Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Football and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:WPF WT:FOOTY

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Football Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Football page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167Auto-archiving period: 7 days

WikiProject Football

Project pages
Project talk page Task forces Portal New articles Cleanup articles Unreferenced BLPs Article alerts Popular pages
Assessment Assessment department (talk) Assessment log
Format templates Club articles Club templates National team articles National team templates National association articles National assn. templates Competition articles League season articles (Lua tables) Club seasons articles Country seasons articles Match articles Player articles Stadium articles
Other Consensus Category structure Notability criteria Fully professional leagues (talk) Template list Sources and links Booklist Members Recognised content Vital articles Project milestones Did You Know? archive
v t e

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 9 July 2012.

I thought there was a guideline on the notability of individual soccer matches, but I can't find the page for it. There is the generic WP:SPORTSEVENT, which seems to be applicable in this case.

There are a number of articles on English Football League Two play-off Finals (and lower level finals), from the recent 2016 Football League Two play-off Final to things like 1988 Football League Second Division play-off Final, 1987 Football League Fourth Division play-off Final and 1996 Football League Third Division play-off Final. Basically, all 72 pages in Category:Football League play-off Finals. These seem to fall below the threshold for individual games. Opinions? Fram (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Playoff finals (particularly the Championship playoff) are in themselves notable. The Championship playoff final is routinely described as "the richest game in football", i.e. it is of more economic importance than even a Champions League final. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK for the championship final, what about the lower levels? Going from Level 3 to Level 2 obviously has some economic importance, but nothing compared to going to the Premier League. Fram (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't WP:GNG apply? If there are sufficient third-party sources, what's wrong with having articles on them? – PeeJay 14:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP/WP:NOTNEWS. There are sufficient sources for every game in the Premier League (and every top league in, let's say the 20 most important European competetions), but they all come over a very short period. Few games will receive significant attention apart from the short burst right before and after the game. Fram (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the notbality guidelines do say that sources have to be more than routine news coverage, so sources have to go beyond that. Note that the list at WP:SPORTSEVENTS states that "Some games or series are inherently notable, including but not limited to the following" (my emphasis). The list there is not intended to be exhaustive, so it's probably at our discretion to decide whether or not these games are inherently notable. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The play-off finals in the English league system are more akin to cup finals. There are trophies and medals awarded to the winners and the matches are played at the national stadium. I think this makes them more notable (and more extensively covered) than routine league games. Other leagues (e.g. Scotland, Germany) have two-legged playoff finals, where the matches played at each team's home ground and no trophies or medals are awarded. This makes them feel more like part of the league season. We don't normally have separate articles for these playoffs. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a fake distinction to me. The basic importance of the game isn't changed because a medal is awarded. Note that while e.g. the League 2 game is usually played at Wembley, the stadium was hardly sold out (the attendance was only 14000 in 2014 and 11000 in 2011). We dont have separate articles for e.g. the final of a tennis tournament (apart from the Grand Slams), even though there as well trophies are awarded and the main court is used. So I still don't see why the final of a lower league season is more notable than e.g. the yearly Manchester derby in the Premier League or El Clásico in Spain, for which we don't have separate articles per match. Fram (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well those games are bigger in terms of attendance, but part of a regular season; the play-offs have a bigger notability and impact because they change the league in which someone has played.

I'm more persuaded by the comparison to Grand Slam finals, though we shouldn't based ourselves too much on WP:OTHERSTUFF. Fundamentally, the content of these articles could easily be incorporated into the relevant league season, certainly for League One and League Two. I'd be more open to keeping the Championship final Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just boldly redirected 1988 Football League Second Division play-off Final, which contained teamsheets, lots of untidy coloured formatting, and little else, to a paragraph at 1987–88 Football League#Second Division play-offs. Wonder how long it'll last. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have worked, perhaps we need to do the same with all 2nd division and lower matches (assuming they don't have an added reason for individual notability, like some disaster or being the farewell match of some major football star). Fram (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that any source Kosovar of Albanian ethnicity had an automatic rights to Albanian citizenship, or just due to that also had parent or ancestry born within modern border of Albania, or they naturalized as a refugee in Albania after few year of residency ? It look silly to claim every Kosovar was eligible to represent Albania, as stated in FIFA eligibility rules. it is not quite certain why Etrit Berisha, Samir Ujkani and Lorik Cana was eligible but activate the clause of parent and grandparent POB. Matthew_hk tc 09:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

an interesting article Matthew_hk tc 09:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most Kosovars are ethnic Albanians of which most have parents/grand parents/grand grand parents that came from Albania. Since there is a dispute between Serbia, who had Kosovo as province, and local ethnic Albanians (now called Kosovars) which want independence, most Kosovars choose not to represent the country they were born in, Serbia, but rather the country of their ancestors, Albania.

