Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 158) (bot
Line 483: Line 483:
::: With all due respect, [[User:S.A. Julio|S.A. Juio]], no one refers to [[TSG 1899 Hoffenheim]] in the English language as 1899 Hoffenheim. It's just Hoffenheim. It's even more common to write TSG Hoffenheim than 1899 Hoffenheim, a quick Google search should show you. The COMMONNAME is Hoffenheim and I frankly cannot understand anyone who says otherwise. [[User:Paul Vaurie|Paul Vaurie]] ([[User talk:Paul Vaurie|talk]]) 18:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
::: With all due respect, [[User:S.A. Julio|S.A. Juio]], no one refers to [[TSG 1899 Hoffenheim]] in the English language as 1899 Hoffenheim. It's just Hoffenheim. It's even more common to write TSG Hoffenheim than 1899 Hoffenheim, a quick Google search should show you. The COMMONNAME is Hoffenheim and I frankly cannot understand anyone who says otherwise. [[User:Paul Vaurie|Paul Vaurie]] ([[User talk:Paul Vaurie|talk]]) 18:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
:::The problem is, I feel like a lot of people are falling back on that essay without fully understanding it. You can’t just ignore the evidence I’ve given against it and just say, “yeah, but it’s in place now”. The essay is wrong. – [[User:PeeJay|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay|Jay]] 17:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:::The problem is, I feel like a lot of people are falling back on that essay without fully understanding it. You can’t just ignore the evidence I’ve given against it and just say, “yeah, but it’s in place now”. The essay is wrong. – [[User:PeeJay|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay|Jay]] 17:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:: {{tq|The only time the long name should be used is when another similarly named club is mentioned nearby.}} That does not make sense at all. It is highly relevant in e.g. infoboxes to specify "VfB Stuttgart" rather than just "Stuttgart", even if the player hasn't played for Stuttgarter Kickers. –&nbsp;[[User:Johan Elisson|Elisson]]<small>&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:Johan Elisson|T]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Johan Elisson|C]]&nbsp;•</small> 15:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


== Duplicate National League article? ==
== Duplicate National League article? ==

Revision as of 15:23, 5 February 2023

    WikiProject iconFootball Project‑class
    WikiProject iconThis 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.
    ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

    Tobi Oluwayemi

    Hello! I wanted to inform you that I've just opened a discussion for a test page I recently created about this player (not to be confused with his older brother, Josh Oluwayemi).

    If you have enough time, as well as experience with football in Scotland and the UK, please leave your suggestions down there: every kind of help is appreciated!

    Oltrepier (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks good! Ortizesp (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oltrepier: I had this old sandbox (User:Govvy/Tobi Oluwayemi) in my user-space if you're interested. Govvy (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govvy Oh, thanks for flagging it!
    The question is, which version should we keep for the future? Oltrepier (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oltrepier: If there is nothing you want from my draft then I will just db-author it. Regards. Govvy (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govvy Er, I think I've already included everything I need, to be honest, but thank you for asking! : D Oltrepier (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, please read a below discussion.

    Gareth Bale as a "player" in 2023?

    This discussion seemed to fizzle out without consensus. So I start a new discussion about same issue.

    Currently, Instructions for the Infobox at Template:Infobox_football_biography, where it says that the Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club".

    In my humble opinion, "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club". This provision have many problems.

    (1) First, we have to understand the difference between Two consecutive year season system and One year season system.

    • Two consecutive year season system (2022-23 season, 2023-24 season): European Football League and so on
      • Many players retired or transfered in June, July, August in 2022 after they finished 2021-22 season.
    • One year season system (2023 season, 2024 season): Major League Soccer, South Korean K League, Japanese J.League, Chinese Super League and so on.
      • Many players retired or transfered in December in 2021, January and February in 2022 after they finish 2021 season.

    I think it is important to draw a clear line between two season system and one season system.

    Let's see the career years in Gareth Bale infobox

    • 2022–2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)
    • 2006–2022 Wales 111 (41)

    If Bale was retired in January 2023 in the European Football League, Maybe no big misunderstanding. Because he retired in the middle of 2022-2023 season (January 2023 is the part of 2022-2023 season). But Bale was retired in January 2023 after he finished 2022 MLS season and before the start of 2023 MLS season (January 2023 is not the part of MLS 2023 season).

    All wikipedia readers are not knowledgeable about football including football league season system.

    Therefore current club years at infobox cause three misunderstandings to readers.

    Firstly, Bale played for Los Angeles FC both in 2022 season and 2023 season for two years.

    Secondly, Major League Soccer season is ongoing in January 2023 like European Football League season.

    Thirdly, Bale's last international match was in 2022 and Bale's last club match is in 2023

    (2) Bale signed a 1 year contract in June 2022. So Bale was contracted at LAFC until he retired in January 2023. Under current provision, There is no problem.

    But We can't know detailed contract years of all football players. Bale is very very famous footballer, So we can find his contract year in press very easily.

    But Contract years of many football players are undisclosed in press or even in unknown players case, We don't find any contract information in press.

    So We need a common and general provision in club years at infobox.

