Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Football (Rated 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

2020–21 in Belgian football#Managerial changes[]

Hi everyone, could anyone explain to me why on 2020–21 in Belgian football#Managerial changes the labeled section from 2020–21 Belgian First Division A is not displayed, while the section from 2020–21 Belgian First Division B is? I'm probably just overlooking something but can't figure it out. Thanks! Pelotastalk|contribs 12:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pelotas: The difference is that parts of the ""A" article are marked with <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>. Over at Help:Labeled section transclusion#Functions summary, it says that #lst "honors transclusion tags", so the parts of the "A" article that are outside the onlyinclude tags are not eligible for transclusion, even though labelled with <section /> tags. The solution, I think would be re-do the onlyinclude sections using more <section /> tags instead. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@John of Reading: I've just put <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> around the managerial changes part and that seems to work. Thanks! Pelotastalk|contribs 21:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


Hello. I think it would be useful if we added notes for when players are player-managers. This avoids a lot of confusion and avoids write "player-manager" every time in the infobox. Is what I did on André Strappe appropriate? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say there is nothing wrong with adding (player-manager) after the relevant club entry in the manager section of the infobox. GiantSnowman 16:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Writing player manager is easier for user navigation than using a note, where they have to click on the note everytime, which then takes them to the notelist. Having player manager in the infobox means it's no clicks instead of 1 or 2. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
But it gets really messy and confusing -- if a player is player-manager for one season and only manager the next and then switches to another club and does that again.... and also I don't really know where to put the "player-manager"... in the club career or managerial career section of the infobox? Or both? Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Alternative: leave it out of the infobox entirely and simply explain the situation in the prose. GiantSnowman 17:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
If a player managed a club between 1985 and 1997 and was also registered as a player but only between 1985 and 1991 after which he retired as a player then I would say we should list the club in the playing section of the infobox between 1985 and 1991 but in the managerial section for the whole period. In the (seemingly relatively unlikely) scenario that he then went to another club where he was manager and also "un-retired" as a player, then just show the appropriate dates for when he did each thing (which will mean there's a gap in his playing history but so be it) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: @ChrisTheDude: I think the suggestion from GiantSnowman is the best, we should just leave it out completely. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Carlos Vinícius[]

Can I ask, for Portuguese, when referring to his name in the article should we just be writing Carlos ? I ask because I only just saw the question on the article talk page there, so I am also completely unsure. Govvy (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

From what I've seen in English articles, we should use Vinícius instead of Carlos.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I think the Template:Portuguese name in that article may be misleading. If he were using the "standard" Portuguese naming system, then Alves and Morais are his 2 surnames, and Morais should be the one used (as that's the paternal surname). However, the sources seem to refer to him as Carlos Vinícius, which implies Vinícius is his surname. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be common for Brazilians. See Alex Sandro for example, who's surnames are Lobo and Silva. He is referred to as "Alex Sandro" throughout the article as that's the most common way to call him. I think it should be evaluated case by case. Nehme1499 18:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it needs to be case by case. In a lot of cases like this, the middle name acts like a last name, like CR7, Alex Sandro, Radamael Falcao etc.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


In the {{updated}} template, we write "As of match played 19 November 2019", but "As of goal scored on 10 October 2019" (see the MOS). Shouldn't both have "on" before the date? Nehme1499 01:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would have "As of match played date" for both. All the goals scored and matches played will be up to the same date anyway. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. For the international goals section, it would be better to write "as of match played". (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I've amended the MOS. Nehme1499 13:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Tournament Brackets[]

