Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

Terminology for David Wagner (soccer)

I have re-moved the page back to "soccer" per the discussion on the talk page and also since I was unable to find another discussion that overturned that consensus. I am wondering if, since he is a manager for a Premier League club and played his entire club career in Germany, whether or not the page should use the term "football" rather than "soccer," or if these terms should be changed accordingly. Cheers. Jay eyem (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Born in Germany, entire playing career in Germany. Coaching career in Germany and England. Clear win for "football" IMO. Number 57 21:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. The only thing that would lean towards using soccer is because he played for the US internationally, and he wasn't remarkably notable for doing so (grand total of 8 caps, never appearing in a major tournament). Jay eyem (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
He did also play for Germany's youth teams internationally. Number 57 23:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Football is considered more universal than Soccer! Govvy (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not a question of universality but of national ties, and Number 57 has the right reasoning here. We wouldn't write Carl Cort in Guyanese English because an Englishman who played in England made a few footnote appearances for Guyana in his 30s. Harambe Walks (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
So it would be safe to say that the page should be moved back to "footballer/football manager" as opposed to "soccer", yes? Jay eyem (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Football Association of Selangor

Would someone from FOOTY mind taking a look at Talk:Football Association of Selangor? I'm not sure why it's redirecting to Talk:Selangor FA, unless the article is also supposed to be a redirect. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Football Association of Selangor and Selangor FA are both articles about the same team. And so one should be merged into the other. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
No, the former article is about the governing body for football in Selangor, the latter is about the professional team they run in the national league. Unlike most countries, professional football in Malaysia is largely based around representative teams from the various states rather than privately-owned clubs. There may be a case for merging the articles, as the one on the association is poorly sourced, but they don't cover the same subject matter. As for the talk page redirect, that looks to have come about as a result of past page moves, no doubt caused by confusion over the two intertwining topics. Jellyman (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Move the article regarding the football club to Selangor FA (football club) or something like that. Matthew_hk tc 08:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The team article should be at FA Selangor from what I can see. Hack (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Which version

I suspect this edit is vandalism, can someone from the Wikiproject please comment either way? Andrewa (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

1919–20 Football League and Arsenal's promotion

There is clearly controversy around Arsenal's promotion to the First Division almost a century ago. User:TonyAttwood, presumably the writer for The History of Arsenal blog ([1]) has tried to introduce an opposing viewpoint on these events into the Wikipedia article 1919–20 Football League, citing his own blog. Although I outlined on his talk page why I thought that his edit introduced more problems than it solved, there could nevertheless be value in what he is trying to do. If anyone has sufficient knowledge of this era of football or access to relevant source materials, it may be worth taking a look at this. However, if such a viewpoint is worthy of inclusion then it needs to be added more seamlessly, rather than as a critique of the article's existing content. --Jameboy (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes there is some confusion about why this 'promotion' happened. I'll see if I can dig out some sources, but a blog would not normally be regarded as a reliable source. Eldumpo (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

List of foreign La Liga players

Is this list overkill and listcraft? We have categories for this type of thing! Govvy (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There's several lists like that. I also don't quite understand their purpose as stand-alone articles. I could, on the other hand, understand a "Foreign La Liga players" article that focuses on the notable foreigners (top scorers, major game changers, etc). I think all of these list articles should be deleted and/or changed to a notability-focused format.--MarshalN20 🕊 02:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
But the criteria makes it vast, because of that it seems impractical. We have categories for expacts, this list is just being that, do we really need these vast lists? Govvy (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
There is List of foreign Serie A players, and those list contain more information than cat (nationality, club and year), i would say those X expatriate footballers in Y country cats are inappropriate, but a list is sufficient to keep. Matthew_hk tc 09:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
But one player can be in multiple categories and you can run searches via the categories, it's easy to see duplicates with categories with it's auto-sorting. Lists... well lists can be poorly managed.. You can easily duplicate a player, I really don't see the point of these lists. Govvy (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Govvy, please search the archive of this page, there was a consensus somewhere, but i don't remember and don't wish to locate it myself. Matthew_hk tc 09:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
heh, don't know, seems like redundant information to me, if someone is going to look up a footballer they are going to search by name, how many people actually look up these lists? How about a list articles of categories related by country? Govvy (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
All cats "X country expatriate footballers in Y country" are deleted, so it was not possible to have a list of those cats. Matthew_hk tc 10:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Although it's a different type of list, we !voted to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Costa Rican expatriate footballers in the past. I didn't agree with the outcome, and I suspect elements of the foreign player lists get significant coverage in reliable sources. I have worked on the Liga MX list in the past (which is now a bit unmanageable due to the number of references) and the Mexican press certainly focuses on the number of foreign players each club employs and publishes lists of this nature on a fairly regular basis. I think these should be kept, but the inclusion criteria may need to be tightened (maybe change the list to only cover players with a threshold of competitive appearances or goals?). Jogurney (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
for Italy, media are more concerned on Extracomunitario (non-EU), but i don't think source of players' nationality is a major problem of those list, but rather season to season additional of content. Matthew_hk tc 17:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Medhi Benatia moved to Mehdi Benatia