    • Fazit

    I will say it again, Current club years at European Professional football League with two year season (2022-23 season, 2023-24 season) don't cause big misunderstanding. But club years at Major League Soccer, K League, J.League, Chinese Super League and so on with one year season (2022 season, 2023 season) cause misunderstanding.

    Many football player career in Major League Soccer, K League, J.League, Chinese Super League as belows.

    For example

    - 2005: First contracted with XX FC but didn't appear in the any matches for the XX FC .

    - 2006–2010: Appeared in the matches for the XX FC.

    - 2011–2022: Originally, contracted with XX FC until 2013. But he transferred to YY FC in January or February in 2011 (After he finished 2010 season in XX FC and before the start of 2011 season) and he appeared in the matches for the only YY FC during 2011–2022

    - 2023: still under contract in 2023 or 2024 with YY FC, But he retire or terminate contract in January or February in 2023 (Before the start of 2023 season), then don't find new club.

    - 2024: Revese a retirement dicision and contract 1 year with ZZ FC but he don't appear in any matches due to heavy injury.

    • Club years in infobox of this football player
      • 2005–2010: XX FC 150 (5)
      • 2011–2022: YY FC 300 (10)
      • 2024: ZZ FC 0 (0)

    Therefore, I hope that We revise provision at Template:Infobox football biography as belows in order to convey clear information about various player career cases.

    Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club but last year of list that the player has been played/capped/appeared at each club or the player has been completed player registration in the league and club

    To put it simply, We synchronize club years in infobox and club years in club career statistics table.

    Then, we give a description about detailed contract information including contract year in club career section.