My edit to 1989–90 European Cup removing the Bracket section was reverted by Peejay with the reason " brackets provide a convenient summary of the path each team took through the tournament". Is including a bracket in articles of cups/tournaments that weren't played on a bracket basis acceptable? For example it states the winners of Milan/HJK would face the winners of Real Madrid/Spora. In reality there would have been a second round draw pitting Milan v Real. Doesn't it violate WP:OR? Dougal18 (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that we include it for current iterations of the Champions League (example), I don't see it as a problem. It's still a knock-out tournament, so the information represented in the bracket is accurate. Nehme1499 14:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I presume the reference to the tournament "not being played on a bracket basis" refers to the fact that the whole thing wasn't pre-drawn like, say, Wimbledon is? I don't think the presentation of the bracket would automatically make people assume that it was all pre-drawn. At the end of the day, the tournament was still played on a "winner moves into the next round to play another winner from the previous round" basis, which is what the bracket shows. I have seen such brackets presented in football annuals for the FA Cup, which is similarly not all pre-drawn. I think its inclusion is valid....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I would remove it as it is not pre-drawn and just a "random" bracket which is either added after all matches are played or edited after every round, which is both very odd. Kante4 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't see it as original research as it is merely presenting the results in a logical format to show progress. If some are misinterpreting the bracket as predetermined then the random nature of the round by round draws could be mentioned in a footnote below the bracket. Anyway, where does it specify that a bracket has to be fully predetermined? Bracket (tournament) (rightly or wrongly) seems to suggest both types are possible. --Jameboy (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Kante4, I don't think it should be used for competitions other than the Euros/World Cup etc which use the bracket to determine fixtures as it doesn't accurately represent a series of random draws. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I say keep the brackets with a note. They give a good overview. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with PrimeHunter, they provide a good overview and a note about when each draw was made should suffice. Felixsv7 (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

CAF confederation cup group D[]

sorry, i'm newbie, I don't know how, but CAF confederation cup group D on has the wrong last team. It shall be Namungo instead of 1º de Agosto. The aggregate score is 4–7, Namungo win i couldn't change it due to no editing experience on appropriate pages. please help Interkrok (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

They have not played single match yet it seems. Kante4 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems to have been fixed. Nehme1499 18:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah sorry, misunderstood the question. Kante4 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Houston Dynamo FC[]

So, been editing player pages for Houston Dynamo FC and noticed in the club article that there are so many sections that just seem unnecessary. How do we feel about the kit sections? Seems very bulky, unsourced. The rivalries table seems not needed especially when we have a page for the Texas Derby. Why do we need revenue and profitability when that is legit the MLS salary cap while the ranking is not technically correct since that is just base salaries and based on the salaries released by the MLS Players Association. And then the tables in the broadcasting section... way to bulky, the sources are not good or don't exist. Just seems like a lot of tables that just are not needed. Thoughts? Don't want to just remove without conversation. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the 'Uniforms' section per WP:NOTGALLERY. If there is other stuff which is unreferenced, poorly referenced and/or simply not appropriate, please WP:BEBOLD and remove it. GiantSnowman 20:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
It might be a idea to move the kits to this page on Wikimedia commons. Cheers! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

World Football Elo Ratings[]

The IP who keeps treating this as the ideal space for a statistical database dump has not relented despite previous attempts on the talk page, here, and their talk page... Any further opinion as to how much of the STATS-cruft should be kept/removed is appreciated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Personally I think the only stats that really should be kept is the top 25 rankings (compared to top 100 as it currently is) and the list of number one ranked teams. The rest of those stats can probably be removed. HawkAussie (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: I tried explaining it to the IP, here a long time ago (before I had an account); on the article talk page, and now even on their current talk page, but (and I verified this through xtools) they never, under any of their previous IPs, seem to have participated in any talk page discussion. Let's see if it gets reverted again... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
They're back at it, and they have not answered on their talk page or on the article talk. I'm starting to think the only solution would be a partial block from the article so that they can hopefully attempt discussion? @HawkAussie: In case all of the above doesn't get you a ping. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Xavi Simons, Timothée Pembélé, Kays Ruiz-Atil, and Édouard Michut[]