Medhi Benatia was moved to Mehdi Benatia. The correct spelling of his name was always disputed in the past, so I think that this should not be done without discussing the move first. Where should I start this move discussion? Here? On the article talk page? --Jaellee (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Article talk page is standard, using WP:RM. GiantSnowman 08:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
reverted as uncontroversial move. secondary source support Medhi as well as primary source. It did have secondary source use Mehdi , but seem more rare. Matthew_hk tc 10:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Articles created by User:Durneydiaz

As some may be aware, blocked user User:Durneydiaz had created a series of articles that were moved to WP:Draftspace in the middle of last year. Some of these may be notable however deletions under CSD criterion G13 have begun. List is this way. Hack (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Notify a deletion review on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 14

There is a football-related deletion review on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 14, you can go there and have your own comment about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 UPSL season, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE

Not quite sure, but maybe an issue here? At Dinis Almeida, i reverted User:Fodbold-fan and was reverted (OK, maybe i again should not have used rollback), as they used what i perceive to be an unreliable source for the subject's new team and also did not write in the proper section (club career, in this case) but (as always) in the introduction.

I was hysterically reverted (yes, who am I to point out the hysterics in anyone, I know), being told to "look at the source", which reads "SC Braga contrata central Dinis Almeida, que na última época esteve no Belenenses.", translated "SC Braga hire central defender Dinis Almeida, who was with Belenenses last season.". Is that a LOAN how, if you don't mind me asking?

The competence issue may also stem from the fact this user does not reply to anyone (they did sporadically in the past, as here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fodbold-fan&diff=757831463&oldid=757830835#January_2017), but i have notified them of this discussion (additionally, i also browsed both the French and the Portuguese webs for reliable sources, found nothing amazingly). Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  • His Instagram account says he is still owned by Monaco (https://www.instagram.com/dinisalmeida95/), thank you very much to User:MYS77 for his assistance! --Quite A Character (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Braga added Dinis Almeida to their squad list. FkpCascais (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that input, but what's the relevance for the matter at hand? We are trying to find a reliable source for his loan (supposing his Instagram is telling the truth, that is), it is 100% sure he is working with Braga. --Quite A Character (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

In fact, there are no sources to his transfer/loan to Braga. In the other hand, I would still question @Fodbold-fan's competence, mainly in his edits when it comes to player transfers. He did not update any template of almost all pages that he updated, neither included the proper category, nor updated the club's template and squad list. Fixing this takes a lot of time and effort to keep a page on standards.
I think this is slightly similar to @Royroydeb, who was banned from creating pages for a period of time to learn the guidelines properly. And even though the kid is still young (a teenager, according to his profile), he needs to learn how to edit correctly here. MYS77 02:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

My two cents: The first revert of Fodbold-fan's changes was done without any explanation and following edit summaries from both of you were confrontational, if not inflammatory. All of that is not helpful. And yes, Fodbold-fan usually only updates the lede and not the club career section. They don't update the squad template and don't add the category. I regularly find myself cleaning up after them. But I'd rather see incomplate/lazy updates to a player's page than none at all. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Agustin Gómez

Hello all.

