change their views. Just in this thread in the past day, several editors have agreed that changes need to be made, but seems like you're holding onto the scorched earth mentality because of what was said in the past must still be true today. Even just reading this thread today, I've started to change what I would've done in the past with articles. Heck, I know I created some articles (in good faith) in the past in the last few months after players made their first appearance (and I still looked for and found some other references to make a decent stub not a micro stub) that in hindsight might have been better to not create/postpone making and maybe even need to be relooked at for inclusion. In the future, I may hold off on creating similar articles if I view it as not worth an article (based on my newfound realizations). I was unaware of this whole NSPORTS discussion until this thread which was made on March 7 and I've started to realize that I'm going to give a much stronger consideration to articles I make in the future and that's an example of my opinion changing in four days because I recognize the points made by the other side have merit that the NSPORTS is flawed. But 'flawed' is not the same 'complete garbage'. Flawed means there are positive merits, but with some issues that should be improved, rather than to just completely trash it. I never made articles maliciously, it was all in betterment of the project (which is one reason that I put effort into articles that I create so they're not crappy unhelpful microstubs). I don't know what the best solution is, but it's somewhere in between the original NSPORTS and scorched earth. Some editors here have made proposals to make some changes and make some headway, but you're holding fast to the 'everything must go'. Somewhere there's a compromise that makes wikipedia betterRedPatch (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious though, is your issue mainly with microstubs based on a minimal effort or just that you don't want all these sports articles as a whole. For example, I mentioned earlier about an article Cale Loughrey that I made last month about a 20 year old player who just signed and made his debut. The article contains a fair amount of information and various references. Is that an article you feel is just 100% needs to go or is it mainly the articles like "the 18" you referenced earlier? GNG is subjective by nature, so I'm trying to see your view. What's an acceptable article vs what isn't. I know you don't like "the 18", neither do I, but what's the line for merit/unmerited? RedPatch (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I haven't been advocating for scorched earth, at least not recently (heck, I've even given some thought about the subject on the project of the one sport which I do kinda follow a little bit; and I've even proposed a compromise for the current situation at NSPORTS). NSPORTS isn't complete trash, but there are indeed significant flaws with both its contents and how it is applied (or misapplied) in practice which have been on the radar for a while, though any change has been difficult to achieve because of stubborn opposition to such change. Hopefully at least now some people will have realised that there needs to be something done. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your question: that article seems fine to me at a quick glance (at least, there clearly has been some effort expanded into making; although the depth of the coverage is maybe marginal [there's no biographical information beyond the infobox basics, for example], but hey, not every article needs to be FA-level). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Seems like we're a bit on the same page. I've been operating based on what was in this thread, which is why I believed you had the scorched earth mindset. The Village pump thread is quite simply too long and overwhelming to me to go through, so I don't really know what you said in it, but based on this thread I guess I just assumed you wanted scorched earth. My bad. But seems like some progress is being made. I'm all for fixing NSPORTS (at least more specifically NFOOTBALL for me), just what's the best way needs a bit more time. Internet discussions can be hard. Cheers. RedPatch (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are uses who are going after a 'scorched earth' policy, which is just putting people's backs up... GiantSnowman 08:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Equally unfortunately, there also are users who are going for a "bury head in the sand" approach, and you don't have to search very far (I think the only sensible way forward is for each sport's WikiProject to ignore WP:NSPORT and if NFOOTBALL is removed from NSPORT, we can simply slap NFOOTBALL in a project page here and evolve it how we see fit are both from this very thread; and you can of course find comments of a similar nature at the AN thread: The whole thing was a joke and should be overturned and handled in a completely different way going forward, ... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Editors from both sides need to realise that a) participating in football does make somebody notable but that b) the scope of the automatic notability is currently too wide, and many leagues will need to be removed from WP:FPL. GiantSnowman 13:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we create a subheading to discuss changes to WP:FPL? Perhaps something like maximum of the top division only for most countries (then select countries such as Spain, England, etc. will have some lower divisions) which will remove leagues such as Chinese third tier, Japanese third tier, Greek third tier, etc. Could tie that to a Club League coefficient or something. Also, someone mentioned international caps with regards to friendlies, we could perhaps tie that to participating in an 'competitive match cap' (ie. a WC qualifying match is notable, a random friendly isn't). RedPatch (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea. Maybe split it into two subheadings, one discussing the leagues, other discussing international caps? Alvaldi (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that it.wiki (which already had stringent requirements for presumed automatic notability of footballers), have recently amended their notability requirements even further (see page). I think it's a good example to follow if we wanted to do something similar (of course, we'd have to thoroughly discuss the exact numbers and percentages). Key points I can see are:

1. Friendlies for national teams are not counted for notability purposes: this would cut down on quite a few 1-cap subbed-in players in unremarkable friendlies
2. Percentage brackets for appearances, dividing leagues into tiers (for example, playing 10% of the games available in a single season in a top-tier league, such as England, or playing 25 games in a 2nd-tier league, for e.g. the US, or 90 games in a 3rd-tier league, such as Northern Ireland)
3. A much smaller pool of leagues from which playing confers notability. Notable exclusions are all leagues below the 2nd level (so the League One, Serie C, 3.Liga, etc.), and only a few dozen 2nd-level leagues (Championship, Serie B, ...) are included (as opposed to what we have now). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not like the it.wiki criteria as they're too strict. There could be players who do meet GNG but haven't got a page due to the bad criteria. I'd suggest an hybrid beetween the fr.wiki criteria and the actual en.wiki criteria. Dr Salvus 15:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't like it.wiki's strict approach. We can just re-adapt it our own way with different numbers. If a player fails NFOOTY but passes GNG, he'd still get an article (contrary to it.wiki where we had to wait for Sandro Tonali to make 50 Serie B appearances, despite having clearly been notable well before passing the threshold). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the criteria are also difficult to understand Dr Salvus 15:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage brackets seem way too complex. We need a list of leagues where almost everyone (99%+) will meet GNG, and possibly a list where a reasonable number (80%+ for example) would likely be notable. The international suggestions seems reasonable though, to get rid of any 1 international players. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a player can also do meet NFOOTY but we should always make sure they meet GNG Dr Salvus 15:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus How is the fr.wiki criteria constructed? Alvaldi (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also just because someone doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY (in whatever form that takes in the future), they can still meet WP:GNG and have an article created about them. That's always been the case on en.wiki. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I don't think we can make a binary classification of leagues. Sure, I can separate England and Lebanon into distinct categories, but what about Ireland, or Serbia, or Egypt? Italy, Morocco, Palestine and Vanuatu are clearly in four different situations. Idk if it should be percentages, or specific thresholds, but dividing countries into more than two tiers (pro / not-pro), maybe also based on UEFA/whatever coefficients for example, is a good idea imo. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvaldi when I can be with the PC, I'll describe the fr wiki criteria Dr Salvus 15:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvaldi. On fr.wiki, the leagues are divided into 4 categories. A player becomes notable when they meet one of these criteria

Criteria for the male players who play in the category 1 countries

• Has played for the national team (or for the U21 team)
• Has played for a youth team who reached the final of an international tournament
• Has been the best goalscorer of the first or in the second division
• Has won the first or the second division
• Has played 10 matches in the first division
• Has played 30 matches in the second division
• Has played for a team who reached the final of the national cup
• Has played a match in the UEFA Champions League/European Cup
• Has played a match in the semi-finals of an international club tournament

Criteria for the male players who play in the category 2 countries

• Has played for the national team
• Has played for a youth team who reached the final of an international tournament
• Has played 30 matches in the first division
• Has won the first division
• Has been the best goalscorer of the first divisison
• Has won the national cup
• Has played a match in the UEFA Champions League/European Cup
• Has played a match in the semi-finals of an international club tournament

