Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.

Players excluded from the team

It can happen a player is excluded from the team for an inderminated time forcing him to train alone or to play for the reserves (usually for disciplinary reasons). How are these players called in English? In Italy, we say those players are "fuori rosa". Dr Salvus 10:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is a specific term for that in English -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I've also not heard of a specific translation of "fuori rosa". I would explain the situation in words, such as The management sent him to train with the reserves for the rest of the season as a form of "punishment" (see Bassel Jradi), depending on what the source says. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Bola de Prata (Portugal)

I am looking to expand the above page to include the All-time Portuguese Primeira Liga top scorers - in the style of List of La Liga top scorers and List of Ligue 1 top scorers. Should I add this onto the article above, potentially changing the name of the article to List of Primeira Liga top scorers, or should I create a separate page? I'd prefer the former but wanted to source the opinion of the crowd. Felixsv7 (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Create a separate page. The Bola de Prata page should only be about the award given out annually, the list of top scorers is different and notable in its own right. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Definitely have a separate page, they are two different concepts -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, could somebody please have a look at it, add more text etc? Much appreciated. List of Primeira Liga top scorers. Felixsv7 (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:2021 FIFA Arab Cup squad navigational boxes

These should all be deleted, right? We only have nav boxes for the World Cup and major continental competitions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 13:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Could someone do a joint request for deletion for all the templates? I would do it myself but I'm not sure how to do so. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

TfD started: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#2021 FIFA Arab Cup squads. Feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Manchester City F.C. squad

I'd like someone to mediate between myself and another user on the manchester city team nav template, I believe I broke 3RR and have self reverted, the other user has also broken 3RR. They will not supply a source and are ignoring the source provided Paul  Bradbury 14:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You're removing (for example) Rico Lewis, even though he's in the first-team squad in City's article, and there hasn't been an edit war on that page... Seasider53 (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I would remove him from there also, he is not in the squad, there is a cited source that is updated regularly, he is able to play in the first team but is listed as a member of the EDS squad by the source. Do we not use sources anymore? I would remove rico from that page as well, but as this was reverted it seems pointless until there is consensus Paul  Bradbury 14:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia should provide verifiable information, rather than what we think is right. As such, we should follow what the MCFC source says- both on the article and the template. If there's issues with the source, that's Man City's fault and not ours. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Based on the website description, I've moved Lewis out of the first team list since it seems pretty clear that he's an EDS player who isn't considered a member of the first team (as opposed to Cole Palmer, who isn't old enough to be on City's Premier League squad but the club considers him a first team player). Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

...and it was reverted. This blurb, "The following players include EDS players who train regularly with the first-team squad and who have previously made at least one league appearance.", seems to invite WP:OR since "train regularly with the first-team" is vague and hard to verify. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It was reverted by the same user, who I have invited to this discussion, but seems intent on forcing his own view on all Manchester City pages without engaging with other editors. The text "train regularly with the first team squad" in and of itself implies that they are not members of the first team squad Paul  Bradbury 16:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this edit based on the updated source, the current version (as of 17:47 UTC) has too many names which are not first team players (yet). Including those players does seem to be WP:OR. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

PaulBradbury, firstly quit being melodramatic, “forcing his view on all Manchester City pages”. What an utterly ridiculous and bizarre statement to make, I have not forced any view on any City page nor have I been involved in any dispute on any City page, neither am I active on “all City pages” and rarely do I ever involve myself in any conflict that would require interaction with other editors. I’m a casual editor of 14 years, I edit as a hobby and update various articles sparingly, so please don’t make silly accusations. I merely reverted the removal of players listed on the main Manchester City page, I gave you my reasoning for my edits, if others want to change the criteria for inclusion then that’s absolutely fine, like I stated on my talk page. Absolutely not precious over this at all guys, so feel free to run with what you decide. Thanks Footballgy (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Iggy here. WP:V aside, the template fails its first function because it's difficult to navigate. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 18:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I am confused, because the point of the template is to link all the current Man City players who have articles. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Small mistake

Even small mistakes by experienced users, such as this one can go unnoticed for a while before another user spots and corrects it today.

Checking the page history, seems like one or two "helpful" people have corrected the positioning before being reverted by other users. I didn't realise I have positioned the refs incorrectly in the first place, hopefully and surely, the error has been corrected and stays that way. Thanks to Mattythewhite for that error spotting. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

PeeJay argues that it's better to have the sources in the body rather than the infobox (dif). Which approach is correct? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is meant to be a summary of the facts in the article. The citations for those facts should be in the body of the article, not in the infobox itself. – PeeJay 20:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

But it's very rare for certain data to be mentioned in the body, such as the height. If we were to move the infobox citations to the lead, we would have three sources just for the first sentence (full name, date of birth, position). Unless there's a specific guideline against sourcing this info in the infobox, I think it's better not to keep them there. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't like references in the infobox either (or the lead). I feel it looks messy. Usually all that info comes from a player profile which I stick in the External Links section - ie. a soccerway link. Whenever I come across a page with everything (name, height, birthday, birthplace, position, team, etc) with a reference it looks like an eyesore to me (especially when it's the same link re-used for each line). I'm with PeeJay on that. We don't put links next to the team caps and goals in the infobox, so the other facts should be viewed the same, it's coming from other sources in the article/external links, as it's a summary. I do, however, put a reference next to full name though, if it's new, not widely reported in common reliable sources. RedPatch (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If certain info only appears in the infobox, then fine, put the citation in there, but not if it appears elsewhere in the article. – PeeJay 23:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay - the infobox and lede should be summarising information from the body of the article and shouldn't have new information, and therefore no need for referencing. --SuperJew (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

It would appear that the references in the infobox for full name and dob are common - if for example we look at Harry Kane, Gareth Bale or Kieran Trippier you will see a ref each for that infobox content, not elsewhere but the lead content. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

This would seem to be covered in WP:INFOBOXCITE, and if it is in the infobox only then we should consider either adding it to the main body of the article or removing it from the infobox, given that its purpose is to to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article.

Things like height and full name - which tend to be challenged/vandalised most frequently - should be directly cited in the infobox per WP:MINREF. Everything else should be sourced in the prose ideally. GiantSnowman 15:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The full name citation can go in the lead section, or if we give the player's full name at the start of the "Early life" section, it can go there. Citations shouldn't really go in the infobox if we can avoid it. – PeeJay 19:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Again - height and full name should be cited in the infobox given the amount of traffic/vandalism they both receive. There is no harm in that, and it is supported by MINREF. GiantSnowman 19:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

only if they are not referenced in the main article. Spike 'em (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. If the full name appears in the article, which it should, the reference should go there, not in the infobox. Height never appears outside the infobox unless it's especially notable, so putting the source for that in the infobox is fine. – PeeJay 20:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I have spotted the information on the full name and dob on Trent Alexander-Arnold so I have moved those refs in line with the above if that seems fine with other editors. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no instance where we would display the full name outside of the infobox and opening sentence. If we move the ref outside of the infobox, we would have three refs for just the opening sentence of the lead (full name, date of birth, position), which seems too much to me. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather just put in the lead paragraph then, since it usually contains all three: (First Middle Last (born Date) is a footballer who plays as a position for Team) RedPatch (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

You would rather see "First Middle Last[1] (born Date[2]) is a footballer who plays as a position[3] for Team"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No, chances are very likely it could all be the same source, so I'd say First Middle Last (born Date) is a Position for team.[1] For example, soccerway usually has all three of those so instead of repeating the same source three times, we use it once at the conclusion of the sentence since it contains all of the data in it. In the case where its two separate sources we could still put both at the end like [1][2]. For example Chanté Sandiford had the same source for every line in the infobox (plus extras), which is also all in the first sentence. We could remove all the infobox citations and put one in the opening sentence. RedPatch (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Except of course per MOS:LEADCITE we should ideally not be citing in the lede. GiantSnowman 09:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Except in cases The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. So bottom line we should ideally not be citing in the lede or in the infobox and they should be summarising the information which appears in the body of the article. --SuperJew (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

New article: UEFA Club Competition system, UEFA European club football system or UEFA Access List

Greetings all. Firstly, pleasure to join this project. I am a relatively new Wikipedian but I still wanted to offer my two cents on where I believe there could be a gap.

Similar to pages outlining a national football pyramid; English football league system; French football league system; Danish football league system; I believe we should also create a page outlining the three-tier structure of UEFA club competitions.

I believe it would be interesting to compile information that already exists in the UEFA coefficient article and the format sections under each competition page, that would outline the interconnected nature of UEFA Club Competitions which has increased more-so since the introduction of the Conference League. Such a scenario exists where a club can compete in all three Champions League, Europa League, Conference League competitions in qualifying alone; UCL LP Q2 (eliminated) –> UEL MP Q3 (eliminated) –> UECL MP PO.

Furthermore, compiling together an interconnected article on all three–tiers, provides a good platform to write a better insight into the different permutations of teams that begin in qualification rounds. By that I mean, readers already know (from UCL format sections and coefficient articles) that in default years, for example, runners-up (N2) from associations 10–15 on the UEFA access list enter the Champions League at the Main Path Second Qualification Round. However, what potential scenarios exist for a team in the "Main Path Second Qualification Round" is not as clear cut especially now teams can be relegated onto multiple different paths. A team can start in Q2 of the UCL Main Path but could very well end up in the UEL Playoffs alongside designated champions, or could even end up in the UECL playoffs. Whilst it is good that the format section in the Champions League only talks about the qualification steps in that specific competition, a wider article for the interconnected qualification steps across all three competitions would be a good place for readers interested in understanding that a team in the UCL MP Q2 have the possible outcomes: three wins = UCL Group Stage, a first and/or second win followed by a loss = UEL Group Stage, a first loss but then two wins = UEL Group Group Stage, a first loss then a win but then a second loss = UECL Group Stage, two losses then a win = UECL Group Stage, three losses = eliminated with no further European football.

I've included "UEFA Access List" as a possible article because it is the application that is used to base the qualifying scheme on. Alternatively, an article for this current UEFA Access List 2021–24 cycle could be written to detail the current UEFA club competition pyramid and add subsequent ones when the format changes.

The following diagram easily lays out the interconnectedness of the three UEFA club competitions for 2021–24: https://kassiesa.net/uefa/files/2021-24-uefa-club-competitions-scheme.png

Thanks for reading my thoughts. I am way too inexperienced to write an article myself so if this seems like a feasible idea I am passing the task on to somebody else. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, my view is this is potentially a pretty big task (although as you said much of the information is in UEFA Coefficients, and some relevant stuff is in each of the competition overview articles) and is not really worthwhile at this stage when the new Champions League format comes into effect in the season after next. It is not a bad idea but might as well wait until then to outline the new system, whatever form it takes exactly (or has that already been finalised? I don't know, I would guess there are some basics laid down but details to be decided) and that will get a lot more page views and be useful to readers as it is something they will also not be familiar with. Crowsus (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The outline of the new format has been finalised but still lack the details. We know that teams play eight instead of six groups games and we know how the four extra places will be filled in the UCL. Not so much the UEL or UECL. Likewise, not so much information yet on the 2024–27 access list. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good. My one issue is that we don’t make articles because they are “interesting to [make]”, we make them because they are notable. Otherwise, a good idea!Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, the interest of readers to a degree relates to notability, no? When I say that it "would be interesting to compile information [towards a single article on the Club Competition system" I am putting forward my argument on why I believe it to be notable explained in the wider post. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Amateur career stats

Just looking at the Joshua Bohui article and we have stats for his career in the Southern and Isthmian leagues. It feels a bit like overkill, and I would even argue that the sources may not be 100% reliable. His Leatherhead stats, for example, are sourced to the club's DIY website, which violates WP:SELFPUB. If stats for players outside the top five or six divisions aren't recorded by third-party sources, are they really that relevant or notable? – PeeJay 19:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Senior club stats should be recorded, even if at amateur level, as long as they can be accurately sourced. GiantSnowman 19:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see why non-league stats shouldn't be included as long as there is a valid source. Also, the pedant in me feels compelled to point out that the Southern and Isthmian leagues aren't amateur -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Are the sources valid though? – PeeJay 09:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a slightly different matter. In general - if the sources are inadequate, remove the stats (regarldess of level). In Bohui's example - I have always undertook both the AUFC and FWP sources to be accurate/reliable, and both certainly are widely used. GiantSnowman 09:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. If the sources are reliable, keep. Otherwise remove, regardless of whether they refer to amateur or (semi-)pro. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

FAR for 1930 FIFA World Cup

I have nominated 1930 FIFA World Cup for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football league - add IFFHS ranking

At infobox for national teams we have info about "best place at ranking FIFA in hitory" or "current ranking FIFA". What do you think to add IFFHS ranking to infobox about leagues then? I think that info could be info ueful for editors if we analyse at Afd football players with purely club achivements and for now useful for readers becasue of unfortunetly only IFFHS has ranking of leagues from lobal perspective. FIFA does not have yet. I ask to every user kept feedback here, or what do you think to we make consensus via !voting? I think that small information would not be bad and better is to add than than not. Cheers! Dawid2009 (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the point. What authority does IFFHS have? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Nehme. GiantSnowman 07:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility issues with MLS brackets

Hello. There is an issue with the current tournament brackets used in MLS pages, such as {{12TeamBracket-MLS}}. The background colors used cause an accessibility issue. Specifically, neither the red nor the blue background is WCAG AAA compatible for standard blue links and purple visited links. Per MOS:COLOR, we should be meeting the AAA standard whenever possible. It is in my opinion that the colors are largely unnecessary, and we should be using the standard grey background that is used for every other team bracket, such as {{8TeamBracket}}. Nonetheless, the accessibility issue should be addressed. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 05:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If they are not AAA-compliant, it's better to use the standard grey bg. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there any reason behind the specific red and blue backgrounds, or is it just done for contrast reasons? Spike 'em (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Democratic and Republican? ;) -- SuperJew (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I did wonder if it was that simple! There is a |flip= parameter which switches the 2 conferences, but not the colours, which would indicate that the colouring is purely decorative. Spike 'em (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

They're on the borderline and can be made compliant by lightening the colours a bit - i.e. use #E3F3FC for the light blue and #FFE5EC for the pink. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I've amended the template above (using slightly different colours than suggested here), but are there more MLS tempalates? I see there is an NBA version that uses similar light blue / pink that could do with being changed too. Spike 'em (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Football squad player

The template has been in the process of merging with Template:Football squad player since February 2020. I don't know what the technical limitations are, but is the merge that complicated to complete? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, all the edits that were required as a result of the merger discussion have been made. However, I'm not sure what the best approach to the next step is – redirect {{Football squad player2}} to the original or get a bot to replace it? Cheers, Number 57 18:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

All the articles that use {{Fs player2}} don't display the correct table. See Al Hilal SFC and Toronto FC, for example. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

In that case a bot run will be needed to both replace the template, add fs start/mid/end as appropriate and delete the extraneous table coding. Number 57 18:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I've also noticed that the editor who was blocking this work being completed was indeff'd in May this year, so hopefully progress can be made. Number 57 18:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

2022–23 Super League Greece 2 fixtures

Does anybody know of these have been released yet - and if not, when they will? The season is meant to start in 2 weeks... GiantSnowman 20:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

According to the Greek Wikipedia article, the season will start in October. On an off note, shouldn't Super League Greece 2 be moved to Super League 2 (Greece)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

A friendly match is missing

The match was Cosmos 1-3 Gremio (BRA) (Sunday, August 30, 1981 - at the Giants Stadium). I have the promotional poster, if needed. The match was nominated "SPECIAL INTERNATIONAL MATCH". Gremio was the Brazilian League Champion of the 1981 season. The midfield Paulo Isidoro was nominated the best player in Brazil at that year. This championship leads the club to became the 1983's South American and World Champion (called "Intercontinental Cup" at that time).

Gremio (Grêmio Foot-Ball Porto Alegrense, founded in 1903) is one of Brazil's main teams, having the biggest crowd in the southern Brasil. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%AAmio_Foot-Ball_Porto_Alegrense

I don't know how to edit Wikipedia, so I don't want to mess it up. It would be nice If somebody else here can do it... If anyone wants more information, write me, please. Thanks Carlos Moll (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Carlos Moll, that game is listed here: 1981_New_York_Cosmos_season#Friendlies. However, individual games generally don't get their own articles unless they are covered by multiple reliable sources. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:FC Barcelona

Perhaps some members of FOOTY could take a look at Talk:FC Barcelona#DEBATE ON A MORE ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF FC BARCELONA? The OP apparently wanted to debate this, but then started using socks and posting replies in support when others didn't respond. The OP might also be other socks editing the various FC Barcelona articles as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing attention to this. I have engaged with it. I think it highlights a wider problem with WikiProject Football where we write an article about a football team but almost always refer to them in the header as a (semi-)professional "football club", failing to distinguish them from the wider incorporated club of which it may only be one section. In my opinion, even though the full name of Manchester United's men's team is branded "Manchester United Football Club", and even though the full name of Manchester United's women's team is branded "Manchester United Women Football Club", both should then still be referred to as a professional, association football team. The wikilink article that "football club" is always linked to, already possesses the title "football team" and already makes the same distinction between the two in its detail so it seems so bizarre to me that the text is always changed to "football club:". JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not that I think what the OP was proposing in that discussion was something not worthy of discussion. The problem was that the OP appears to have one or more different accounts to try and circumvent their primary account being blocked and then commented in the discussion in a WP:ILLEGIT manner. If some FOOTY members feel the subject is worth discussing and want to act on it, then that's fine. The main concern was that the OP would try to implement such a change (possibly using another SOCK) by claiming a consensus for it was established on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I've struck out the comment from the confirmed sock, anything further from new accounts needs to be treated with care / scepticism. Spike 'em (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:English Football League players

Is there any reason why Category:English Football League players isn't divided into Category:EFL Championship players, Category:EFL League One players and Category:EFL League Two players? Every time I go to add one of the latter three categories for a player, I forget that those categories don't exist (I now transformed them into redirects). The EFL category itself has over 27,000 entries anyway, so dividing it into Championship, League One and League Two make sense. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

No it does not - because then you will have 3 categories instead of 1 on many player articles. GiantSnowman 20:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how would you resolve the categorisation of the century of league divisions before that setup? Crowsus (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@GS Most players wouldn't have all three categories. If someone, for instance, only played in League One, he wouldn't have the Championship and League Two categories. Idk, it doesn't seem so practical to me to have tier 2, tier 3 and tier 4 league players merged together. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

No, lots of players would have all three, as many players play in all 4 divisions of English football over the course of their career - and more besides, given the historical leagues that Crowsus mentions. GiantSnowman 21:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure (haven't exhaustively checked) but I am reasonably certain that Nicky Southall played in all of the following: Division Four and Division Three (pre-1992), Division One and Division Two (between 1992 and 2004), Championship, League One and League Two (post-2004). Would he require seven different "divisions played in" categories.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I suppose we could theoretically have categories called things like Category:EFL Championship and predecessors players but then how would be treat players who played in Division One prior to 1992, because there's no equivalent to that in the present structure? Would we have Category:Football League Division One (1888-1992) players, which wouldn't be consistent with the others at all.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

That's also applicable to many other players in other countries, who may play across the various tiers. Other countries all have various categories for their various leagues, do they not? It's inconsistent for England to be unique in combining leagues. Either should be a unique category for each league for consistency or perhaps we change categories to "Players who played XYZ domestic league football" RedPatch (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Or maybe separate based on tiers rather than the specific division name, so that it even works with historical leagues. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I think based on tiers can confuse the average user (and some editors too, me included). League name is the easiest. And for historical can have a separate cat. --SuperJew (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

So do we create separate categories for the six divisions of the EFL between 1888 and 1992, the three divisions of the EFL between 1992 and 2004, and the three (differently named) divisions of the EFL since 2004? So twelve different categories? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Clean sheet Juventus v Spezia

Hello. Who gets it? Wojciech Szczęsny, who played from first minute, or Mattia Perin, who replaced the former in the first half because of injury? Island92 (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say - although, for that matter, what does it matter? WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 21:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I refer to this section.--Island92 (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

What does the source used to reference that section say? Spike 'em (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Technically, if neither goalkeeper conceded a goal then they both kept a clean sheet. That's usually how it would get recorded but clean sheets aren't as easy to source as goals (obviously). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say the table on 2022–23 Juventus F.C. season#Clean sheets isn't needed. It's not sourced, and don't see what encyclopedic value it adds, as it doesn't look to be easily sourceable, as sources aren't clear which of those 2 goalkeepers got awarded a clean sheet yesterday. Pointless table that will probably only ever have 2 or 3 rows. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

IIRC, cleansheets are only recorded for goalkeepers who played a full match? Depends on who's checking. Some league would credit both, fantasy usually credits only if keeper played over 60 minutes, Opta credit only for full match --SuperJew (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Added data for both.--Island92 (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It is unsourced. I would remove it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

So now the number of clean sheets in the table is different to what happened in the real world. Utter nonsense : find a source otherwise the table will be deleted. Spike 'em (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Source added.--Island92 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The source you added does not say anything about clean sheets. I've removed the table. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

For which reason is the clean sheet table unsourced? Just look at the result matches in the table and you get to know where Juventus did not concede goals.--Island92 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The source for the result indicates if Juventus did not concede a goal. It does not indicate the goalkeeper statistic of "clean sheet". That's why it is unsourced. – Elisson • T • C • 15:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yet another season article with a dazzling array of tables and literally two sentences of actual prose, I note..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Jogurney/Association football BLP cleanup

As discussed a few weeks ago, I've been building out this list to track GNG sourcing efforts for football biographies that are highly likely to meet the GNG (e.g., 100+ matches in La Liga, Bundesliga, Premier League, Serie A or Ligue 1), but are currently poorly sourced. I'm also improving sourcing on the listed articles as I have time, but I wanted to share with the group so interested editors can join the effort. Ideally, I would like to move this list to a Football Project page, and await advice on when and where to do that. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Norwich City F.C.

I have nominated Norwich City F.C. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 13:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)