User:Fenix down has nominated the Agustin Gómez article for deletion, given their reasons it seems to be the correct call but I'd like further clarification. I, not sure why given the current notability guideline, always thought playing in a cup competition for a professional league club was enough for notability no matter the opponent, but Fenix down has shown the guideline actually states it must be between two professional league clubs. In the Agustin Gómez case, he played for AIK (Allsvenskan, professional) against Värmbols (Swedish Football Division 2, not professional). I thought that was enough, as if a player for (e.g.) Manchester United or Tottenham Hotspur did the same they'd be notable without passing GNG. Is that not the case? As I said, it seems Fenix down is correct but I've came here for a bit of clarification. Thanks. R96Skinner (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@R96Skinner: Not quite. The relevant guideline here is WP:NFOOTY. It says: Players who have played...a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. So for a cup match to satisfy this guideline, both clubs involved must play at the fully professional level. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Right, got it! Thanks. Deletion required then, my bad! Would it be possible to place it as a draft or something in case of notability in the future? R96Skinner (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Cheers! R96Skinner (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Egyptian clubs - El / Al

Al Fanar SC was recently moved (in good faith) to El Fanar SC by @Egyptian Premier League. I have asked via the user's talk page for references to corroborate this, but the references provided relate to the word, rather than the club itself. Google searches overwhelmingly indicate the club is known as Al Fanar in English-speaking sources, so while this might not be technically correct per this user's reasoning (which I have no reason to doubt), I don't think the current page name satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. If anyone has any particular knowledge of this area, or can point to any precident for this kind of thing, that'd be great. If not, I'll probably WP:RM it for additional consensus. Nzd (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Seem a classic example of standard Egyptian transliteration of Arabic (El) v. common name case (not sure primary source point to which side), seem it is safe to revert to original first and ask for consensus in talk page. Matthew_hk tc 07:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Question: Would Al Ahly SC have to be changed to El Ahly if proper transliteration rules are applied? FkpCascais (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Al Ahly is the name used in primary source (on the crest) and in secondary reliable source. Just no to "proper transliteration" if they were not popular. Matthew_hk tc 10:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Squad sections in under-23/academy articles

Hi there. I've been thinking for a while about how we display squad sections in under-23/academy sections. Apologies for the lengthy treatise that follows. So, the theory: Users aren't served well by the squad template that's found on the main club page. My instinct is that users will be visiting the under-23/academy article pages principally to see how their side's development players are progressing (I'm working on the assumption that only clubs of relative size who have quite distinct first-team/development side set-ups will have these articles). How old they are, how many players they have in a certain position, are they internationally capped, a professional yet etc. They won't be looking to click around numerous articles with little information in them - and indeed a lot of these players won't have articles. This sort of summary can frequently be found in season articles for first-team players, but development players don't tend to be included. And we have these nice articles waiting...

So my suggestion would be to provide a single sortable table including all academy scholars (as these players will frequently be in the under-23 side pretty quickly) and a selection of any players the club has who are under the age of 23 (more on this in a sec). Columns for name, nationality, birthday/age, position would be fairly standard, other possibilities might be professional status (scholar, scholar with professional deal, professional - an alternative might be a yes/no column), contract expiry, place of birth, highest international representation, place of birth, first-team appearances (and goals?), out on loan (I'd suggest including players that are out in the main table, because users will still want to see them in relation to their peers), joined date (and from?), a general notes column if you wanted to consolidate some of these. Sourcing some of this information might be a challenge, but most of these clubs are big enough that the information is there for the majority of players.

The closest existing examples of what I'm talking about that I'm aware of are Leeds United F.C. Reserves and Youth Team and Everton F.C. Reserves and Academy. With the latter, I had a play with adding some of the stuff I've been talking about above/below (some of it has been changed since, hence the URL link).

The next question is who to include...

  • Show every academy scholar and any professional under the age of 23. Means no judgement calls, but does mean that you're potentially including players who've graduated to the first-team or who've been signed from other clubs for the first-team, potentially for millions of pounds. You could potentially mitigate for this by including a first-team appearances column, or adding notes for any player that's signed for a transfer fee. A benefit of this approach is that, even if you're showing a few players who have for the most part moved on, you're still showing how many academy players have made it to the current first-team.
  • Show every academy scholar any professional player under the age of 23 who doesn't meet a certain criteria. The most obvious would be some sort of appearance for the first-team - if you were doing this I'd suggest league starts as a brief sub appearance/a start in a cup might not be representative. But even then, you could make a few appearances under one manager then disappear back into the development sides, make a start in the final game of the season. A less extreme way of separating these players out might be to list them in prose above the table (as I did as a quick one in the example above) or place them in a separate table alongside the main one. But I'd be concerned about this approach being rather original research-y.
  • Show every academy academy scholar or professional player listed in the relevant sections on the official website. The problem with this one is... official websites are often terrible and/or infrequently updated. The Everton one, for example, includes some first-team players in the under-23 section but not others, a few are duplicated. It also includes at least one player who isn't with them anymore. You get the sense these sections are updated once in pre-season and then left for a year. So I'd be reticent using them as a definitive source.