    Thanks for reading.Footwiks (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    TLDR version - Gareth Bale announced his retirement in early 2023. Should we display his career end date as 2022 (the last calendar season he played, in MLS) or 2023 (the year he announced his retirement)?
    • 2022 - we don't know when his contract ended, common sense says before his retirement announcement, and it is standard to use the season years only for MLS players. I see no reason why this should be different. GiantSnowman 09:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2023 - His playing career was still open in the infobox in January 2023 before he said he was retiring so anyone looking at it then would assume he was still a footballer in 2023 even if he hadn't made an appearance. He was still a footballer until he retired and it would be inconsistent to have 2022 in the infobox but 2023 in prose. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry but how does somebody looking at an article in the past have any impact whatsoever? Any player signing for an English team now from a league which uses calendar years (MLS, Sweden, Ireland etc.) would have had e.g. '2022-' in the infobox for their old club, but it is standard when they leave to change that to '2022' and not '2022-2023', because they left the club before the 2023 season started. This is the exact same principle as Bale's situation. GiantSnowman 10:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • see also Peter Knowles - 'retired' in 1970 but remain contracted with Wolves until 1982, when his contract was terminated. GiantSnowman 10:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      see also Stefano Bonomo - announced retirement in early 2020, his infobox says 2019. GiantSnowman 10:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What's your point GS? Sounds like classic WP:OSE. What's the policy - do we write dates based on contract or based on when they last played? --SuperJew (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I wouldn't use the case of Peter Knowles to support anything, TBH. A player who retired from playing but whose registration was retained by his club (for TWELVE YEARS!!) even though he had absolutely no intention of ever playing again is clearly a freak occurrence and should be treated as such -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It has always been the last season they played - which means, in Bale's case, 2022. Whether he announced his retirement on 31 December or 1 January does not matter. GiantSnowman 11:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So Peter Knowles' infobox is wrong then......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I would change his infobox to 1970. GiantSnowman 11:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Firstly, it's confusing why you brought Knowles as an example then. Secondly, the guidelines for {{Infobox football biography}} say A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club, so that's what we should use, not when they play which is how it's done for national teams (A list of years that the player has played for each national team). --SuperJew (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If we're going to base the final date in a player's infobox on when he last played for his final club, then heaven only knows how we would treat Robert Green, who didn't play for his final club at all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So when did Bale's contract end - 2022 or 2023? Nobody knows. If any other situation, a player leaving a MLS club in January 2023 would have a 2022 end date. This should be no different. GiantSnowman 14:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      the sources say he announced retirement in 2023, so therefore 2023 is the end date. Unless you have another source saying his contract ended in 2022. --SuperJew (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There are so many similar transfer cases for players in Major League Soccer, K League, J.League, Chinese Super League
      For example, Originally, contract with XX FC from 2019 until end of 2021, But he transfered to YY FC in January or February 2021 (Before the start of 2021 season and didn't complete player registration in league for 2021 season.)
      Some users fill out the infobox like infobox of players who played for European Football League.
      2019–2021: XX FC
      2021–2023: YY FC
      This club years cause misunderstanding. He played/appeared/capped for XX FC in 2021 season.
      I think that below club years are reasonable.
      2019–2020: XX FC
      2021–2023: YY FC - Footwiks (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Footwiks, respectfully, please stop posting these walls of texts - it's disruptive. GiantSnowman 11:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this just an attempt to re-prosecute Gareth Bale? As per my comment there: there are no sources saying that he retired / exercised a break clause in December 2022, just that he retired in Jan 2023 (with a contract that still had a year to run). On the Stefano Bonomo comparison : do we know how long he signed for Sacremento for? If his contract was only for a single season then there is a limited similarity, and even allowing for it to be the same, a little-known player who won't have attracted many editors should not set a binding precedence for a world-famous one for whom we have much more sourcing available.Spike 'em (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    he still had a contract in 2023. this isnt a guy being released in december 2022, he retired mid contract. there was a pretty clear consensus in the last discussion imo. we even use contracts for things like ronaldo signing in suadi in 2022 but the contract didnt start till 2023. if that other guy had a contract in 2019 and not 2020 thats why its listed in 2019. the last game played thing is absurd when some players get injured for over a year then retire and so you have to pretend they werent contracted. e.g., a player has a contract till 2023. gets injured and misses all of 2022, retires in 2023. but cuz he didnt play in 2022 or 2023 you go and pretend his career ended in 2021 and he wasnt contracted to anyone in 2022 or 2023. how many goalkeepers sign as a 3rd/4th choice gk at the end of their career and play 0 games? if a gk plays his last game in 2018, then is 4th choice for 5 years playing 0 games do we pretend his career ended in 2018 and pretend the last 5 years didnt happen? the guy brought up Robert Green, do we pretend he was never a chelsea player? also, Stefano Bonomo doesnt seem to have been contracted to that team in 2020, he retired after his contract ended in 2019.Muur (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Muur! You misunderstood what I mean.
    There is a clear difference between Situation of Bale and Situation of injured players / third or fourth goalkeepers who will not make any appearances in 2023 season.
    • Bale situation
    Bale retired in January 2023 (After the finish of 2022 MLS season and Before the start of the 2023 MLS season)
    Therefore Major League Soccer can't register Bale as 2023 season official player.
    Also Bale is not the part of Los Angeles FC 2023 season roaster.
    • Injured players and third or fourth goalkeepers of LAFC situation
    Even though they will not make any appearances, They are registered players in 2023 MLS season.
    Also they are definitely part of 2023 season LAFC roaster.
    Robert Green didn't make an appearance in Chelsea FC. But he was a definitely Chelsea player in 2018–19 season. Because Premier League registered Green as 2018–19 season official player and he was the part of Chelsea F.C. 2018–19 season roaster
    Simply speaking, We could find the profile photo of Green at roaster page of Chelsea FC website in 2018 and 2019, but we can't find the profile photo of Bale at roaster page of LAFC website in 2023.
    Please read the my conculsion part again.
    Of course, I understand that contract years is the important way to judge players club career.
    But, in football players club career. There are various situations.
    Therefore, It's not reliable to judge a player club career years only by contract year.
    I hope that we judge a player club career years by various viewpoints including contract year, appearances, league's player registration and club's roaster registration and so on.
    But current Club years line at Template:Infobox football biography
    Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club".
    Therefore I want to revise the provision at Template:Infobox football biography as belows.
    Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club but last year of list that the player has been played/capped/appeared at each club or the player has been completed player registration in the league and club Footwiks (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    “Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club but last year of list that the player has been played/capped/appeared at each club or the player has been completed player registration in the league and club.” Do you seriously think that this geibberish could form the basis for the instructions on a WP template? Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your point? Is problem my poor English or my idea?
    I repeat, In football players club career. There are various career situations and various season system and we only know the famous players' contract year.
    Therefore, It's not reliable to judge a player club career years only by contract year.
    I hope that we judge a player club career years by various viewpoints including contract year, appearances, league's player registration and club's roaster registration and so on.
    I'm not an native English speaker. my revision draft is poor. But I believe that you can understand my point.
    If reach an consensus, I hope that some Egnlish native speaker polilsh and improve below my revision draft.
    Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club but last year of list that the player has been played/capped/appeared at each club or the player has been completed player registration in the league and club Footwiks (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we know that he had not cancelled his contract in December 2022 and only announced his retirement in January 2023? GiantSnowman 12:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't know that, so we can't assume it. The only thing (as far as I can see) that we can indisputably reliably source is that he announced his retirement in January. Anything else is just guesswork/OR.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is possible that Bale's contract was officially terminated by mutual consent in December 2022 but undisclosed then Bale announced retirement in January 2023.
    Apart from Bale's situation, We can know few famous footballer's detailed contract years. Most footballer's contract years are undisclosed.
    Therefore I hope that we judge a player club career years by various viewpoints including contract year, appearances, league's player registration and club's roaster registration and so on.Footwiks (talk) Footwiks (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible that an alien told Bale that if he didn't retire then the earth would be blown up with a laser beam, but I don't have a source for that so I can't include it in the article. The sources we do have say that Bale announced his immediate retirement on 9 January 2023. In my experience, clubs announce how long a player has signed for or when they sign a new contract all the time. Spike 'em (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We go by what sources tell us. We have sources that he had a contract spanning into 2023 and sources that he announced his retirement in January 2023. Anything else is speculation. Spike 'em (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And his statement on 9 Jan said I announce my immediate retirement from ... football which would time it to the point the statement was made. Spike 'em (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, fair - in which case 2023 is probably the right end date for Bale given his special circumstances. GiantSnowman 15:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This started as a discussion about proposed changes to the Template:Infobox football biography but is degenerating into a discussion about Gareth Bale's retirement. Can editors try to keep on topic. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Respectfully, that was because the OP was posting about Bale the entire time... GiantSnowman 15:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in agreement with you on this point: OP mentions Bale 9 times in his initial statement and another 10 times thereafter having posted something similar on the already archived thread. Spike 'em (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Op just seemed mad the previous discussion had everyone say bale for 2023 and then brought it back up hoping it'd end different this time and it didn't. Muur (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I told them to start a new discussion. In fairness, the outcome is different to the previous one, but not in the way OP hoped - we now have consensus that Bale's career ends in 2023 in the infobox (the last discussion there was no such consensus). GiantSnowman 16:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, Bale's career ends in 2022 or 2023. It's not so important to me. The reason for opening a this discusstion in order to revise a provision of Template:Infobox football biography as belows.
    I'm South Korean. I have edited many South Korean K League player articles since 2010. K League and MLS have same season system (2022 season, 2023 season)
    There are many similar situations like Bale's situation about retirement or transfers in K League players.
    For example, Some player like Bale, Originally contracted with XX FC from 2021 until end of 2022, But he transfered to YY FC in January 2022.
    Of course, some player was still contracted at XX FC in January 2022, But he left the club before the start of 2022 season.
    Therefore, K League registered him as YY FC player in 2022 K League season and he was also the part 2022 YY FC seasons roaster.
    But many foreign wikipedia users edited his club years as belows.
    (Sample-1)
    2021–2022: XX FC
    2022–  : YY FC
    This club years cause misunderstanding to readers. He played or appeared for XX FC in 2022 season and K League was ongoing in January 2022.
    Additionally, In South Korea. Definitely, This players's club years considered and edited in South Korean wikipedia article as belows.
    (Sample-2)
    2021  : XX FC
    2022–  : YY FC
    Many wikipedia users still don't know K League season system, League's player registration system and Club's roaster registration system.
    They will edited (Sample-1) like club years of footballers who play in European Football League season (2021-2022 season, 2022-2023 season) and there is a potential edit dispute.
    Therefore, I want to revise a provision of Template:Infobox football biography in detail.
    But most participants of dicsussion only focused on Bale's career ends in 2022 or 2023. Footwiks (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a question and suggestion.