Criteria for the male players who play in the category 3 countries

• Has played for the national team
• Has played for a youth team who reached the final of an international tournament
• Has been the best goalscorer of the first divisison
• Has won the national cup
• Has played a match in the UEFA Champions League/European Cup
• Has played a match in the semi-finals of an international club tournament

Players who play in a category 4 countries are notable only if he's played for the national team

Criteria for the female players who play in a pro league

• Has played for the national team
• Has played for a youth team who reached the final of an international tournament
• Has been the best goalscorer of the first divisison
• Has won the national cup
• Has played a match in the UEFA Women's Champions League
• Has played a match in the semi-finals of an international club tournament

Women who play in a non-pro league countries are notable only she's played for the national team.

I'd suggest an hybrid beetween their and our criteria Dr Salvus 18:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above suggestion would still have some major issues: not all first divisions are equal (the depth of coverage is not the same in all countries, nor in all time periods, and I'm not sure how strongly the number of games relates with coverage - sure, those who have played hundreds are far more likely to have it, but as the threshold gets lower and lower there are always more and more exceptions); nor are even all national teams equal (this applies to sports other than football too - I'd expect there to be far more coverage about players (and the team itself) of the England cricket team than of, I don't know, Japan national cricket team or even Canada national cricket team (for very obvious reasons). Now, football might be the most popular sport on the planet (cricket is second, fwiw); but surely the situation can't be that different: there are clearly some countries where there's going to be less coverage. To take an extreme example, only a few players of this national side even have articles - they are not fully professional, btw, and those that do often have articles which are not much better than the infamous mass-created stubs.

I'd think that simpler but stricter criteria would make more sense and would be more likely to be accepted by non-project hardliners. There's nothing that prevents adding a note "players who have played international football for lower-ranked countries, or who have played in the top division of such countries, might have sufficient coverage to justify an article, but it should not be presumed to exist without further proof". Even if the criteria are a bit too strict, those that still meet GNG can get an article, and those who don't won't become indefinite dead ends which can't be expanded and which won't be deleted or redirected or merged to a more appropriate target article/list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should touch WP:FOOTY unless we get a green light from the greater community that this will go forward. The last thing we want is to spend time making these rules, and then having them overriden again by some other notability ruling. And I don't agree with criteria limiting international footballers, since they play in the exact same structure as other larger national teams. If your proposals are put into place, the vast majority of sporting articles are going to come from male western nations, at the expense of tons of other similarly notable players in other regions that play in the exact same system.

Also, please stop using me as an example for NFOOTY posters when generalizing. My views are my own, and don't align with many of the other posters in the project. I honestly believe 90 per cent of the sporting articles can be greatly expanded (and that there are thousands more that could be created), and that the project is 1/10th as big as I'd like it to be, but those are my own individual views. I'd appreciate if you'd stop using my views to denigrate the views of others NFOOTY posters who view things differently. You've already indirectly quoted me 3 or 4 times. Ortizesp (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If your proposals are put into place, the vast majority of sporting articles are going to come from male western nations, at the expense of tons of other similarly notable players in other regions that play in the exact same system. Simply not true. As one can see, most microsstubs and notability-problematic articles are about male athletes from western nations (see, nobody has even bothered creating such stubs for the Seychelles national football team, which is a clear example of a non-western nation...). As for "similarly notable", the exact example I've given (where players aren't even paid, have difficulty getting time off their regular jobs to represent their national team, ...) shows that this idea that international footballers from all countries are "similarly notable" is pure fiction and more likely clouded by personal prejudice. Criteria need to be robust and not too open to misuse. Otherwise, if no true attempt is made to address the fundamental issues with the criteria, you will have failed to address both the microstub and the AfD problems. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this. As you can see from my user page, I try to create articles for international footballers from all nations of the world, where possible. I agree with Ortizesp's assessment that limiting criteria for international footballers will have a detrimental effect on non-western nations. It is understandable that a lot of smaller nations do not have fully professional leagues in place, but this does not mean that the love for the sport does not exist in these countries. I would imagine that, among football fans in Jamaica, DR Congo, Ghana, New Zealand, the players of their respective national team would be well-known. Probably not as "well-known" as the English national team players, but I think it is unfair to discredit the incredible achievement of being called up to an international sports team simply because you view football from a western perspective and are expecting the notability of Cristiano Ronaldo for a player like Elijah Tamboo. Simply put; if you are called up to the national football team of Djibouti, you are notable within footballing circles in Djibouti.

I think that your comment "most microsstubs and notability-problematic articles are about male athletes from western nations." is untrue within the Wikiproject for football. I think there are proportionately a lot more microstubs for players of non-western nations, as information is harder to come by. Microstubs for English footballers do exist, but are a lot harder to find than microstubs for footballers from Aruba. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

If people can hold their horses for a few days, I will be putting together an initial proposal in the next 48 hours (I am away tomorrow otherwise I would do it then). Essentially it is a tightening of the 'current' guidelines, a much trimmed down WP:FPL. GiantSnowman 21:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to add my two cents, I think "Wikipedia has way too many articles on football players. We need to severly (sic) reduce that number, and we need to reduce it now." this quote from Johnpacklambert is incredibly unhelpful to the discussion. It shows a clear bias against football articles, and to follow it up with "It is time for Wikipedia to get rid of substandard articles is, in my opinion, anti-encyclopedic. It is arguable that most articles on Wikipedia, especially most stubs, are "substandard". I don't follow Johnpacklambert's activity, but I don't imagine he is taking this kind of approach for articles on other topics besides football. As objectively the largest sport in the world, there is naturally going to be a disproportionate number of articles on the topic, compared to other sports or topics.

The topic is a difficult one and, as argued above, you could get a player in the English sixth division getting a lot of coverage in local online newspapers, while a player in the top division in Bolivia, for example, fails to pick up any coverage even after picking up 50+ appearances. Can we have a "minimum number" of appearances before someone is deemed "notable"? Can a footballer who never plays professionally be deemed "notable" enough for an article? And if GNG supercedes all, why do we have individual Wikiprojects? Do rivers meet the standards for GNG? I don't think they do, but there are 1,933 articles for rivers in Romania alone.

I have seen articles recently be nominated for deletion for footballers who have represented their country at international level. This means that they are one of the top ~23 footballers in their entire country. If this doesn't confer notability, I don't know what does. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, I'd like some sort of protection for international athletes. I've made articles for players that have made AFCON and older World Cups, and those references for them are hard to come by. I do think as a a community we have to make an effort to improve the microstubs, and have a higher quality threshold for new articles, and would be open to that being part of the proposal. I don't agree with putting in new rules that is going to cause thousands of pages to get AFD'ed.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, here's three examples of South African footballers who played in the 40s and 50s who scored multiple goals each for their nation and would undoubtably have had articles written about them in national newspapers, yet barely anything online exists about them, and they would fail GNG ([8] [9] [10]). I agree that we should put an effort into improving microstubs, and I think you're right, the amount of articles that would be taken to AfD under the new proposed rules would be in the thousands. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't there to right great wrongs or to recognise achievements, however great or small they may be (since what a "notable" achievement is, unless there are sources to back it up, is nothing more than personal opinion). If there are no sources from which to write an article, or nobody has access to the sources that might exist, then, too bad, life isn't fair. There probably won't be articles at AfD in the thousands (given how much people rise up in discontent even for a few, let alone "thousands"), but it would also help, quite a lot, if there were not microstubs by the tens on thousands in the first place and if steps are henceforth taken to resolve this (it's possible to boldly redirect stuff which clearly doesn't meet the guidelines without having to resort to AfD, for example). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about writing any wrongs or recognising achievements. My point is that these people were notable in their own right during their time. Is South African soccer of the 1950s a relatively niche topic? Yes, but for god's sake this website has articles on draughts players from the 1800s! ([11], [12], [13], etc.). Microstubs are a problem, yes, and it would be better if all articles were expanded beyond a simple "John Smith, born 1940, played for Scunthorpe United", but I'd argue it's better to have the stubs to expand on, than have nothing at all - and based on the plethora of microstubs from all variety of topics, it seems I am not the only person to think this.

If we choose to take a few football articles to AfD for failing GNG, it opens the door for starting AfD discussions for not thousands, but literally millions of other articles. The question remains: is it better to have less information compiled than we possibly can, or more? Wikipedia's About page says "Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia helping to create a world where everyone can freely share and access all available knowledge", so I would argue that my views are in line with the spirit of the website. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidlofgren1996, There's a limit for everything. Some years ago I played for some local teams and there are also some sources which say so but I don't have an article about myself and if I had it, it would not make any sense. Again, we're an encyclopedia, not a sports provider Dr Salvus 00:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus Well, if you have received significant independent coverage in multiple reliable publications over a significant period of time then you just might be notable. Alvaldi (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alvaldi, I am not notable at all. I only played in youth teams forgotten by God and I've only received a very low coverage. If I'd had more coverage I would surely not have played in "local teams" Dr Salvus 09:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New NFOOTBALL guideline proposed[edit]

I have put together a new guideline proposal. It can be viewed at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/Association football and discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Association football. Godspeed! GiantSnowman 12:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editor comment requested at Lukas Podolski[edit]

Could we please get a summarizing comment at Talk:Lukas Podolski#Revived in 2022. No ethnicity in the lede or retain a more than five year status quo of only German? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to reflect players whose contract with Ukrainian or Russian teams is suspended by the new FIFA transfer rules in infobox.[edit]

Hello everyone,

FIFA introduced new transfer rules for the remainder of this season for foreign players who play for the Ukrainian and Russian clubs, here are the details.

They can suspend their contracts and sign with another club, but only until 30 June 2022 (at least at this point in time). So functionally, this is similar to a loan, except the club which has a long-term contract with the player has no say in it and can not block it from happening. But on 30 June 2022 their contract with their current club becomes valid again (of course, in the future FIFA can extend this rule or change or just release everybody from their contracts, but we don't know that now, and I'm not going to be crystal-balling here).

How should that be reflected in the clubs section of the infobox for the players who use this new rule? Just do it as any other loan? ( → FC Barcelona (loan))

Something else? The players who had to move to a new club during WWII were considered "wartime guests" and their infobox says (guest) instead of (loan), see Matt Busby.

What do you think?

Thanks,

Geregen2 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we just use the term loan unless sources indicate an alternative term.--EchetusXe 17:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

could even have something like Club ABC (dual reg.) maybe wiki link it for dual registration? RedPatch (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that each case is different. This one, where Wanderson (footballer, born October 1994) is close to a deal with Sport Club Internacional, but it is described as a loan with an obligation to buy. On the other hand, this one, Júnior Moraes is already considered a free agent since his contract expires in June and FIFA allowed players from Ukrainian clubs to leave. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if there is reliable information confirming that the contract was expiring in June anyway, we can just treat it as a regular permanent transfer for the infobox, instead of splitting hairs. Wanderson is signed with FC Krasnodar until 2024 though, so that needs to be somehow reflected in the infobox. FWIW, Transfermarkt lists the players under this rule as "special leave". Sounds too wordy for the infobox, but maybe we could use that. Geregen2 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of the sport in MLS club articles[edit]

There is a topic of discussion that may be of interest to project members at Talk:Charlotte FC#History of the sport in the city is not context. Some Major League Soccer club articles include a history of the sport in the city as part of the article about the club. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page confusion[edit]

Can anyone figure out/unpick what is happening with 2016-17 División de Honór and 2016–17 División de Honor? The edit history of the former says it was moved to the latter title on 1 March, yet both articles still exist separately......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They should probably be merged. If just for the sake of making the edit history complete. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The former page was turned into a redirect at the time of the move. The original creator then rem'd the redirect and began adding content to the page. Tempted to just restore the redir. but there may be attribution reasons not to. Eagleash (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What even is the División de Honor (apart from being a Spanish competition/league of some sort)? Is it the division below Tercera División? It appears not to have a page. Or is it a subsiduary of División de Honor Juvenil de Fútbol? If it is such a minor competition as to not be notable, since both articles are unsourced I would suggest they are deleted. Black Kite (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a season for the regional league for Province of Cádiz and Province of Málaga from what I can see unless I am mistaken. Govvy (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged all the content into 2016–17 División de Honor, and restored the redirect at 2016-17 División de Honór. Not convinced it's notable though. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've PRODded it, and will send it to AfD if the PROD is removed. Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sixth level of Spanish football. Individual season articles should definitely be deleted. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the level below the Tercera for Andalusia; there is an article of sorts, covering everything from this level below: Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol in Andalusia. But as has been said below, season articles for this level are not needed on enwiki. Crowsus (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honours in info box[edit]

What did we come up with again? Was it only to have olympics honours in info boxes? I was trying to find the conversation we had about that, couldn't seem to find it in the archive. Govvy (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the conversation found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_125#Infobox_medals that you were trying to find? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FOOTYMEDALS. In the most recent discussion, it was decided to include all international medals in the infobox. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, because Adelere13 Who was banned, was mucking around with the stuff, earlier was doing ban evasion on an IP, still mucking around with it. So I just wanted to check what our policy was. Govvy (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looks like I've gone too far in the past and did not notice the one in Archive 147. I was searching for the contributions from Govvy with the edit summaries containing "infobox" and found the one from Archive 125 instead of the one which was actually pointed out. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations wanted - potential entries for List of footballers killed during World War II[edit]

Reposted and updated version of original now archived.

As main contributor to this article, I would like to flag up for attention of others on the project a number of candidates for the list that are already wiki-articled and known or believed to have been killed in or died as a result of circumstances brought on by the war (eg execution, in enemy captivity, effects of wounds etc) but which so far lack a reliable citation regarding their death which is preconditional to inclusion in the list. A few have no death circumstances described in the text of their article but I note have been put on category lists that suggest someone knew/believed they died in wartime circumstances. I also include those whose death circumstances are disputed - see their talk pages for further detail - and are in need of a conclusive ruling in or out.

• Josef Adelbrecht (Austria) - categorised as Austrian military personnel killed in the war. His German wikipedia article states he was killed on the Russian front NW of Moscow.
• Dragutin Babic (Yugoslavia) - there is a source in Croat language but it is unclear to me it indicates manner of death
• Josef Bergmaier (Germany)
• Frans Christiaens (Belgium) - no details in his article but stated in article on his club Lierse S.K. to have been killed in air raid but allegation unsourced. The air raid is not mentioned in the French wikipedia article on the club.
• Jozsef Eisenhoffer (Hungary) - also disputed death circumstances
• Bronislaw Fichtel (Poland) - disputed death date (see talk page)
• Hermann Flick (Germany)
• Josef Fruhwirth (Austria) - categorised as Austrian military personnel killed in WWII. His article in Germany wikipedia has citation to an Austrian newspaper report of his death which I find unreadable.
• Adolfs Greble (Latvia) - Death circumstances presently not in English wikipedia but his Russian wikipedia article (with citations I have not the expertise to copy) states he was arrested in 1940 and for political reasons deported into Russia where he died in 1943. -UPDATE: I have accessed a Latvian language biographical source which I have appended to his English wikipedia article.Cloptonson (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Nikolai Gromov (Russia) - Russian language profile says he 'died at the front' in 1943 without further detail. More informative sources if found preferred.
• Franz Krumm (Germany)
• Willi Lindner (Germany) - source in German language, not fully clear about death details
• Johann Luef (Austria) - his German wikipedia article indicates he died of wounds in hospital in East Prussia.
• Josef Madlmayer (Austria)
• Vladimir Markov (footballer) (Russia) - Stated in Olympedia to have died in Leningrad in 1942, which coincided with the long running siege of the city. Can evidence be found for treating him as a victim of the siege?
• Alexander Martinek (Austria)
• Otto Martwig (Germany)
• Philip Meldon (Ireland) - disputed death details, not known to CWGC.
• August Mobs (Germany) - said to have been killed in air raid.
• Slavko Pavletic (Croatia) - no death circumstance details given in text but has been categorised as a Croatian civilian killed in the war.
• Jean Petit (footballer, born 1914) (Belgium) - His French wikipedia article indicates without citation or death location given that he was a doctor = probably civilian rather than military - who was killed in a bombardment preceding the Alied invasion of Normandy.
• Alfreds Plade (Latvia) - was added to the list but I have taken it out and copied it on list talk page as the citations used did not indicate how he died or any service. There are two citations in his article on Latvian wikipedia (which states he was repatriated to Germany as a Baltic German, served implicitly in their forces and fell on the Eastern Front) but I find both unreadable.
• Kurts Plade (Latvia) - Repatriated to Germany as a Baltic German, his Latvian wikipedia article states he was 'killed' (no further detail) in February 1945 in Poznan, Poland. I note his death coincided with the Soviet siege of Poznan.
• Bernardo Poli (Italy) - Italian wikipedia indicates he died in 'an unspecified war accident' serving as an airman. Only citation in English wikipedia does not indicate manner of his death.
• Eriks Raisters (Latvia)
• Fyodor Rimsha (Russia)
• Janis Rozitis (Latvia)
• Holger Salin (Finland)
• Aristotel Samsuri (Albania) - Reportedly executed in German concentration camp in Greece as a Communist partisan between 1942/1944, but was claimed by the postwar Communist regime of Albania to have escaped and survived before proclaiming him a martyr in 1981.
• Gennaro Santillo (Italy) - Categorised as Italian military personnel killed in the war but no indications of military service on Italian wikipedia. Would like to be more certain of his status (mil or civ) before adding him.
• Otto Siffling (Germany) - It is listed under the list on German Wikipedia, but says he died of pleurisy. I've added it here in case he is found to have served during the war.
• Harry Spencer (footballer) (New Zealand, previously played in England) - There are similarities with a New Zealand soldier known to the CWGC (see talk page of article). Can someone find confirmation they are the same man?
• Aleksandrs Stankus (Latvia)
• Erwin Stührk (Germany) - disputable death date, death place given in German war grave site not easy to ascertain as it only gives German form of name rather than its vernacular.
• Ludwik Szabakiewicz (Poland) - disputable death details, particularly date
• Willi Völker (Germany) - uncertainty about death location.
• Karl Wahlmuller (Austria)
• Heinz Warnken (Germany) - German wikipedia gives him as gefallen (fallen) in 1943 but no detail of precise death date or death place.
• Willi Wigold (Germany) - date of death disputed

There may be additions coming onto the list so I encourage watch this space! Others are welcome to add. Please let us know if sources are found and added into their articles.Cloptonson (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Gatti[edit]

Gatti spent the 2016-17 season with Saluzzo and Pavarolo. We know he scored 8 goals in 31 apps during the season but we don't know the number of games and goals with Saluzzo and the number of games and goals with Pavarolo. What do I write in his table? Dr Salvus 11:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, I'd just write this information in prose. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499 do I include the 31 apps and the 8 goals in the career total row? Dr Salvus 11:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried a possible solution, using notes. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rating apps[edit]

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but are awards and honours given by the major rating apps (based on stats), worthy of being in the honours section. WhoScored, for example, are one of the major football stat collection and rating apps, and they do their player of the year at the end of the season based on that. Would it be fair to add these awards to the honours section if they are properly cited? TJarrrett (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. GiantSnowman 13:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say only if we have a Wikipedia article on the database website itself (WhoScored doesn't). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not until WhoScored is reported on in the general mass media. --dashiellx (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]