So that's it, really. To summarise, I think this proposal would provide an improved selection of information for the users. My inclination would be go with including loan players and go with all under-23 players, with a combination of table information/prose that marks out players who may have progressed beyond this stage for the most part. It'd be good to reach some sort of consensus on this idea, not because I think these sorts of articles are ever going to be completely standardised, but just so whether we agree it's something to work towards. Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Soccerbase as an External Link

Hello all, should an article include an External link to {{soccerbase}} if it's been used already as a citation within the article? Seems to be standard practice on hundreds of existing articles, but GiantSnowman doesn't think it should be included on Moses Makasi here. Seems to be a case of WP:OWNERSHIP on an article created by GiantSnowman. Thoughts? JMHamo (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is somehow a wrong practice usually found on thousands of stub articles to find a list of exernal liks and none or scarse list of references. What we really need here is referencing. External sources entered as a bug in a fashion following, for instance, historical articles, where after references one can find a list of external links which will usually have a list of books on the subject which doesnt source anything in particular, but just provide usefull reading on the matter. Similarly, here on WP:FOOTY, many editors ended up adding a list of external sources where they would list a few player profiles from the main football-related websites, but it is a wrong practice. Referencing is fine, but the external links list besides unecessary, it also brings on many questions such as favouring one sites over others and so... Being added in the references section is what is necessary, while repeating sources in a external links section is unecessary. So, I understand your point of view, but GS is actually not wrong at all here. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The relevant content guideline is at WP:ELDUP. Hack (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Yep, as I've told JMHamo numerous times, sources which are used as in-line citations should not be repeated as external links. A bit disappointing to see your attitude and unfounded accusations of OWNERSHIP to be honest. GiantSnowman 08:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you think it's worth requesting a Bot to remove all {{soccerbase}} External Links? FYI @Struway2: & @Mattythewhite: as I know you've been adding this External Link to any articles you've created. Thanks. JMHamo (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
No. The link is absolutely permissible and to be encouraged in articles about players of British football of the past 20-ish years that don't have stats tables referencing it.
GS is correct that where a page/site is used as a citation, it shouldn't be repeated as an EL. However, there's a qualitative difference between, say, an article with a stats table row-referenced entirely to Soccerbase, in which case it would be completely pointless repeating it as an EL, and a large article with just one citation to a Soccerbase page buried somewhere in the body, in which case disallowing it as an EL would do a disservice to the reader.
What's more of a problem are those many, many articles where the only sources for player appearances are listed as ELs. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree it should be removed from all article, and indeed I've never said that. As Struway points out, as an EL it can (and does) serve a purpose. I'll add a stats table tonight if I have time. GiantSnowman 16:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is pointless to have soccerbase in the external links if there is a referenced stats table in the article.--EchetusXe 18:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Fiorentina–Juventus rivalry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ACF_Fiorentina_-_Juventus_F.C._rivalry#Fiorentina%E2%80%93Juventus_rivalry

Have created this article. How do we move it from draft to regular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.154.60 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears that you have already submitted it for review. As indicated in the review notice, there could be some delay as the system is backlogged. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Eagleash (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks like a very nice article overall, a topic which I noticed previously was missing from the well known rivalries list. Crowsus (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe put the 'Players who have played for both clubs' into a table, but yeah looks good.--EchetusXe 20:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Currency symbols

Are they suppose to be linked up in certain formats or not, didn't really say on WP:£ when to link or when not too. Govvy (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Btw, this is in regards to Spurs Season page, on the player transfers it's link to pounds sterling. Govvy (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think unambiguous currency symbols need linking. Number 57 23:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
k, going to delink them then, cheers. Govvy (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Requesting consensus on notability for match articles