    (1) Question

    I repeat, Major League Soccer can't register Bale as 2023 season official MLS player. Also Bale is not the part of 2023 season LAFC roaster.

    But Do we have to add 2023 lines with all 0 stats in his career statistics table like club years of infobox?

    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
    Los Angeles FC 2022 MLS 12 2 1 1 13 3
    2023 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Career total 394 141 32 7 15 3 98 27 14 7 553 185

    (2) Suggestion

    How about adding months in club years in all players infobox as belows?

    2022–2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)

    =>

    06/2022–01/2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2) or June 2022–January 2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)

    (Date format, Anything is fine for me)

    Let's compare the Bale's club years and some player's club years

    • Bale: 06/2022–01/2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)
    • Some player: 01/2022–12/2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)

    Club years including months in infobox can convey intuitive information and prevent misuderstanding to readers.

    That is to say,

    • Bale: 06/2022–01/2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)

    => We can easily realize that Bale joined the LAFC in the middle of 2022 season and Bale left the LAFC before the opening of 2023 season.

    • Some player: 01/2022–12/2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)

    => We can easily realize that some player spent full two seasons for LAFC.

    But in current infobox Club years of Bale and some player are same as belows

    • 2022–2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)

    Therefore, Readers have to find a detailed club years information in their club career section. First, this cause inconvenience and generally famous footballers article have detailed club career section including contract years. So if readers can't find detailed club years information, especailly unknown footballers, This can cause misunderstanding about club years.

    I checked out Bale articles at other language wikipedias.

    • Most other wikipedia infobox: 2022 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)
    • A few other wikipedia infobox: 2022–2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)

    There is a just difference of view on the players club career.

    • 2022 Los Angeles FC 12 (2): viewpoint of substance over form (Actual player registration or roaster registraion for the LAFC in 2023 season)
    • 2022–2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2): viewpoint of form over substance (Just contract years with LAFC)

    They can both be right.

    In conculsion, In my humble opinion, Club period including month information in infobox become a good compromise. Footwiks (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The hell is all this? I support changing it to 2022 as per Snowman. We're not putting months in infoboxes.--EchetusXe 14:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, no months. And so much text... Kante4 (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support putting 2022 only. The fact is there were no matches, the league was not operating, heck pre-season had not even started yet. At no point was LAFC engaged in any football activities at the time. RedPatch (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    100% support not putting months in infoboxes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support not putting months in infoboxes, but I think Bale's LAFC spell should be shown as 2022–2023, since he retired in 2023. – PeeJay 17:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely no months in infoboxes! GiantSnowman 18:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would rather have Bale's spell ending in 2022 than add months! Spike 'em (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What seems to have been forgotten here once again is that this is meant to be a discussion about the instructions for football player infoboxes, not about Gareth Bale. At present, the instructions say that the Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club". As far as Gareth Bales is concerned, it appears that he was under contact until he announced his retirement in January 2023, unless someone can provide a source showing that his actual retirement fell in 2022. That being so, there is no point in discussing Bale further until the main point is resolved.