Hello. I am getting really confused with these four PSG youth players and what to classify them as. Let's go one by one.
Xavi Simons: Oblow14 keeps on removing Simons from the PSG squad template & makes him a U19 player on his article because he is not included in the club website's squad page. My argument is that even if he isn't, he should be classified as a first team player because he has been training with the first team since the beginning of January and has even made his pro debut already. This is enough to be counted in the first team for me. He even has a pro contract. What more can you ask apart from inclusion in the official club website pro squad?
Kays Ruiz-Atil: he was sent back to train with the U19 squad and has not appeared since 5 December 2020. What should be done with Ruiz-Atil? Do we say he is still on PSG or do we put him on PSG U19?
Timothée Pembélé: he is on the bench every week, has been training with the squad since the beginning of the season, and made 6 appearances including one in the UCL. IMO he is on PSG and not PSG U19, even if he isn't in the pro squad. There seems to be a double standard with Xavi Simons & Kays Ruiz, because Pembélé isn't on the club's squad list on the site but is still in the template.
Édouard Michut: he just made his debut today and has been training with the first team since January. I think this makes him part of PSG.
Personally, in my opinion all of these players should be considered part of PSG and not PSG U19, with maybe an exception for Ruiz-Atil because he literally got sent back to the U19s. What's your opinion on this? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This is why the views of some editors that there should be constant fluidity between junior and senior teams does not work, and why maintaining the rule that once a senior player, always a senior player is the only way forward. GiantSnowman 19:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Not really..? This actually goes more in favour of keeping youth and senior career independent from one another. All of these should be senior players, yes. If they should also be youth players should be evaluated on a case-by-case situation. Nehme1499 19:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
From what I can see, all of them are senior and ONLY senior and should be in the template, while Ruiz-Atil should not be in the template, should still have PSG only, but have the youth career open. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
If by the template you mean {{Paris Saint-Germain F.C. squad}}, then all senior players + youth players who have been capped at least once (in any competitive match) should be in there. Nehme1499 20:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I meant by the "template" - sorry for that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I think once a player signs a pro contract, his youth career should be close. Ruiz-Atil is a pro training with juniors, and not a junior aspiring to a contract. I think the contract is an important distinction, at least in French football.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

List of footballers with 500 or more goals[]

I was expecting to see Pele or Ronaldo at the top of the list, or the Czech player from the 50s who was speculated to have scored more goals than both of them. Instead it's an uncapped German player who I can barely find on Google.

It seems like the entire list is copied directly from an RSSSF page. Now that page lists Tommy Lawton as history's 14th highest scorer with 657 goals. Which seems pretty screwy to me as I wrote his Wikipedia article and put in a stats table with 260 league goals. He likely scored a load as a guest player in the wartime leagues but they've never been included in any player's stats totals.

There's quite a bit of discussion on the talk page and I imagine it's quite a popular article so I thought I'd bring it to attention here.EchetusXe 00:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The most intelligent thing to do is to include the RSSSF table called "Best Goalscorers All-Time (Top level (variant of author!))", which only takes into account "top-level" competitions. It would be a good idea to contact the author (Vladimir Kolos) for further clarification. Nehme1499 01:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The heading of that RSSSF list is "Best Goalscorers All-Time (official matches)", but as you note, the only way that anyone could arrive at a figure that high for Tommy Lawton is to include wartime matches, which have never been considered official. Also, all the media outlets that recently ballyhooed about Ronaldo becoming the highest-scoring player of all time clearly hadn't seen this list :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


First of all, apologies if I'm going about this the wrong way. As I'm sure you can see, I'm quite new to this aspect of Wikipedia. My query relates specifically to the current Juventus season page, but applies more generally.

Until last season it was normal practice to include all scheduled matches for the season. This season practice has changed for league matches only, so that only ones that have been assigned a specifc time are included. This is not consiststent across competitions, since the Supercoppa final was on the page without a date for a long time.

It has been argued that games that haven't been assigned a specific time are more likely to postponed, but certainly this year has had postponements at short notice. In other yeras, these kinds of reschedulings can happen anyway especially in latter parts of the season with cup commitments being upredictable (I've certainly bought tickets that said the match time was subject to change). Publication of a time is by no means final and should not be regarded as such.

Additionally the currently practice limits utility of the page. Currently, for example, the A.C. Milan season page shows no Serie A matches beyond Wednesday (in 3 days time!). The Juventus one shows an additional fixture (which was postposned after the time had been decided). I cannot see any benefit to there being limited infomration on these pages. The upcoming matches have indicative dates that should be used, but in any case, there is important infomration held in the order of matches played (e.g. I could see a tough run of matches at the end of the season), and a link can be provided to the expected venue. The infomration on upcoming matches is (of course) published by the Lega Serie A (The governing body of the Serie A) and is clearly important/accurate enough to be published on their website.

I really hope the current practice can bet reversed.