I'm hoping that the members of WP:FOOTBALL can help me establish a case for whether a match article I have recently published is notable or not as I am presently struggling to rack my head around how exactly Wikipedia defines notability for matches not related to cup finals. I recently published this article and attempted to put it through DYK. I was successful in the review, as can be seen, but when the article was put into the DYK queue it was pulled at the last stage, originally on grounds of tone (now fixed) before ultimately being kicked out of the process entirely because the article had previously been deleted. This is indeed the case, but the deletion in question (which I would argue was a close-run thing between Keep and Delete in the first place) was seven and a half years ago now and I feel that the increase in articles made about individual matches in the meantime begs the question whether a re-evaluation of notability is warranted for this article.

If the consensus here is that the match is notable then I will of course use this to make up my mind on whether to reattempt the DYK process. If the consensus is that it is not notable then I will accept it and will abandon the article to its fate, AfD or no, but I would however like to follow it up by questioning what exactly WP:FOOTBALL's policy is on match notability and whether it is time that one be written, because I don't believe that it has ever actually been put down in writing here. I would however like to add that my personal take is that the article I have made is substantially less notable in the long term than, say, Battle of Old Trafford, Liverpool F.C. 4–3 Newcastle United F.C. (1996) or Manchester United F.C. 3–5 West Bromwich Albion F.C. (1978), and I favour the opinion that if any match is notable enough to continue to receive references or praise in the national press some time after the original game took place (i.e. after most matches would have been forgotten about by the majority of fans, especially of other clubs) then it should be considered worthy of an article.

If anyone has any questions about my opinions and my motives for creating my article I will answer them but otherwise I would prefer to watch this discussion from the sidelines rather than attempt to influence this discussion further. Falastur2 Talk 20:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Of all the matches you've mentioned, the only one that I think is vaguely notable is the Liverpool–Newcastle one, mainly because it's probably the most cited example of Newcastle's style of play under Keegan, but I'm still not sure it's article worthy. The Man Utd–West Brom one isn't notable, it's just been mentioned a few times in the news recently because of Cyril Regis' death (which appears to be why it was created). If that is, where do we stop? Why not Ipswich Town 6 Manchester United 0? Ultimately I'm not really sure whether any individual matches are really notable enough for their own article unless they were perhaps the first match of their kind or involved some kind of record (Arbroath v Bon Accord) and that we should just try and merge the content into competition or club season articles where possible (I don't really understand why we have individual articles for cup final matches either). Number 57 21:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Damián Ísmodes

Quite the conundrum... I think it was i who wrote most of his storyline (years ago), which includes the international career of course; not sure where i based myself on to say he appeared TWICE at the 2007 Copa América, but quite probably on NFT.com (Soccerway.com also has him featuring in two group phase matches. Last but not least, that edition of the tournament seems to be the first without any RSSSF link, at least one that can be found in Wikipedia).

After "years of laziness" (if you will) i decided to add more refs to the piece, which leads to the following: ALL the newspaper/akin sources say it was Ysrael Zúñiga who came for Claudio Pizarro and not Ísmodes (examples here https://noticias.uol.com.br/ultnot/afp/2007/06/30/ult34u184766.jhtm, here http://www.abc.es/hemeroteca/historico-01-07-2007/abc/Deportes/venezuela-gana-a-peru-(2-0)-y-entra-en-la-historia_1634020392434.html, here http://www.espn.cl/futbol/partido?juegoId=214663 or here https://www.eluniverso.com/2007/07/01/0001/15/23044F20BB704D8391C11E4E5314A3D1.html). What shall we do with the evidence presented, please?

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The CONMEBOL match sheet also shows Ísmodes as the one who played (https://web.archive.org/web/20070929100105/http://www.conmebol.com/competiciones_evento_reporte.jsp?evento=1055&ano=2007&dv=1&flt=A&id=8&slangab=E). However, in this YouTube video (please see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n2sCXGyqPs), around the 3:58 mark, we see #11 to the left after Paolo Guerrero's shot that goes way over the bar. According to WP, #11 was Zúñiga; whatever, i'll edit Ísmodes' storyline now, sorry to bother you. --Quite A Character (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What do Zuniga's article/stats elsewhere say? Do they count appearances in the matches concerned? Which source do you feel is the most reliable? I'm sure it would be fine to choose one you think is most likely then add a note regarding the discrepancy? Crowsus (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I am only taking into consideration the fact that only SOCCERWAY/NFT/CONMEBOL give that cap to Ísmodes, all the newspaper articles (plus the YTube video) say it was Zúñiga. The latter's NFT.com entry does not give him that cap, like i said they give it to Ísmodes.