    The main point of this discussion should be about a possible change to the infobox instructions. The OP has made various proposals, most of which, such as showing months in the infobox, are unworkable. It seems to me that, if this discussion is to continue, it should be on the infobox talk page, where contributors can stay focussed on the subject at hand,and leave any discussion about Bale to another day. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for clarifying the topic for this dicussion.
    Please read from below sentence
    Honestly, Bale's club years: 2022 or 2022–2023. It doesn't matter so much.
    Because Bale is very very famous footballer. There are so many press about Bale's retirement.
    So We can easily realize that Bale left LAFC in 2023 but Bale is not the part of 2023 LAFC roaster and didn't make any appearances in 2023 MLS season
    But We can't find detailed contract information and transfer information of most footballers in press.
    Club years: 2022–2023
    In Bale's situation: Many readers don't misunderstood
    In Unknown player's situation: Many readers can misunderstand that this player make an appearance in 2023 season or official registered player in 2023 season.

    There are so many similar retirement or transfer situations like Bale's situation, So I want to find a fundamental solution to revise instructions of current club years of footballer player.

    To return, In Football Player Infobox, Instructions say that the Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club".
    Current instruction have two problems.
    (1) Not fit for footballers who play for in the league with one year season (MLS, K League, J. League and so on)
    Let's compare below two situations.
    • If A player retired or transfered in June 2022 in Premier League
    => A player career years:
    2020–2022 XX FC
    2022–2024 YY FC
    Although A player retired or transfered in off-season (Before the start of 2022–2023 season),
    There is no dispute about it. Because Year 2022 is used in both 2021–2022 season and 2022–2023 season.
    • If B player retired or transfered in Jauary 2023 in MLS
    => B player career years
    2020–2022 XX FC
    2023–2024 YY FC
    oder
    2020–2023 XX FC
    2023–2024 YY FC
    Although B player retired or transfered in same off-season (Before the start of 2023 season),
    Like Bale's situation. That raises the possibility of dispute.
    Because January 2023 is still the period of his contract years but the league was not operating at that time and he will register as YY FC player in 2023 MLS season and will be part of 2023 season YY FC roaster.

    Additionally, So many players who play for in the league with one year season retire or transfer in January or February.

    (2) We can't distinguish actual club years (Especially footballers who play for in the league with one year seaosn)
    • A player contract: From June 2022 to January 2023 in XX FC
    => A player played for just five months of 2022 season and left the club before the start of 2023 season.
    • B player: From January 2022 to December 2023 in XX FC
    => B player played for full two seasons
    But under current player infobox,
    A and B player's club years are same as belows
    2022–2023 XX FC
    I think that this is vague inforamtion and cause misunderstanding to readers.


    I've been racking my brain trying to come up with a solution since 2010, In my humble opinion.
    This seems to be best solution.
    Solution
    Let's split instruction of club years infobox in two ways.
    • (1) Club years of footballers who play for in the league with two consecutive year season (Premier League, Serie A and so on)
    Keep current instruction
    => Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club".
    • (2) Club years of footballers who play for in the league with one year season (MLS, K League and so on)
    Create new instruction.
    => I can't make a perfect sentence due to my poor English. Point is as belows.
    League Player Registration or Club Roaster Registration of at that season takes precedence over contract years.
    Footwiks (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but this wall of text is not helpful Too long; didn't read. Make it shorter. Kante4 (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please ignore my former comment. I marked Please read from below sentence.Footwiks (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you keep editing / removing text from your comments then nobody will be able to follow what you are saying. As it stands there are 3 or 4 walls of text that no-one has any interest in trawling through. Spike 'em (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Footwiks: Not even close to being better. It's a massive wall of text and i (like maybe more) won't be bother to read that all. Kante4 (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, I summarized my opinion about this topic in last comment with mark (Please read from below sentence). I mean, In order to save time, My last comment with mark is enough for new discussion participants or participants who don't want to read my all comments thoroughly. Footwiks (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Footwiks, please stop posting if you cannot do so concisely. Multiple editors have raised concerns about your walls of text and your continued posts are disruptive, and you will be blocked to stop future disruption, OK? GiantSnowman 17:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. This is ridiculous. – PeeJay 18:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Originally, I opened a this discussion in order to solve fundamental problems of player Infobox template. This is a complicated issue. So I was forced to post long comment including comparison of club career years under One year season system and Two year consecutive season system in order to understand problem logically.
    But It seems that most participants in this discussion are only interested in Bale's career 2022 or 2023 and are not interested in fundamental problems of player Infobox template. I think that this cause disruption in this discussion.
    I am a hardest working participants in this discussion. If just long comment again, Block me?
    I don't understand this situation. Anyway, There is my final summarized opinion and point in last comment and maybe there is no further comment.Footwiks (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Stevenage 2-1 Aston Villa

    I feel that the semi-recent game between Stevenege and Aston Villa might deserve a Wikipedia page. Other FA Cup giant killings have their own Wikipedia pages (Wrexham 2-1 Arsenal and Burnley 0-1 Lincoln City are the big ones in my mind), and multiple places have reported on the game as an upset (The Athletic, Globe and Mail, Sky Sports, Reuters, ESPN, The Guardian, BBC Sports, and technically if you want to count it as ok for sports The Sun). Would it count as notable enough? WikipeidaNeko (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @WikipeidaNeko Sounds good to me!
    I don't know if there's any type of criteria for these matches, though, so maybe you could start from a draft, and then we'll wait and see... Oltrepier (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick wording check, is it Home-Away or Winner-Loser or something else for how to word the score? WikipeidaNeko (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow the article name format at Wrexham A.F.C. 2–1 Arsenal F.C. oder Chelsea F.C. 2–4 Bradford City A.F.C. (2015) (unsure why the latter has an unnecessary year disambiguator). GiantSnowman 17:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: the naming of articles on individual matches (which aren't finals or whatever) is absolutely all over the place. Why, for example, does Aston Villa 1–7 Arsenal (14 December 1935) not use the F.C.s (when all other Arsenal matches with articles use them) and use the entire date as a disambiguator? Surely Arsenal didn't win 7–1 at Villa on any other date in 1935 (which would necessitate using the full date to dab) or indeed ever!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it should be club full name (i.e. with the 'F.C.') and not with any date unless needed for disambiguation, in which case use the year only. GiantSnowman 17:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NOYEAR, I've moved those two pages because there are no other examples of those scores happening between the two teams and it's quite possible those scores never happen again. In the unlikely event that they do, they can be moved to include the year (and year only per WP:NCEVENT) as disambiguation. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider WP:NSUSTAINED. Will this match get any significant coverage a year or five years from now? – Elisson • T • C • 17:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    this stuff happens all the time every season. its not like villa are in teh big six either.Muur (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    List of all UEFA matches by a team

    I came across FC Twente in European football, which appears to be simply a list of all games played by FC Twente in UEFA competitions. This strikes me (a very much non-footy person) as something that would be against WP:NOTDATABASE, but I wanted to check with people frequenting this talk page before going to AfD. Is there any precedence with these kinds of articles? Ljleppan (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously that is a very poor article with literally no prose whatsoever, but yes, there is a ton of precedent - see Category:European football clubs in international competitions -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Given that there appears to be more of these types of articles, I'll leave it be for now and let someone better versed with football stuff deal with it, if they see fit. Ljleppan (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Nationality in lead

    Why the double standards? Raheem Sterling is an English footballer but Riyad Mahrez is "a professional footballer". We have a certain user who will quickly revert any changes to Mahrez to say he's Algerian but does nothing when it comes to Sterling. It's either one or the other, but we can't have these double standards. TonyStarks (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually agree, I think we should be extremely rigid on these and treat them all the same. Mahrez and Sterling are both dual citizens, and both played for one country over their birth country. Sterling IMO should have the same lead as Mahrez, omitting English in first sentence. Ortizesp (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, they are two completely separate cases. Sterling was born in one country and moved to another as a child, and has played for the 'new' country exclusively. He is clearly English, there is no ambiguity. Mahrez was born and raised in one country, but plays for another due to heritage - that is ambiguous. GiantSnowman 22:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's absolutely ambiguity regarding his nationality. He was born in Jamaica, his mother competed for Jamaica in athletics, he had no direct connection to the UK until he moved here. Saying "Raheem Sterling is an English footballer" is misleading due to his dual nationality. It's better to say he's a professional footballer who plays for the England national team. – PeeJay 12:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Every single article, website and mention of Mahrez say he’s Algerian. It’s only somehow ambiguous for you. It’s not complicated, he’s considered Algerian by every single source. Where is the ambiguity? I’d like to revisit the debate and see what the actual con census on the matter is. TonyStarks (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    i doubt sterling even has a jamaican passport, and cases like Kane (wrestler) and Emma Watson are relevant. no one calls kane a spanish pro wrerstler or watson a french actress. they moved to usa / England as little kids just like raheem Muur (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sterling was born in Jamaica and lived there before moving to the UK. He most definitely has Jamaican citizenship. TonyStarks (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sterling has dual citizenship, reference here. Kane wouldn't have Spanish citizenship as he was born in a military base (de facto American), and I don't believe Watson has citizenship either, so they're completely different cases. Sterling when he was born would have been exclusively Jamaican and probably got his English citizenship as a teen, well after he started playing football. Ortizesp (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Emma Watson was born in Paris to expatriate British parents, that doesn't make her French. Raheem Sterling was born in Jamaica to Jamaican parents; he's a naturalised British citizen. – PeeJay 12:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:NATIONALITY is our guide here. Mahrez is well known as an Algerian footballer, hence that should be in the lead, similarly Stirling is an English footballer. I don't know what French nationality rules are, but it is irrelevant whether he qualifies for it or not. All sources call him Algerian, so there is no confusion over his nationality. Spike 'em (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like it's pretty common sense but certain people here really like to confuse and complicate things. TonyStarks (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that MOS:NATIONALITY is clear cut, Mahrez should be listed as Algerian, as that's what all sources refer to him as. Regardless of whether or not he has French citizenship (which isn't mentioned anywhere in the article itself), he's primarily known as an Algerian. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would he be described as 'Algerian' if he had not played for the national team? No. Sterling however would always be 'English'... GiantSnowman 19:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If Sterling never played for the English national team, I think he would be called Jamaican-English at the very least. Ortizesp (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is pure speculation. He IS well known for being an Algerian footballer and there is no reason not to include that in the lead. Spike 'em (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of us have discussed the Raheem Sterling situation on the article's talk page in 2021 and earlier in this January and judged he is an English professional footballer there. I think we should consider how many years these players have been in their countries they represented - Sterling has been in England since he was 5 and Mahrez doesn't appear to have been in Algeria much though I see the Algerian equivalent - رياض كريم محرز. Sterling - English, Mahrez - ambiguous per GS who I agree with, and Erling Haaland - certainly Norwegian since he moved to the country he represents at 3, the same way Sterling did. It will be daft to remove the nationality on the Haaland example but less chance of that happening due to protection. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mahrez representing Algeria is in the lede, though - he's simply not described at the very start of the article as an 'Algerian' footballer. GiantSnowman 21:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, summarising what he does for the international part of football.
    Not quite sure why Sead Kolašinac is currently been described as Bosnian though since representing birth country at underage and Bosnia at senior level due to approved citizenship at age 20, whereas both Jonathan de Guzmán and Jordi Amat don't have a nationality mentioned through the same citizenship process. Removing the nationality on the Sead Kolašinac may solve that part of the problem. -- Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But Sterling wasn't even "born" an English citizen, he is an immigrant. Mahrez on the other hand is a "born" Algerian by virtue of his parent. Haaland is not the same as Sterling, because he was born Norwegian, Sterling on the other hand was born Jamaican. Ortizesp (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Good afternoon, everyone!

    While editing here and there, I've run into this page and found out about the atrocious state it finds itself in: from the lack of citations, to poor writing and not updated rosters, the whole article is definitely in dire straits as of now.

    I don't know if I'll have enough time to work on it directly in the next few days, so I wanted to ask for some much needed help (including from the likes of @Dr Salvus and @Nehme1499, if they can), please...

    I think this section from the club's article on it.wiki could be a great place to start, in order to get some useful sources and organize the page properly.

    Let me know if you can help me!

    Oltrepier (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Transfermarkt

    A new user is vehemently arguing that Transfermarkt is a reliable source and also confers notability and is edit warring it back into articles. Disruptive behaviour aside, given that the discussion about Transfermarkt was almost a decade ago, do we need to revise our community stance? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of its reliability, I can't see how having an entry on what amounts to a colossal stats database could ever confer notability.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, why did the other editor edit a 10-year-old archive of the RSN (where almost nobody will see it) rather than start a new discussion? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea. I've added a new discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Transfermarkt on the off-chance that the new editor has a valid point. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) I believe that the only unreliable part of Transfermarkt are their (subjective) valuations of players. Other than that, their database and news reports seem reliable. It would be a waste of arguably football's largest online database to just call the whole thing unreliable on the basis of their valuations. Nehme1499 15:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that Transfermarkt is a bit like IMDb in that it's user-generated and anyone can edit it. Correct me if I'm wrong. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly. It's a fine starting point, but it shouldn't be used as a direct source for anything on Wikipedia. – PeeJay 18:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish they had a log of references like Wikipedia. There's information there that can't be sourced elsewhere, even though you get the feeling they are right. Ortizesp (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I created this shortcut ages ago, WP:WPFLINKSNO, did want to expand on the bottom of that section. Unless it's put to a whole new page. But ye, there is a whole load of reasons for transfermarkt. Govvy (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for History of FC Barcelona

    History of FC Barcelona has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Miles Barron - Barcelona’s first “manager”

    On the BBC website there is a fascinating article about Barcelona's first coach, Miles Coverdale Stocks Barron. See [https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64403587] Wikipedia has an article about John Barrow (footballer) who is presumably the same person. The article will need moving to a new title and substantially re-writing. Anybody fancy this. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Very interesting indeed. The BBC article mentions that Barcelona's club records were unsure of the exact name. But with that issue out of the way, there's conflicting information: the BBC calls Barron Barcelona's first coach and mentions Billy Lambe as a player for the club. The Barcelona website, however, states that Lambe was a player-coach making him the club's first coach: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/club/history/coachesRobby.is.on (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the link is “dead”. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove the "..." from the end of the url. The link should work now. Nehme1499 13:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote from the BBC article: ".....Billy Lambe (ex-Brighton and Hove Albion), with the latter also serving as player/manager. That, however, was not enough to satisfy Gamper, who was also keen to appoint a full-time manager and administrator to run the team's affairs off the pitch rather than entrusting those important duties to a player". So it seems like they have decreed that Barron was the club's "first manager" on the grounds that he was the first full-time manager. Seems like a bit of dissemblance to me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Barcelona website says of Lambe "It appears he was the first foreigner to be paid a wage by the Club, something that can be explained by his role as player-coach" whereas of Barren (sic) they say "In September 1912 FC Barcelona contracted the services of a specific coach for the first time when they brought in this Englishman". Whoever was the first "Manager", the present article is not correct in many ways, as I said originally. Also, perhaps someone can create an article about Lambe, if he's considered noteable. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has now been moved and expanded at Miles Barron. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically not - the original page history is still under the name of John Barrow (footballer) while the newly created Miles Barron has the pages history started from scratch today. The John Barrow (footballer) page should have been moved to Miles Barron to preserve page history instead of blanking and inserting a redirect like what AmorPatiturMoras did. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can an admin do a WP:HISTMERGE? Nehme1499 19:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm an admin, but don't feel confident to do this. Our expert on this, Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs), is no longer with us. It's probably best to follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe GiantSnowman knows the procedure on WP:HISTMERGE well but checking their talk page, they may not be back till 5 February. You can see for example that the user has restored history before. Someone else - another expert - will hopefully do this procedure correctly. It was last year I discovered Anthony was gone from the project. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely Barcelona player games from 1899 to 1912 and some player had to be the player-manager if they had no real manager. So its kind of strange calling Lambe the first then, when he probably wasn't and the basically single source of Barren's article is around him being the first manager. Also when the BBC article says "New research has revealed the truth about this footballing pioneer..." why don't they give a hint where that reasearch originate? -Koppapa (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily, some clubs relied on (a) committee member(s) to pick the team. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A manager is a UK thing, on the continent most clubs and national teams were run by committees. In the Netherlands the trainer didn’t decide who was playing or the tactics etc. until ca. 1950-60. Cattivi (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    KARLSRUHER