-- (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about that was here. There is no reason to not display them. Kante4 (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for directing me to that link. If there are no sigificant objections raised in the coming days, I'll go ahead and update the season page and refer to these discussions for the rationale. - (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Josué Pesqueira[]

Can somebody keep an eye on this page, there is a repeated attempt by an IP user to restore this version [1] which deletes references from the infobox and honours, adds an original research style of play section, and rewrites not-broken sections in broken English. This version is verbatim one by [2] User:Assaf Official, who has not edited since being reverted on this page in November. Other similarities to this user are listed on the talk page. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:8B8:E2FD:BC81:CC40 (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This guy won't discuss, we need outside opinions, and quickly 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:C13C:4C62:BFA9:B3F8 (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted the version by @Microwave Anarchist: from this morning - with no comment on which version is correct. Both IPs have been warned for edit warring. GiantSnowman 12:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I have to say, the claim made in an edit summary that sources are not required for a style of play section made me chuckle, especially when the edit added such gems as "Josué is a Playmaker with excellent physical fitness and a technically fantastic ability with his left foot, a combination of these abilities makes him a quality player, so he seems to be in all parts of the field" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Zlatko Kranjčar[]

I've gone through a bit of the article, added sources, but anyone that wants to help clean it up, please do, I've also put it forward for ITN RD. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Are the matches he played in 1990 counted as official caps? Hack (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, on I don't see the Croatia caps. I've had a good cleanup of the article know. Govvy (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Interestingly, we have an article for the unofficial Croatia vs US match. Hack (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The HNS does have him down with two official caps even though Croatia weren't FIFA members at the time. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
That's similar to the SFA, they count a match against a Hong Kong League XI (here) in their statistics and thus everyone that played in the game was awarded a cap even though it's not an official match. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I've put in a good bit of work into fixing up the article, it's still up for ITN RD, if you like please add your support, cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Israel national football team[]

Hi all,

Who should be listed as Israel's top scorer in the infobox?

Mordechai Spiegler has either 32 (or 33) goals in 82 matches according to the Israeli Football Association or 24 goals in 57 appearances according to FIFA (per RSSSF) which would have him as tied top scorer with Eran Zahavi. Which statistic should be listed in the infobox? The problem is that some of Spiegler's goals were either scored in Olympic competition or against non A-international sides.

I re-did the Records table to reflect FIFA's cap/goal numbers along with Notes explaining the discrepancies but wanted to know what the policy was regarding a disparity between a nation's FA's count and FIFA's count.

1) Old Table
2) New Table


Felixsv7 (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear: RSSSF's number's aren't necessarily FIFA's numbers. They have independent researchers, and sometimes information is partial (I know this for a fact for Lebanon, for example). Nehme1499 15:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Minor club change name[]

Hello. When a club changes name from Templates United to Sporting Templates FC, a note would probably be necessary in the infobox. The question is when a club switches from Template FC to Template SC. Since we only already write "Template", would a note explaining the name change still be needed? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say no. Nehme1499 21:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree - no. GiantSnowman 22:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

2019–20 FAO Women's League[]

The league and all associated articles. I was contemplating nominating a load of articles for AfD. I couldn't see this passing FOOTYN or GNG. I am going to bed anyway, so if anyone decides they are feeling ruthless! Govvy (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't necessarily support this, it's possible the seasons aren't notable but the clubs and league definitely are based on a quick search, Odisha women's football receives coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 12:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
You think they are okay to keep?? Govvy (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

2020 AFC Cup[]

The competition began, with some groups playing three matchdays. It was cancelled altogether due to COVID-19. Should the statistics be included in a player's career statistics table? Nehme1499 22:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • It depends on whether the competition was cancelled or vacated, which I don't know the answer to. I'd default to "yes, include" unless the AFC specifically stated that nothing counts. SportingFlyer T·C 12:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
What are the independent, reliable sources saying? Eldumpo (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Greek clubs in European/worldwide competitions[]

Hi all. For some reason an IP address is adding fake stats/honours to the pages of AEK Athens F.C., Olympiacos F.C. and Panathinaikos F.C.. We could use a few more eyes on it. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Revert, warn, report to WP:AIV. GiantSnowman 10:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Do both these articles need to exist?[]

There seems to be considerable overlap - is there any genuine reason for both articles to exist separately.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Ditch the second one (as it's entirely contained within the first). Note: I was asked (but declined) to help nominate the first for FL status. I did some minor corrections and wikilinking on it, though. Gricehead (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Second one duplicates the first one, so no- and 2015 is a arbitrary cut off date. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Technically the second one doesn't totally duplicate the first - the second takes those teams listed in the first and adds in their results from the qualifying rounds (which aren't present in the first) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I suspect the cut-off is 2015 because we only have existing WP articles on the CdF qualifying rounds since 2015 and the editor who created it just settled for using that info rather than seeking any more from other sources....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have a problem with both titles as well, but... I'm out of patience so steering clear. (Overseas is a direct translation of Outre-mer, which has a specific meaning in France, which isn't the same as overseas, otherwise all the Coriscan teams would have to be listed) Gricehead (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Second one should definitely go, first one possibly. GiantSnowman 16:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Maxwell Batista da Silva[]

There appears to be two footballers here...GrahamHardy (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

How so? (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
One footballer, who lied about his name and age, apparently. But soccerway et al have not merged the profiles, so two profiles appear in the external links section. The Globo Esporte article in the references lays it all out. Gricehead (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
What's the issue? GiantSnowman 16:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) According to a Google translate of the source [3] in article, in 2012, they admitted lying about their name and age, and are 2 years older than they previously admitted. And it verifies his name as "Maxwell Batista da Silva-not Jorbison Reis dos Santos", which are both the full old and new names of the 2 Soccerway sources. Therefore, as that source seems to be a RS (it's from Latin America's biggest TV network), looks like it's one person, but SW needs to update. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
No, I get that. I don't get Graham's original post? GiantSnowman 17:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The article was confusingly written previously and it was not entirely clear why there were 2 names/dobs listed. Spike 'em (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this too much detail?[]

So, I saw this article Will Bruin was recently edited to add alot of extra detail, basically every goal he scored. The article basically reads now like "On Day A, he scored against B. On Day C, he scored twice against D. On day E he scored against F. That season he had X goals in Y games." Then again for each subsequent season. Seems a bit superfluous, but the editor definitely put in quite a bit of effort. I notice this editor from their contribution history has added a lot of detail to other articles, but I haven't looked at those. RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Definitely too much. There is absolutely no need to detail every single goal a player scored. I notice that this particular article even seems to detail every game in which he got an assist! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
It wouldn't be so bad if they were a defender/goalkeeper, or only scored like 10 career goals, but this is a reasonably decent striker! Cull. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I make it one paragraph for each season of his Senior career. I would have thought this is about appropriate. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIARY covers this exact situation : Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in reporting about...sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person. Spike 'em (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I think "one paragraph per season" is an extremely generous expectation of the amount of content in a player's article. In this paragraph, I have scored through everything I think is not actually significant enough to merit mentioning:
Bruin and the Dynamo opened the 2012 season on March 11 with a 1–0 win over Chivas USA. On April 15, he scored his first goal of the season in a 1–1 draw with the Chicago Fire. In Houston's next match, Bruin scored once and recorded an assist as the Dynamo drew 1–1 with the Columbus Crew. On April 28, Bruin made it three straight games with a goal, finding the back of the net twice in a 3–2 loss to D.C. United. On June 16, he scored once in a 2–1 win over Texas Derby rivals FC Dallas. Four days later, he scored in the 73rd and 90th minutes to give Houston a 3–3 draw with Toronto FC. On June 23, he scored for the third straight game during a 4–2 loss to the Montreal Impact.[8] Bruin ended the MLS regular season with 12 goals and 4 assists from 32 appearances to help Houston qualify for the playoffs.[6][9] In the opening round of the playoffs, Bruin scored twice to give the Dynamo a 2–1 win over Chicago. He had a goal and an assist in Houston's next game, a 2–0 win over Sporting Kansas City in leg 1 of the Eastern Conference semifinals. Bruin and the Dynamo would lose the second leg 1–0, but advanced 2–1 on aggregate. In the first leg of the Conference finals, Bruin scored once in a 3–1 win over D.C. United. Houston and Bruin drew leg 2 to advance to MLS Cup 2012. Bruin played the full 90 minutes in MLS Cup as Houston lost to the Galaxy for the second straight season, this time by a score of 3–1.[8] During the season, Bruin also made 2 appearances in the group stage for the 2012–13 CONCACAF Champions League" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
By the way, this was the edit before the expansion. RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Be brutal. All that is needed is key moments (first game, first goal, finals etc.) - we are an encyclopaedia, not a sports almanac or fan site! GiantSnowman 15:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I cut it down to a more reasonable length. RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Exercised the loan purchase mid-season[]

Juventus just announced today that they have applied the option for puchase of Weston McKennie's loan. Is he still on loan until the end of the season, or is he officially a Juventus player from today? Nehme1499 14:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

From today by the sounds of it - "Da oggi è anche un giocatore della Juventus a titolo definitivo, con il club bianconero che ha esercitato il diritto di opzione per l'acquisizione del suo cartellino dallo Schalke 04" / "From today he is also a Juventus player outright, with the Juventus club exercising the right of option for the acquisition of his card from Schalke 04" (according to Google Translate). GiantSnowman 15:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
For me, I would wait for the transaction to be completed at the beginning of the window. Clubs can't just acquire players mid season, they can make a deal to do so, but the deal is 100% completed in the window. I did this for Yvan Neyou. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
If the new four-year contract is from today, I would put it as today. If it is from 1 June 2021, then we wait. At least that is how I see it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing to stop clubs making a loan permanent outside the transfer window. See here for Preston doing it with 2 of their 7 loanees, to get round the rule that only allows 5 in a matchday squad. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
From everything I have read, there has been nothing outright stating that McKennie will officially sign permanently in the next window. Indeed, almost every source has simply stated that Juventus have exercised the option to make the loan deal permanent. I suppose that without further clarification from the club, McKennie himself, or some other official outlet, the reports mean what they say—namely, that McKennie, as of today, is a full member of Juventus's squad and no longer a Schalke player in any form. Otherwise, as has been the case with others, like Anthony Knockaert at Fulham, it was made explicit that the transfer would become permanent after the loan was completed. In this case, though, no one seems to be saying that. Anwegmann (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee and Anwegmann: Pinging involved users. Nehme1499 17:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It's just a precedent that I've seen used where loan options don't come into effect until 30 June XXXX. We just have to be consistent. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
No, the consistency is that we follow what the sources say - and in this case the sources say he signed on a permanent basis for Juventus with effect from today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talkcontribs) 19:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Tim Howard joined Everton on loan from Manchester United and mid-season signed a permanent contract. Wikipedia treats that as the end of a loan and a new contract.RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Although this article cited in Howard's article does state that Howard's contract became permanent because the Premier League allows "domestic loans" to be made permanent outside the window (appears to be the same as those Preston loans mentioned above which were also from teams in the English divisions). I'm not sure about the Italian federations rules, but I could imagine that it would be similar, but given this isn't a domestic loan, maybe it can only be "officially official" during the transfer window. Maybe it has the same status as a "pre-contract" signed by a player in that "six month window" before a contract expiration that takes effect when the window opens. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
There's no evidence he's signing a contract at the end of the season, and the way the article is worded makes it seem like it started this month. I would use the 3rd of March as starting point. Without the contract on hand, we can't assume the details, we only have what's in front of us.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

TP Mazembe[]

Should TP Mazembe be written as Mazembe or TP Mazembe in the infobox, headings, career stats etc.? Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

TP Mazembe seems to be the preferred form in Linafoot pages. Nehme1499 16:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
TP Mazembe at RSSSF. Eldumpo (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Kelvedon Hatch F.C.[]

Hi all, I'm trying to work out if this club has ever played at Step 6 or above. If my interpretation of FCHD is correct, there is nothing on there to suggest so nor any appearances in a national cup. Is there a website that displays this info prior to 1985 as this club has apparently been around for 101 years? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The article says "Up until the 1970s, the club continued to play in local football leagues, however wanting more from the football club the decision was made to join the Greene King South Essex League. The Club was successfully admitted to the league where it continued to play for many years" - these are not league that confer notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I have now removed the whole history section as it was copied and pasted from the club's own website -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Note also that the club was deleted as non-notable in 2008 and nothing has changed since then in terms of what level it plays at...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Taking all of this on board, I see no harm in starting a discussion at AfD given that it is no longer eligible for PROD. I managed to find a couple of sources mentioning the club and have included those in the discussion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Bert Kassies' site as source[]

Have there been any prior discussions on the use of Bert Kassies' site as a source? It is used widely and does seem to be accurate, but I note a user is removing it. Valenciano (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

His site is given a link at RSSSF - perhaps not enough in itself. Eldumpo (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • A quick search says no, but it's linked to and mentioned by reliable sources (not sure about the Daily Record?), referenced on RSSSF, and even used in a couple published scholarly articles. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I think it meets that neatly. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)