As far as i am concerned, article stays the way it is, if anyone has a better idea... --Quite A Character (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Dispute with Crowsus

[content copied from Talk:2017–18 UEFA Europa League knockout phase for wider discussion]

@Chanheigeorge, S.A. Julio, Skyblueshaun, and Kante4: Good evening. I am having a dispute with @Crowsus: as he is questioning UEFA.com source about two own goals scored in benefit of Athletic Bilbao and flooding it with other sources stating that they weren't own goals, some of them obviously not neutral. In fact, Crowsus is not neutral too, as he identifies himself as being an Athletic fan. One of the own goals was on last match on Thursday against Spartak Moscow and the other one was at a 2012–13 match against HJK. He also presents YouTube videos trying to prove his points, with no success, as on Spartak's case it's an obvious own goal (UEFA.com's right) and on HJK's case it's next to impossible to prove UEFA.com is wrong. On the other hand, if we approve this without much discussion, it can be a bad precedent on which several UEFA.com reports may be questioned without consistent basis. I would like to remind the case involving the 2016–17 Vojvodina vs Dinamo Minsk match, on which UEFA.com version was obviously wrong (attributing Dinamo's goal to Bykov instead of Budnik). It was discussed at length before a final decision to go against UEFA source. Some time later, UEFA.com corrected the report. I am not interested in an edit war, so I would like to invite you to intervene. Anyway, I thank you all for the attention. The Replicator (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@80.117.47.5: This IP also disagreed with Crowsus, so he might be interested too in participating on this discussion. The Replicator (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Only simply follow as UEFA pdf report document show. It is a o.g.--80.117.47.5 (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I notice that you haven't actually ever made an edit to an article (under that IP at least) so although your point is valid, I'm going to seek other opinions. Were you aware that I had changed the format of the edit to a note? Crowsus (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll just repeat everything I have put in the summaries.
1. These came to my attention due to being goals for the club I support, no argument there. But the point is equally valid regardless of what club is involved.
2. This (Spartak) is not an 'obvious own goal'. The shot was 100% going into the goal before the defender's pathetic attempt to clear. The overall direction of the ball did not change, it was already going in and it still went in. If a goalkeeper made a similarly awful attempt to save, it would be the attacker's goal. Same rule applies. No idea why UEFA have opted for this stance when the attacker would always want to be credited with the goal and the defender wouldn't.
Compare this to many, many goals awarded to the attacker when a key part of the incident is a deflection off a defender. Off the top of my head, one example is from 1998 FIFA World Cup Group C where France's 2nd goal was correctly given as an OG as the attempted block flicked it over the goalkeeper, but the 3rd awarded to Henry even though the (same) South Africa defender stops it on the line with one foot and knocks it in with the other. Footage. Another is Figo's much-lauded goal at Euro 2000 when the shot hit Adams which caused it to spin the way it did (Footage), it's still Figo's goal but has always amused me that it got the praise it did when it wasn't a clean strike. There will be countless other examples of goals being given to the attacker despite a defender's involvement. In every football culture I'm aware of, unless it's a blatant OG which this certainly is not, then the credit should be given to the attacker. He hit the shot, it was going in, it still went in after the defender touched it once, surely it's his goal to all reasonable observers. Here is the footage for review.
3. The Toquero goal claim is weaker, certainly, however the only camera angle available is not conclusive at all, both players are moving in the same direction towards the ball. Again, it seems baffling to me that when faced with such ambiguous evidence, UEFA would opt for awarding the goal to the defender who doesn't want the credit rather than the attacker who does. I should also add that while some of the sources I provided (SportsMole, RTVE) are match reports from the time, others (from different newspapers to the match reports - El Desmarque, El Mundo, Deia) are from years later reviewing Toquero's career, and they specifically mention him scoring this goal, so it would seem there's been no later attempt to rectify any error identified in awarding the goal to him initially (another conclusion being that nobody really cares either way?).