    Hello. While I totally agree with the point on WP:KARLSRUHER on how the club has to be Karlsruher SC and not Karlsruhe due to demonym/city name problems, I think that the "consensus" should not apply to clubs where there is not a demonym part of the club name. Such an example is TSG 1899 Hoffenheim. In English, the WP:COMMONNAME is undeniably Hoffenheim; yet, we blindly write "1899 Hoffenheim" in infoboxes. I think we need to change that for these specific ones and we need to stop justifying it by KARLSRUHER, because that does not apply and is overruled by COMMONNAME. Other examples may include 1. FC Köln which should be referred to as FC Köln in infoboxes because "1." is not common in English, you could even make a case for a club like Schalke 04 to be just Schalke, and more. I'll be honest it's mostly this Hoffenheim one that bothers me but I just think we are abusing the definition of KARLSRUHER to legitimize "1899" when it's not part of the COMMONNAME. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I think WP:KARLSRUHER is overused even without the examples you mentioned. I appreciate that saying "Hamburger SV" instead of just "Hamburg" helps differentiate that club from others in that city, but if you were to say "He plays for Hamburg", no one would think you were referring to SC Victoria Hamburg, VfL 93 Hamburg oder SC Condor Hamburg, none of whom have ever played at a comparable level to HSV. The only time the long name should be used is when another similarly named club is mentioned nearby. Augsburg, Bochum, Freiburg, Köln, Mainz, Schalke, Stuttgart and Wolfsburg are all current Bundesliga teams who definitely don't need to be referred to by their full names. – PeeJay 12:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the consensus to follow WP:KARLSRUHER has been clear, does this really need to be brought upon a yearly basis? See the discussions from June 2021, August 2020 and January 2018. And English-language sources do write "1899 Hoffenheim" and similar, for example the BBC. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, S.A. Juio, no one refers to TSG 1899 Hoffenheim in the English language as 1899 Hoffenheim. It's just Hoffenheim. It's even more common to write TSG Hoffenheim than 1899 Hoffenheim, a quick Google search should show you. The COMMONNAME is Hoffenheim and I frankly cannot understand anyone who says otherwise. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is, I feel like a lot of people are falling back on that essay without fully understanding it. You can’t just ignore the evidence I’ve given against it and just say, “yeah, but it’s in place now”. The essay is wrong. – PeeJay 17:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only time the long name should be used is when another similarly named club is mentioned nearby. That does not make sense at all. It is highly relevant in e.g. infoboxes to specify "VfB Stuttgart" rather than just "Stuttgart", even if the player hasn't played for Stuttgarter Kickers. – Elisson • T • C • 15:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Duplicate National League article?

    I've just come across 2022–23 National League South which appears to be a WP:DUPLICATE of 2022–23 National League as I always assumed that we always had the National League leagues (NL, North and South) together as one article. Can someone more versed with non-league have a look at this and see if it needs a merge/redirect please? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, just needs a redirect. Silly duplicate. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought so. Just made the redirect now. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I pointed this out months ago, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/English non-league task force#Articles for specific season/division combinations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Live Updates

    I don't think I have ever seen this before when a user has been going through player's articles and updates their appearance count by one when the matches has not even started yet. This person had ran through the entire Manchester United v Crystal Palace starting 22, possibly from this lineup and has started doing the same to Wolves v Liverpool players. The warnings GS and myself had put on there today are presumably ignored. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    He continued but all of his edits were reverted. Messaged him aswell but i don't think an answer will come. Kante4 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Still ongoing, now with Brighton players. Clearly ignoring us. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you’re going to comment on a specific editor’s conduct, can you please link to their profile so we can easily check on the edits? Thanks. – PeeJay 17:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @PeeJay: It was Chahil (talk · contribs), but banned now, but yeah, i needed to look it up at first too, a link would have been helpful from the start. Kante4 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, next time if something like this or a different recurring issue arises elsewhere, I shall do that PeeJay. I also agree that would be helpful, with that user page link, we would have had saved a bit of time. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    they've been blocked for 1 month. GiantSnowman 19:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]