Now that Kosovo became accepted at FIFA and UEFA perhaps that trend will change and they will start playing for Kosovo. FkpCascais (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article i cited wrote Kosovar people did not automatically receive Albanian passport, due to Albanian are visa free to EU, if granting all ethnic Albanian in Kosovo with Albanian passport, that would be a problem to EU. In theory if someone born in Kosovo with ancestors all born in modern border of Kosovo, he cannot claim Albanian passport by ancestry but residency in Albania and knowledge of Albanian language, or granting by the president of Albania in case by case basis, such as sport merit .

I just want to point out that it seem not all Kosovar people (ethnic Albanian) would have Albanian citizenship automatically, just the case of Canadian, US, UK, Australian and New Zealander. It would cause edit war to alleged every Kosovar are Albanian citizen. Matthew_hk tc 09:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simple question - is there any good reason that we habitually pipe links for football teams? I'm thinking of Tottenham Hotspur, Maidstone United, Guangzhou Evergrande Taobao, Deportivo de La Coruña or any other number of team names which will clearly redirect to the team article. I'm not asking for articles to be moved (I see the value in the consistency of always including the relevant 'F.C.' etc), but rather what I'm questioning is the time taken in writing [[Tottenham Hotspur|Tottenham Hotspur F.C.]] when [[Tottenham Hotspur]] will clearly do? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's good practice to use direct links rather than rely on redirects. Off the top of my head, a few reasons for this are:

• Redirects being retargeted by vandals will be spotted less quickly because fewer people have them on their watchlist.
• Redirects are sometimes turned into DAB pages, which leaves a large number of links pointing at the wrong page.
• If an article is moved, this creates double redirects from multiple articles.

Plus a good number of editors find redirects irritating. I really don't see how taking an extra five seconds or so to do it properly is a problem. Number 57 10:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or... Redirects are usually fine, so long as they work. The relevant guideline says so: "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles." Particularly in prose, where it's rather easier for an editor to cope with

[[Brighton & Hove Albion]]'s [[left back]] scored in [[extra time]]

than

[[Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.|Brighton & Hove Albion]]'s [[defender (association football)#Full-back|left back]] scored in [[overtime (sports)|extra time]]

in the editing window.

Personally, I'll use a redirect in prose where it's easier, so long as it's likely to remain working; I do tend to pipe something like [[Templatia City F.C.|Templatia City]], where the football club might realistically not remain the primary topic for Templatia City. <rant alert> What drives me spare is when people go round "fixing" working redirects when the guideline says "Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental", and continue to do so even after being advised that following the guideline would actually save themselves work... </rant over> cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, what we often have at footy is also the overlinking problem. There is an habbit to link every single mention of one club everywhere in one article often ending in a situation where one club can be linked 5-6 times in it. The ideal situation would be to have just one link (piped correctly if piped) and then the other mentions would be just writen normally without linking. FkpCascais (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cheers all! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could an Admin please delete Mahdi Abdul-Zahra under G4. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JMHamo: Done. Number 57 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One editor disagrees with how we display clubs at UEFA Euro 2016 squads. According to the article lead The club listed is the club for which the player last played a competitive match prior to the tournament, (same as other and previous tournaments) while User:Centaur271188 wants to follow UEFA. Please advice at article talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just an issue for the UEFA Euro 2016 squads article but it also continues with discrepancies and inconsistencies in the National Team articles. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the players that join a new club on 1 July? SLBedit (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check the edits by 2001:8A0:F23E:1201:7051:CEFE:E581:7F17 (talk · contribs)? This is a stub but this is not? How come? SLBedit (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that it looks weird that their only edits are assessing articles and they have assessed a lot since first edit on 28 May. Qed237 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237: I have found two more IPs doing the same. On 22 May 2001:8A0:F23E:1201:F832:DD91:C549:E5BF (talk · contribs), on 29 May 2001:8A0:F23E:1201:1973:E6E5:AC3A:B75E (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my area of expertice and I dont assess articles, but someone must take a look at this and see if the assessments are good or if we perhaps even need to request a rangeblock. Qed237 (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new discussion about stadiums and sponsor names at a move request. Please comment on Talk:Britannia Stadium#Requested move 2 June 2016. Qed237 (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The requested move is Britannia Stadium to "Bet365 Stadium". Qed237 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger football clubs generally have a 'List of ABC FC records and statistics' page that also includes an honours section. They also have an honours section on the main club page itself. This doesn't cause duplication when the list page is the comprehensive one and the main club page is the summary one, like with Bayern Munich, Barcelona, and Real Madrid. However, when the Arsenal F.C.#Honours section started growing, there was a lot of fight across the talk pages about whether friendlies and other smaller honours belonged on the club page, and Koncorde (talk · contribs) and admin Number 57 (talk · contribs) put their feet down and said nothing should be removed from the club honours section, even if it was maintained in the list of records page. Number 57 said 'the idea that only honours listed by the FA or intermational organisations [should be listed] is, quite frankly, bonkers.' As a result, we have two almost entirely duplicated lists on the club page and list of records page. Now, admin The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) and bureaucrat/oversighter Dweller (talk · contribs) have come in and said the club page looks ridiculous, and The Rambling Man has put a fancruft tag on part of the section. Can we come to some sort of consensus on this? It would be nice to get the tag off a featured article as quick as possible. Madshurtie (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For an idea of the opinions so far, the list of people who have previously suggested stuff should be moved from the club page includes me, Hashim-afc (talk · contribs), Sport and politics (talk · contribs), Davefelmer (talk · contribs), PerelmanMorales (talk · contribs) (blocked sockpuppet), Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk · contribs), The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), and Dweller (talk · contribs). People who have opposed any offloading include Qed237 (talk · contribs), Koncorde (talk · contribs), and Number 57 (talk · contribs). Sorry if I've missed/miscategorized anyone. Madshurtie (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to remove cited content. The issue with the approach some have taken is to remove stuff that they personally dislike because of their own vested interests. Whether all tournaments qualify as "honours" to be included in an article is open to debate, but removing them because someone else created another article or just because you don't like them is not a justification. In particular DaveFelmer was just blanking sections because stuff was "regional", even if at the time a regional trophy was all that existed.

On the same note, as a few people pointed out at the time - some clubs are only eligible for some competitions so their "honours" may not meet any subjective criteria applied to Arsenal or Bayern.

As it stands, the cruft is on the lists page in most cases, which is fine. Whereas honours are integral to a club, and have no reason to be diminished.

To return to original point - friendly tournaments are open to discussion, as informal pretty season invitationals. However at the same time, some prestigious events in football history started as "Friendlies" and are no less historically relevant. Texaco cups...less so. Koncorde (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say: remove friendly honours except if they are extremely important to the club history (may be subjective) and keep friendly honours in the other article if they are notable. SLBedit (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, regardless of the content issue here, neither my position as an admin nor Dweller's position as an admin/'crat/oversighter has any bearing whatsoever on our opinions as editors. I think I'm right in saying that neither Dweller or I believe that the inclusion of such a plethora of pathetic non-notable trophies does the Arsenal F.C. page any favours. Indeed, it diminishes the higher quality wins as they are all represented in equal standing. If absolutely necessary, create a content fork to include all such pathetic trophies, and there an explanation as to the notability and relevance of each and every tinpot can be explained. That would be far preferable to bloating the half-decent Arsenal article with such detritus. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On that quick note, I'm sorry for bringing up your status, I was just trying to indicate this wasn't just a few more inexperienced editors rehashing an old discussion, instead we had disagreement between some far more experienced and competent editors. Forget I mentioned it. :-( Madshurtie (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the honours section in Arsenal F.C. looks ridiculous because of "Other honours". SLBedit (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "pathetic trophy"? Koncorde (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's start with those that are considered so non-notable that they don't have articles. Next we'll move onto pre-season friendly tournament trophies and "memorial" cups. That should remove about half the detritus on the Arsenal page. This isn't some kind of a "how big is your dick" competition. If Arsenal themselves don't give a tinker's cuss about 90% of the "honours" that are listed on Wikipedia, why should we? As I said, if all these pathetic cups need to be covered, create a fork and explain, with references, why each and every trophy should be listed, perhaps with some background on the history of each of the non-notable competitions and perhaps with some indication as to the type of contest, the number of entrants, the quality of the entrants, the finals etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that for a club of Arsenal's size, friendly/exhibition trophies should be on the List of page only, with the main article focusing on top tier & continental trophies. I'd compare to tennis articles: Roger Federer#Career statistics lists only Grand Slam titles and Roger Federer career statistics has Challenger, Junior and Exhibition level trophies. I think that this sets a good precedent that we could follow. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where does that leave all the competitions that are not pre-season/memorial, nor top tier/continental? For instance, the London Senior Cup and London Challenge Cup? Number 57 19:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the same boat for me. Do Arsenal list them on their honours page? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter what Arsenal lists on their honours page? Wikipedia is not the same as Arsenal.com. Tottenham lists friendly cups on their website in an 'other honours' section. Does that mean Wikipedia should list friendly cups on the Tottenham article only and not the Arsenal article? No. (I agree with your overall point by the way of removing the friendly cups, but not with comparing Wikipedia with the Arsenal website; that logic is totally flawed.) Hashim-afc (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Wherever possible, this website should be reporting what reliable sources say, rather than inventing our own criteria. However, as has been noted in many previous 'honours' debates, our problem is that different sources differ on what they list. However, there aren't so many clubs/articles/honours that we can't judge this on a case by case basis. The Brazilian regional leagues are more important than the county cups in England. Tottenham Hotspur's 1900 Southern League win, from when it was the 2nd or 3rd highest quality competition in England, is generically much more notable than Poole Town's 2016 win of the same competition, when it's ~the 10thm though for each club individually the Southern League win is probably more important for Poole than Spurs. Club honours pages can make sense to draw from but there's also reasonable negotiation on each club's pages to follow. What's certain is that the current Arsenal page is far too excessive. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The logic is not "totally flawed" in any way at all. If the club that has won these so-called honours doesn't recognise them, and Wikipedia doesn't recognise them (as they are non-notable), they simply should be expunged. Or driven into a fork where their significance and context can be adequately explained, as I mentioned above. If you don't understand what I'm saying, in summary: push all the minor honours into a "List of Arsenal honours" or similar. So normal readers who are interested in things like the Champions League wins etc, don't wade through 1910s friendly cups. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You sure normal readers of an encyclopedia wouldn't be interested in anything that happened more than five minutes ago? Or more obscure than the Champions League? Hey ho... Struway2 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all, and that's why I'm suggesting that these "wins" are moved to an appropriate fork and given the breadth of coverage they deserve. I chanced upon the London Senior Cup article after Number 57 had remarked on it. It's crap. And has no real context. Why not make this a real solution, why not stick with the honours that Arsenal and mainstream RS consider to be Arsenal honours, and then actually do some work to describe to our readers why these minor trophies actually count for anything? And I haven't checked, but I'm guessing that Arsenal are including their 1931 league win in their honours, so I'm not convinced about the five-minute argument you're suggesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I exaggerate for effect, as do you. And all Senior Cup articles are crap. It's a function of Senior Cups not having been important to big clubs since the 1910s, and of prose being far more difficult to write than lists and horribly formatted bullet-points, and of all County FA websites having redesigned out any historical content. The Arsenal honours shouldn't include endless lists of ancient or modern pre-season friendlies, and what's included should depend on reliable (preferably independent) sources. But if there are competitions that modern sources ignore because they're old and scary and not trending on social media but were significant at the time, they shouldn't be shunted out of the main article, the prose should be in that main article to inform the normal reader why they're there. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I would agree with you wholesale if it were not for the fact that it generates sections of club articles which are utterly bloated with historical (not historic) minor trophies. Moving them to a fork where appropriate (e.g. for Arsenal) seems perfectly logical and legitimate. I am still waiting for someone to give me feedback on the idea that these minor wins should also come with some context, i.e. was it a first-team win, was it a one-off match or a multi-match tournament, etc etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that "minor" wins should have context. Thank you for suggesting it. I shall, forthwith (or tomorrow morning, anyway), move the hidden note about the 1905 Birmingham Senior Cup in Birmingham City F.C.#Honours to visible and add a bit to it. Likewise the wartime league win. But leave the other hidden note, about the section being for competitive honours and not pre-season tournaments or friendly matches, in place. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man, I agree with you that we should move the minor honours onto the other page. But I disagree with using what the club's official website says. Tottenham's official website recognises and lists all of their friendly cups, that doesn't mean we should include them on Wikipedia for Tottenham and not Arsenal which is what you imply. Hashim-afc (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the honours section on the Arsenal F.C. page to what I think it should look like. What do you guys think of it now? Hashim-afc (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is there now is pretty much exactly what I would hope to see. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In line with Struway's comments above, I think the article is definitely the poorer for the removal of cups that were of higher importance in the past (e.g. the London cups). I don't mind the removal of the pre-season friendly cups, but proper competitions should have been retained. This just looks like Premier League-era dumbing down to me. Number 57 21:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have given people a bit more time to add their thoughts before actually changing it again, even if this arrangement is almost exactly what I prefer. Of course, the additional trophies were added without consensus in the first place, so what the default state should be is unclear to me. Madshurtie (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I think it's fair to say that, while the London cups (and the wartime leagues, and others) have historical importance and were important in their time, these competitions were much more limited and less competitive, which is why they aren't as celebrated as the ones organized by national and international bodies. Football League title and FA Cups go back over a century, so I don't agree this is Premier League-era dumbing down. Madshurtie (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they were important in their time, then they are still relevant today as we don't do WP:RECENTISM. We're an encylopedia not a daily newspaper or magazine. Number 57 21:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why they can go into the honours fork, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's appropriate. It might be for all the pre-season nonsense, but not proper competitions. Number 57 21:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have to draw the line somewhere, forks already exist for honours and managers and seasons etc. The main article should not be overly detailed in any one aspect, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the line has to be drawn somewhere, but we obviously disagree on where that line should be. Let's see what other editors think. Number 57 22:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we agree we should split out, at least we are forming consensus on something! Where the line should be is very important. I suggested a few others last time. Madshurtie (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were important in their time because they were all that was available. This doesn't mean they are as important for all time. Modern friendlies get widespread media coverage because they are what is going on, not because newspapers consider them as important as league matches. Madshurtie (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that unless the previous cups have articles and those articles actually explain the context of each win, they should be removed. I'm not for censoring club's honours, but honestly, unless someone can actually read about why the 1941 City of Edinburgh Cup was worthy of inclusion, I have no idea why it's there. Who did they play? Why did they play it? Was it a 31-match tournament or was it just a one-off in a field somewhere? Come on, we have forks for all the things that aren't really covered in the main article, you all know that. As for "cups that were of higher importance", where is that defined? I'm not trying to be a shithead but honestly, one man's Simod Cup is another man's European Cup. As an encyclopedia, we should be dealing with this appropriately as pertaining to each club. Arsenal have won a significant number of honours, just as they have had significant numbers of managers and played for a significant number of seasons. We don't and shouldn't ever try to cover that in the main article. We already have an Arsenal honours article. What's the issue? If someone wants to claim that certain war-time trophies are somehow more "significant" than other local London cups, fine, but don't bloat the main AFC page with these trivial wins. Or at least discuss them individually to determine what's trivial and what's not. Record winners of the "Caltex Cup"? Really? Well knock me down with a feather. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we should be basing things on whether the cups have existing articles, since WP:NOTFINISHED. New research could be discovered that makes a previously overlooked cup notable, say. Madshurtie (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're saying delete the cup, just move it to the honours list. And if you're trying to argue not finished, each of these really should be red linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you initially didn't seem to want them at all (or at least without in-line explanation), so was just making sure. Wikipedia does include things within articles that aren't notable enough for a page of their own, no? Madshurtie (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this; "I'm not trying to be a shithead but honestly, one man's Simod Cup is another man's European Cup. As an encyclopedia, we should be dealing with this appropriately as pertaining to each club." who decides what, when, where? Also, with regards to removing the "City of Edinburgh Cup" - if you do not know of its significance, this does not mean that it is not significant. Per WP:NOTFINISHED that is the weakest and most spurious reason to remove content (it was a Wartime competition for the Scottish War Memorial Fund, between Arsenal and Hearts btw, finishing 1-0 to Arsenal, Alf Kirchen scoring the only goal). Koncorde (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion has progressed significantly since your question, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm....since when has it been standard to list (especially a club like Arsenal, who has won many titles) being a league runner-up? You don't get medals for coming second in the Premier League...should be removed. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the club template, and it was the 2010 FA review form of the Arsenal page until someone removed them without discussion in 2012. See the club talk page. This is, of course, a separate issue. Madshurtie (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: @Number 57: @Koncorde: What does everyone think about creating a category for the London Football Association and moving it to the club page? It would mean we'd only be adding about three tournaments to the club page (London Senior Cup, London Charity Cup, London Challenge Cup), and, as Struway2 (talk · contribs) says in his Birmingham City edit, County Cups were among the most important tournaments in their day. It would be an objective category and might prove a decent attempt at consensus? Madshurtie (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Hashim-afc (talk · contribs) has gone ahead and done it anyway. Would still be interested to hear your views though. Madshurtie (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a definite improvement. I still think it could be cut down significantly by removing the heading and the runners-up (Arsenal only have two European honours for instance). If the headings are really deemed to be needed (not sure how), then the county ones could be combined into County FAs or something. Number 57 14:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it becomes much less readable without the headings. They also make it clearer what is being excluded from the page. After spotting the Kent Senior Cup, I would have combined them under a County Football Associations heading, but Hashim had already changed it; now I'm pretty indifferent. I'm also indifferent on removing runners-up. If people want to add to that discussion on the talk page, I'd like to hear more. Madshurtie (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob^Talk 22:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could someone take a look at 2016–17 Premier League. An editor insists that Tottenham will play all matchers on Wembley, based on this announcement. My understanding however is that they will only play Champions League on Wembley this season. Am I wrong? Qed237 (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source says they'll be playing Premier League matches at Wembley in 2017/8, but not 2016/7. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite clear. They'll be playing Champions League matches at Wembley in 2016/17 because White Hart Lane won't meet UEFA requirements due to construction work, with an option of playing all domestic home games there in 2017/18 as they will then have to vacate White Hart Lane to complete the the new stadium. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just as I thought. Messages like this made me think so I wanted to be sure. Qed237 (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the page on my watchlist to keep an eye on it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Facebook Football Awards notable? I doubt it, but I am not sure. Qed237 (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was my gut instinct too. but there is some reporting for it from 'respected' media outlets. so may just need some more diverse referencing (I found the following four with ease)

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, in fact, notable, the article definitely requires some work. I assume it's a result of some poll on Facebook but there's next to no information given about that. -Gopherbashi (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question: is Campeonato Brasileiro Série C a fully professional league? I've raised this question in the past back at WT:FPL but there were little answers/too much fighting/poor evidences.

Down to the facts: in the page 6/Chapter III of the tournament's regulation, called DA CONDIÇÃO DE JOGO DOS ATLETAS (Fitness Condition of Athletes), it says:

* Art. 5º - Somente poderão participar do Campeonato os atletas que tenham sido registrados na DRT e cujos nomes constem do BID publicado até o último dia útil que anteceder a cada partida. Parágrafo único - Contratos de novos atletas para utilização no Campeonato poderão ser registrados até o dia 29/09/2016. (Art 5th - Only the athletes who were registered in DRT¹ and whose names appear in BID² published until the last day before each match can play in the championship. Sole paragraph - Contracts of new athletes to be utilized in the championship can only be registered until 29 September 2016.)

• Art. 6º - Todas as referências ao BID aqui expressas devem considerar o que prevê o Capítulo IV do RGC e o RNRTAF – Regulamento Nacional de Registro e Transferência de Atletas de Futebol. (Art 6th - All references to BID here expressed must consider what provides the Chapter IV of RCG³ and RNRTAF - National Regulation of Registration and Transfers of Football Athletes.)

If we take a look at the RGC, page 26 (Chapter IV, as referred in Série C's regulation), it says:

* Art. 33 - Somente poderão participar das competições os atletas profissionais que tenham seu Contrato Especial de Trabalho Desportivo devidamente registrado nas respectivas federações; e atletas não profissionais devidamente registrados também em suas respectivas federações. (Art 33rd - Only the athletes who have their Special Playing Contract properly registered in their respective federations can play in the competitions; and non-professional athletes properly registered also in their respective federations.)

• § 2º - Somente poderão registrar contratos profissionais aqueles clubes que participam de competições profissionais coordenadas pela CBF ou em competições profissionais de âmbito estadual. (§ 2nd - Only clubs who play in professional competitions coordenated by CBF or in professional state league competitions can register professional contracts.)

Série C is clearly considered a professional league, and the same can be applied to Série D (regulation here). All of those regulations basically mean: if a team play in a professional competition (all competitions organized by CBF are professional), the club can register a professional contract. If a player actually has a professional contract, in a professional club, playing in a professional league, the league should be included in WP:FPL, right?

I've raised this again also because Campeonato Paulista and Campeonato Mineiro are both considered FPLs (correctly), even despite they're technically below Série C in the pyramid of Brazilian football (Série A > Série B > Série C > Série D > State Leagues).

Can someone give an input of the subject here? I'd be very thankful. MYS77 ^✉ 04:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• GiantSnowman, Number 57, FkpCascais, Gsfelipe94, Struway2, Be Quiet AL: what do you guys think about it? Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 17:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two questions: Firstly, is it the case that clubs can register professional contracts with players, or that they must? If it's only "can", then it doesn't mean they do. Secondly, how much are these professional contracts valued at? If it only means payment of some kind, then it could be the case that these are really semi-pro players. Number 57 17:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Art. 33 in translation says: "It can only pay in the competitions the professional players that have the Special Contract of Sports Labour registered in their respective federations; plus non professional athletes which are registered in their respective federations."
    • This would basically mean that it is a semi-professional league since both type of players can play, professional and non-professional. The professional leagues are the ones that in that article say that only professional players can play. FkpCascais (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Number 57: In Série C and Série D, they must. All of the players in Série C are full-time footballers, and some of them have appeared in top level leagues of Brazil and even Europe. @FkpCascais: The amend says that only professional players can play in professional competitions organized by CBF. Série C is a professional competition organized by CBF. I'd say it is a professional leagues, as Série D is too. MYS77 ^✉ 17:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesnt say only CBF but the players can be registered in their respective federations (the regional ones) as well. Clearly says non-professinal players can play, thus it is clearly not a fully professional league. This is a good exemple of semi-professional league. FkpCascais (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @FkpCascais: I think you didn't get the point. The part which mentions "non-professional players" is related to state league football (i.e. Campeonato Alagoano and those types of competitions). I thought you were Brazilian, that's why I mentioned you, mate. But Série C is as professional as Série A and B, although it was founded 11 years after the other two. Even those state leagues contain the word "professional" in their regulations. MYS77 ^✉ 19:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did understood exactly right, it is the state leagues wich are refered there, and as far as we know, most of them are not fully professional except two, and, preciselly because of that, article 33 makes reference to them, so the non professional players registered by the clubs in the state championships could play in the Serie C and D too. In conclusion, article 33 makes it clear non-professional players can play as well, and there is nothing more clear than that to make a call that the league is not fully-professional. FkpCascais (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • To say it in a very simple way, what article 33 says is that the clubs can use in the Serie C and D the same players thay use in the state championships. We know that ammong the 26 state championships, only two are fully professional (Paulista A1 and Mineiro), so it clearly indicates article 33 is made in a way for clubs to use the same players they use in the state championships, including the non-professionals. A fully professional league doesn't allow this. This is exactly the difference between a fully and semi professional league. FkpCascais (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Série A all the way to Série D are clearly professional, no doubt about that. State leagues are also in that group. The "§ 2nd" clearly states that the league is professional and requires a proper registration. If a player does not want to be a full-professional (meaning in that case he plays football but also has other jobs - something common with very small clubs where players can't live by playing just a few matches for a couple of months), he can still play in the league pending registration. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read Portuguese well enough to understand all the nuances, so I might be misinterpreting, but article 33 seems to say that players have to be registered, but they don't have to be professional. And if it is indeed common with small clubs that players can't make a living by playing football in that league, as Gsfelipe94 writes above, then it isn't "fully professional" within the WP:FPL definition. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur players are allowed to be registered to play in both Série C and Série D. See CBF súmulas (match docket) for:

• Guaratinguetá v Mogi Mirim (2016 Série C Round 3) [5] - Note player 14 Leonardo for Guaratinguetá has A in the column P/A (Profissional/Amador)
• Palmas v Ríver (2015 Série D Round 1) [6] - Note player 21 Italo Alves for Palmas as above.

Sorry to be so late to this discussion. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are titles won as an assistant manager really needed to be included at the honours section? See Zidane... Some articles would be getting a lot bigger. Kante4 (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)—[reply]

Not generally, Peter Taylor was almost a co-manager with Brian Clough so their achievements should be included in his article. Generally assistant role's shouldn't be included in the infobox either but that seems to be flaunted quite a bit too.--EchetusXe 13:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, overkill. What comes next, honours for goalkeeping/fitness coaches? --Be Quiet AL (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that all levels of the pyramid down to Level 11 / Step 7 come under the jurisdiction The Football Association. But who, if anyone, controls Level 12 and below?

The articles for Bristol and District Football League and Bristol and Avon Association Football League each say that Bristol and Avon is a feeder for Bristol and District. Bristol and District is shown on the Pyramid at level 14 and below, with Bristol and Avon at level 21. With Bristol and District condensing from seven small divisions in 2014–15 to six slightly larger division for 2015–16, this leaves a gap (level 20) between the two leagues, and logically this gap should be filled by raising Bristol and Avon to level 20. Is there some higher authority which controls levels at this depth? Or do we just get on and change them ourselves? Drawoh46 (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At that depth, no there isn't. The 'level 20', 'level 21' is unofficial - the presence of citations from fivethirtyeight and others just pushes it beyond original research, but these designations are essentially just people adding levels where promotion and relegation exists in certain regions: I don't think that the pyramid is officially documented beyond level 11/step 7. Really, the table at ]English football league system could be better cited, but in the absence of this, feel free to edit! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your response. I'll go ahead and make the necessary changes to put Bristol and Avon Association Football League at level 20. Drawoh46 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there are no official definitions of any level below 11 and in many cases leagues have been placed where they are simply because one club moved from league X to league Y a year or two ago or based on the site thepyramid.info, which is just some guy's personal site and doesn't seem to have been updated for about four years anyway. There's probably realistically quite a bit of OR on that page........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be honest with ourselves and scrap the table? Perhaps rearranging the information to remove the levels and to list leagues according to the county FAs with which they're registered might be the best way...? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent suggestion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! As well as scrapping the table below step 7, it would probably also be appropriate to remove references to levels from the articles for all affected leagues, perhaps by simply saying below step 7 or below level 11 in the text and in the infoboxes.Drawoh46 (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, with the addition that it would be worth noting to which league a team could gain promotion, as long as it was reliably sourced and not just based on guesswork...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the massive overlink in the table at level 11 and below (We don't need to link every league in every row of the table) and the fact it's just unreadable. I'd replace the rows past level 11 with another table which had (where known)

1. league name
2. number of divisions
3. Feeds into

Most of the articles on the leagues state where they feed into or are fed from. If they're wrong in the articles then someone should be correcting/removing the incorrect information. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though this is quite a big job - I might quietly work away on this on my sandbox over the summer with a target of being done by the new season. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you got in with that offer first, Super Nintendo Chalmers :)
And I'm taking it that you're referring to the changes necessary just to the English Football League System article. So, I'm assuming that there's no objection to anyone editing the various league articles, as they arise, to remove any references to levels below level 11 (or by changing them to words such as below level 11). Drawoh46 (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :) Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While you're dealing with the long term solution I'm going to deal with the overlink issue which currently exists. There's a lot of wording differences for the same leagues (URGH!) => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, just a minor query. In what order should we place awards templates on biographies? I'm thinking alphabetical as it's pretty clear-cut, Mick Channon being one example. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with more knowledge about page moves have a look at these articles? The article Thiago Alcântara is now redirected to Thiago (Footballer, 1993) which is empty and the content seems to be at Thiago (Footballer). I'm not sure that Thiago (Footballer) is the correct name either. --Jaellee (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the editor Wolfinho6 was doing, he seemed to move the article twice, leaving a blank page. He also left a redirect in the Wikipedia namespace, which probably should be deleted. I fixed the redirects and put the word "footballer" in lowercase, but maybe the article title should be discussed? It seems to me he is more often referred to simply as Thiago, so Thiago (footballer) might be best. Also, is it "Alcântara" or "Alcántara"? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the name should be. FC Bayern uses Thiago, his website, UEFA.com and FIFA.com use Thiago Alcántara. --Jaellee (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Given two ways of addressing him footballwise are shown by the sources (Thiago and Thiago Alcântara), I feel the previous title "Thiago Alcântara" was quite correct. But NEVER "Alcántara", that's the Spanish form of his last name. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Names like Thiago (footballer) should be reserved for when the player is rarely ever named with a surname, like how Portugal's Éder is never referred to as "Éder Lopes" to my understanding. "Thiago Alcântara" is not an obscure way of naming him at all, see [7] [8] [9]. Nobody would scratch their head at seeing "Thiago Alcântara" as a title in the same way as if "Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro" were a title. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it should be Thiago Alcântara as he's reasonably often known as that. Looks like it needs an admin to move it back to there though. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is â or á used in his name? There are sources for each of the variants. --Jaellee (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read above, fellow user, "â" is the correct form, "á" is a Spanish approach. Unless he has legally changed his surname, it is 100% wrong. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what is correct from a language point of view, but both UEFA and FIFA use á and he plays for Spain, so a Spanish name might not be so far off. --Jaellee (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please find an admin to revert to Thiago Alcântara first. certainly a controversial move to Thiago (footballer), as not only one notable Thiago = Tiago . Matthew_hk tc 00:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaellee: Actually, the FIFA link you posted is just a photo gallery. Thiago's official FIFA profile just uses the name Thiago, which is also listed as his "FIFA display name" in many official FIFA documents (Examples: [10], [11], [12], [13]). Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please would someone put the content back to Thiago Alcântara where it came from. We can discuss if a move is needed once the mess is fixed. Thanks in advance, Struway2 (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable? Isn't the third tier in Spain just reserves etc and not a pro-league? Seems little more than a youth team player?--Egghead06 (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFOOTY. The Spanish third tier is a normal league, not just reserve teams, but it isn't fully professional. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The national FA Sunday Cup is probably notable, but the Birmingham Sunday Challenge Cup surely isn't........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Sunday Challenge Cup is at AfD now... JMHamo (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template on that page should probably be deleted too. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the start of the silly season... could an Admin please revert & protect Eric Bertrand Bailly and probably move protect too. It was Eric Bailly before it was moved. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles needs protection to, such as Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang, Ousmane Dembélé and Mats Hummels. Qed237 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Mattythewhite: As I see you are online now... JMHamo (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Received this notification just as I went on his page after reading the BBC report about him... semi-protected and moved. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2016–17 UEFA Champions League#Kosovo. There is a dispute if we should follow FIFA who uses KVX or IOC (International Olympic Committee) who uses KOS. Qed237 (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On social media, the All India Football Federation uses the Indian football team title for their official twitter and facebook accounts and in the description says it is the official page for the India national team and the AIFF. Wouldn't that mean that the logo used by the accounts is not only the AIFF's but also the national team's? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]