4. In both cases, this isn't just some claim I've invented having watched the match with no evidence to back it up, or some random blog entry on a crusade wanting to right wrongs. I provided several sources ((Vestnik Kavkaza, Marca; AS and Sport state the same) mostly Spanish newspapers, but that is to be expected as they are the ones with more than just a passing interest in the events) who have stated that Rico was the scorer of the third goal v Spartak, and Toquero was the scorer of the second v HJK. Athletic's (very detailed) site has been provided as well, (Toquero, Rico) obviously that is biased but it does show that there is some dispute over the identity of the goalscorer, I'm sure nobody would suggest that they would just attribute every own goal to the nearest attacker for the sake of it? It's a goal regardless of who they award it to, and in fact they probably paid their players a goal bonus so it would possibly be better for them to declare both of them as OGs! So, point is, there are verified sources for this assertion and I have provided them. Was even moaned at for overkill (and 'flooding' above) by The Replicator (why do you have two accounts, by the way?) for trying to provide a decent number of these to support that it wasn't just one rogue website giving the wrong scorer.
5. The edits were being added as a side note, not disrupting the main information presented. I did initally make an attempt to have the Spartak scorer changed in the main text using the sources provided but this was reverted, and it was never going to be accepted over the UEFA version, so I apologise for wasting time with that wrong approach. However, UEFA is not some kind of god that cannot be questioned. It also does not own the Wikipedia articles on its competitions. So when an incident of this nature occurs and disputed information appears in several independent publications, I see no good reason why that should not also be included in the article as long as the information is verified by decent sources (yes), adheres to NPOV (yes, all I stated was that Rico/Toquero hit the shot and some media reported it as his goal, that statement is true regardless of the ownership of the goal itself) and does not disrupt the article (yes, it's a ref point beside the scorer's name which translates to a note at the bottom of the page, can't see why anyone would object to that, would anyone even spot it?).
I haven't said that UEFA is wrong, merely that other sources have provided different information, and since the UEFA report still has precedence, why should this other information not also be included in a small way rather than ignored entirely as is being proposed by the reverts? To do otherwise is censorship, to be honest, and there's no need for it to happen. I have focused on Athletic Bilbao goals as they are my club but I'm sure there's many more examples of incorrect attribution in this way (although I had a look at Oyarzabal's OG from the same night out of curiosity as to what form it took, no dispute there, it's comically bad, have a look). UEFA stats should be respected of course, but not unquestioningly when there's credible evidence to the contrary.
PS I'm going to copy this to the wider WP:FOOTY page, as there might be other valid points of view there. Crowsus (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
[discussions match up to this point. 00:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)]
Independently, clearly not an own goal, just a failed clearance. UEFA are arbiters on such things for their own records, but there is precedent for disputed goals to be awarded by teams for their own records and reflecting such a thing with a note is of no harm, and is in fact an enhancement. So long as the claim is maintained by reliable sources referencing it is not some great conspiracy requiring an edit war. Koncorde (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Crowsus: About the two-account issue, it's easy to explain. My accounts are The Replicator and Anotherwikipedianuser, and they are used for totally different, non-colluding purposes, as you can check on both edit histories. What happened today was a mistake of mine, detected almost immediately and it would be stupid to not acknowledge that, so I apologised undid the revert as Anotherwikipedianuser and then made the revert as The Replicator. In fact, the account Anotherwikipedianuser was previously involved in a false claim of it being related to the account Lavrense. Actually, it is related to The Replicator, but not for disruptive purposes, so I was cleared out. Anyone interested can check that here. As you discovered the connection, I have no reason to deny it. The Replicator (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@The Replicator: OK thanks, wasn't suggesting any inproper action on your part, entirely agree you corrected yourself, just seems a bit unusual that you have two but maybe easier to keep track of things in different topics, it would probably confuse me even more but I'm not that smart! Crowsus (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Crowsus: Basically, I thought that the topics were too unrelated to mix them up, so I separated them. Anyway, The Replicator is much more active than the other one. The Replicator (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
We should stick with what UEFA decided, clearly they deemed it to be an own goal, and as the governing body their decision should generally take precedence. As for including a note, I don't exactly see the necessity. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
"Necessity" isn't the defining factor for inclusion. There are often notes attached to specific incidents in order to provide more comprehensive coverage or context. Koncorde (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football&oldid=826392097"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA